12: Minimal Fact 4: The Disciples’ Transformations
12
Minimal Fact 4: The Disciples’ Transformations
Religious and other sorts of transformations may seem rather commonplace these days. Not only do people willingly place themselves in harm’s way for what they think is a good cause, but some at least seem willing to die as martyrs for their beliefs. Fewer of these persons actually end up dying for their sacred causes, whether or not they meant to do so, but it does happen. Even political movements are frequently characterized by fervent metamorphoses to the extent that the participants’ lives are willingly endangered. Some have also died for their political beliefs. These potential examples include accounts of those with Communist ideologies, Buddhist monks during the Vietnam War, various species of suicide missions, Christian or other missionary activities, and so forth. Increasingly, we are reminded that many persons, both Christians and non-Christians, have given their lives for religious or political ideas that they sincerely believe.
Against such a contemporary climate, why do Christians sometimes assume that after Jesus’s death his disciples were uniquely transformed, including their willingness to die for their faith? Further, why is their profound change often treated as an indication that their message was true? Is this early Christian phenomenon anchored in history, as critical scholars usually acknowledge? On the other hand, it might appear that such events were perhaps only status quo rather than unique.
The purpose in this chapter is to explore the subject of the disciples’ transformations after Jesus’s death. Were these occurrences really commonplace religious experiences, being more or less typical of religious and political zeal in general? Or were they truly exceptional events?
The Transformations of the Disciples
Intriguingly, there are several lines of evidence that establish that Jesus’s disciples both abandoned him just before his crucifixion as well as experienced absolute despair and despondency immediately after this event. These attitudes were followed by their elation and total exuberance just a short time later. However, the same individuals who fled and denied him earlier were resolute and willing to suffer for Jesus and his message just a brief time later. It is also taught regularly that this “renovation” was caused by the disciples’ sincere belief that they had seen the risen Jesus and that this attitude was long-lasting.
To begin, there is a rich quantity of multiple source attestation of these occurrences from individual authors in the New Testament as well as in noncanonical Christian and pagan sources. The Gospel accounts are quite clear. Before Jesus’s crucifixion, his accompanying group of male followers abandoned and even denied him.1 While the women went to Jesus’s tomb by themselves on the first day of the week, presumably to finish the burial process (Luke 24:1), the men were in hiding because they feared reprisal from the Jews (John 20:19). However, just a short time later there was an undeniable contrast in the behavior of especially the men, with the relevant texts claiming that many and perhaps all of these followers were altered radically, with no recanting as far as is known. Boldness and faith replaced their previous fear, with their lives being characterized by a new purpose. They proclaimed their message and were willing to die for it.2
Extrabiblical sources—both secular3 and Christian4—provide additional indications of these disciples’ later transformations. Sometimes their martyrdoms are recorded in these texts along with the deaths of many other early believers.5
These various texts all support these data from an array of angles too, as a few examples indicate. Multiple source attestation extends from the twin independent sources provided by the Synoptic Gospel sources along with John, as well as the extracanonical Christian writings plus secular sources such as those just mentioned.
Before the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus in AD 62, several key, multiply attested texts6 record the majority view among critical scholars that James was an unbeliever during his brother’s ministry.7 But when he shows up later, both with the early band of believing followers after Jesus’s crucifixion and ascension (Acts 1:12–14) as well sometime afterward as the leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13–19), it is obvious that something has happened to him! According to what could even be the earliest of the creedal traditions (1 Cor 15:7), we are told that Jesus appeared to James.8 This trek observed here from unbeliever to follower of Jesus, pastor of the church at Jerusalem, and martyr certainly describes a transformed life of over thirty years in duration, all the way to death.9
Then there is the overwhelming support from Paul’s own testimony too.10 Paul later provided both early and eyewitness reports from both sides of his apostolic transformation—from the role he played in his persecution of the earliest Christians before his conversion along with observing their reactions closely.11 This was followed by Paul’s significant witness to what he observed personally of the highly visible changes in the other apostles and in many believers after their conversions as well as his own transformation after his conversion.12
Other factors need to be mentioned. The principle of embarrassment is also evident here, including major examples drawn from several occasions over these early years. These instances evidence the deep level of commitment observed in these early apostles both before and after these remarkable changes that occurred to them. After his conversion, James became one of the two key leaders in the young Jerusalem church along with Peter.13 We have already mentioned how the other chief leader, Peter, denied the Lord multiple times before assuming this same lofty post in the ancient Jerusalem church.14 These two examples are nothing short of amazing and must be explained by strong reasons inasmuch as their being admitted by early believers in spite of the embarrassing factors are best considered as accurate reporting of the data. These prior humiliating testimonies became linked with these men’s subsequent transformations, both inspired by Jesus’s resurrection appearances.
Moreover, when Jesus predicted his coming death and resurrection, not only did his apostles misunderstand his teaching by quite a large margin, but they followed their mistake by their quite firm rebuke of Jesus. They even exasperated the problem by maintaining strongly that they would never forsake him or allow these things to happen, even if it meant their death.15 Not only did they also reveal their crucial lack of understanding regarding the central role of what would later be their own gospel proclamation, but the sources attest that Jesus termed this sort of outburst the work of Satan.16 None of these traits were becoming of the key leaders in the earliest church, though their human frailty could happen to almost anyone!
Then of course, Paul was an accomplished persecutor of the nascent church in his own right. He was not bashful about proclaiming these things in his epistles, asserting, “I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it” (Gal 1:13).17 Additionally, the canonical sources did not shelter its readers from hearing about the arguments between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36–41) or between Paul and Peter (Gal 2:11–16).
The cases of James the brother of Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the entire group of apostles are each in their own way specific examples of quite radical transformations indeed. These three individuals recovered from difficult beginnings that no doubt were fresh in the minds of all the apostles as a group.18 Not only were these three men the central church leaders but, along with John, they were also the most influential persons in church history. Moreover, there are first-century reports of the martyrdoms of all three men. As the saying goes, the further someone gets down, the further the opportunity to rise back up. On a pastoral note, these three scarred men show how beautifully the Lord can reclaim and salvage wounded persons!
A word should be added here about the frequent comment that the early Christian leaders were willing to die for their faith. It may be charged that this point is questionable unless we are willing to engage in mind reading the thoughts of historical persons, which is the largely eschewed practice of historical psychologizing. However, no minds need to be read here at all. It is enough just to watch the apostles’ feet! When people continually and repeatedly walk into the very same places where they have been attacked previously, including having been wounded quite severely, or when they repeatedly enter places very similar to those haunts where those events already happened, this can fairly be said to indicate their willingness to take the risk to their own lives to preach the gospel message. This is the chief idea being put forth in situations such as these regarding Jesus’s apostles as well as others, as illustrated regularly in the book of Acts and elsewhere.
Further, in spite of such repeated cases of the willingness to endure open persecution even over long periods of time, an additional point is that the available ancient sources record no known cases of apostolic defections.19 We have already mentioned some ancient accounts of apostolic martyrdoms, and these cases effectively indicate that no defections occurred with at least these apostles! Further, there are no early accounts where these apostles, singly or in groups, were given the opportunity to recant and left the faith, and this bothers occasional critics.20
Whether or not more data would be helpful, this desire does not change for a moment the martyrdom cases that we do possess from the first century, particularly those pertaining to the most important apostolic witnesses.21 Further, almost any potential Christian victim could have cried out and begged for mercy to be released, even at the last moment, and it would be difficult to imagine that an enemy would not relish such an opportunity to proclaim loudly the falsehood of at least that particular believer’s claims. True, such a response is made from silence, but for whatever it is worth, no early evidence exists for such a scenario either. And though he was not an apostle,22 Ignatius, writing about AD 110, begged the Roman believers to allow him to be fed to the wild beasts in Rome and was indeed martyred, just as he wished.23 Lastly, Roman governor Pliny’s testimony from just a few years after Ignatius’s example was that, in his experience, true Christians could not be forced to recant (Ep. 97). This should be heeded as well. Though this may be far from what Candida Moss might want, the data are headed away from the general direction that she supports.
As a last suggestion that needs to be raised, it should also be remembered that normal psychological responses to the sudden and especially violent deaths of loved ones often lead to various distraught human emotions, such as hopelessness, despair, and bereavement suffering.24 This very real fear that often plagues survivors is particularly reflected immediately after Jesus’s capture. Despite their previous protestations to the contrary, the disciples immediately abandoned their leader, followed by the denials of the lead apostle Peter just shortly afterwards. What happened here could have led to additional roadblocks before Jesus’s resurrection appearances, all of which serve as further reasons against the resulting transformations of the disciples, especially those that occur immediately.
Impressive amounts of ancient comments that favor the transformation of Jesus’s disciples can be drawn from canonical and noncanonical Christian texts as well as ancient secular writings, with a few checks and balances provided by the criteria of authenticity, among other indications. Seen especially in light of Paul’s early and eyewitness testimony from both sides of the issue, these add up to large numbers of witnesses. It is no wonder, then, that contemporary critical scholars, even including skeptics of several varieties, rarely challenge or doubt that Jesus’s disciples were radically transformed from fearful followers of Jesus or even unbelievers into courageous proclaimers of their faith. Based on the data that establish this fearful doubt followed by a newly energized faith, the critical agreement is solid.25
Examining the Disciples’ Transformations
The New Testament testimony along with other ancient sources together attest that the disciples abandoned Jesus shortly before his death, followed by their doubts and despair immediately afterward. Days later, these same disciples emerged with a boldness not previously seen in them. Their preaching centered on their belief that Jesus had risen from the dead, as indicated by his appearances to them. These major occurrences best explain the drastic turnaround of these followers.26
Even quite critical scholars acknowledge their widespread agreement that whether they were right or wrong in this matter, it was the deep belief and conviction of Jesus’s disciples’ that they had actually seen appearances of the risen Jesus that caused and gave rise to their reversal of faith and behavior. This was the impetus. Atheist New Testament specialist Ehrman is particularly adamant: “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.”27 Providing additional details on the force of these convictions, Ehrman also notes, “We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead. Their conviction on this matter eventually turned the world on its ear.”28
Helmut Köster proclaims that “the resurrection and the appearances of Jesus are best explained as a catalyst which prompted reactions that resulted in the missionary activity and founding of the churches, but also in the crystallization of the tradition about Jesus and his ministry. But most of all, the resurrection changed sorrow and grief, or even hate and rejection, into joy, creativity, and faith.”29 The belief in Jesus’s resurrection appearances was clearly what caused the profound transformation of Jesus’s disciples. Ben Meyer asserts succinctly, “That it was the Easter experiences which affected [the disciples’] transformation is beyond reasonable doubt.”30 Luke Timothy Johnson states, “Christianity was birthed by the resurrection.”31 N. T. Wright declares that because of Jesus’s resurrection, “the first generation of Christians . . . announced and celebrated the victory of Jesus over evil. . . . That was the basis of their remarkable joy.”32 As attested by Larry Hurtado, a resurrection appearance of the risen Jesus to Paul likewise accounted for his own transformation: “That is, at its heart, Paul’s conversion appears to have been a radical change in his view of Jesus.”33 Many other exceptionally critical scholars are included among those who readily agree.34
Following the progress of our argument over the past few chapters, the crescendo was being reached. Soon after the sheer despair of the crucifixion, the data indicate firmly that the disciples were utterly convinced at several points that they had witnessed literal appearances of the risen Jesus. This belief was taught and preached at an exceptionally early date after the events. It seems quite clear, then, that it was this belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead that caused the disciples to understand the inherent meaning that had now been manifested. Eternal life was a reality—they had witnessed it directly in the person of the risen Jesus! It was inevitable that Jesus’s followers would be raised too, as in 1 Pet 1:3–5. Though the war was continuing at present, even persecution should not stop these believers from rejoicing. Persecution could be faced head-on (1 Pet 1:6–7). The bottom line was “indescribable and glorious joy” (1:9)!
The fight would continue for now, but Paul could proclaim the end result: death and evil had been dealt an absolute death blow (1 Cor 15:53–58). The salvific events had already occurred, and they were being proclaimed! Hope, joy, and peace were the result (Rom 15:13). In step-by-step fashion, the resurrection experiences were responsible for the change in the disciples. Jesus had taught this too, but the change was not merely due to the disciples simply thinking this process through. As mentioned several times in this study, the New Testament resurrection language is the language of sight: the disciples had witnessed the victory with their very own eyes!
And it really, truly worked! Somehow, these occurrences transformed Jesus’s followers from their initial shock, despair, and doubt to their firm convictions that they had seen their master alive after his death by crucifixion. It was the disciples’ sincere belief that Jesus had appeared to them that accounted for their zeal in preaching and teaching. The speed with which it happened provides some small indication of how powerful it was in person.
Were the Disciples’ Resurrection Experiences Unique?
Several factors complicate the analysis of religious transformations. For instance, they appear to be relatively common and widely divergent. The spokespersons often propagate claims that clearly contradict those made by other religious enthusiasts, sometimes even from their own camps. Many throughout history have seemingly used their soapboxes to propagate beliefs that are demonstrably false.
Additionally, research has shown that with some religious groups, there can be very high percentages of turnover among the practitioners even after relatively short time spans.35 These and similar findings raise a variety of special questions concerning how to measure these changes. Should such demarcations somehow begin again if a different belief motivates someone for another brief time span? How far removed does the next view need to be from the original to be counted as a new commitment? Could any of these changes count more accurately as infatuations? Should measurable data of one sort or another be considered or even allowed? Can faith alone be a sufficient ground for a reasonable religious or political commitment? Concerns like these may even potentially challenge the implications commonly drawn regarding religious metamorphoses.
Of course, this study concerns a particular set of religious transformations: those of the earliest Christians and Jesus’s disciples specifically. These conversions appear to have lasted a lifetime too, at least where we possess this information, as will be addressed below. What, then, distinguishes these believers from others who also claim religious or political changes? Were the conversions of these earliest disciples of a markedly different quality? Can their experiences help serve as the foundation for the faith of subsequent Christians? After all, it could hardly be denied that many religious transformations are found later to have been based on false beliefs.
Let us be clear yet again from the outset: even genuine religious transformations do not prove the truth content of one’s beliefs—in fact, most often they are very far from doing so. However, they do potentially address the sincerity of the person’s beliefs in personally accepting the truth of that content as expressed in their claims. The frequently acknowledged principle is that truly being willing to die for a particular cause most likely indicates one’s honest belief in it, whether that cause is religious, political, or otherwise. Again, this is not to prove the underlying substance of the claim to be true. A common adage is that liars do not make good martyrs, at least not willing ones. One indication of this is that we would be pressed to find many (or any?) historical cases where willing and sincere martyrdom does not presuppose faith and commitment to the proclaimed cause, even in examples where the real cause is not necessarily the one that is stated out loud.36
As with other examples, at least several of Jesus’s disciples suffered and died for their sincere belief in the Christian cause. We will not review the data for these events here, though it has been produced and argued elsewhere in particular studies, including additional material in these volumes.37 But closer observation of the roots of the respective belief systems might reveal qualitative differences between the disciples and other examples. It is at this point that a major variation emerges.
Distinctly unlike some other religious or perhaps even societal causes, Jesus’s disciples did not change to the place of being willing to die primarily for a set of doctrines or even for a deep commitment to a particular ethical or political conviction. The canonical New Testament writings do not comment on ethical or political causes being the major factor in the disciples’ profound change. After the guards came to arrest Jesus in the garden, the disciples’ commitment was at least temporarily lacking. Then after the unexpected death of their master, they may have thought that their hopes for the future had evaporated. They were in hiding, at least initially, from that point until the resurrection appearances.
Nor were the disciples’ reactions to Jesus’s initial appearances built significantly on their already-existing faith, though there was doubtless some “upgrading” of their belief from having been with Jesus. As seen above, both the New Testament texts along with the majority views of contemporary critical scholarship agree on the reasons for the change. But even if they were temporarily stunned in the presence of their deeper convictions, this would not account for their unique response. In other words, the disciples were not transformed simply by faith, either preexistent or otherwise.38
Again, the data indicate and scholars overwhelmingly agree that the disciples were willing to give their lives, if necessary, specifically because of an experience: they were absolutely and sincerely convinced that they had seen the risen Jesus alive again after his death. According to the earliest records, their proclamation revolved around the language of sight.39 Their transformation was not primarily the result of accepting an ideology, like so many others who have changed views through the centuries, but their new outlook was expressly centered in personal experiences. They were profoundly persuaded that they had actually seen the resurrected Jesus. Such at least was their deepest belief and conviction.
This is also the New Testament proclamation. After his argument that Jesus made a number of appearances to many persons (1 Cor 15:3–8), Paul asserted that, apart from the resurrection, faith was vain. The appearances and the resulting transformations were tied to this singular event (15:14, 17). The resurrection was their basis for eternal life, for if Jesus had not been raised, neither would believers be raised (15:17–19). The final result was that believers would be similarly raised (15:20, 42–50); not even death held any more sting (15:53–57). The truth of this message is what leads to Christian commitment and service (15:58–16:4).
Other writers make similar claims. The disciples at least doubted before meeting the risen Jesus (Luke 24:11; John 20:9, 24–25; pseudo-Mark 16:11, 13, 14). Rather, it was precisely Jesus’s appearances that led the disciples to their deep commitment (Luke 24:32, 52–53; John 20:20, 28–29; pseudo-Mark 16:20). The resurrection was the center of their early message (Acts 4:2, 33). Because Jesus’s resurrection secured eternal life, Christians could have a new view of death (2 Cor 4:14–18; Phil 1:21–23; 3:20–21). They believed that the most serious struggles of life could be faced with rejoicing since Jesus’s resurrection had secured eternal life for believers (1 Pet 1:3–9; cf. 1 John 3:1–3).
It seems quite clear that the disciples’ reaction was based on their belief that they had seen the risen Jesus. Their transformation was the result of their sincere conviction that he was alive and that this event was the basis for their eternal future. The resurrection of Jesus was constantly proclaimed to be the center of the faith. Without it, it is certainly arguable that their situation would not have been substantially different from many other religious persons with heartfelt beliefs. But the disciples of Elijah, Elisha, or John the Baptist did not react or change the world like this.40 Apart from their total assurance of Jesus’s resurrection, the disciples’ experiences may have been distinct in certain other ways, but as far as religious transformations go, their situation might appear to be relatively ordinary.
But here is the chief difference: if they were correct that the risen Jesus had actually appeared to them, the disciples’ transformations would have been based on a genuine occurrence that produced actual results in the real world. In brief, if Jesus was actually raised and appeared to them, as they absolutely believed, that data impinging on them was the most likely cause of their transformation. In this study as well as elsewhere, it has been argued that the various world religions do not include the teachings that their major founders were actually raised from the dead and appeared to their followers. Nor is there any actual evidence that such events really took place.41 Thus, if the risen Jesus actually did appear to his disciples, then these events would appear to be unique occurrences. Especially if such experiences were veridical in nature, then the disciples’ transformations probably would be grounded in some kind of observable data rather than in the mere conviction alone that their beliefs were true. This is a crucial distinction, though we have already moved past the conditional portion here to the actual event, as done in this study.
A personal reflection might help with this epistemic distinction. If being sure of something were absolutely crucial for people, what sort of a basis would be generally preferred? Would the answer be to desire a strong conviction and belief alone, or would we choose to actually see something that, by itself, indicates the probability of our cherished truths? Such evidence could of course always be recalled and rehearsed for assurance, just as it was in the New Testament, meaning that the data plus the conviction both would be present (Luke 7:18–23). Further, what if the apparent sense data produced an even stronger conviction precisely because events were witnessed and the data could be reviewed as well?
Now let’s convert this hypothetical situation to an evidential consideration. Let us pose a circumstance where our closest friend and mentor, the chief religious influence in our life, died quite unexpectedly and even violently. Believing strongly in the reality of the afterlife could be a huge relief here (cf. 1 Thess 4:13 here as an example). But which circumstance would carry a greater conviction: our deep faith alone that life after death is a reality, or our faith plus being utterly convinced that we actually saw this same person after their death, several times, however unusual the particulars? Now what if there were even a few group experiences of this deceased person, including some who were previously unbelievers, such that each person present was likewise sure that they had seen the person too? Imagine further that, as hard as everyone tried, all the inevitable attempts to provide viable alternative explanations failed noticeably? Knowing that faith alone is often subject even to wild fluctuations, it seems clear that many, perhaps even most believers, would choose the evidential scenario.
Apart from a resurrection, though, such a negative conclusion would most likely determine the way the central question in this essay would be answered. In such a case, the disciples’ religious experiences still could be quite sincere, perhaps even exemplary, and may still have led to the most influential religious movement in human history. But ultimately, the transformations would arguably be classified as exceptional examples of a commonplace category of phenomena.
Candida Moss may be correct in her assertion that Christians “like to think of their martyrs as unique.”42 But this hardly condemns the disciples’ faith. Even without much evidence, they could still possibly have been correct. But under these circumstances, could the disciples’ resulting transformations somehow indicate that Jesus’s resurrection had actually occurred?43 This has already been answered negatively here, as has been done elsewhere on many previous occasions.44 Their personal changes in and of themselves cannot demonstrate that an event occurred in history.
However, if the available evidence best indicated that the disciples did witness appearances of the risen Jesus individually as well as in group settings, accompanied by other sorts of veridical data as indicated by several lines of argumentation like those produced in this study, then this would change the overall probability of the event itself. Still, such would still not be due to their new demeanor alone. The emphasis would presumably fall on the data, with the disciples’ transformations potentially raising the data to a greater level of probability.
Another Angle on the Resurrection Data
In other words, even an extraordinary change in the disciples’ outlooks or beliefs would hardly help the overall case markedly if the events themselves were poorly substantiated and even less so if the occurrences were nonexistent. Beliefs do not create historical realities. On the other hand, if various types of sufficient evidential support were also present, the disciples could possess a far better basis for their new convictions than if they could only produce faith claims alone to show for it, however firmly the latter beliefs were held.
But if the disciples had actually experienced appearances of the risen Jesus, the almost instantaneous joy that is described when they first saw their Lord would more readily be understood and could thereby augment the situation. It might be explained this way: if as argued, at least several of these key apostles claimed actually to have seen the risen Jesus themselves,45 and this became their central teaching overall, their utter transformations and in some cases their willing martyrdoms could best provide insight and even additional indications pointing to the nature of these appearances of Jesus.
As explained by prominent philosopher Richard Swinburne, when strong evidence is provided for occurrences like Jesus’s resurrection appearances and is considered via the very specific requirements of Bayes’ Theorem, other surrounding evidence in favor of the associated historical events or factors that cohere with it are crucial to include in the study. For examples, the general condition and provenance of the texts, the disciples’ transformations, the moral emphasis of Jesus’s teachings, in addition to other significant factors, need to be considered in addition to the actual occurrences themselves. As Swinburne notes, “The general background evidence will be evidence of the sort of thing that is likely to happen.”46 These factors more precisely unpack how it is known whether or not the major events such as Jesus’s appearances really happened. The appropriate calculations regarding all of the likelihoods must be determined in light of the adjacent considerations, both prior as well as posterior.47
Arguing quite similarly and also from Bayes’ Theorem, Timothy and Lydia McGrew specifically zero in on the disciples’ postresurrection transformations along with the testimonies of the women at the empty tomb, plus the appearance data reported by Jesus’s disciples, James, and Paul as precisely the type of helpful data that could actually add probability that the events happened. The apostolic transformations themselves need to be grounded in reality, and when wed to the known events, they may add greater probabilistic weight to the occurrences.48
Virtually all scholars in relevant fields of research recognize that these rather incredible apostolic transformations obtained, so it might be asked what these profound changes may have indicated, especially when the underlying facts are likewise acknowledged. It is most often commented that the disciples’ metamorphoses indicated their degree of belief that Christianity was true, which is conceded by all. Yet, it is too seldom emphasized that the extraordinary extent of these about-faces would most likely be due not so much to their general belief that their faith was true, but to their degree of conviction specifically regarding the appearances themselves. Though Ehrman does not think that Jesus was raised from the dead, he argues clearly that it was the force of the disciples’ convictions that changed the world.49
Thus, since the resurrection was the absolute center of the disciples’ faith and the gospel proclamation itself, as attested often in the New Testament writings, such convictions would be for them due to the truth of these appearances (as in 1 Cor 15:12–20; 1 Thess 4:13–14; 1 Pet 1:3–6). In other words, the disciples’ willingness to die was due precisely to their absolute conviction that they had seen the risen Jesus alive again.50 Their degree of change is most likely due to their high level of assurance regarding what happened to them.
Again, to place this in perspective, though their transformations hardly proved the underlying resurrection reality, the resulting level of unwavering conviction and assurance intensifies the degree of the apostles’ confidence on behalf of these facts. It was stated repeatedly that these transformations were accounted for by the direct conviction of the disciples that they had seen Jesus alive forevermore and that reality also had been extended to them as well. Given these facts, nothing could move them.
Stating succinctly this point alone, here is the key: the disciples were strongly convicted they had actually seen appearances of the risen Jesus. This is hardly ever disputed. The greater that assurance without retreat (as far as is known) increases the likelihood that the disciples actually did witness Jesus’s appearances—by no means because beliefs invent events, but because they provide additional insights and considerations that favor the historical events in question. This is because the probability of the actual appearances is actually increased by the additional, surrounding information, including the outstanding level of commitment that points directly to these occurrences as the best explanation, as the McGrews point out in detail above.51 This is how events, both secular and religious, are weighted and judged.
But it is not simply the disciples’ transformations and willingness to suffer or die for their newly found faith. Other background factors also need to be considered similarly, such as whether Jesus healed the sick, which is recognized or allowed in some major sense by the vast majority of specialized critical scholars.52 Also, did Jesus claim to forgive sin? Did he make claims that he was deity? Was he a moral teacher, and did he teach an objective ethical code? These and other questions, if they obtain, “raise the stakes” as it were, contributing an array of additional considerations that all factor into the overall question of the background support as to whether Jesus could well be the sort of person who may have been raised from the dead. In the absence of the resurrection evidence, it would not be presumed that, perchance, Jesus just might have been raised too. But in conjunction with that superior resurrection evidence, these additional factors raise the likelihoods even further.53
As the McGrews note, “Each of the salient facts surveyed makes a significant contribution to the case for the resurrection. Taken in conjunction, they provide an overwhelming argument for the conclusion that the resurrection did indeed occur.”54 This is the key contribution of Bayes’ Theorem arguments.
Another consideration is that unlike other religious and political changes, this is the only known example in history where, far from being ungrounded, these transformations would add to the specific assurance that the disciples had actually observed Jesus’s resurrection appearances.55 In short, the appearances caused an exuberance that pointed to real events, though without demonstrating them.
But far from some wish, hope, or dream, the underlying reality for all of this was a series of events that, once they had occurred, was in a way as mundane as any. The evidence was simply there in front of them as they watched their teacher walk, talk, and live. Viewed from this perspective, not only would it have been forcefully demonstrated that the apostles’ best friend and mentor was truly alive, but that at that very moment, it may have seemed as if heaven had entered earth’s domain. Their fondest hopes and desires had been triggered. In Jesus’s presence, eternity had burst in upon them; they had actually witnessed the presence of eternity. Given these circumstances, being assured of heaven seemed rather to be expected! There was evidence for Jesus’s appearances, which has been the emphasis in this study, to which the disciples’ conversions pointed so firmly.56
A Checklist: Data Supporting the Disciples’ Transformations
Throughout this chapter, numerous arguments as well as other supporting considerations have been raised in favor of the thesis that Jesus’s disciples along with other individuals underwent exceptional personal transformations very soon after Jesus was crucified by the Romans. The changes appeared to be sudden and lasting. Strong data contribute compelling arguments that a few of the apostolic leaders were martyred for their beliefs. What factors drove them in this direction? A number of these considerations will be recalled more briefly.57
(1) A baseline scenario helps to outline these overall changes. When Jesus was arrested in the garden, his male disciples fled, followed by Peter denying multiple times that he knew him. From that night until two full days afterward, these men were apparently not going out in public. They were hiding in a state of confusion, bewilderment, and despondency because their master had been unexpectedly and brutally captured, slain, and taken from them.
(2) Then beginning on the third day after Jesus’s death by crucifixion, the entire situation reportedly changed quickly and the disciples were never the same afterwards. These followers experienced what they thought were resurrection appearances of their crucified leader on multiple occasions after his death, with Jesus appearing to both individuals as well as to groups, teaching them once again. During these experiences, the disciples were convinced that they had received a commission from the risen Jesus to preach the gospel message, just as he had instructed them earlier in his ministry. It was these experiences that revolutionized the disciples and emboldened them. Understanding the significance of the present and future kingdom inaugurated by Jesus’s preaching plus his resurrection, they were transformed from a downcast state of mind. Since Jesus was alive, they could now withstand any challenge.58
(3) According to critical scholars, James the brother of Jesus most likely believed and converted when he experienced what he also thought was an appearance of the risen Jesus in whom he had not previously believed. This also led to his own transformation, soon becoming the leader of the church in Jerusalem, where he remained for more than thirty years of ministry until his death.
(4) The disciples immediately began proclaiming these occurrences outwardly. The earliest form of their message was termed the homologia, the central gospel proclamation especially of the deity, death, and resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ.59 These preaching reports spread widely afterwards, being repeated by canonical and noncanonical Christian sources alike, in addition to later pagan reports.
(5) One especially effective method was spreading the gospel message orally by means of many often formalized, usually brief, creedal traditions that were taught and memorized easily even by those who could neither read nor write. These came in slightly different forms, like the more traditional gospel statements or in the form of the slightly longer Acts sermon summaries. The majority critical view is that the earliest of these creedal traditions were actually pre-Pauline and even formulated before Paul’s conversion, and most certainly before they were recorded later in the Epistles. The very fact that these messages were used and reused throughout the canonical period and afterward is a strong indicator that the word was still going forward. They were sometimes accompanied by the disciples’ enthusiastic proclamation, even in the face of threats and persecution.60
(6) Extraordinarily, a Pharisee and scholar named Saul of Tarsus (later Paul) who had strongly opposed the Christian movement for a couple of years, even imprisoning believers and worse, had an experience about two to three years after Jesus’s crucifixion that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus. As were his apostolic colleagues before him, Paul likewise was transformed immediately, converting to following Jesus as he began giving eyewitness testimony to his own resurrection experience.
(7) Just three years after his conversion (AD 35–36), Paul visited Jerusalem to inquire of the chief disciples of Jesus, namely, Peter and Jesus’s brother James, who were the leaders of the young movement. Here, just some five to six years after the crucifixion, Paul found that Peter and James were still enthusiastically leading a large Christian congregation in the city.
(8) Multiple early and independent sources, both Christian and non-Christian alike, recorded many of the items being discussed here, such as the disciples abandoning Jesus, Peter’s denials, Jesus’s death by crucifixion, his burial, and of course his appearances. The earliest gospel message of the homologia was also mentioned often, including Jesus’s teachings of his deity. This criterion also applies to Paul’s conversion and most likely to his second trip to Jerusalem to inquire of the earlier apostles, the disciples’ transformations, persecution, and a few of their deaths. Quite incredibly, even according to several of the most skeptical New Testament scholars, some of these events enjoy a source count of anywhere from three to seven different sources each! The variety among these examples include canonical, noncanonical, as well as pagan sources.
(9) Several serious cases of embarrassment are also reported in these texts, such as the unbelief of James the brother of Jesus, the disciples abandoning Jesus for days after proclaiming they would never do so, Peter’s denials, and the crucifixion itself, including Jesus’s cry of forsakenness. Paul’s persecution of believers along with the women being both the first ones to discover the empty tomb and also the first to see the risen Jesus are also telling.
(10) Though more limited for sure since just being counted in another capacity, the about-face by both Paul as well as James, followed by their subsequent enthusiasm, is not only testimony from former unbelievers, but in Paul’s case at least, it serves as enemy attestation. Acts 6:7b likewise represents some rather intriguing testimony from Jewish priests who at least probably included some who were enemies just a short time beforehand, raising questions regarding what they may have known about Jesus!
(11) The early sources also attest that, rather than being of only brief duration, the disciples’ transformations were quite long-lasting, even to the very end of some of their lives. These testimonies and other comments stretch out over a period of at least five to twenty-five years after the crucifixion. Additional accounts concerning the changes in the disciples are related in the last chapters of Matthew, Luke, John, and throughout Acts, including narratives that also potentially extend up to decades after Jesus’s death, ending with these followers still preaching and teaching.61 Very early noncanonical comments regarding the disciples’ faithfulness are also common.62
(12) Personal transformations often do not involve being willing to die for one’s convictions. But there is ample indication that Jesus’s disciples were willing to die for their faith. This conclusion is not derived from simply imputing good intentions to them. These followers repeatedly visited locations where they or others had already been harmed, or where the circumstances dictated a stronger possibility of that occurring. Physical harm often occurred to these believers specifically due to their witness.63
(13) Beyond the disciples being prepared and ready to die for their faith, the martyrdoms of several disciples really did occur. These occasions are recorded in both canonical as well as noncanonical sources.64 As mentioned above, McDowell summarized the results of his dissertation by concluding that the martyrdoms of three apostles were accompanied by the very highest level of probability (Peter, Paul, and James the son of Zebedee), while the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus was determined to be very probable. Thomas was the only other disciple for whom it was concluded that his martyrdom was more probable than not.65
(14) More technical considerations were summarized by philosophers like Swinburne and McGrew, who argued from the use of Bayes’ Theorem, where prior surrounding historical considerations such as the condition of the New Testament text, Jesus’s moral teachings, indications that Jesus taught his deity, plus posterior historical evidence like the female testimony that favored the empty tomb, the disciples’ transformations, and so forth can actually add more probability that the events of Jesus’s resurrection appearances actually happened.
It is definitely not being asserted in this chapter that the disciples’ transformations somehow demonstrated that Jesus rose from the dead. This discussion has been about the disciples’ beliefs as well as their actions, and these both indicated clearly that they believed firmly that they saw appearances of the risen Jesus. But these radically changed beliefs on the part of the disciples do provide some evidential support for their convictions and contentions that they really saw the risen Jesus. When these considerations are combined with other evidences, a strong multifaceted case can continue to be made for Jesus’s appearances, especially in the absence of sustainable naturalistic hypotheses.
As with our other summaries pertaining to the individual minimal facts, a list of primary and secondary arguments has been constructed here, this time for the disciples’ transformations. Beyond the fourteen major considerations in favor of their huge changes, the number of secondary or perhaps somewhat lesser factors that were already included within them will vary among individuals. There may be several possi-bilities for these additional considerations. The primary or subsidiary categories might include or distinguish between a number of issues. For example, should the individual appearances to Mary Magdalene or Peter be counted as separate transformational arguments, such as those of James and Paul? Should the canonical, noncanonical Christian, and pagan source counts be divided into separate points? How about distinctions between the very early creedal traditions and the Acts sermon summaries? Are there various ways to tabulate events according to separate criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassing details? Though the final figure of the positive, major attesting arguments tabulated here totaled fourteen, various researchers may vary this figure, perhaps by breaking out more or less evidential indications that may be contained or included here.
Conclusion
Therefore, the chief difference between Jesus’s disciples and the majority of persons down through the centuries who have held to the value of various political or religious convictions with differing degrees of tenacity and transformation depends on whether Jesus’s followers actually saw the risen Jesus in some sense. If the followers of Jesus truly believed that they saw Jesus after his death by crucifixion, as maintained here, then their transformations would provide further, contributing evidence for their resurrection beliefs.
Apart from Jesus’s resurrection, however, it might appear that their situations were not substantially distinct from many other persons who have held cherished beliefs but were mistaken. In such a scenario, apart from Jesus’s resurrection and however unique or distinctive some other conditions were regarding the disciples, the initial question in this chapter would still be answered with the basic response that, within religious parameters, their experiences will be considered to some as relatively commonplace.
But once again, the central theme in these volumes is that Jesus’s resurrection truly occurred. As such, that makes all the difference both here as well as elsewhere. So if the disciples did, in fact, actually witness appearances of the risen Jesus, it makes sense that their transformations would account for both their more fortified convictions as well as the exceptional boldness and joy they manifested. As far as is known from the research, no one else has ever witnessed literal, evidenced experiences of this nature regarding a resurrected individual who founded a major world religion with the distinctives that we have been discussing in these chapters.66 Moreover, the attending resurrection conviction that is attested in these ancient sources regarding a personal afterlife would also add another level of both confirmation of the appearances as well as the ministerial application here. Each of these factors provides further impetus to the thoroughness of their transformations.67
So if veridical appearances of Jesus account for the foundation of the disciples’ transformations, this would potentially separate them from all other religious and political metamorphoses that have been based chiefly or even wholly on persons who were convinced that certain ideas were true. Evidenced experiences grounded in empirical observations like these, along with the corresponding transforming beliefs described here, which were specifically reported as being due to the appearances, would carry more conviction than such beliefs alone. In fact, it would be difficult to imagine a more powerful impression than that caused by witnessing resurrection appearances of an individual, especially in the context of the one whose other teachings and actions had the impact that Jesus did.68
For example, if Jesus’s disciples had actually seen and communicated personally with their master after he had been raised from the dead, then their convictions regarding the truth of an afterlife were also based on their personal observations of the risen Jesus and his interactions with them, such as his ongoing teachings. If these scenarios obtained, then we must answer our initial question in this chapter by concluding that the transformations of Jesus’s disciples were truly exceptional and add to the overall likelihood of the event they were proclaiming.69
Notes
1 Compare Mark 14:50, 66–72; Matt 26:56, 69–75; Luke 22:56–66; John 18:25–27.
2 See Acts 2:41–47; 4:1–4, 8–21, 29–35; 5:17–32, 40–42. For their willingness to die, see John 21:18–19; Acts 7:57–60; 12:1–3; 21:13; 25:11.
3 Ancient secular references appear regarding both early Christian beliefs and martyrdom in Tacitus, Ann. 15.44; Pliny’s Letters to Emperor Trajan (Ep. 97) along with Emperor Trajan’s reply to Pliny (Ep. 98); Josephus’s disputed paragraph in Ant. 18.3.3, along with Mara bar Serapion’s letter to his son.
4 Early instances of Christian testimonies are recorded by Clement of Rome (1 Clem. 19.1–5), Ignatius (Smyrn. 1.9–12), and Barn. 4.10–17.
5 Clement provides an early first-century reference to the martyrdoms of both Peter and Paul (1 Clem. 3.10–15). Polycarp mentions Paul and other disciples, with the context applying to their martyrdoms (Phil. 9). Differing versions of the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, are related by Josephus (Ant. 20.9.1) and Hegesippus (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23), with Josephus usually being preferred. Eusebius likewise relates that James (the son of Zebedee and the brother of John), as well as Peter and Paul, all died for their faith (Hist. eccl. 2.9, 25). While not involving the apostles, two Roman sources also contribute information here that is not as well known. Historian Tacitus describes “an immense multitude” of believers who were killed in Rome, being “torn” by beasts, “nailed to crosses” and crucified, or being lit on fire as torches in the night. Tacitus adds that though the Roman people did not appreciate the Christians, “there arose a feeling of compassion” for them due to the atrocities committed against them (Ann. 15.44). Later in his career as the Roman governor in Asia Minor (Bithynia), Pliny the Younger’s account is quite explicit. He reports to Emperor Tiberius that some of those accused of being Christians denied ever having been believers and “repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue . . . and even reviled the name of Christ.” However, rather incredibly, Pliny concedes that “there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances.” The Christians’ practice was to meet on a particular day before dawn “and [address] a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath . . . never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust” and “to eat in common a harmless meal.” Then Pliny tells the story of “putting two female slaves to the torture” but only heard more of their “extravagant superstition.” Pliny also reported that these beliefs affected “persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes.” “In fact, this contagious superstition . . . has spread its infection among the neighboring villages and country,” See Pliny, Ep. 97. However, Emperor Trajan responds by instructing Pliny, “Do not go out of your way to look for them.” If the person denies that they are a Christian and responds by “invoking our gods,” then that person should “be pardoned upon his repentance.” Pliny should not accept anonymous information to prosecute the believers. But when cases were brought before him and “the crime is proved, they must be punished.” See Pliny, Ep. 98.
6 Such as Mark 3:20–22, 31–35; 6:1–6; John 7:1–5.
7 For discussion and critical support at this point, see chapter 13 in this volume, on James’s conversion.
8 A description of an appearance to James is found in the fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews 7, which John Dominic Crossan dates to the 50s; Crossan, Historical Jesus, 428–29, 436 (see chap. 6, n. 44), while Darrell L. Bock dates this text to perhaps the mid-second century; see Bock, The Missing Gospels, 218 (see chap. 6, n. 151).
9 For some such as Dale C. Allison,. Resurrection of Jesus, 46–60 (see chap. 2, n. 15), this may raise the question of why Mary Magdalene (John 20:10–18; pseudo-Mark 16:9–11) as well as Peter (1 Cor 15:5a; Luke 24:34) are not singled out as are James and Paul regarding their appearances of Jesus. The decision here was based on the distinctiveness of James as a family member and likely skeptical unbeliever and Paul as a church-persecuting unbeliever before they met the risen Jesus, unlike the other two Jesus followers. Still, some may indeed decide to count Mary Magdalene or Peter as separate major or minor arguments for the disciples’ transformations, as both of these cases are multiply attested, and at least Peter’s experience has very early backup; hence their being highly rated even by critical scholars such as both Crossan and the Jesus Seminar. See Crossan, Historical Jesus, 435–36; see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 450, 452–54, 478–79, 568 (see chap. 4, n. 84).
10 Rom 14:8; 1 Cor 15:30–32; 2 Cor 4:7–14; 11:23–32; Phil 1:20–24; cf. 2 Pet 1:13–15.
11 Such as Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:4–6; 1 Cor 15:9; cf. Acts 9:1–2, 21; 22:3–5; 26:9–11.
12 These examples include 1 Cor 9:5–6; 15:11–19; Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10; Acts 7:54–60; 15:1–35.
13 Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10; cf. Acts 15:1–29.
14 Mark 14:54, 66–72; Matt 26:58, 69–75; Luke 22:54–62; John 18:15–18, 25–27.
15 For examples from Mark, see 8:31–33; 9:30–32; 10:32–34; 14:27–31.
16 Whether it was Peter himself whom Jesus was addressing, or the denial spoken of by Peter, or both, much has been written about these words. This does not need to be resolved here, except to emphasize further the doubly embarrassing point from the disciples to Jesus and from Jesus back to Peter. See F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983), 146–49.
17 Gal 1:13–14, 21–24; Phil 3:4–6; cf. Acts 9:1–2, 13–14, 26; 22:3–5; 26:9–12.
18 For example, Paul’s prior persecution of Christians initially drew suspicion, causing many early believers to be reluctant to fellowship with him (Gal 1:23; Acts 9:13–14, 21, 26).
19 For just one example of doctoral research on this assertion, see Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (Surrey: Ashgate, 2015), 9–11, 243, 259–65.
20 These include most notably a few works by Candida Moss: The Other Christs: Imitating Jesus in Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), chap. 1; Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions, Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), conclusion, particularly 167; The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (New York: HarperCollins, 2013), 13–21, 81, 136–37. For examples from the latter volume here, Moss complains that “Christians were not constantly persecuted, hounded, or targeted by the Romans” (14), and martyrdom accounts could be fabricated especially in later centuries (15–16). Moreover, Christians “like to think of their martyrs as unique” (17). Also, martyrdom accounts “cannot be used as evidence for the truth of Christianity” (137). Some of Moss’s complaints are really stretched, as if one more question mark would indicate a small victory! But many responses have been made to her types of objections. For an example, see McDowell, Fate of the Apostles, 3, 7–15, 260–65. Because some Christian authors may assert items that are incorrect or exaggerated does not by any means disprove all Christian claims, especially when Moss’s points have long been conceded by believers. For example, it is well-known that Roman persecution was rather sporadic in the first century, being both harsher as well as more common much later. For instance, Emperor Trajan replies to Governor Pliny that the indiscriminate killing of Christians could introduce “a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age,” yet punishment would still need to be enacted for clear cases (Pliny, Ep. 98). Of course martyrdom cases could be fabricated, but this was far more likely in later centuries, as Moss notes herself. Further, her complaint is far from requiring that all the accounts are fake, especially when they are witnessed or recorded in good sources. Often we must build on what data are known rather than sounding as if a few questions will invalidate the Christian’s entire enterprise here. Moreover, not only did our present chapter open with references to cases of transformation and martyrdom from outside of Christendom, but similar comments have been made in many publications long before any of Moss’s major volumes were published. The chief point in this study is certainly not that willing martyrdom by itself proves events such as Jesus’s resurrection, but that the plethora of early cases where we have good reports indicate that the disciples and others truly believed that they had seen the risen Jesus. That must be accounted for since we do have very strong information from those who actually claimed to have seen Jesus and were not lying. Many arguments serve as cogs in the overall case here, and the stronger data in particular must be explained, especially when the great majority of very critical scholars, even those who reject the resurrection of Jesus, recognize the strength of these facts. A number of Moss’s charges are not being denied or questioned here. But if she wishes to challenge the resurrection appearances of Jesus at the very heart of Christianity, she will have to do a great deal more. And some Christians do indeed think there are martyrdom cases that are very special if not unique. There could very well be reasons to make this claim, even though this is a piece of the pie rather than the entire pie itself. But some Christian martyrdom cases are strong, though the overall case in these volumes is much more nuanced. The last matter of Jesus’s appearances will be addressed further in these volumes.
21 A critical scholar could object that early Christians naturally would want these witnesses to be placed in the best light. But we saw that that is precisely what did not occur in many of the examples raised above, including several embarrassing accounts plus arguments between the early leaders. Further, Josephus has no reason to present the relevant data that he does when he recorded the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus.
22 Although there is no convincing argument indicating that Ignatius was a student of an apostle, as may have been the case with Papias, Ignatius probably wrote exceptionally soon after the close of the apostolic era, including the availability of the early reports. See the even-handed treatment by Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 248 (see chap. 2, n. 13).
23 Ignatius wrote: “Let me be given to the wild beasts. . . . Rather entice the wild beasts that they may become my sepulcher. . . . I may be found a sacrifice to God. . . . I will entice them that they may devour me promptly. . . . Come . . . wrenching of bones, hacking of limbs, crushings of my whole body. . . . Only be it mine to attain unto Jesus Christ” (Ign. Rom. 4–5)
24 Peter Morrall, “Murder and Society: Why Commit Murder?,” Centre for Crime and Justice Studies 60 (2006–2007): 36–37, especially the conclusion concerning the data available on the devastating effects on family and friends.
25 For critical agreement at numerous points here, see Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 130–31 (see chap. 2, n. 15); Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 167 (see chap. 6, n. 173); J. Doré, “Croire en la résurrection de Jésus-Christ,” Études 356 (1982): 536–37; Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 52, 92–94, 102 (see chap. 1, n. 41); Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 450–54, 568; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 85, 88, 96, 125, 129 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Shanks and Witherington, Brother of Jesus, 26–27 (Shanks), 106–9, 215 (Witherington) (see chap. 6, n. 166); Funk, Honest to Jesus, esp. 270 (see chap. 5, n. 7); Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 46–47 (see chap. 1, n. 42); John Shelby Spong, The Easter Moment (New York: Harper and Row, 1987), 192, 197–99; Willi Marxsen, Jesus and Easter: Did God Raise the Historical Jesus from the Dead?, trans. Victor Paul Furnish (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 66; Hengel, Atonement, 65 (see chap. 6, n. 86); Elliott, “First Easter,” 210, 215, 218 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 96 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Michael Grant, Saint Peter: A Biography (New York: Scribner, 1994), 89, 96; Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 11, 276–80 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Hugh Jackson, “The Resurrection Belief of the Earliest Church: A Response to the Failure of Prophecy,” Journal of Religion 55 (1975): 419–22; Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 1979, 8 (see chap. 6, n. 129).
26 Besides the above texts that comment on these matters, the relevant New Testament passages claim it was the resurrection appearances that provided the impetus for the disciples’ metamorphosis. The Gospel writers tell us that the risen Jesus commanded his followers to preach and teach his message (Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:45–53; pseudo-Mark 16:15–20). Subsequently, the apostolic proclamation focused on the resurrection message (Acts 4:2; 4:33), as the discussion below indicates.
27 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 231 (see chap. 5, n. 43). The comment also appears in Ehrman, New Testament, 253 (see chap. 4, n. 34).
28 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 230. In the quotation above, Ehrman also affirms in the ellipsis that “women from their group went to anoint Jesus’ body for burial and found it missing.” Ehrman, New Testament, 230. This portion was deleted because Ehrman later changed his view on the empty tomb in How Jesus Became God, 7, 142, 151, 164–69, 173–74, 184–86.
29 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:85–86 (see chap. 4, n. 47).
30 Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 60 (see chap. 2, n. 48).
31 Johnson, Living Jesus, 6 (see chap. 1, n. 19).
32 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 659 (see excursus 1, n. 65).
33 Hurtado, How on Earth, 34, see also 4–5, 29–30, 34–38 (see also chap. 9, n. 32). For further details on the nature of this appearance to Paul, see Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 71–72, 170, 547–48 (see excursus 1, n. 95).
34 A few of these scholars include Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 61–62, and Resurrecting Jesus, 200, 298 (see chap. 1, n. 30); Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 108–9, 131–34, 174; John Dominic Crossan, “Dialogue,” 33–34, 38 (see chap. 10, n. 94); Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 27, 135, 209 (see chap. 6, n. 151); Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, esp. 184–85 (see chap. 2, n. 32); Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 47; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 864–70; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 89–98 (see chap. 10, n. 17); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 268–69, 307–8 (see chap. 1, n. 25); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 2 (see chap. 10, n. 23); Moltmann, “Resurrection of Christ,” 215–17 (chap. 1, n. 44); Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:251–52 (see chap. 1, n. 27); Spong, Easter Moment, 197–99; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, particularly 317–29 (see chap. 6, n. 44); C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Expository Times 101 (1990): 169; Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life, vol. 2 of Systematic Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 489–90; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 321 (see chap. 10, n. 76); Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 186–87 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Francis Watson, “‘Historical Evidence’ and the Resurrection of Jesus,” Theology 90 (1987): 366; Grant, Saint Peter, 96.
35 Lowell Streiker, Mind-Bending (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984).
36 Of course, another’s mental state will virtually never be known fully. On the other hand, whether or not the cause appears warranted in terms of other religious claims may be included or judged to the best of our abilities in a number of these instances. Then if empirical, rational, or a combination of evidences are being proclaimed, the actual data may be examined further.
37 In the conclusion of his own lengthy study on this topic done originally as a PhD dissertation, Sean McDowell summarized his finding regarding the twelve original apostles plus the additional apostles Paul and James the brother of Jesus (with Matthias being included instead of Judas Iscariot), thus totaling fourteen men in number. McDowell’s summarized results were that the martyrdoms of only three apostles were judged to have the very highest level of probability (Peter, Paul, and James the son of Zebedee), while the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus was thought to be very probable. The martyrdom of only one other member, Thomas, was thought to have been more probable than not. Death at the hands of others was judged to be improbable in the case of John the son of Zebedee. The remaining eight apostles—Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias—were given some variety of a “plausible” rating, with the most common judgment being “as plausible as not.” In sum, then, the martyrdoms of four apostles were thought to be very probable or higher, one was ranked as just probable, while the remaining eight were accorded only low likelihoods of martyrdom, judging as far as can be known from the available data. See McDowell, Fate of the Apostles, with charts on 263–64. Of course, other apostles beyond the initial five who were judged to be very probable to some degree could also have been martyred. That is not being denied. It is just being said that McDowell thought these were the ones where there was some accompanying data that could potentially be examined. Other relevant sources include Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962); James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1995); Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2004); Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, eds., The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001); G. W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); John R. Claypool, The First to Follow: The Apostles of Jesus (Harrisburg, NY: Morehouse, 2008); Marie-Émile Boismard, Le martyre de Jean l’apôtre (Pende: Gabalda, 1996).
38 About the time the Third Quest for the historical Jesus was beginning, this issue was the subject of an intense German debate. In his earlier work, German historian and theologian Rudolf Pesch opposed the vast majority of scholars by arguing that Jesus’s teachings had prepared his disciples sufficiently for his death, and that was enough to lead to their concluding in some sense that Jesus had conquered death. See Pesch, “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu,” Theologische Quartalschrift 153 (1973): 201–28. But after years of discussion, debate, and critique by a number of influential scholars such as Martin Hengel, Peter Stuhlmacher, Walter Kaspar, and Jacob Kremer, Pesch changed his position, holding that the Easter visions were necessary for the disciples’ mission, being fully convinced that Jesus had been raised from the dead; see Pesch, “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu: Ein neuer Versach,” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 30 (1983): 73–98.
39 In spite of this comment, this does not determine the issue of the appearances once and for all. Questions concerning how Jesus appeared, whether these events can be explained naturally, and a host of other potential subjects remain to be resolved here and in the next volume of this study.
40 As Wright notes, the same point could be made concerning failed Jewish messianic leaders; see Resurrection of the Son of God, 700.
41 Gary R. Habermas, “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions,” Religious Studies 25 (1989): 167–77.
42 Moss, Myth of Persecution, 17.
43 As Moss asserts on 137.
44 For instances, see Gary R. Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 3–4, 8, 10, esp. 30 (see chap. 2, n. 33); Habermas, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,” in To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview. Essays in Honor of Norman L. Geisler, ed. Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 196, 198.
45 Such as 1 Cor 9:1; 15:3–8, 11; Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10.
46 On the application of Bayes’ Theorem specifically to the possibility of Jesus’s appearances having occurred, see Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate (see chap. 7, n. 18).
47 Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, such as the specific explanations for weighing prior evidence, particularly parts 2 and 3, such as the thoughts on pages 2–3, 9–10, 15–17.
48 See Timothy and Linda McGrew’s argument in “The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (Oxford: Blackwell, 2012), 597–644, esp. 609–16, 622–25, 641–42.
49 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, esp. 230–32.
50 Habermas, “Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,” 196.
51 From this added perspective, these thoughts describe further why the disciples’ transformations to the point of being willing to suffer and die for their convictions makes this consideration one of the minimal facts.
52 For two of the superior and lengthy critical treatments of this subject, see Meier, Marginal Jew, particularly 2:967–70; and Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 328–30 (see chap. 1, n. 30). It should be noted that none of these authors here think historians can actually determine if Jesus performed supernatural events of this nature, but rather, that events described in the Gospels as healings did occur. See Meier, 2:661, 968; Twelftree, 317, but compare 330; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 261.
53 Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, chaps. 2–3; McGrew and McGrew, “Argument from Miracles,” 630–31.
54 McGrew and McGrew, 630.
55 Habermas, “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions,” see the conclusion in particular.
56 For a detailed discussion on the relation of Jesus’s resurrection to eternal life, see Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, chaps. 1–7.
57 Further specific details were provided earlier in this chapter. Naturalistic and other alternative considerations are treated in the next volume of this study.
58 As expressed in John 11:25; 1 Thess 4:13; 1 Pet 1:3–4, and elsewhere.
59 For an excellent treatment here, see Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, most particularly 11–12, 20–21, and 140–46 for the major summaries.
60 See Acts 4:2–4, 19–20; 5:29–32, 40–42; Rom 15:13; 1 Pet 1:3–9 for examples.
61 Such passages include Acts 4:13–20, 31; 5:29–33, 40–41; Gal 1:18–2:10; 1 Cor 9:5; 15:11–15; Eph 2:20; Heb 2:3; 1 Pet 4:13–17; 2 Pet 3:2.
62 See 1 Clem. 42, 47; Ign. Eph. 12; Rom. 4; Phil. 5; Pol. Phld. 3, 9; Papias, Exposition of Oracles of the Lord, frgs. 3, 5, 6 (as enumerated in the 1891 Lightfoot edition from Macmillan); Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1; cf. 18.3.3.
63 Key indications of this willingness come from reports such as Acts 4:2, 18–20, 31; 5:29–32; 14:19–20; 16:22–24; 27:13–40, including many personal details of physical harm occurring, being provided mostly by Paul (1 Cor 15:30–32; 2 Cor 4:8–12; 11:23–33; Phil 1:20–24; 2 Pet 1:12–14; cf. Heb 12:2).
64 In Acts, these incidents included the deaths of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:1–2) as well as Stephen, one of the members of the “Seven” subleaders of the church (Acts 7:54–60). In John, Jesus predicts the martyrdom of Peter (John 21:18–19; cf. 2 Pet 1:13–15). On the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, see 1 Clem. 5; Pol. Phil. 9. On the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, see Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1. As mentioned already, though without discussing Jesus’s disciples, Pliny rather incredibly concedes concerning his torturing of believers that “there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances” (Ep. 97).
65 McDowell, Fate of the Apostles, 263–64.
66 Habermas, “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions,” 167–77.
67 See the earlier references in this chapter to Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, as well as the McGrews’ case in “Argument from Miracles,” for a further unpacking of similar reasoning.
68 Even apart from potential resurrection appearances, Stephen Neill notes the singular nature of Jesus’s teachings for us once again, especially regarding both God and himself: “Jesus is not the least like anyone else who has ever lived. The things that he says about God are not the same as the sayings of any other religious teacher. The claims that he makes for himself are not the same as those that have been made by any other religious teacher.” See Neill, Christian Faith and Other Faiths, 233 (see chap. 8, n. 102).
69 Not to get ahead of ourselves here, but it is relevant simply to mention that in the New Testament, the single belief that is said to result from Jesus’s resurrection is that believers would be raised from the dead like Jesus—another transformational belief in itself. But this comment awaits our further treatment in another of these volumes.