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

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

11

Minimal Fact 3: The Earliest Proclamation of the Gospel

Our previous chapter treated the historicity of the disciples’ experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. Inextricably caught up in that reported research were numerous remarks drawn from both the data as well as the resulting scholarly views that pointed directly to the exceptionally early date at which these experiences happened and were then reported. Granted, the actual occurrences followed by the approximate time of the earliest dissemination are difficult to separate precisely in the New Testament. According to Acts, it was only a matter of a few dozen days.

The research presented and discussed in this chapter builds upon the previous one and extends it to the remarkably early timing of the disciples’ experiences and teachings. The point here is that these experiences still could have been quite authentic, though unexpressed for decades, but this was decidedly not the case. Hence it is this factor of early reporting that enhances the disciples’ testimony so that both event and time coalesce.

This additional early aspect is chiefly expressed here by an overview of nine successive layers of data that involve the earliest expression and attestation of the gospel message, beginning after the crucifixion and moving forward in sources roughly up to the close of the canonical period at the end of the first century. Incredibly, at least the first five layers can each produce strong data that actually date no later than just six years after the crucifixion, with some of it having begun immediately! This is approximately the time frame used in our previous survey as well.

This string of the initial nine layers is so numbered because each one roughly follows and builds on the previous point. This overall listing is demarcated in that it contains the earliest major arguments in the process of preaching and teaching the gospel. In addition to these initial arguments, an ongoing count of other factors will also include several more subsidiary considerations that support the overall thesis, though they are not numbered. A summarized checklist of these is given at the close of the chapter.

Nine Early Layers of Testimony

Layer 1: The Earliest Experiences of the Risen Jesus

Among the initial cohort of experiences discussed in the previous chapter, there were many key events. The singling out of Mary Magdalene and the women, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, the Twelve, and the 500 persons at once is memorable, each for different reasons. This constitutes the first tier in that these occurrences in AD 30 preceded the gospel proclamation of the early witnesses immediately afterwards.1

Layer 2: The Earliest Gospel Message (the Homologia)

Many New Testament texts report that the good news of the Gospel (euaggelion) began to be preached very soon after the culmination of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. The Gospels end with Jesus instructing his disciples as his witnesses to go and preach this message to everyone.2

Foreshadowing some items to come in this chapter, Acts then describes the beginning of this process. Matthias was chosen to take Judas’s place, where the newest apostle was required to have been a witness to Jesus’s ministry and particularly to his resurrection (1:21). The initial sermon was given just a few days later, on Pentecost, and thousands of new converts were reported (2:22–41). The next chapter opens with a healing miracle followed by a second sermon by Peter, and a large number of additional coverts joined the young movement (3:12–26; 4:4). In subsequent chapters, the gospel message was imparted again and again by the apostles, with quite similar and overlapping themes, both before the Jewish leaders (4:8–22; 5:27–32) as well as being repeated to groups of listeners (10:34–43; 13:16–41; 17:22–31), with the last two examples being Pauline. In each of these many settings, the gospel proclamations were quite clear.

Throughout these developments, there were many indications that the church was indeed growing consistently. A community of believers was organizing from the beginning (Acts 2:42–47), practical problems were being solved (6:1–6), and a large number of Jewish priests were reportedly converted (6:6b). But controversies with the religious authorities reached the boiling point and Stephen was martyred (7:54–60), initiating Saul of Tarsus’ persecution (8:1–3).

This same Saul, now known as Paul, was himself converted two to three years later (in AD 32–33), and three years after that, he visited the apostles Peter and James the brother of Jesus in Jerusalem for fifteen days of dialogue and discussion, since the latter two were the leaders of the now-thriving Christian community in that city (Gal 1:18–21). Years later and most likely still before the writing of the initial New Testament epistle, Paul visited Jerusalem again, this time with the other two plus the apostle John being present (Gal 2:1–10; cf. Acts 15:1–35).3 These three apostles approved Paul’s gospel message to the Gentiles (Gal 2:6b, 9–10), while Paul repeated that all the other apostles were teaching the same message that he was regarding Jesus’s resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15:11).

A few of the relevant details here and elsewhere in the accounts of the birth and development of the church are multiply attested.4 Most crucially, the theme of the earliest messages was unified, especially in declaring the gospel teaching of the deity, death, and resurrection appearances of Jesus.5 Among these data, the single most evidential and essential pointer on these occasions resulted from the two meetings and discussions between Paul, Peter, James, and John—the four most influential voices in the proclamation of early Christianity. Paul’s visits are also the earliest of these accounts. Besides incorporating Paul’s own eyewitness testimony, they also included the near-eyewitness word of the other three leaders.6

Together we have very insightful reports concerning the content of the earliest gospel proclamation as to how the church began. Critical scholars sometimes understand these factual scenarios as indicating helpful windows into the early historical details. For example, after commenting on the data regarding the earliness of Paul’s trips to Jerusalem to speak to other apostolic leaders of the thriving church there, Dodd remarks that Paul “received the fundamentals of the Gospel.” Then Dodd insightfully comments, “Thus Paul’s preaching represents a special stream of Christian tradition which was derived from the main stream at a point very near to its source.” Dodd continues that, in spite of Paul’s personal distinctions and expressions, “anyone who should maintain that the primitive Christian Gospel was fundamentally different from that which we have found in Paul must bear the burden of proof.” Afterward, Dodd outlines the kerygma from Paul’s Epistles.7 We have seen that many other researchers have also attested that the apostles preached and taught the same core gospel content with a wide variety of listeners.

In fact, perhaps a majority of critical scholars have also generally agreed for decades and even longer that the early witnesses taught that they had received a commission from the risen Jesus to spread this gospel message everywhere. The reasoning is often that something similar to the multiply attested texts in Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:45–49; Acts 1:8; and pseudo-Mark 16:15–16 were communicated to the disciples, and this readily explains the beginning of their quick activity in disseminating this task. Jesus’s message was also found in his pre-crucifixion comments as well.8

Buttressing this point further is that a number of relevant Greek terms used in the New Testament and elsewhere have been unpacked in the contemporary research in recent decades, illuminating the details of the gospel content, its proclamation in preaching and teaching, additional areas of early theology which followed directly, and so forth.9 Throughout, we have also introduced the subject of the early Christian creeds, traditions, confessions, hymns, and sermon summaries and will do so in much detail in the next chapter. As with many of these snippets of invaluable information, there is both overlap as well as key distinctions made between these forms. We will not attempt here to parcel out the technical discussion of the various emphases, nuances, and meanings; a few key distinctions will have to suffice for our present purposes. Relevant classical and Hellenistic uses of these or similar New Testament terms may provide additional insight.

As a major example, Vernon Neufeld among others emphasizes the subject of the homologia, making the distinction that in all of its various meanings and usages, the major concept “is that of agreement, a connotation which appears to pervade all instances of their use during the classical period.” This central use and meaning goes back to historians like Herodotus and Thucydides plus other authors such as Sophocles. It and related terms chiefly indicate agreeing, granting, or conceding a point. Classical Greek also follows suit here, generally meaning to acknowledge, agree, or admit. Wide usage in Koine Greek followed this same pattern of meaning.10

When homologia is used in the New Testament as a noun, it seems always to concern the earliest confessions themselves or believers confessing their faith. As a verb, as in Rom 10:10, it is this act that brings salvation. The verb can refer to the term homologia, and when doing so, it sometimes speaks about the person or identification of Jesus with lofty titles such as Christ, Lord, or Son of God.11 It “represents the basic core of the Christian faith.”12

Neufeld concludes that a linguistic analysis of the New Testament usage of the relevant language indicated that homologia “represented the agreement or consensus in which the Christian community was united, that core of essential conviction and belief to which Christians subscribed and openly testified. The homologia was the admission and acknowledgment of the individual’s loyalty to Jesus Christ, . . . the confession of Jesus with specific reference to his person and work, and was therefore Christological in character.”13 As such, for Neufeld along with many other scholars who have studied this material, not only was Christology at the very center of this earliest belief and proclamation, but it was a very high Christology at that. It emphasized Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God, and especially his lordship and exaltation, even extending to the worship of Jesus and his sharing God’s throne.14 As Neufeld notes, “The subject of all the early confessions is Jesus.”15 Without doubt, this very early material centered on the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.16

These ideas have continued to be developed further by major theologians. For instance, Oxford University professor G. B. Caird along with L. D. Hurst proclaimed, “This will in turn lead us to an astonishing conclusion: the highest Christology of the New Testament is also its earliest.”17 As influential as any New Testament scholar of his generation, Martin Hengel taught that “with regard to the development of all the early Church’s Christology . . . more happened in the first twenty years than in the entire later, centuries-long development of dogma.”18 Astonishingly for some, Bart Ehrman even agreed with Hengel’s comment, as noted above, though he interprets it adoptionistically.19 It must be remembered that this early Christology during the initial twenty years, then, likely predated the appearance of the initial New Testament writing, 1 Thessalonians. But the core concepts were present from the beginning of this time frame.20

Some of these earlier ideas were precursors to several other ongoing developments. A major example is Richard Bauckham’s recent comment that “the earliest Christology was already the highest Christology. I call it a Christology of divine identity.”21 By this, Bauckham means that from the beginning, “it is already a fully-divine Christology, maintaining that Jesus Christ is intrinsic to the unique and eternal identity of God.”22 Larry Hurtado comments similarly: “The devotion to Jesus that Paul affirms in his letters was manifest already in the very earliest circles of Jewish Christians, including those of the very first years (perhaps months) in Roman Judea.”23 For Bauckham, Hurtado, plus many other scholars as well, this central gospel message definitely revolved around these key concepts and events.24

Further, it was also pointed out in the previous chapter that even a number of atheists and other highly skeptical scholars have joined their peers recognizing that Jesus’s resurrection appearances were taught and preached from a very brief time after the experiences themselves. These announcements may even have occurred immediately, from just days to a few months later. This exceptionally early resurrection message forms the apex and capstone of these messages.25

The major idea from the very earliest of our first five layers in this chapter, then, is the notion that the gospel message served as the center of the early Christian proclamation. This was the “good news” (euaggelion) that was the agreed upon homologia at the very heart of key New Testament preaching and teaching of the deity, death, and resurrection appearances of Jesus. This is observed in passages like the ones that have been discussed in the past two chapters, texts that include Rom 1:3–4; 4:25; 10:9; Phil 2:6–11; and especially 1 Cor 15:3–7.26

But there is another absolutely crucial clarification that must also be made here. As vital as these early creedal traditions are that we are about to discuss next, this previous level needed to be inserted first. It is not the creeds themselves that are necessarily the most crucial information here, or precisely when and where they were received. Rather, it is the message behind these creedal traditions that is of central concern and interest. It is true that this key teaching and the form in which it was expressed “creedally” may often have arrived on the scene together at almost the same time. But it should never be lost from sight that the content of the agreed upon message (the homologia) supersedes the vehicle in which that communication is presented (the form of the creeds). This is the contrast between what was communicated and how it was communicated.

In other words, the church was “founded” upon the central truth of the agreed upon gospel proclamation, the homologia, while the creedal traditions were the best way to communicate those still-oral teachings. This was especially needed for the high percentages of illiterate listeners, as New Testament scholars largely conclude was the case. As such, the homologia was a natural fit. Of course, there can be a message without it having been converted to an easily memorized form. But creedal traditions, hymns, and prayers allow short passages of easily recalled content to be internalized even by people who theoretically could not sign their names. But they could definitely learn some brief kernels of truth, somewhat like how preschool children today can sing their favorite songs or repeat the lines of poetry. These could be either school-like examples (as in “Jack and Jill went up the hill” or “Row, row, row your boat”), or when reciting religious teachings (“Amazing grace how sweet the sound”), or perhaps learning a “memory verse” before someone was ever able to read or write.

Layer 3: Pre-Pauline 1 Creeds

In our third early layer of gospel testimony, contemporary scholars speak regularly about the oral creedal traditions, confessions, or hymns that most likely either predate Paul’s conversion or extend to the time of his conversion or his initial trip to Jerusalem in AD 35 or 36. In other words, these scholars hold that some of the earliest creedal traditions date from before Paul’s conversion up until that event, to his visit with Peter and James, which fit into the brief window of some five years.

Back to Bultmann and even before his work,27 these issues were beginning to be discussed in more detail. Most often, from this time forward to the present, the phrase “pre-Pauline” has usually been used without more specification, giving rise to the question of the sense in which this material predates the apostle. For our purposes here, “pre-Pauline 1 creeds” refers to creedal traditions that were potentially already in existence within the time frame from before Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus about AD 32 or 33 until his first trip to Jerusalem. The “pre-Pauline 2 creeds” are treated below, the term referring to the oral creedal traditions that probably originated a bit later but obviously arose before the Epistles in which they appear in writing.

Tracking back to this earlier time period before his conversion, Paul must have known a fair amount about the gospel homologia that the early believers were repeatedly preaching and teaching. Luke states in Acts 8:1 (cf. 7:58) that Paul approved the stoning of Stephen. On what grounds, then? Paul knew well enough that he disagreed quite strongly with the Christian’s theological beliefs, but of course that presupposes that he knew what they believed! And most likely, this disagreement went to the very center of their doctrines for it to break out into the strong persecution of the earliest believers around Jerusalem. It would seem nearly impossible for Paul to have been in that environment, especially with his high aptitude for theological orthodoxy, without having heard and known many of these key components!

For example, if Bauckham and other scholars are right about the church’s early views of Jesus Christ being the highest Christology of all, including Jesus co-occupying God’s throne, receiving worship, and possessing God’s nature,28 the conclusion of heresy would probably have seemed simple and straightforward to Saul (later Paul). Yet, this message would have been taught quite boldly in the everyday preaching of the earliest believers in and around Jerusalem. It seems that the verdict would clearly have been that the Christians simply must have been heretics, were guilty as charged, and deserved death for blaspheming the God of Israel.

Had Paul been privy to Stephen’s teaching before the stoning? If the Acts report accurately portrays Stephen’s preaching, it would have been close to impossible for Paul not to actually have heard Stephen refer to Jesus by the lofty title of the Son of Man as well as describe Jesus as standing at God’s right hand (Acts 7:55–56)! Recent scholars agree that few comments would have been more egregious. Then immediately afterwards, just before dying, Stephen prayed to Jesus as “Lord” (7:59). Thus it does seem quite clear both from this scene as well as from other occasions that Paul would have been quite aware of the Christian “heresy” from just listening to what we may call the precreedal Gospel homologia.

We must factor in that by the time Paul wrote Galatians, he had already experienced what he thought was Jesus’s resurrection appearance and had thought about these theological teachings for some three years (Gal 1:15–18a), plus he had some twenty or more years of reflection from that time before composing this letter. This time factor must be fairly considered and factored into his theology.

Still, Paul begins his epistles with a high Christology. In what was probably his very earliest epistle of 1 Thessalonians, written about twenty years after the crucifixion, Paul refers to Jesus as Christ (1:1), the Son of God (1:9–10), as well as Lord (1:1). In the context of describing his persecution of Christians in both Galatians 1 and in Philippians 3, he still refers often to Jesus as Christ (such as Gal 1:1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 22; Phil 2:11; 3:3, 7, 8). But Paul also calls Jesus “Lord” (Gal 1:3; Phil 1:8, 9, 10; 2:11) and “Son” (Gal 1:16). The heavily Christological creed or hymn in Phil 2:6–11 prescribes the worship and reign of Jesus, besides stating that he shared the nature of God. So even after his years of reflection, it is still possible here that, as held by Bauckham, Paul’s earliest Christology after his conversion at least could well have remained his highest Christology!

Therefore, it may be helpful to recall how Dodd commented above that, far from being late or aberrant, the Christology in Paul’s Epistles was part of the mainstream of Christian tradition that was derived from very near to the original apostolic source. These were far from being different messages. After all, “we must assume some knowledge of the tenets of Christianity in Paul even before his conversion.”29

Even atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman agrees here, at least in part: “The idea that Christians were telling stories of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection before Luke, before Mark, and before Paul is held by virtually all scholars of the New Testament, and for compelling reasons.” Continuing, Ehrman adds, “Paul certainly knew other stories about Jesus soon after he converted in 32–33 CE, as he provides information about Jesus’s birth, teachings, family, ministry, Last Supper, and crucifixion in his later writings, long before Mark wrote.” Many other “remnants of some of the early traditions of Jesus were circulating orally” before the Gospels.30 Altogether, we have “an enormous number of oral traditions” that date all the way back to the 30s from both the Acts sermon summaries as well as the canonical Epistles (chiefly from Paul), with some dating only one to two years after the crucifixion!31

Here we may think through these ideas and “connect the dots.” The death, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus, plus a high Christology, were all present beginning in the very same statements that Ehrman along with many other scholars date to just one or two years after the crucifixion. Since this gospel message was already clearly being taught well before Paul’s conversion, as with the case of Stephen just mentioned, Paul would have to have known the nature of this early message.

Thus the initial portion of this question seems to have a solid answer. Paul in all likelihood knew the early Christian homologia and had heard this message expressed often, even as it was chiefly voiced by those he was persecuting. But the next question is more difficult to determine: could Paul also have heard and known any of the very earliest creedal traditions—that is, the formalized homologia—before Jesus’s appearance to him? In other words, could any of these earliest confessions have actually predated his conversion so that even before his trip to Damascus, some of these creeds may already have been in existence and were encountered by him as well? In the same way it could be asked, how soon after the crucifixion did Peter, John, or James the brother of Jesus hear some of the theological applications of this message? Perhaps these apostles even authored a few of these traditions, as suggested by some critical scholars.32

While it would seem to be virtually impossible to pin down the earliest creedal confessions to specific dates, some influential researchers have provided their views that at least a few of them clearly preceded Paul’s conversion. James D. G. Dunn emphasizes that Paul’s own personal testimony witnesses to “the tradition already established at the time of his conversion” just very shortly after the original events that were described there. The center of this message revolved around the appearances of the risen Jesus and Jesus’s commission to proclaim this message, as the apostle explains in 1 Cor 15:3–7.33 Of this early text, Dunn asserts: “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.”34 If Dunn is correct here, then since Jesus’s crucifixion occurred in the spring, this could possibly indicate that the creed itself originated precisely in the exact same year!

Other prominent examples include the Jesus Seminar members, who conclude concerning the creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7: “Most Fellows think the components of the list reported there were formed before Paul’s conversion, which is usually dated around 33 C.E.”35 Kloppenborg thinks that Luke 24:34 may even be older than the creedal tradition in 1 Corinthians 15!36 Joachim Jeremias determined that the tradition in 1 Cor 11:23–25 “goes back unbroken to Jesus himself.”37

Such a dating for the list of early resurrection appearances would indeed indicate that this creed existed at a time before Paul’s conversion or at least his trip to Damascus that resulted in his conversion. In this combination of previous information plus Paul’s personal experience, Dunn thinks that here we have “the closest thing to firsthand personal testimony to a resurrection appearance.”38

Other scholars speak similarly regarding the very early date of the creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7. In the context of discussing 1 Cor 15:1–11, Hurtado dates the earliest “common faith and devotional pattern” to Roman Judea perhaps as early as months after the events.39 German theologian Walter Kasper also dates the formulaic tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–5 to as early as AD 30.40 John Drane actually thinks that several sermon summaries in Acts are the earliest material of all, since that text “almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event.”41 In spite of his very skeptical views, Ehrman lists many New Testament texts that he thinks date to only one or two years after Jesus’s crucifixion, both from the Acts sermon summaries as well as from the Epistles.42 Ehrman also notes that much central teaching about Jesus was in circulation before Paul’s conversion, including information that Jesus was thought of as the Messiah, Son of God, and Lord, plus reports regarding Jesus’s death and resurrection.43 Of course, we noted some of these items from the preaching of Stephen alone, which Paul probably heard, without much doubt.

More scholarly views that favor exceptionally early dates for this material also could be listed here, but it is enough to report that the consensus view among New Testament scholars at present, across a wide spectrum of theological and other views, is that Paul probably received the 1 Cor 15:3–7 creed(s) (or at least the underlying facts themselves) from Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, when he visited Jerusalem in the mid-30s.44 This “almost universal scholarly consensus”45 of such a miniscule amount of time is certainly close enough to the events themselves to justify referring to the Christian gospel preaching and teaching as getting its initial start about as early as anything could possibly occur, given the event of the crucifixion itself as the point of departure. Further examples of scholars who date the reception of these traditions to the time of Paul’s conversion or initial trip to Jerusalem are numerous.46

This is especially the case in the ancient world, where far too few historical occurrences are reported from very close to the events themselves. In fact, as Australian historian Paul Barnett asserts regarding this miniscule distance in early Christianity, “In terms of the historical reference to noted persons in antiquity, this would represent a brevity without parallel.”47 We might add that this would especially be true if considering other founders of major world religions.48

After discussing Jesus’s death, atheist philosopher Michael Martin expressed a popular sentiment among skeptics when he asserts, “We have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s.”49 Prominent Jesus Seminar member Roy Hoover agrees that Paul’s account is the best starting point, since, “Paul’s testimony is the earliest and the most historically reliable evidence about the resurrection of Jesus that we have.”50

Thus, a majority to a consensus of critical scholars hold that a number of the very earliest creedal traditions preserved especially in the New Testament Epistles date within the window from before Paul’s conversion until his first visit to Jerusalem. The creedal candidates that may fit inside this window quite possibly include the very earliest confessions, such as Luke 24:34; 1 Thess 1:10; 4:14; 1 Cor 11:23–26; 12:3; 15:3–7; Rom 1:3–4; 4:24–25; 8:34; 10:9; or Phil 2:6–11, among perhaps others. They may have been among those that existed at this early date, as many critical scholars likewise agree.51 Besides these texts from Paul’s Epistles, there are also a large number of potential pre-Pauline 1 and 2 texts from the Acts sermon summaries, some of which Ehrman and others date to just one to two years after the crucifixion, as we have already seen above.52

We are close enough to know that there appear to be a number of creedal examples from this earliest period. But this is about as far as we can go for this third historical marker since more specific dates for particular traditions are almost impossible to decipher. But it is very possible that the majority of those texts in this category that we have singled out from the Acts sermon summaries and the Epistles actually did come during this period.

Thus, even though neither a strict origination date itself nor the exact time when Paul or any other apostles or early Christian leaders may have encountered some of these creeds can be ascertained too firmly, we are close on the general data. It is enough at this juncture to declare that the original gospel message of the homologia—which included the heart of the gospel message concerning the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ—was definitely a pre-Pauline theme that occupied the initial layer of testimony. The data indicate that it was preached immediately after the resurrection. Without it, there would have been very little foundation to have gained so many converts based on this message. Hence, the data behind the creeds were well-known immediately and affirmed by the apostles (1 Cor 15:11; Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10). This is absolutely crucial; stage 1 is absolutely firm.

The great majority of the early confessions were Christological and soteriological in nature.53 For example, of the ten texts above from Paul’s Epistles, seven mention Jesus’s resurrection and an eighth mentions his resulting exaltation, showing the centrality of this message. Further, of the nine sermon summaries in Acts, all nine specify Jesus’s resurrection, often with many details among them. Beyond this, it more difficult to date the individual traditions exactly, though as just mentioned we have many candidates and doubtless a number were from before Paul’s conversion.

Layer 4: Paul’s Conversion

The previous layer of pre-Pauline 1 creeds was defined as extending from the earliest apostolic preaching of the gospel up until Paul’s conversion on the way to Damascus. The appearance to Paul is usually dated at either two or three years after Jesus’s crucifixion.54 Scholars estimate these events to have occurred quite closely to one another. Paul had been in Damascus since about AD 33, placing his conversion around 32 or 33.55 This solid date for this eyewitness report is a fourth layer that clearly marks the exceptional earliness of the apostolic gospel preaching.

Slightly later than the earliest homologia and its embodiment in the very earliest of the creedal statements, Paul reported that he had met the risen Jesus on his trip to Damascus to persecute Christians. He provides his own testimony regarding this resurrection appearance (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8) and the account is also narrated in Acts (9:1–9; 22:6–11; 26:12–18). Elsewhere Paul relates that the appearance to him occurred three years before meeting with the two other apostles, Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:13–21). Paul’s testimony is regarded by almost all scholars not only as very early but also as being that of an eyewitness.

Layer 5: Paul’s Initial Trip to Jerusalem

As already remarked, the consensus New Testament position discussed earlier indicates the predominant scholarly view that Paul probably received the early creedal material in 1 Cor 15:3–7 directly from the Jerusalem disciples Peter and James when he visited them just three years after his conversion in AD 35 or 36 (Gal 1:18–20). This is the fifth layer of data, six years after the crucifixion at the latest. Paul uses the term historēsai to elucidate his process of “research”—inquiring and investigating information from before his conversion. Crucially, even if Paul did not receive the actual creed there, there is very little question from researchers that, at the very least, he minimally received and understood the original Gospel homologia at this time. This connection by Paul with the apostles Peter and James placed a solid eyewitness foundation under and behind the exceptional earliness of the creedal traditions listed in the very first layer above, clearly indicating that these early testimonies were not simply hearsay or ungrounded storytelling.56

In summary, these first five layers above combine to form a progressive set of arguments for the early date of the most crucial Christian message. The first layer concerned the earliest disciples’ resurrection experiences. The second tier involved the homologia or the agreed upon heart of the faith—the gospel message itself especially pertaining to Jesus’s deity, death, and resurrection, which began immediately following the first resurrection experiences. The third layer consisted of the earliest creedal traditions that originated directly after the earliest preaching, most likely being dated before Paul’s conversion (the pre-Pauline 1 creeds). The fourth development was Paul’s conversion, occasioned by his reported experience with the risen Jesus dated two to three years after Jesus’s crucifixion. The fifth stage was Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem three years later in AD 35 or 36 to discuss the gospel message with Peter and James. Each of these first five layers took place within a maximum of just six years after the cross, even according to critical scholars! As we have noted in this study, nothing of this precise historical detail exists in other early religious studies.

Layer 6: Paul’s Later Trip to Jerusalem

The sixth stage concerns Paul’s return to Jerusalem fourteen years later (which was still very early and would quite probably predate the earliest of the New Testament Epistles)57 to discuss the nature of the gospel message with the same two apostles that he questioned in his earlier trip recounted in Gal 1:18–20 (Peter and James) plus the apostle John, who was also present this time (Gal 2:1–10, particularly 2:2). This meeting involved the four most influential apostles in the earliest church. It was a successful meeting, and the trip resulted in the other apostles’ agreement with Paul regarding the gospel message, for they did not attempt to adjust Paul’s message at all (Gal 2:6b). The meeting ended with the Jerusalem apostles (“the pillars”) offering to Paul and Barnabas “the right hand of fellowship” (2:9), which, of course, would only be extended to brothers in the faith and never to heretics!

These two meetings convinced Paul that he and the other three apostles were preaching and teaching the same central gospel message (the homologia) regarding the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Paul thought that this was so clearly the case that he basically invited his readers to check out either his testimony or that of the other disciples because they would hear the same responses (1 Cor 15:11).58

These two meetings in Jerusalem involved the earliest and most influential eyewitnesses in the early church, thereby reinforcing and grounding the original creedal traditions along with the corresponding apostolic testimony. These discussions between Paul, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John, along with 1 Cor 15:11, are probably the single chief argument as to why the exceptionally early Christian testimony contained in the homologia of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus was not just some tall tale, exaggeration, or something like “phone tag.” Rather, this eyewitness confirmation of the tradition and testimony best indicated that the message was true.59

Layer 7: Pre-Pauline 2 Creeds

The pre-Pauline 1 creeds were defined earlier as those more formal affirmations of faith that a number of critical scholars evaluate from the data as probably having already been in existence and circulating orally before Paul’s conversion. In other words, when Paul was on his way to Damascus, these pre-Pauline 1 traditions would already have existed in oral form and been made known in preaching and teaching. In such a case, the apostle probably heard a number of these confessions recited. As a Jewish scholar, they may have infuriated Paul.60

This seventh layer of early reports will be referred to here as the pre-Pauline 2 oral creedal traditions, which originated and were most likely spread in preaching and teaching somewhere between Paul’s conversion and their being written down in one of the canonical epistles, most likely in Paul’s own works. Most of the few dozen New Testament confessions likely could have been of this later variety. If we count only Paul’s seven critically accepted epistles, this would date the pre-Pauline 2 traditions from approximately 32–33 (Paul’s conversion) to between 50 to 60 (Paul’s recognized Epistles).61 This means that the latest these particular creeds observed in Paul’s recognized Epistles could have appeared no later than twenty to thirty years after the crucifixion.62 As we have seen, many of them almost surely originated much earlier.

Actually, many of these traditions probably dated from the late 30s to the mid-40s. Various notions favor this option. At least several of the earlier traditions (dubbed the pre-Pauline 1 creeds) provided reasons that they existed even before Paul’s conversion, indicating the precedent that an earlier dating is entirely possible. Further, as noted by several researchers, there are particular affinities between some of the creeds quoted in the Epistles and the Acts sermon summaries,63 which as we have seen are quite often thought to be among the very earliest of the traditions due to comparative wording or the high level of Christology that appeared immediately in books such as 1 Thessalonians dated from about AD 50. Moreover, Christian preaching and teaching were plentiful in these early years, and many converts were coming to faith where some of these creeds would have been very convenient due to their concise nature, summarized theology, and content for people who were illiterate. They were handy tools for teaching doctrine to new converts.

Candidates for the pre-Pauline 2 creeds would of course start with any of those texts mentioned from the previous list of ten possibly pre-Pauline 1 creeds, plus the nine Acts sermon summaries listed above, in the case that some of those actually turned out to be a little later than Paul’s conversion. Potential examples for this category could include Rom 5:8; 8:11; 14:9; 1 Cor 8:6; 15:15; and Gal 1:4. From outside the group of the seven so-called authentic Pauline Epistles, further candidates might include Eph 1:20; Col 1:15–20; 1 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 2:8, 11; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 1:21; 3:18; and possibly even Luke 24:34.64

It is noteworthy that of the additional fifteen creedal texts possibly in this category, ten of them mention the resurrection while another three imply it strongly. This argues, once again, for the centrality of the gospel homologia and the role it played in the earliest proclamation. This gospel message was the very heart of what the earliest believers wanted most to communicate, and the creedal traditions were the means by which this theme was passed on, especially for those hearers who were illiterate.

Layer 8: The Early Epistles Minus the Creeds

Our eighth stage indicating that the initial gospel reports were exceptionally early is drawn from the New Testament Epistles minus the creedal texts themselves. So for instance, 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8–58 would be some of the major passages to be studied in this context (particularly 9:1; 15:8; and 15:11). Other texts to be considered on the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus along with the implications of these truths would include the extended portion in 2 Cor 4:7–5:10, plus Rom 6:5–11; 8:9–23; 1 Thess 4:13–18; Col 3:1–11; 1 Pet 1:3–5.

The majority of these passages are authored by Paul. First Peter deserves more apostolic attention than it usually receives, especially if coauthors and similar options are considered.65 The options could possibly place the majority of these texts at somewhere between twenty and thirty years after the crucifixion or somewhat later. This is yet another indication of the earliness of the gospel message.

Layer 9: The Gospels and Acts

The ninth and last of the initial layers mentioned in this chapter regarding the earliness of the gospel message is what is drawn from the Gospels and Acts. Since we will examine in a later volume the key resurrection portions of these five volumes in a fair amount of detail, it will only be remarked here that even at approximately thirty-five to sixty years after the crucifixion, they remain quite early and exceptionally crucial sources for Jesus’s resurrection.

Until more recently, the tendency among especially more critical scholars has been to criticize the first three Gospels, or perhaps just John, as being too late to be helpful in a search for the historical Jesus. But these critiques seem shortsighted and even prejudiced in light of either a reasonable delineation of the time frame in which Jesus and early Christianity are investigated, or when comparing the distance to these Gospel accounts with any normal measures from ancient historical or religious studies. For instance, even Ehrman counts 100 years from the crucifixion as his measure for considering historical sources for Jesus, whether secular or religious.66 On Ehrman’s scale, all of our sources in this fifth group pass his marker with flying colors. Further, in the ancient world, sources from only 65 years after the events in question, like the Gospel of John, are prized highly.67 These considerations are clear indications of the wealth of data available for Jesus studies.

Another key component here is that the majority view among critical scholars is that each of the four Gospels and Acts is based in part on possible or probable sources that could well be even quite a bit earlier than these volumes themselves. The end of Mark is usually thought by most critical scholars to be based in large part on a prior passion narrative that was composed no later than AD 37, potentially placing that text back in the range of the very earliest creedal traditions. Luke states that he used other sources in composing his gospel, some of which were from eyewitnesses (1:1–4), and many commentators have remarked that his gospel bears the clearest marks of an ancient historical work. His companionship with Paul could also have provided some additional input. John’s Gospel is usually thought to be based in part on a prior miracles document, not to mention having perhaps the strongest postcanonical tradition in favor of John’s authorship. Lastly, Acts contains many valuable early sermon summaries often dated in the early 30s.68

In sum, even the Gospels and Acts are well within the ancient time window for presenting trustworthy information regarding Jesus. Further, a strong case can be made that each text is based on earlier sources, often more than one. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that if any or all of the traditional authors obtain, as the early Christian sources themselves argue, this would also be a huge boost regarding the reliability argument, since each of these would connect these writings much more closely to Jesus’s life. But as New Testament scholar R. T. France reminds us, the best argument in favor of the historicity of the Gospels is based on “their place as the earliest records of Jesus which have survived, and on the character of the tradition on which they are based.” As with the ancient secular historical arguments, the keys are “both the date and literary character” of the Gospels, which are strong.69 We have already noted Barnett’s comment that the earliness of the Christian sources presents “a brevity without parallel” when contrasted with other ancient personages.70

All nine of our categories show that the death and resurrection of Jesus were reported extremely early. This is agreed on a number of levels by virtually all scholarly specialists across the board, Christian and non-Christian, liberal and conservative alike. Actually, there is very little dispute on this point. Again, many researchers would hold that the earliest creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries date only a mere one to two years after the crucifixion itself, and almost none of these scholars would date all of these creeds and summaries after the mid-30s. This is truly a remarkable outcome arising from the recent historical studies. When taken together with the previous chapter’s conclusions that at least some of these early reports were garnered from eyewitnesses, this combination presents an impressive wall of data in favor of the resurrection appearances.

Additional unnumbered factors will now be added to the nine layers above. These points provide a variety of both strong as well as subsidiary considerations that the testimony of Jesus’s death and resurrection occurred shortly after these events.

A minimum of ten independent or mostly independent sources agree that Jesus was raised on or after the third day subsequent to the crucifixion.71 It is usually argued that the similar wording probably meant either the first day of the week or became the designation for a very brief time after the crucifixion.72 Either way, these multiple sources for the third day motif are yet another means of indicating the conviction that there was a very quick time lapse in between these occurrences.

The multiple sources in the previous note also indicate at least ten texts that provide narrative descriptions or statements recounting with various details that Jesus’s resurrection appearances followed his crucifixion and burial shortly afterward, confirming once again the early date of these events. This includes the highly respected creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3 that groups these occurrences very tightly and indicates that they were known quite early.

There are also multiple independent forms that are also helpful in confirming these occurrences. The texts described in the layers above involve narrative, didactic, creedal or sermon summaries, and apocalyptic forms.

Embarrassing factors are exceptionally strong with several relevant factors concerning the death and resurrection reports, including the disciples, virtual abandoning of Jesus in the garden, at the cross, and during his burial, as well as Peter’s denials and the women being the chief witnesses to the crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, and first appearances. Likewise, Jesus’s disciples kept indicating their dissatisfaction with Jesus’s comments when he predicted his abandonment and death. Only later did they believe, and only then after several episodes of uncertainty. The disbelief of James and Jesus’s other family members, plus Paul starting his career as a church persecutor, are exceptionally germane.

Some limited discontinuity is also apparent, since there was little or virtually no expectation of a dying and rising messiah in the Old Testament before Jesus. Nor were the deity or two comings of the Messiah recognized in these times, with many commentators thinking that while the church definitely taught these ideas, they seemed to be attempting to explain Jesus’s ideas rather than inventing them.

Several relevant examples of an Aramaic substrata exist in this material, a key sign of early Palestinian data. Key examples would be Jesus’s cry on the cross, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani” (Mark 15:34) or Mary Magdalene’s exclamation of “Rabbounei!” when she recognized the risen Jesus standing next to her (John 20:16). Jesus being addressed as Lord (Marana tha) in early Aramaic circles (1 Cor 16:22) elucidates Jesus’s exalted status, addressed immediately below. Further, several of the Acts sermon summaries and/or the ancient account in 1 Cor 15:3–7 may have had Aramaic originals indicating especially early origins, but these discussions have not been settled.73

Enemy attestation is relevant in a few instances as well, depending on what aspects are being addressed. The main idea here is that if one’s opponents are convinced or even agree regarding some fact or theme, then this may be an indication that favors its truth. The chief examples in this context would most likely be drawn from the conversions and subsequent testimonies of Paul and James, the brother of Jesus, in their faith reversals, which are highly significant. But other examples do not garner anywhere near this force, such as the Jewish leaders who were present at the crucifixion and never questioned the reality of Jesus’s death. The historicity of the guards at the tomb in Matt 27:62–66 is seldom accepted by critical scholars. Whatever event(s) may underlie the amazing account of a large number of Jewish priests becoming believers in Acts 6:7b, the comment may indicate hints, but curious readers will apparently never know.

It will be argued below that there are many reasons that support the historicity of the empty tomb, and about 80 percent of critical scholars assessed in this present volume recognize the strength of these arguments.74 If the empty tomb were a historical fact, this event obviously happened before Paul’s conversion and so this would also count strongly as evidence that the resurrection message arose in the very earliest days of Christianity. But this argument awaits the chapter below.

In the previous chapter, it was argued in detail that many quite critical scholars, such as Crossan and the Jesus Seminar, independently recognize that group appearances of the risen Jesus are multiply attested in various sources. Those that are both multiply attested and also very early would certainly include the appearance to the Twelve (1 Cor 15:5b) and to “all the apostles” (in 15:7b). Depending on how early either the M appearances in Matt 28:9–10 and 28:16–20, or the L appearances in Luke 24:36–53 might be, these could also perhaps join these ranks, though without being as powerful as the pre-Pauline examples.

Lastly, we will argue directly below that the teachings of the deity of Jesus Christ, as part of the homologia, were also attested at a very early date. Indeed, the earliest texts, including the creedal traditions and the Acts sermon summaries, are quite often dated around the same time as the homologia itself. This addition fits the entire pattern quite closely.

A stronger statement of combined reasons gathered from 2,000 years ago could hardly be imagined. That this collection brings together such early and eyewitness testimony that bears witness to the center of the Christian faith makes it even more remarkable. After treating another key cognate subject here, this case will be summarized briefly.

A Note on High Christology in the Creedal Traditions and Other Early Reports

In the preceding discussion of the gospel homologia, it was argued that the centermost message of the earliest church was the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The majority of this chapter so far has been spent on the early declaration of Jesus’s death and resurrection. But what ought to be said about the preaching and teaching of the deity of Jesus Christ in these earliest traditions? This is possibly the most ignored as well as the most frequently challenged aspect of this discussion. It is not the intent here to lay out the evidential case for whether or not Jesus taught or believed that he was deity, which is developed in much detail in a later volume of this study. Here we will only provide a few considerations why so many critical scholars likewise agree that Jesus’s deity was also an integral portion of this earliest homologia.

The comments mentioned above by G. B. Caird, L. D. Hurst, and Richard Bauckham (along with the research of other scholars) are striking reminders of the claim that the earliest teachings concerning Jesus’s deity were the highest Christology of all. Caird and Hurst added: “The further back we go, the more we discover the intense conviction of Jesus that God is his Father and he is His son.” This comment occurs within a discussion of several relevant and supportive New Testament passages that link this message with the central theme of the cross.75 As confirmation that these views came from Jesus himself, who thought of himself as God’s Son, these two authors refer to Jesus’s use of the Aramaic term abba in Mark 14:36, the Q affirmation in Matt 11:25–27//Luke 10:21–22, as well as Johannine texts like John 5:17, plus other passages, such as Jesus’s baptism.76

Bauckham wrote that the earliest Easter-oriented message revolved around the death and resurrection of Jesus,77 indicating that even at this very earliest time, the resulting Christology was already at its highest.78 Bauckham followed this provocative claim at the beginning of his volume with a number of related statements, including: “The practice of worshipping Jesus goes far back into early Jewish Christianity.”79 In this matter, both “general considerations, along with the available evidence, point to the earliest Palestinian Jewish Christianity. In the earliest Christian community, Jesus was already understood to be risen and exalted to God’s right hand in heaven.”80 Lastly, “the worship of Jesus was central . . . beginning in the early Palestinian Christian movement.”81 As indicated in Matthew’s closing scene in 28:17, the disciples worshipped Jesus after his proclamation that all authority in both heaven and earth resided in him.82

Reflecting ideas that are in concert with Bauckham’s (though exhibiting both similarities as well as distinctions from each other),83 Larry Hurtado specialized for some forty years on the question of the earliest Christian worship of Jesus. He also has stated that the “earliest devotion to Jesus” from very soon after Jesus’s death manifested an exceptionally high Christology. He writes, “Jesus’ exalted status ‘at God’s right hand’ had been affirmed by the one God,” who willed that Jesus be given “heavenly glory with the intention of all creation acclaiming Jesus as Lord.”84

For Hurtado, this extraordinarily high level of devotion occurred “very early at or near the outset of the early Christian movement.”85 The worship may in fact have been manifested just months after Jesus died!86 This occurrence was “so early that practically any evolutionary approach is rendered invalid as historical explanation.” Far from this process taking many years or even decades, what occurred was “a more explosively quick phenomenon . . . more like a volcano.”87 After the disciples’ post-crucifixion resurrection experiences, “honorific titles” were given to Jesus, incorporating preexistence and issuing forth into hymns, prayers, and worship directed to him.88

Regarding Jesus being the source of these teachings, Hurtado contends, “The Jesus-devotion manifest in the Markan Sanhedrin trial narrative is sufficient to have brought Jewish charges of blasphemy. As J. Markus has argued, Mark 14:61–62 is to be taken as a claim to ‘participation in God’s cosmic lordship’ and an ‘approach to equality with God.’” Continuing, Hurtado summarizes, “It is all the more likely that Jews would have responded with cries of blasphemy to the kind of Christological claims we have in Mark 14:61–62.”89

Other scholars could likewise be mentioned as supporting both the key Gospel texts plus the extraordinarily early dates for the proclamation of Jesus’s deity in the early church.90 But it will be sufficient here to mention Bart Ehrman’s latest view at this point. For Ehrman, “the idea that Jesus is God is not an invention of modern times, of course . . . it was the view of the very earliest Christians soon after Jesus’s death.”91 Actually, for Ehrman, the idea was inspired by the early belief in Jesus’s resurrection, as indicated when the disciples concluded that the risen Jesus had appeared to them. Then, Ehrman explains, “the earliest exaltation Christologies very quickly morphed into an incarnation Christology.”92 At the latest, these views of course need to be dated before the earliest canonical books in which the initial comments actually occurred, beginning about AD 50. We already have seen that Ehrman dates these initial oral passages to “the 30s of the Common Era” with some of these statements being dated a mere one to two years after the crucifixion of Jesus!93 Still, Ehrman’s view on these matters is not the orthodox conclusion.94

On the other hand, and in great contrast to the adoptionist position, what has sometimes been referred to as the “early high Christology movement” appears to be here to stay. This wide range of researchers, including some of the most influential Jesus scholars today, evince that these very early creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries, in addition to the earliest epistles, offer plenty of ammo from the very earliest church to inform readers of the earliest views that emerged from Jesus’s teachings. Moreover, that strong skeptics from Bultmann to Ehrman concede much of this data provides quite a different perspective on these views—these records need to be explained in the best way possible.

This exalted Christological trend today may be viewed as a shocking alternative to those scholars who held or were inclined toward another view just a few decades ago. As described graphically (and once held) by the highly influential New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, this basic view was that it might have taken until the time of John’s Gospel for the church to unpack some of Jesus’s exalted teachings regarding his person. As Brown notes, “If Jesus reappeared about the year 100 . . . he would have found in that Gospel [of John] a suitable (but not an adequate) expression of his own identity.”95 In that light, tracing this early high Christology from just one to five years after the cross, as now held by so many critical scholars, may sound like a new approach to the originating date of this doctrine!

A Checklist: Data Supporting the Early Nature of the Disciples’ Experiences

The previous chapter argued that after Jesus’s death by crucifixion, his disciples had experiences that absolutely convinced them that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, both singly as well as in groups. In this chapter, more than a dozen and a half major indications argued for the earliness of these facts. One could add to this count many more supplemental reasons that provide secondary support for the major arguments.96 All these points indicate that these experiences were proclaimed very quickly after the events within an exceptionally early time frame. When the subsidiary considerations are also included, well over two dozen total pointers could be enumerated evidencing that the early time period after these experiences was very brief. These sources and other factors are exceptionally well attested, providing criteria that specify particular indications of historicity.

The evidences presented in this chapter often share similar details with the support garnered elsewhere in this volume pertaining to other minimal facts due to the obvious interconnectedness of the entire subject. It is indeed an inextricably interlinked topic. But in each case where these resemblances occur, the particular portion that indicates the distinctive aspect of the message’s early proclamation will be particularly emphasized.

(1) The list of the early experiences believed to be appearances of the risen Jesus, such as the succinct list in 1 Cor 15:3–7, forms the crux of this entire discussion. These experiences were dated immediately after Jesus’s resurrection.

(2) As commented at the outset of this chapter, the initial layer of the disciples’ earliest proclamation of the “good news” (euaggelion) was that salvation was available through the person and work of Jesus Christ. This announcement and offer concerned the homologia, which was the agreed-upon heart of their message—the central truth of Christianity—involving the gospel content and the call to commitment to Jesus in light of it.

When used in the New Testament, homologia always appears to indicate the earliest confessions of faith. In Rom 10:9–10 for example, homologia is a statement concerning Jesus Christ or the act of commitment or personal relationship to Christ that brings salvation. It also introduces comments that refer to the person of Jesus Christ or to his identification by the use of lofty titles such as Christ, Lord, or Son of God.97 As Neufeld summarizes, “It is clear that the homologia represents the basic core of the Christian faith . . . the homologia embodied the essence of the Christian faith regarding the person of Jesus.”98

This proclamation began immediately in the early church just after Jesus’s crucifixion, including the claim that he had been seen alive again on many occasions. This message was Christological in nature, with the “core of essential conviction” emphasizing Jesus Christ’s deity, death, and resurrection.99

At the very beginning, regardless of whether these very early original apostolic teachings were communicated along with or apart from the creedal traditions, what is being discussed in this initial point is the content of the doctrinal message rather than its formalized expression. The actual message preceded the creedal form, at least for a brief time while the word was spreading.

(3) Another of the strongest arguments for the early nature of the disciples’ gospel proclamation developed as the more formal creedal traditions grew quickly. These might be thought of as the oral shells that encased the original homologia for the purpose of spreading an easily memorized form of the initial message largely due to the widespread illiteracy.

The consensus scholarly view even among non-Christian and skeptical specialists alike is that the evidence for the earliest of these confessions indicates that they should be dated to the first five or six years after the crucifixion at the latest (termed here the “pre-Pauline 1” time period). The most likely candidates here would probably include the traditional confessions such as Rom 1:3–4; 10:9; or the Acts sermon summaries like those in 3:15; 5:30–32; 10:39–42; and 13:28–31, with 1 Cor 15:3–7 occupying the lead position.100 For instance, atheist New Testament researcher Ehrman attests that all of the creeds that Paul cites later could have come from this “pre-Pauline 1” period of time—placing many or most of them at a maximum of two to three years after the crucifixion before Paul became a believer!101 When linked together with Paul’s meetings with the major apostles, this provides eyewitness backup to these primary reports at an exceptionally early date.

(4) On his trip to Damascus to persecute Christians, Paul reported that he had met the risen Jesus, providing his own testimony regarding his resurrection appearance (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8). Paul’s experience is generally dated by critical scholars to just two or three years after Jesus’s crucifixion. Not only is Paul’s testimony very early in itself, but he is also credited with being an eyewitness to this event.

(5) Based on the data, the consensus New Testament scholarly view indicates that Paul probably received the early creedal material in 1 Cor 15:3–7 directly from the Jerusalem disciples Peter and James when he visited them (Gal 1:18–20). The term historēsai (1:18) indicates getting to know someone and can also mean inquiring or even investigating data, as was the meaning back to Greek times. Most crucially, even if Paul did not receive the actual creed at this time, there is very little question that, at the very least, he minimally received and understood the original gospel message contained in the homologia. Paul’s visit served to confirm his own early, eyewitness experience with the testimonies of these other two apostolic eyewitnesses. The result yielded a combined foundation that was reinforced by the exceptional earliness of the creedal traditions.

(6) Paul returned to Jerusalem fourteen years later (Gal 2:1), which was still very early and would quite probably predate the earliest of the New Testament Epistles. On this occasion Paul specified that the purpose was to discuss the nature of the gospel message with the same two apostles that he questioned in his first trip, plus the apostle John (Gal 2:1–10, particularly 2:2). Rather incredibly, this meeting involved the four most influential apostles in the earliest church and resulted in the other apostles’ agreeing with Paul concerning the gospel message, for the others did not attempt to correct or modify Paul’s message (Gal 2:6b). The discussion ended with the Jerusalem apostles (“the pillars”) offering “the right hand of fellowship” to Paul and Barnabas (2:9). Such a gesture would hardly have been offered to false teachers and never to heretics!

These two meetings indicate that Paul and the other apostles were teaching the same central gospel message (the homologia) regarding the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Indeed, after just repeating the creedal message on Jesus’s appearances to the other apostles, including Peter and James (1 Cor 15:3–7), Paul reported that both he and they were all providing the same report on this subject (15:11). These two meetings in Jerusalem bound together the earliest eyewitnesses, the homologia, and the chief leaders in the church along with the early creedal traditions.

(7) A second group of creedal messages (termed “pre-Pauline 2” passages) are those that most likely date after Paul’s conversion until the New Testament Epistles in which they were recorded. Though it is almost impossible to separate most of these creeds from the earlier group, many scholars have argued that some of the best candidates in this group might include passages such as Rom 5:8; 8:11; 14:9; 1 Cor 8:6; 15:15; and Gal 1:4, as well as Eph 1:20; Col 1:15–20; 1 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 2:8, 11; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 1:21; 3:18; and possibly even Luke 24:34, as well as other Acts sermon summaries plus still other texts. A number of these creeds come from outside the group of the seven “authentic” Pauline Epistles, though the majority of these are still exceptionally early.

(8) Our eighth layer indicating that the initial gospel reports were exceptionally early is drawn from the canonical New Testament Epistles, minus the creedal texts that have already been counted. For example, 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8–58 (including 15:11) are the major passages to be studied in this context. Other texts to be considered teaching the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus along with the implications of these truths would include the extended portion in 2 Cor 4:7–5:10, plus Rom 6:5–11; 8:9–23; 1 Thess 4:13–18; Col 3:1–11; and 1 Pet 1:3–5.

The majority of these passages were authored by Paul. Most of these texts would be dated between twenty and thirty years after the crucifixion. This is yet another indication of the earliness of the gospel message.

(9) The ninth and last of the initial layers mentioned in this chapter regarding the earliness of the gospel message is drawn from the Gospels and Acts. Since the key resurrection portions in these five writings will be examined in a fair amount of detail in this study, it will only be remarked here that even at approximately thirty-five to sixty-five years after the crucifixion, these texts still remain quite early, especially in relation to other ancient persons whether secular or religious. Until more recently, the tendency among especially the more critical scholars was to criticize the last three of the Gospels, or maybe just John, as being too late to be helpful in a search for the historical Jesus. But these critiques are shortsighted and even prejudiced in light of a reasonable delineation of the time frame in which Jesus and early Christianity were investigated, especially when comparing the distance to these Gospel accounts with any normal measures from ancient historical or religious studies.

Once again, even Ehrman counts 100 years from the crucifixion onward as his measure for considering historical sources for Jesus, and all five of these texts pass this standard with flying colors, with Ehrman assembling useful data from each.102 In the ancient world, sources from only sixty-five years after the events in question, like John’s Gospel, are prized highly, as pointed out above.103

The majority view among critical scholars is that each of the four Gospels and Acts is probably based in part, especially in key places for our study, on sources much earlier than these writings themselves. We have already reported how Acts contains many exceptionally valuable early sermon summaries that are often dated in the early 30s. These considerations are clear indications of the wealth of data in these writings that are available for historical Jesus studies. As the earliest writings on Jesus, not to mention with this even earlier support, there are vast resources here. Historian Barnett’s comment that the earliness of the Christian sources presents “a brevity without parallel” as compared to other ancient persons remains.104

The first nine layers indicate that the death and resurrection of Jesus were reported extremely early, with a majority of specialists across the board, Christian and non-Christian alike, liberal through conservative, agreeing in at least various key places here. When combined with the previous chapter’s conclusions that at least some of these early reports were garnered from eyewitnesses, this combination presents an impressive wall of data in favor of the resurrection appearances.

(10) As already pointed out above, a minimum of ten independent sources agree to the specific phrase that Jesus was raised on or after “the third day” subsequent to the crucifixion. Commentators frequently take this as indicating that the first Sunday after the crucifixion, or a very brief time later, is a particular demarcation that this proclamation was early.

(11) Further, it has also been delineated often in this study (such as the previous chapter) that there are dozens of multiple, independent sources in addition to the creeds that report an early date for Jesus’s crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and appearances, along with the proclamation of the gospel message. These mentions readily confirm the early timing of these events in relation to the cross.

(12) Beyond the multiple sources, there are also multiple independent forms that help confirm these occurrences. These types of material include predictive, didactic, creedal or sermon summaries, and apocalyptic genres.

(13) Many embarrassing factors are exceptionally strong in the death and resurrection reports. These include the previous unbelief by Jesus’s brother James along with other members of his family; Jesus’s disciples abandoning Jesus in the garden as he prayed as well as later at the cross and burial; Peter’s multiple denials; the women being the chief witnesses to the crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, and first appearances; plus Paul starting his career as a church persecutor. It is true that embarrassing scenarios can be invented for effect, but it remains exceptionally difficult to envision repeated situations where huge debacles and humiliations accompany the key persons in the story, with the incidents being told by multiple authors, where those involved were still the chief leaders when many of the stories were being told.

(14) Limited examples of discontinuity are also apparent, since there was little or virtually no expectation of a dying, rising, or a deified messiah or two comings of the Messiah in the prominent Old Testament interpretation of Jesus’s day. Likewise, Jesus’s disciples kept getting bothered when Jesus repeatedly taught these things. Only later did they believe.

(15) The appearance of Aramaic words and phrases in key places in this material is often thought to be a sign of early Palestinian data. Crucial examples in the early Gospel reports would include Jesus’s cry on the cross of “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani” (Mark 15:34), or Mary Magdalene’s exclamation of “Rabbounei!” when she recognized the risen Jesus standing beside her (John 20:16). Paul invokes the words Marana tha (1 Cor 16:22), which addresses Jesus with the lofty title of “Lord.” Further, several of the Acts sermon summaries and/or the ancient creedal account in 1 Cor 15:3–7 may well have had Aramaic originals too.105

(16) Enemy attestation is relevant in a few instances as well, with the chief idea being that if one’s opponents are convinced or even agree regarding the truth of an event or teaching, then that could constitute a powerful argument in favor of these items. The best examples are undoubtedly the conversions of James, the brother of Jesus, and Saul of Tarsus, especially in the latter case of a true enemy. The Jewish leaders were present at the crucifixion and never questioned the reality of Jesus’ death, even afterwards in the confrontations in the early chapters of Acts when the disciples stood before the Jewish leaders. Unfortunately, we can only guess which causes contributed to the surprising account that a large number of Jewish priests also became believers in Acts 6:7b.

(17) It will be argued later in this volume that there are many strong arguments in support of the empty tomb, and many critical scholars accept the historicity of this event.106 If the empty tomb were a historical fact, this would also count strongly as evidence that the resurrection message was dated in the very earliest days of Christianity.

(18) It was argued in the previous chapter that even a number of very critical New Testament scholars have recognized that group appearances of the risen Jesus are multiply attested. A couple of cases that are both multiply attested and also very early would certainly include the appearance to the Twelve (1 Cor 15:5b) and another to “all the apostles” (in 15:7b). Depending on whether there are additional, earlier data behind either the M source appearances in Matt 28:9–10 and 28:16–20 or the L source account in Luke 24:36–53, these could also add to the argument that these cases were early, multiply attested texts.

(19) A last consideration is that brief discussions in this chapter also indicated that the deity of Jesus Christ was also taught at an exceptionally early date, at approximately the same time as the rest of the homologia. This indicates an overall message that now seems even a little tighter than before this addition, originating at precisely after the crucifixion of Jesus.

Since according to Paul as well as the other apostles the gospel proclamation certainly included the teaching of Jesus’s deity,107 death, and resurrection, this indicates the force of the homologia. Paul’s most important contribution to the early church may have been his two trips to Jerusalem to interview the three other apostles (“the pillars”) to ascertain and pass on each other’s eyewitness agreement on the gospel message. In sum, the original message of the homologia, the creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries, plus the grounding provided by the “big four” eyewitness apostles and their agreement on the resurrection appearances all occurred at an exceptionally early date.108 When including Paul’s prior conversion experience, the final argument on the nature of the gospel message is solid.

Conclusion

There is comparatively little question or challenge from scholars publishing in the recent literature, whether unbelievers, liberal, conservative, or in between, that the proclamation of the gospel message dates from the very earliest church. As agnostic New Testament specialist A. J. M. Wedderburn summarizes, “From earliest times it was a basic tenet of Christian belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead. . . . One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, for in all probability this statement gives the content of the Christian faith which Paul himself had received, a content, therefore, which may well go back to the time of Paul’s conversion, most probably in the first half of the 30s.”109 Critical scholar Reginald Fuller concurs and then takes the matter one step further: “The resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the central claim of the church’s proclamation. There was no period when this was not so.”110 Citing 1 Cor 15:11, prominent historical Jesus researcher John Meier asserts that “from the very beginning of Christian preaching about Jesus,” certain facts were known concerning him, to which all agreed. Like Fuller, Meier also affirms that “there was no period” when this early picture of Jesus was “bereft of the larger grid that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus provided.”111

Continuing in a similar vein, N. T. Wright echoes these sentiments: “There is no evidence for a form of early Christianity in which the resurrection was not a central belief.”112 Broadening this thought elsewhere, Wright emphasizes, “The question of Jesus’ resurrection lies at the heart of the Christian faith. There is no form of early Christianity known to us—though there are some that have been invented by ingenious scholars—that does not affirm at its heart that after Jesus’ shameful death God raised him to life again.”113

The essential theme of this chapter has been that Jesus’s resurrection was the vital focus of the very earliest Christian message, forming the very heart of its centermost message of the gospel homologia, along with the deity and death of Jesus Christ. This was evidenced initially by the convergence of preaching and teaching from a large variety of independent sources, as many New Testament authors placed this message first and foremost. Further, the homogeneity of this message was confirmed by the apostles. We have argued that this teaching was at the very heart of the majority of the homologia.114

In fact, an argument that combines the historical evidence in favor of the original homologia along with especially the earliest pre-Pauline creedal traditions, Paul’s eyewitness appearance, plus his two trips to Jerusalem where he gained data from the other key eyewitnesses, provides an exceptionally probable case for the resurrection appearances of Jesus. These texts are without much doubt among the strongest data indicating that the gospel message was extraordinarily early and well grounded. It is difficult to construct a way around this combination of factors, hence this grouping plus other considerations could well be the chief reasons why naturalistic theses have increasingly been abandoned, as these items appear sufficient to refute these alternative suggestions.

Moving forward just a few more years, the later creeds that still date before Paul’s Epistles (dubbed the “pre-Pauline 2” examples) beginning around the twenty-year mark after the crucifixion are still invaluable resources. The additional information gathered from the remainder of the Epistles and, lastly, from the Gospels and Acts adds to the earliness of everything that took place. Even the Gospels and Acts, which are usually considered to be the latest of this information, date far closer to the events in question than virtually any sources for any other major world religious founders. There is nothing like this mountain of evidence in ancient history for any other persons.

The data in this chapter support the facticity of the third minimal historical fact—the early proclamation of the gospel message. As such, it contributes another aspect that must be explained naturally by resurrection opponents. The initial nine layers of evidence above, with each supporting the overall case for Christian origins especially as they back up the homologia, constitute a vital cog in the overall resurrection evidence and message.

Supported by many historical considerations, the case for the early date of the gospel homologia message is solid. Our nine initial levels, especially the earlier ones, are very strong, especially with the Christological and soteriological motifs. But it will naturally be asked by the skeptics why these creeds and other materials are any different from many common sorts of hearsay, ungrounded religious speculation, or even gossip? For that matter, do not all religions possess stories of this sort? What distinguishes this early Christian message, or makes it any different than what other religions possess? Granted that these creedal traditions are exceptional and admittedly very early, that alone does not guarantee that they are historical accounts. How is it known that they are nothing more than early gossip? These are good questions to consider.

Although we have been careful to argue that there are many other differences that distinguish this present argument from the others of either a religious or secular nature,115 this chapter has zeroed in on several chief aspects that the Christian message is not only far closer to the original events and sources than other messages in the ancient world, but that they are also backed by crucial eyewitness information. Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem are a vital indication of this, as he took these journeys for the express purpose of interviewing the three most influential apostles before him to inquire about their own eyewitness testimony. One crucial indication of this argument is that the atheistic, agnostic, and other non-Christian specialists in these areas almost always freely acknowledge these realities. As Ehrman asks regarding Paul’s visits to Jerusalem, “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?”116

This is where the theme of the previous two chapters in this study come into play and must be combined. It was argued in this chapter that there were between one and a half and two dozen total indications (counting both major and secondary arguments) that the same early message considered here was also tied to the eyewitness testimony outlined in the previous chapter. Moreover, these many considerations entered the picture from a variety of independent angles. The summary points listed zeroed in on a few of these more important emphases.

In short, the exceptionally early dates from a plethora of sources, including the four leading apostolic eyewitnesses who were the most influential apostles in the earliest church, are thus most likely anchored in real interviews and statements concerning what these observers actually saw. Data such as these are not very likely derived from gossip, tall tales, and the like, especially when three of these four individuals—Paul, Peter, and James the brother of Jesus—willingly suffered martyrdom for their witness, according to first-century sources.117

Thus, the major Christian message of the homologia, both in the first century as well as at present, is strongly evidenced, being tied to early and eyewitness observations that are unprecedented elsewhere. Early eyewitnesses either did or did not see Jesus after his death by crucifixion.118 Further, these sightings either did or did not happen to groups of observers as well. Without even discussing at present the cognate subject of whether or not such appearances were miraculous acts performed by God, the question at this point is just twofold: Did Jesus die by crucifixion? Was Jesus seen again after this death? The early and eyewitness components here combine to make a powerful case for an affirmative answer.119

Notes

1 Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 202; cf. 61–62, 86 (see chap. 2, n. 15). For a consideration of whether these experiences were actually bodily appearances of the risen Jesus, see the chapter below as well as subsequent discussions in later volumes of this study.

2 Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:45–53; John 20:21, 31; Acts 1:8; pseudo-Mark 16:15–20.

3 Craig Keener notes that the majority of scholars conclude that Galatians 2 and Acts 15 are aspects of the same visit, including multiply attested parallels. See Keener, Acts, 361 (see chap. 9, n. 38).

4 This would include the Gospel texts noted above, perhaps counting as many as three or four attesting sources. For instance, to repeat briefly our overview in the previous chapter, Crossan counted three to four sources among these same Gospel passages in Crossan, Historical Jesus, 436 (see chap. 6, n. 44), while the Jesus Seminar preferred four to five sources here, both depending on how the passages are counted. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454 (see chap. 4, n. 84). Another example concerns Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem for the discussions with the other three apostles in Galatians 1–2. In this case, Acts 15:1–35 would either constitute a second independent attesting source for Paul’s later visit (which is the favored critical view, as Keener noted above) or is an indication of yet a third visit to Jerusalem with at least Paul, Peter, and James present from among the apostles (vv. 2, 7–11, 13–21). Once again, these leaders together affirmed the gospel message (esp. 15:7–11).

5 This central, unified message is most obvious in Luke 24:46–48; Acts 2:22–36; 3:13–20; 4:10b–12; 5:29–32; 10:38–43; 13:26–39; 17:1–4, 30–31; Gal 2:1–10; cf. Rom 1:3–4; 10:9. Perhaps surprising to many is that Bart Ehrman provides a similar list of the data here in How Jesus Became God, 108 (see chap. 6, n. 173), especially when the high Christological beliefs of the earliest Christians are considered as well (3, 84 in particular, plus 249–50, 370), though Ehrman interprets these views in an adoptionistic manner, to be discussed below. The extending of this theme into the decades after the first century and beyond is developed by Taylor, Jesus before Constantine, 142 (see chap. 10, n. 53).

6 Again, the Jesus Seminar is helpful here in giving Paul’s testimony a red rating where “the historical reliability of this information is virtually certain.” The early creedal report regarding Peter’s experience was given a pink rating that indicates that it contains “probably reliable” data. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, with both quotations on 36–37. Ehrman’s comments in Did Jesus Exist?, 144–46, 148 (see chap. 2, n. 15) also have a similar ring to them.

7 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16–17, with these quotations on 16 (see chap. 2, n. 22).

8 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:43–48 (see chap. 4, n. 84). Bultmann points out that many pre-crucifixion “sending” texts of various sorts are also present, such as Mark 6:7; Matt 10:16; 11:28; 18:15–18; 19:28; Luke 10:19; 22:28–30 (esp. 48). Just a few of these other scholars who discuss the church’s obedience to the teachings of the pre- and/or postresurrection Jesus’s message to preach everywhere includes Crossan, Historical Jesus, 398; Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 230, 232–34 (see chap. 5, n. 43); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, particularly 49, also 35, 41 (see chap. 10, n. 23); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 1:859, 861 (see chap. 1, n. 3); Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 67–70, esp. 70 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 22.

9 We are referring here primarily to some of the more common terms, such as homologia, euaggelion, kerygma, didachē, paradosis, and pistis.

10 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13–14 (see chap. 8, n. 70).

11 Neufeld, 17–18.

12 Neufeld, 141.

13 Neufeld, 20.

14 Beyond Neufeld, 140–46, for a number of other crucial discussions and distinctions here, see some of the highly influential works by Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 49–64 (see chap. 2, n. 22); cf. also Cullmann’s insightful volumes The Christology of the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), esp. chap 7, plus 311–12, 321–23; and The Early Church: Historical and Theological Studies, trans. A. J. B. Higgins and S. Godman (London: SCM, 1956), particularly chap. 4; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 11–12, 16–17, 21–24, 26–31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 171, 177 (see chap. 9, n. 12); Richard N. Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins: Contextualizing the Early Christian Confessions (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), esp. 20–28, 56, 59, 63–64. On Longenecker’s treatment of the relation between the early pre-Pauline hymns and the homologiai, see 13–20. Much relevant material on these topics can be found in Michael Bird, ed., How God Became Jesus, particularly in chaps. 1–3 by Bird and chap. 5 by Simon Gathercole (see excursus 1, n. 57).

15 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 9–12, quotation on 11.

16 See Neufeld, 10–12, 20–21, 48, 51, 140–46, along with the other authors in the detailed note just above, who also agree on this central content. See Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 49–58; Cullmann, Christology of the New Testament, 317–28; Cullmann, Early Church, 63–63, 72–73; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17, 21–23, 27–31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 79–80, 163–69; Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 52, 56–57.

17 G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology, ed. L. D. Hurst (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994),

18 Hengel, “Christological Titles in Early Christianity,” in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 383, as quoted by Bart Ehrman in How Jesus Became God, 370–71.

19 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 370–71, just before and after the Hengel quotation immediately above. Note that the adoptionist position is described in detail below.

20 Ehrman, New Testament, 44, 290 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

21 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, esp. x in the context of ix–xii, 6n5, 23–31, 101, 106, 195, 207–9, 211, 216–17, 233–35, 253, 264–68 (see excursus 1, n. 95).

22 Bauckham, x.

23 Hurtado, How on Earth, 36 (see chap. 9, n. 32). For more details, see pp. 2–9, 23–30, 36–42, 48–50. Cf. also Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 118–19 (see excursus 1, n. 95); Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 4, 11–15, 99–116 (see excursus 1, n. 95).

24 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, ix–x, 128, 259, 268; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–71; 307–8 (see chap. 1, n. 25); Hurtado, How on Earth, 6, 30, 33, 36, 48, 93, 192–94; cf. also Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 828–41, 854–57, 873–79; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, esp. chaps. 12 and 19, plus 382–83, 476–77, 551–53, 707, 710 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 3, 84, 108.

25 Gerd Lüdemann is especially strong here (Resurrection of Jesus, 38; see chap. 6, n. 173); also Michael Goulder, “Baseless Fabric,” 48 (see chap. 10, n. 24); Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454, making a crucial point that this agreement refers at least to the “components of the list” of appearances behind the proclamation in 1 Cor 15:3 and following; Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 61–62, 86; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, esp. 855, also 864; Hurtado, How on Earth, 4, 30, cf. 36; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–69, 271; Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125 (see excursus 1, n. 12). Even Ehrman places these public teachings within one to two years after Jesus’s crucifixion in Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 145–46, 251, 261, 290. Other major critical scholars who seem to agree that this is a likely scenario include Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 149 (see excursus 1, n. 19).

26 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 168–69, 173, 175; Hurtado, How on Earth, 193–94; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16–19.

27 In Bultmann’s Theology of the New Testament, in his discussions particularly in vol. 1, chaps. 2 and 3, this scholar is plainly aware that “tradition-like” and “formula-like” statements (as he is often prone to call them, as on 1:82) are found in the New Testament Epistles, and he interacts regularly with other scholars regarding some of these questions. As discussed in more detail above, Bultmann attempts in these two chapters to parcel out which traditions might have come from Jesus and the earliest church proclamation, and which teachings may have been imported from the Hellenistic churches. In general, one of Bultmann’s tendencies was to identify the items that he considered to be high Christology, such as the title “Lord” being used for Jesus, concluding that this came not from the “earliest” church but from Hellenistic sources (1:46–47, 83, 125, 128–32, 295, 298–99). He does acknowledge that some of these statements or traditions “evidently existed before Paul and had been handed down to him” (1:82).

28 For just the two perhaps most prominent researchers and their conclusions here, see Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, particularly page x in the broader context of ix–xii, 6 and cf. 23–31, 101, 106, 195, 207–9, 211, 216–17, 233–35, 253, 264–68; Hurtado, How on Earth, 2–9, 23–30, 36–42, 48–50.

29 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16. See also Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould, Jesus Now and Then (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 70.

30 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 261 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

31 Ehrman, 97. Ehrman often reinforces the comment that many early Christian sources date to the 30s, right after the crucifixion (22, 27, 92–93, 97, 131–32, 141, 251, 254).

32 One of the most notable examples of specific support for these arguments comes from Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–69, 308. Cf. some similar comments in Dunn’s immediate context, Jesus Remembered, 855–56. These and related points are made by many other researchers, such as Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 230–31; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13, 16, 49–50; and Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16, 19, 26, 31. Skeptical researcher Howard Clark Kee even makes a similar point, adding the rather stunning addendum that this early testimony “can be critically examined and compared with other testimony from eyewitnesses of Jesus, just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting.” Kee, What Can We Know, 1–2, cf. 86–87 (see chap. 4, n. 46).

33 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 864, cf. 861–62.

34 Dunn, 854.

35 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454.

36 John Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 358n43 (see chap. 10, n. 146).

37 Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 101–5, quotation on 101.

38 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 856, 864.

39 Hurtado, How on Earth, 36, cf. 30.

40 Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125, listing a number of other very early confessions in the same context (125–26).

41 Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 99 (see chap. 6, n. 81).

42 Of the pages from Ehrman listed earlier in this chapter as specifying early Christian sources that he dated in the 30s, Ehrman specifies that several of these texts actually date from AD 30–32 in Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 251, 254, cf. 131–32, 141; also, Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–39, cf. 216.

43 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 261, also 110–13, 130, 172.

44 For recent assessments, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–71, esp. 266; also Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475–98, particularly 475 (see chap. 10, n. 47). A couple of the older sources that move in the same direction include Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351; and Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3–7,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): particularly 582, 584, 587, 589.

45 Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475.

46 Reginald Fuller, “The Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” in Critical History and Biblical Faith: New Testament Perspectives, ed. Thomas J. Ryan (Villanova, PA: Villanova University Press, 1979), 93–94; Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 113, also 274n265 (see chap. 1, n. 42); Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Louisville: John Knox, 1997), 254–55; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 234 (see chap. 1, n. 30).

47 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210; also 12 (see chap. 1, n. 23).

48 See our chapter comparison in this study of more than a half dozen areas where the historical case for Jesus exceeds the historical strength of other examples in antiquity for any other religious founder.

49 Martin, Case against Christianity, 81, also 89 (see chap. 2, n. 28).

50 Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 129 (see chap. 10, n. 56).

51 In addition to the more specific comments just listed by Lüdemann, Ehrman, Hurtado, Dunn, Kasper, Drane, Kloppenborg, Murphy-O’Connor, Dodd, Bauckham, and Ware, see the additional lists of creedal traditions listed throughout the works by Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions; and Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins.

52 The Acts sermon segments in which this traditional material is likely found include Acts 1:21–22; 2:22–36; 3:13–16; 4:8–10; 5:29–32; 10:39–43; 13:28–31; 17:3; 17:30–31.

53 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, where these twin emphases are evidenced often. See 10–12, 18, 20–29, 43–60, 67–68, 79–80, 90–91, 131–32, 136, 140–46.

54 Just a few of the large number of critical scholars who date Paul’s conversion at two to three years after Jesus’s death would include Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 113; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 144, 157, 172, 246, 261; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 10; Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 90; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 128 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16. A slightly longer time frame is favored by the Jesus Seminar, who date Paul’s conversion at three to four years later; see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454. An earlier time is preferred by Barnett at one year later; see Birth of Christianity, 26. Dunn prefers one-and-a half to two years later in Jesus Remembered, 142–43, 837n51, 864; cf. Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 76–77; Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 31–32 (see chap. 10, n. 66).

55 Some of the details can be found in Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 76–77; Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 31–32. Cf. Dunn, Why Believe in Jesus’ Resurrection?, 10 (see chap. 10, n. 59). Cf. 2 Cor 11:32.

56 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, argues that receiving the creed in Jerusalem from Peter and James is now the consensus position among scholars; see esp. 266–67, also 271, 273, 307–8; Licona, “Primary Sources,” 30 (see chap. 10, n. 155); James Ware writes: “There is almost universal scholarly consensus that 1 Cor 15.3–5 contains a carefully preserved tradition pre-dating Paul’s apostolic activity and received by him within two to five years of the founding events.” It could hardly be said any better. See Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475–98.

57 Helmut Koester dates Paul’s second trip to Jerusalem in AD 48 in Introduction to the New Testament, 2:103 (see chap. 4, n. 47). Barnett dates the events there at AD 47 in Jesus and the Logic of History, 133 (see excursus 1, n. 94).

58 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144–48.

59 It has been stated elsewhere that the Jesus Seminar has demarcated the appearance to Paul with a red rating, which is the highest that can be given to an event, indicating that “the historical reliability of this information is virtually certain. It is supported by a preponderance of evidence.” Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 36. Specifically, Paul’s eyewitness appearance was reported “on his own behalf” (453, 458–59, 553, 563, quotation on 533). Peter’s appearance was rated pink (450, 452, 454, 533), meaning that the material is still “probably reliable” (36) because it is trustworthy information but Peter did not provide the report himself, as did Paul (454). Here’s the further point: in this same way, then, we could also rate the appearances to James the brother of Jesus, John, and the other apostles as probable (pink) because they are reported in the exact same list of appearances as was Peter’s (1 Cor 15:3–7, esp. vv. 5b, 7). The Jesus Seminar issued the same verdict on behalf of the female witnesses to a resurrection appearance even without this clear of a report on their behalf (452, 454). This is another critical witness to the strength of these appearance reports.

60 These two phases of pre-Pauline 1 and 2 creeds were treated at length in the previous chapter.

61 Bart Ehrman dates Paul’s seven Epistles from AD 50–60 in New Testament, 43–44. Helmut Koester dates these epistles even earlier, from AD 50–56, in Introduction to the New Testament, 2:101–4.

62 Of course, these dates can vary. For instance, if the crucifixion is dated AD 33, which is the second most popular choice among researchers, and if Koester’s dates for Paul’s Epistles are preferred, the distance here is only twenty-three years later, from approximately AD 33 to 56; see Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:101–4.

63 This point and related ones have been made from different angles by researchers like Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16, 26, 31; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 19–20, 23–27; Cullmann, Christology of the New Testament, 207, 216–17, for examples; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 48–49, 143–45; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 79–81, 163–71; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 198–99; Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 91, 95, 133, 164.

64 The mention of Luke 24:34 raises another potential question. Though it is a tricky area where it is difficult to be overly dogmatic, researchers have differentiated types or categories of creeds and related traditions. Suggestions include hymns, worship, more specific liturgical practices such as baptismal rites, and didactic situations, among others. On these, see Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 18–34; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, esp. 8, 44, 61–68, 140, plus 17, 46, 82, 88, 99–101, 106–7, 122–24, 127–28, 133, 136–37; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, vol. 2 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 105; Victor Paul Furnish, Jesus according to Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), particularly 24, 27, 31, 113. But with the major research of James D. G. Dunn and others on how traditions may have developed initially even during Jesus’s preaching and then later in the composition of the Gospels (especially as represented in Dunn’s volume Jesus Remembered), this may introduce another angle that may be related to these creedal types. Luke 24:34 seems to stick out as a textual oddity when viewed next to the Acts sermon summaries and the brief comments in the Epistles, even though it is among the most frequently mentioned of the candidates for creedal traditions. This simply raises the awareness of how additional traditional categories may continue to emerge.

65 Researchers take a wide range of views on the authorship and date of 1 Peter, but this is not the place for such a discussion. An overview and synopsis would be difficult in a brief note, but perhaps a surprising number of critical scholars still favor the authorship of Peter or a variant of this position, given what could be considered as the coauthorship of Silvanus, as mentioned in 5:12, or others like Mark (5:13). This note is primarily for the purpose of mentioning that one of these positions could still place 1 Peter in the range of dates provided above. See the weighty overview and conclusions on these preliminary subjects in Craig S. Keener, 1 Peter: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021), esp. 8–30. Similar moves regarding authorship might also be made for Colossians, in light of the other companions that are named (1:1; 4:7–14).

66 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 56, 97, 171, 290–91, cf. 140–41.

67 Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, 11–12, 34 (see chap. 4, n. 54); Gwynne, Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad, 1–22, 239–44 (see chap. 6, n. 187); Grant, Jesus, 176, 199–204 (see chap. 1, n. 24); Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 1:1–2, 101–4, cf. 132; Burridge and Gould, Jesus Now and Then, 49–52, 67–68; Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 53, 71–72 (see chap. 10, n. 59); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 175n13; Bruce Metzger, “Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity,” in Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 11–24; Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 6–17 (see chap. 6, n. 3); Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 74–77; cf. the additional details in Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 55–58, 158–61, 163–65.

68 These sources will be discussed in detail in our later chapters on each of these five books. Appropriate sources along with further discussion can be found there, as well as somewhat in the previous footnote.

69 France, The Evidence for Jesus, 123–25 (see chap. 6, n. 3).

70 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210, cf. also 12.

71 Ehrman similarly includes in his number counts both the “completely” or “entirely” independent sources along with those that are mostly, largely, or even “partially” independent. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 78, 92, 97. For an explanation of this term after, see the chapter in this volume, “The Last Four Known Facts.”

72 This includes the four (two) Gospel sources (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; 14:58; 15:29; 16:1; Matt 26:61; 28:1; Luke 24:1, 7; John 2:19; 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7) as well as the Gospel sources Q (Matt 12:40//Luke 11:30; Matt 16:21//Luke 9:22; Matt 20:19//Luke 18:33), M (Matt 17:23; 26:61; 27:40 63); L (Luke 13:32; 24:46); an Acts sermon summary (10:40); a pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor 15:3); Paul (1 Cor 16:1); Josephus (Ant. 18.3.3) and the Gospel of Peter (8:30; 9:35). Dodd, Metzger, and Keener are a few of the examples of critical scholars who regularly recognize that the third-day motif was fixed in the earliest Christian tradition due to Jesus’s resurrection; see Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17; Metzger, “Methodology,” 18; Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 337 (see chap. 8, n. 70). Metzger even notes that the third-day theme was “fixed prior to Paul’s conversion”; see 18, in the period that we dubbed here the “pre-Pauline 1” phase. On the third day indicating a short period of time; note Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 324–29.

73 Dodd thinks that the summary account in Acts 10:34–43 is where “the evidence for an Aramaic original is at its strongest.” See Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 20. Cf. Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, particularly 171–81.

74 See chapter 15, “The Empty Tomb,” in this volume. Note Wright’s conclusion that the empty tomb is one of a very small number of historical facts in early Christianity where the historical evidence is such that it ranks “in the same sort of category, of historical probability so high as to be virtually certain, as the death of Augustus in AD 14 or the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.” Quote from Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 710.

75 Caird and Hurst, New Testament Theology, 398–404, with the above quotation on 400.

76 Caird and Hurst, 398–403.

77 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, particularly 268, cf. also ix, 128, 259.

78 Bauckham, x, cf. 30.

79 Bauckham, 25.

80 Bauckham, 128.

81 Bauckham, 151.

82 Bauckham, 25.

83 For instance, Hurtado, How on Earth, 23–25, though also noting Bauckham’s closeness to some of his own ideas in Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 12n17, 46–47; cf. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 141.

84 Hurtado, How on Earth, 2–9.

85 Hurtado, 23; also 42.

86 Hurtado, 36.

87 Hurtado, 25, also 37.

88 Hurtado, 27–30. Strangely enough, Hurtado spends surprisingly little time on the nature or other details of Jesus’s resurrection appearances themselves beyond what we have mentioned here. On these appearances, see Hurtado, 6, 93, 192–94; see also Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 72, 78, 170; Hurtado, One God, One Lord, esp. 118–19, also 68, 94–95, 116–17, 124.

89 Hurtado, How on Earth, esp. 167–68, in part quoting Joel Marcus, “Mark 14:61: Are You the Messiah-Son-of-God?,” Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 125–41.

90 Hermann Wolfgang Beyer, “βλασφημεω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:621–25 (see chap. 7, n. 61), especially the pithy language on 623, where Jesus is portrayed as having crossed the line of blasphemy by his claims of being “the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Almighty.” Cf. also Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus in Mark 14:53–65, vol. 106 of Wissenschaftliche zum Neuen Testament, second series (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1998; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), particularly 195–237; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 256–62 (see excursus 1, n. 56).

91 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 3.

92 Ehrman, 248–49, also 84, 279, 370.

93 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 172, 111–12, 130–31, 261–62.

94 It should be mentioned at this juncture that while Ehrman does make a number of striking admissions here in keeping with the strong canonical data available, he thinks that a few of the New Testament authors held to some early aspects of what came to be known years later as adoptionism; see Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 5, 44, 49, 209, 218, 231–35, 249. This topic is multifaceted and cannot be unpacked in much detail here, except to say that Ehrman holds that even in this early manifestation, Jesus was thought to be a man who was exalted to the status of the Son of God by virtue of his resurrection from the dead. In other words, Jesus became divine at his resurrection. This position regarding a few of these early texts is also a prominent view taken in recent decades among other more liberal interpreters as well. In the more developed, later adoptionist view, Jesus was not intrinsically or eternally the Son of God or Lord before his birth, but he was a man who had been exalted, divinized, worshipped, and seated on the right hand of God as a result of either his baptism, his transfiguration, or his resurrection. In more general terms, these later descriptions of exaltation are more frequently connected with the classical Christian position.

Perhaps the most influential scholar to take this position, identified in this volume as that of Ehrman and certain liberal scholars, was John Knox, who developed it in several works. For example, in The Humanity and Divinity of Christ: A Study of Pattern in Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), Knox asks how particular passages that he considers to favor very clearly this proto-adoptionistic position can “be interpreted to mean anything else”? (8). Yet, Knox exempts Paul and John from holding this position (19–20), and probably Luke as well (7), to whom are attributed the bulk of the canonical New Testament writings. Knox agrees with Ehrman that this early form of adoptionism was the most primitive Christology. See Knox, Christ the Lord, 85–86 (see chap. 10, n. 10); Knox, Humanity and Divinity of Christ, 7. But they would be hard pressed to prove this claim. It sounds far more like a bare assertion (as seems to be the case in Christ the Lord, 85–86n1), where Knox states that this position “may seem arbitrary” and then he just pushes ahead and asserts it anyway! In trying to explain the widespread belief in the preexistence of Jesus (95), Knox also has no trouble stating that while preexistence and the worship of Jesus Christ flow naturally from the orthodox position, he thinks it also can be a consequence of adoptionism too, including in its very fullest, metaphysical sense (Christ the Lord, 87–89, 95, 98)!

In making such a bold claim, Knox usurps the idea of preexistence as part of his own view when it certainly does not follow directly or naturally from adoptionism but is recognized, as he even notes, as part and parcel of the orthodox position. For instance, why should a human being born in normal space and time, who is later “drafted” as the Son of God, ever have been thought to have existed from eternity past or worshipped? But if Knox is accounting for the New Testament data, he must make these moves because they are clearly taught in a number of texts like the early creedal traditions in Phil 2:6–11 and Col 1:15–20. It is yet another indication of the liberties that Knox takes seemingly to claim as much territory as possible! It almost sounds like anything that can blunt the influence of orthodoxy is worthwhile! One excellent, multiple rejoinder aimed directly at the adoptionist position are the multiple critiques developed in Michael F. Bird, Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017). Also very helpful in several respects over a wide number of areas, especially in its inclusion of a highly impressive cadre of writers, is Bird, How God Became Jesus, esp. 17–18, 98, 103–10, 158–64, 203. For critical comments concerning adoptionist views by another scholar who at least may have had some affinities to it in the past, see also Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, esp. 216–21.

95 Brown, New Testament Christology, 203n304 (see chap. 8, n. 17). Ben Witherington is no doubt one of many scholars who have repeated Brown’s catchy comment; see Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 277.

96 This depends on how these subarguments are divided further, such as canonical and noncanonical sources, the Gospels or Paul, or the difference between the creedal traditions and the Acts sermon summaries. It goes without saying that how these subsidiary points are counted or interpreted will change the number of subsidiary considerations.

97 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 17–20.

98 Neufeld, 141.

99 Neufeld, 10–12, 18–21, 48, 51, 140–46.

100 It should be noted that all of these traditions have been combined here into a single argument when they could be broken down into additional components, such as with the Acts sermon summaries being categorized a little differently, given their somewhat different nature.

101 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 261.

102 Ehrman, 56, 97, 171, 290–91, cf. 140–41.

103 Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, 11–12, 34; Gwynne, Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad, 1–22, 239–44; Burridge and Gould, Jesus Now and Then, 49–52, 67–68; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 175n13; Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 55–58, 158–61, 163–65.

104 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210, cf. also 12.

105 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, esp. 20.

106 See chapter 15.

107 Occasionally, scholars resist counting Jesus’s deity as an essential part of the gospel homologia. At least three responses might be made. One way Jesus’s deity is indicated is by his critically respected comments in passages such as Mark 2:1–12; Matt 11:25–27//Luke 10:21–22 (cf. Luke 7:49); and Mark 13:32; 14:36, 61–64. Second, the titles given to Jesus in the creedal passages include the Son of God and Lord in Rom 1:3–4, or Lord in Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 8:6; 11:23. Some creedal traditions assert the very nature of Jesus Christ, as in Phil 2:6 or Heb 1:3. Plus, if Jesus has been moved into the Old Testament Shema in 1 Cor 8:6, Jesus’s deity is certainly present in that message. These are very weighty texts indeed. Third, it might be asked whether Paul (or Peter or John and so on) would allow that a Christian is one who accepts the death and resurrection of Jesus while denying his deity. Would the authors of 1 Cor 12:3; 1 John 4:1–3; or 5:20 allow a deity-less gospel homologia? It seems these three considerations require that the deity of Jesus Christ be kept in the earliest gospel message.

108 This may serve as an indication of what the Jesus Seminar concluded in the exceptionally high ratings accorded to the appearance of the risen Jesus to Paul and Peter; see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, quotations on 36–37, also 453–54, 533, 568. Similarly, the agreement from all four of the eyewitnesses in Gal 2:1–10 could be called “pink” because it was derived directly from Paul, who was present (36). The is confirmed further by Paul in 1 Cor 15:11.

109 Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 113.

110 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 48.

111 Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:118 (see chap. 1, n. 27).

112 Wright, “Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem,” Sewanee Theological Review 41 (1998): 117.

113 Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 126.

114 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 10–12, 20–21, 48, 51, 140–46. See Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 49–58; Cullmann, Christology of the New Testament, 317–28; Cullmann, Early Church, 63–63, 72–73; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17, 21–23; 27–31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 79–80, 163–69; Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 52, 56–57; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, particularly the conclusion to chapter 12, 578–83; William Strawson, Jesus and the Future Life (London: Epworth, 1970), 196–97, 225–30. Even Ehrman acknowledges that this was the early Christians’ view in Did Jesus Exist?, 310, 313.

115 See our chapter in this study on how the historicity of Jesus and his message is utterly unique in at least nine different areas as compared to the founders of the other major world religions.

116 Ehrman lists these visits by Paul to Jerusalem as one of the two most significant factors in determining the historicity of these early events. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, chap. 5, quotation on 145.

117 As will be pointed out in an upcoming chapter in this volume, this is not at all an overall argument for the deaths of all of Jesus’s apostles, which cannot be upheld. But the reports of these three deaths add to the credibility of these testimonies.

118 Intriguingly, in spite of his very robust cross-examination of the available data, Dale Allison’s strong affirmation of the resurrection appearances of Jesus is both clear and welcomed: “I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death.” Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 346; also 343–44. Allison also makes some similar comments in his later 2021 volume on this topic, Resurrection of Jesus, 61–62, 86.

119 Nonetheless, in the next volume of this inquiry, alternate hypotheses will be entertained in great depth.

↑ Back to top