14: Minimal Fact 6: The Conversion of Paul
14
Minimal Fact 6: The Conversion of Paul
Of the many detailed reports and declarations of Jesus’s resurrection appearances contained in the canonical New Testament books and in additional writings shortly after that time, no author is taken more seriously by critical scholars than the apostle Paul. While there have been many attempts to define, describe, or unpack further the details of Paul’s postresurrection experience, such efforts are frequently done quite respectfully. Comparatively few scholarly researchers seem to challenge this apostle’s stated experience in disrespectful ways. While they may often disagree that Paul actually saw the risen Jesus, they take his comments seriously and respectfully. Why is that? Beginning with the primacy of Paul, the major reports of his experience will be discussed in this chapter, chiefly from Paul’s Epistles and the three main Acts narratives.
The Primacy of Paul
Critical scholars hold almost unanimously that at least seven of the New Testament Epistles attributed to Paul were actually written by him: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Even skeptical scholars refer to these texts as the “undisputed letters”1 or as those epistles that are “generally accepted as genuine without doubt.”2 These Pauline compositions are usually thought to have appeared in the decade of the 50s, from AD 50 to 60.3
Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) declared that after Jesus’s death by crucifixion, the risen Jesus appeared to him. This experience is taken even by very critical scholars to have constituted Paul’s specific call to ministry, commanding him to take the gospel message to the Gentiles (Gal 1:16).4 In probably the clearest of Paul’s statements, he cites Jesus’s appearance to him as providing the necessary credentials for his identification as an apostle (1 Cor 9:1). Further, Paul appended his appearance to the end of the very early, official list of other appearances of the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:3–8), fully recognizing that the lateness of his experience was a temporal anomaly. These two reports provide Paul’s clearest eyewitness statements of his own resurrection appearance that occurred just two to three years after Jesus’s crucifixion in the area of Damascus. This occurrence will be the focus of this chapter.
Secondary summaries of Jesus’s appearance to Paul on the way to Damascus are recounted three times in Acts (9:1–9; 22:1–11; 26:9–19). Luke, traditionally known as the best prospect for the authorship of Acts and Paul’s travel companion, presumably heard the apostle tell his own story more than once.
That this event is what inaugurated Paul becoming a follower of Jesus Christ is seldom denied. But such a drastic about-face from his previous path as an exceptional young scholar and chief persecutor of the church (Gal 1:13–14; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:4–7) to an apostle who never left the Christian path certainly demands an adequate explanation. Paul had no doubts that the reason was clear: he had met the risen Jesus.
The unanimity among critical scholars on Paul’s writing, preaching of the gospel, debating, and radically living the Christian life is really quite astonishing. It is generally acknowledged among scholars, whatever their theological leaning, that Paul was certainly the recipient of a real experience that he believed deeply to be an appearance of the risen Jesus—one that set the course for the remainder of his life. This experience surely accounts for his incredible transformation and untiring motivation to spread the gospel message. Because of reasons like these, Paul’s statements are regarded as eyewitness reports of his own experience. For example, as atheistic philosopher Michael Martin asserts, “We have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s.”5
Why is Paul’s experience given this place of priority in recent scholarly thinking? Jesus Seminar member Roy Hoover explains why Paul’s writings are the proper place from which to launch such a study: “The reason for starting here is simple and compelling: Paul’s testimony is the earliest and the most historically reliable evidence about the resurrection of Jesus that we have.”6 Hoover continues, “The most important evidence about the resurrection with which Paul provides us is . . . a direct claim that he has seen the risen Jesus.”7 Martin and Hoover are not alone on an island here; numerous other skeptical scholars have likewise agreed on the crucial nature of Paul’s experience and witness.8
Historian Donald Akenson even charges that critical scholars must take Paul even more seriously than they already do! Akenson also agrees that pride of position regarding Paul’s priority holds for similar reasons to those just mentioned by Hoover: Paul’s authentic letters are the earliest sources for the historical Jesus, plus they are the only New Testament writings whose authorship is clearly known. Yet, Akenson faults both liberal as well as conservative scholars for not being even more thoroughly committed to these Pauline conclusions.
Akenson thinks that liberals fail to give Paul his full due for two reasons: the centrality of the crucifixion and resurrection in Paul’s writings, plus their giving equal and perhaps even prior commitment to the so-called Q pre-Gospel source. Akenson faults conservatives even more for not preferring Paul more often without realizing that this apostle contributed plenty to an understanding of the historical Jesus. He suggests that Paul ought to be located firmly in the primary historical position ahead of the Gospels and Acts until the latter sources can be confirmed by Paul.9
Importantly then, critical scholars are generally in agreement today: Paul is the best authority regarding what we can learn about the historicity of Jesus and the earliest church. Of course, various scholars will argue especially for particular details taken from Mark, Q, or the other Gospel sources. Still, the preferential reasons favoring Paul usually hold, even in spite of the various theological differences present among commentators. Besides other aspects above, it is recognized that as a Pharisee, Paul was trained theologically, was honest and forthright, and really believed the doctrine that he taught. If he was mistaken at points, he would not have made these gaffs purposely.
Recent Trends regarding the Resurrection Appearance to Paul
One trend, however, has remained more or less steady during the past two centuries, often (though not always) as the most dominant view while almost always being present as a major, competing option. A large number of commentators have tended to conclude that whatever one decides regarding the other resurrection appearances of Jesus as depicted especially in the Gospels, Paul’s experience represents less than the sighting of the actual body of Jesus. Emphasizing the notion of the “spiritual body” and primarily highlighting 1 Cor 15:35–50, these scholars have accentuated the transformed side of this equation more than the “bodily” side in discussions.
Speaking generally, this view has usually been adopted in one of two chief forms. One explanation, almost always dismissing the reality of miracles and supernatural involvement, argues that while Paul himself taught that he really saw a heavenly vision of Jesus, it was actually an internal experience, understanding, or occurrence. This view has persisted in some form up until today, and often as the majority position. Those who hold the other perspective on Paul’s experience agree in emphasizing the spiritual component and downplaying the strongly bodily element while still taking the position that Paul was actually correct to this extent: he truly did witness a disembodied, glorified vision of the exalted Jesus who did appear to him.10
However, during the past few decades a rather dramatic shift has emerged, at least in certain limited though sometimes even highly critical theological circles almost concurrent with the rise of the Third Quest for the historical Jesus movement. This general position often argues that Paul at least thought he had encountered basically the same raised and transformed body (Greek: soma) of Jesus as had his fellow apostles. This view is itself split in two. On the one hand, contemporary commentators may agree that while this is what Paul both thought and taught happened to Jesus, the apostle’s position is still rejected by these scholars perhaps in favor of either the more naturalistic position or the real but disembodied appearances position. On the other hand, other recent scholars argue both that this was Paul’s personal view and that they agree with Paul’s conclusion.11
To repeat, the first option here that Paul held the bodily position is preferred by many major researchers who hold this exegesis to be correct while doubting or denying actual resurrection appearances themselves. For example, German New Testament researcher Gerd Lüdemann holds that Paul’s appearance was a subjective vision, yet he thinks Paul’s language requires that the apostle actually believed that the risen Jesus appeared as an actual body.12
Likewise, after juxtaposing the three Acts descriptions of Paul’s conversion with Paul’s own briefer comments, John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed opt for the latter bodily view for Paul, since Paul’s Epistles are the primary texts while the Acts accounts are secondary. Taken in concert with Paul’s view of the nature of the resurrection body of both Jesus as well as believers, they argue that Paul held to bodily resurrection appearances,13 and at least Crossan rejects hallucinations as the cause.14 Crossan develops this analysis elsewhere as well.15 Lüdemann, Crossan, and Reed are far from alone in this contrast either.16
Briefly, the most recent and cutting-edge trend in contemporary scholarship on these issues takes the entirety of Paul’s language into consideration regarding the resurrection body of both Jesus and believers, rather strongly favoring the notion that even Paul taught that Jesus appeared to him after his death in a bodily manner.17 As noted elsewhere in this study, there remain differences in how various commentators shade this meaning here and there, sometimes just slightly, while still primarily favoring the bodily side of the equation. For example on what is termed a bodily appearance view, the distinction is quite often made that the notion involves the body being of a fine, highly distilled substance.18
Nevertheless, Paul’s treatment in 1 Corinthians 15 and elsewhere indicates that while Jesus’s body must have changed in some manner,19 exhibiting a new spiritual component (cf. Phil 1:21), it was still his own body. Among several other reasons to be discussed later, not only did Paul teach precisely this, but this also would go a long way in explaining why Jesus was not always recognized immediately when he appeared initially (as in Luke 24:16; John 20:14; pseudo-Mark 16:12). Thus, we must do justice to both of the Pauline terms in the apostle’s concept of the “spiritual body” (15:42–44). A few researchers have even gone as far as to argue that Paul thought of his own appearance as even “more ‘objective’ and ‘physical’” than the other resurrection appearances!20 This is certainly a remarkable about-face from the past two centuries of research.
As commented, many recent theologians do not criticize Paul much on the nature of Jesus’s resurrection appearance to him. Generally, the experience is often simply stated in a straightforward manner and left there. Nonetheless, enough questions have been raised throughout the past two centuries to require a historical response. A number of these views are discussed in the second volume.
Countering Challenges to Jesus’s Appearance to Paul
So what was the nature of Paul’s experience? Was it only a subjective, inward revelation, or were at least some items observed by those around him?21 For instance, Acts reports that the other travelers who accompanied Paul also noticed something—a voice perhaps. In older treatments, the distinction was sometimes made that Paul’s companions may have heard the sound of a voice (9:7) although without distinguishing the message itself (22:9). This suggestion often involved the possible contrast of the two senses of phōnē in the Greek, as in hearing a sound but without comprehending the meaning (akouontes men tēs phōnēs in the genitive case in 9:7—as contrasted with tēn de phōnēn ouk ēkousan in the accusative case in 22:9). In everyday communication it is a normal occurrence for the crux of discussions to be missed by those present. However, while there may be something to the underlying point here,22 this idea is not evidenced by the Greek terms themselves.23
But there are other possible indicators here of at least a partially shared experience on this occasion. The reader is told that the other men also witnessed an extraordinary light (Acts 22:9; 26:13) and, like Paul, they likewise responded by falling to the ground (26:14). The light blinded Paul for three days (9:8–9; 22:11). The latter descriptions here involved elements beyond Paul’s experience, including being observed by others who were present. Additionally, against the popular statement or suggestion that Paul had only witnessed a heavenly light or internal revelation, the texts in Acts also affirm that Paul did see Jesus (9:17, 27; 26:16). In agreement here, Lüdemann correctly recognizes these more objective elements as being present in the Acts narratives as well.24 Keener likewise notes these “corporate experiences.”25
It has long been held regularly, going back to at least early nineteenth-century German liberalism, that Paul perhaps suffered any number of psychological maladies that led to mystical, inward experiences, most commonly identified as profound grief for his past persecution of believers.26 But there are several serious issues here. Mystical convictions are one thing, but postulating possible inward conditions such as these is unsupported in any specific way by the available evidence, especially when simultaneously ignoring the early and authoritative data that we already possess which teach the opposite view. Such practices are not the best research routes to take.
Further, contemporary attempts to psychoanalyze Paul almost 2,000 years after the facts to interpret what “must” have been on his mind at that time is widely agreed by all sides to be unproductive and ungrounded. This is especially the case if the desired outcome is to utilize modern techniques to “discover” a particular un-supported foreign agenda.
Moreover, the subjective mindsets which are often attributed to Paul are a truly meager basis on which to ground this apostle’s unwavering assurance that he truly had seen an appearance of the risen Jesus, especially when taking his level of sacrificial commitment forward to the end of his life in the context of his intense suffering.
Lastly, the frequent critical stance to downgrade the overall Acts accounts while at the same time approving the language regarding Paul’s conversion is another weakness in some recent research. Why this inconsistency, especially when the moves appear to further a particular position? Such problematic methodological and conceptual underpinnings are insufficient moves to try and explain away Jesus’s resurrection appearance to Paul.27
Steps toward a Positive Case
Beyond these clarifications, several additional, positive principles may be more helpful in establishing the actual nature of Jesus’s appearance to Paul, this time based on what is known about those times. In other words, though Paul’s experience has not been disproven, are there any further reasons to ascertain better just what may have happened? A couple of potential signposts in this quest will be viewed briefly.
Initially, William Lane Craig has argued “that while the appearance to Paul was semi-visionary in nature, it cannot be properly conceived of as a simple vision, for the experience involved extra-mental accompaniments, namely, the light and the voice.”28 In discussing Paul’s conversion accounts in Acts, Craig attempts to allow for both the subjective as well as the objective features in the narratives. These three Acts accounts should cause the reader to steer away from overemphasizing just one or the other sort of experiential features, as is too often done, by taking both aspects into account.
Craig is not alone in this observation either. Moving in what some commentators take to be a more balanced direction, however, may push others toward the tendencies of the objective vision thesis for Paul, as discussed earlier. But it should not be forgotten that this critical position championed by Keim and others was still exceptionally critical of alternative notions like the hallucination and other subjective scenarios on the one hand, while fully espousing real appearances of Jesus, though typically nonbodily ones, on the other. Though these experiences were thought to be less corporeal in nature, several stronger, more objective features were still present and could be emphasized according to these data as well, in the effort to emphasize both sides of these teachings. What Craig termed the “extra-mental accompaniments” in the real world were like those that were also witnessed by Paul’s companions.29
For Keim and others who did take the objective vision thesis during the middle of the German liberal First Quest for the historical Jesus, the conclusions could be somewhat surprising to say the least. Keim thought that Jesus actually appeared to his followers, though in less-than-bodily form, but he still recognized that his thesis was supernatural in nature. The appearances were still termed miracles, so these events could point to or even evidence God’s activity in the life of his son Jesus by raising him from the dead! Actually, most of Christianity’s other major doctrines could be true on this thesis as well. Keim even allowed that Jesus’s appearances may actually have been corporeal in nature!30 These experiences can also ground the belief in human immortality in the process.31
Actually, more radical scholars could find themselves on the horns of a dilemma here. If the Acts narratives are counted as either secondary or unreliable, as critical scholars often prefer, then Paul’s own comments in his epistles would even more obviously take precedence regarding his own appearance experience plus his specific teachings on the nature of the resurrection bodies of believers. This would clearly strengthen the notion that these appearances took the form of more bodily events. This view is discussed at length in a later volume of this study regarding recent views of Jesus’s resurrection body, and it is often, with variations, taken as the more favored position at present. Perhaps surprising to some, this position is even preferred by a number of other skeptical scholars who, though they often reject the actual resurrection itself, still hold that a bodily resurrection is clearly taught in the New Testament, including by Paul. Favoring versions of bodily resurrection as Paul’s view is held by critical scholars such as Lüdemann, Crossan and Reed (above), plus Ehrman,32 Vermes,33 Lapide,34 and Allison,35 among many others.
However, if the reliability of Acts is judged to be approximately the same as that of the Gospels (though this is a rare position among quite critical scholars), then it would seem that the appearances depicted in Luke 24:13–53 and Acts 1:1–11 would need to be given a new hearing in the direction of bodily appearances. Intriguingly, Luke clearly does not think there is a problem between the earlier bodily appearances to the apostles and the appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus. It is arguably more difficult of late to juxtapose the appearances to the apostles as opposed to those to Paul.36
Crucially for our study here, both of these positions on the nature of Acts favor the actual occurrence of a resurrection appearance to Paul, at least by recognizing that this was the position taken by the New Testament writers themselves. Likewise, on both views of Paul’s experience as either being a bodily or a semi-visionary event (as mentioned above by Craig), this also favors an actual appearance to Paul. These two juxtaposed angles increase the likelihood that Jesus Christ’s appearance to Paul was a real event.
The second consideration here is this: as influential as Paul’s appearance was, his chief contribution to resurrection studies may not have been testifying to his own experience that led to his conversion from that of the infamous Christian persecutor to an apostle of Jesus Christ and perhaps the best known missionary-theologian of all time. Arguably, Paul’s greatest role may well have been as the apostle who knew the other key apostolic eyewitnesses and who heard their own testimonies to their resurrection appearances. The vital connections here were Paul’s two early trips to Jerusalem to interview the other most influential apostles, namely, Peter and James the brother of Jesus, and the second time with Peter, James, and John, concerning the nature of the Christian gospel message, as Paul states in Gal 1:18–20 and 2:1–10. Their agreement with Paul on this topic is indicated in Gal 2:6, 9. Paul also clearly acknowledges that the other apostles’ testimony concerning Jesus’s resurrection appearances were the same as his, in that they were all preaching and teaching of a resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:11).
Especially for those scholars who question whether (or how much) eyewitness testimony stands behind the teachings of the canonical Gospels, Paul’s trips to Jerusalem indicate an amazingly crucial path to the other major apostles’ testimonies, reported by the chief source accepted by contemporary critical scholars, namely, Paul.37 For example, Ehrman counts Paul having known the other major apostles and hearing their testimony as the first of two “especially key” indications of the data that favor the historicity of Jesus. Ehrman thinks that Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem here are two of the best indications that Jesus was indeed a historical person. Speaking of Paul’s first fifteen-day trip to Jerusalem speaking with Peter and James, Ehrman states, “These are two good people to know if you want to know anything about the historical Jesus.” Ehrman then adds almost wistfully, “I wish I knew them.” Then Ehrman asks: “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?”38 Thus, from Paul we learn about what the four most influential apostles knew about Jesus and his resurrection appearances.39
A Checklist: Data Supporting Paul’s Resurrection Appearance
From the available data, what sorts of reasons have grounded the virtually unanimous view of critical scholars, causing them to take Paul’s conversion event on the road to Damascus so seriously? Why did the Jesus Seminar rate Paul’s experience with a “virtually certain” red rating, even if they usually rejected the actual resurrection event itself? Arguments of some sort, stated concisely, lie behind the scenes of this occurrence.
(1) As a baseline starting point, it is quite clear that Paul was an ardent non-Christian before his conversion (Gal 1:13–14; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:4–7), even to the point of persecuting Christians “to their death” according to Acts 22:4. The “zeal” for his previous beliefs was a huge contrast with the later path he took due to his assurance that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
(2) That Paul had a real experience that he believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus is quite secure from the historical data and is accordingly affirmed by the vast majority of critical scholars. To repeat the words of passionate atheistic philosopher Michael Martin: “We have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s.”40 As prominent Jesus Seminar member Roy Hoover continues, “The most important evidence about the resurrection with which Paul provides us is . . . a direct claim that he has seen the risen Jesus.”41
(3) Judging from the three reports in Acts, there are external indications that Paul’s fellow travelers also witnessed the accompanying extraordinary light and at least the sound of a voice while responding by falling to the ground. But if Acts is disallowed, then there is no reason from these records to doubt the objectivity of Paul’s experience.
(4) The very earliest apostolic gospel teaching (the homologia), James’s conversion, the date of Paul’s conversion, the original date of the pre-Pauline creedal tradition that this apostle passed to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15, and Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem to interview Peter and James are all exceptionally early events. It is agreed by critical scholars that each of these five occurrences happened within five to six years at the latest after the crucifixion.42 Hoover is an example of the critical researchers who cite these dates,43 as are other Jesus Seminar members, such as Robert Funk,44 Howard Clark Kee,45 and Thomas Sheehan.46 Ehrman declares on many occasions that these earliest creedal traditions or their components extend back to the 30s, with some of them dating from just one to two years after the crucifixion!47 Comments such as these could be literally multiplied from the writings of even very critical researchers, with many other examples already having been given in the three chapters here on the disciples’ experiences, the early date of these events, and the creedal traditions.
(5) Without any question, Paul’s accepted epistles plus his actions over the years indicate many times over that he had been living a transformed life far beyond his many travels and “missionary journeys” alone, even to the point of constantly placing himself in harm’s way for the opportunity to preach the gospel.48 Owing to such convictions, as Ehrman reports, Paul and the other disciples of Jesus “eventually turned the world on its ear.”49
(6) Multiple attestation from independent sources also confirms Paul’s authority and experience at various points. It has already been mentioned that Paul’s own authentic writings are enough testimony for most critical academics. However, further sources include Acts, Clement (about AD 95), Ignatius, and Polycarp (both ca. 110), among others.
(7) Paul’s testimony in itself is exceptionally embarrassing on its own grounds. That a leader among the apostles had a previous history that was so serious that he may even have been guilty in whole or in part of actually participating in the deaths of Christians (Acts 7:54–60; 22:4) is a tough backstory to speak about openly. Hence, it is somewhat surprising that these reports were told often enough and with details (Gal 1:23–24). Paul’s truthful report came from a previous adversary who knew well the case against Christians and wanted them stopped immediately. Yet in spite of this knowledgeable background, he still converted and became a Christian leader, no doubt playing an important role in causing others to at least consider Jesus’s message.50 At any rate, though quite embarrassing, such an eyewitness and actual participant on both sides of the debate probably facilitated both a greater outreach for the Christian gospel message as well as provided a stronger quality of evidence on behalf of the Christian claims.
(8) Seen from a different perspective, Paul’s brief testimonies were not only embarrassing, but his former life was spent as an enemy of the gospel message before his present postconversion life of following his Lord. In short, Paul brought several key contrasts with him into the church, while concluding that living according to what he had believed as an adversary of the Christian message was not to be compared to what he was experiencing presently (1 Cor 9:24–27; Phil 3:12–14). While James the brother of Jesus did not possess the same enemy status as did Paul, convincing a family member to change their mind can often be a very difficult prospect as well. And since James spent significant time with Paul on at least two early occasions (Gal 1:18–2:10; cf. Acts 15:1–31), he would have been able to observe the renovation of Paul’s own life in a firsthand manner. In both cases, these two men who later became apostles themselves brought a different sort of testimony to back up the truth of Paul’s message.
(9) It was remarked above that Paul was more than willing to place his life on the line many times over to preach the gospel message, as his own writings attest. Adding significantly to this truth is that Paul actually died as a martyr due to his own missionary activity. This is related by both Clement (1 Clem. 5) as well as by Polycarp (Phil. 9). Other relevant early texts that also provide hints include 2 Tim 4:6–8, 16–18, and Ignatius (Eph. 12.2; Rom. 4). Most scholars place Paul’s martyrdom in the 60s, during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero (r. AD 54–68).51 In his doctoral study of early Christian martyrdom, Sean McDowell rates the certainty of Paul’s death as “the highest possible probability.”52
(10) Another factor that adds to the value of Paul’s accounts is that he was well educated as a Pharisee whose study and intelligence are indicated in his writings such as Romans, where he is more than able to carry out an argument to thoughtful conclusions. Rather obviously, being well educated and intelligent by no means guarantees good observation skills or taking the right view on potential issues. But in situations such as Paul’s evaluating the issues involved in his conversion from Judaism or in his early interviews (historēsai, Gal 1:18) with the apostles Peter, James, and John in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18–2:10), the value of Paul’s training shines.
(11) Lastly, suffice it to say for now that if the highly detailed examination of alternative challenges in the second volume of this study fails to locate other likely theses contrary to what has been concluded in this text, then that conclusion will add to the likelihood that the most probable thesis is that Paul did experience an appearance of the risen Jesus on his way to Damascus. While the full examination must wait until the next volume, even from the comments earlier in this chapter, naturalistic theses do not seem to have gained a major foothold in explaining the nature of Paul’s experience. This theme will be mentioned again in the conclusion immediately below.
As with the treatment of James’s experience in the previous chapter, there are fewer arguments in these last two cases than with the first four minimal facts. Eleven considerations in favor of Paul’s experience remains a strong number, including the possibility of unpacking still more secondary arguments from this list as well, depending on the evaluator.
The final item to be remembered here is a major one. Even most critical specialists in related areas of study usually agree with the general outline of the considerable amount of data that is known about Paul, with some key aspects being assembled throughout this chapter. It was pointed out above that the scholarly view on Paul in the contemporary literature is usually quite positive—perhaps providing Paul with a “head start” on this subject! Many scholars are satisfied with the available information. For those who doubt or reject the resurrection appearances of Jesus, the case constructed here contains plenty of supporting material through which to dialogue through the options. Therefore, the evaluative discussion may move forward in the next volume.
Conclusion
Jesus’s resurrection appearance to Paul is well founded in terms of the available data. The alternative hypotheses that are often suggested to explain this specific event quite frequently build on features that may have been present during Paul’s journey to Damascus. Internal possibilities especially mention possible subjective mental conditions that might have been transpiring in Paul’s mind or any of several physical problems that may have plagued this apostle. The problems with these and other hypotheses are many, including chiefly the utter lack of corresponding mental, physical, or historical data for any of these suggestions, as even major skeptical critics have pointed out repeatedly. There are extreme limitations in attempting to psychoanalyze Paul or anyone else almost 2,000 years after the facts.
On the other hand, the positive reports available argue in a totally different direction. If the three accounts in Acts 9, 22, and 26 are accepted in a more or less straightforward manner, as is popular even among many quite skeptical researchers (most likely being due to the visionary features that are mentioned), then there are several reasons to hold that what happened to Paul was external to him, as indicated by the outward features, especially those mentioned as affecting his traveling companions. Therefore, in addition to any visionary features that are often emphasized by more critical scholars, the accompanying shared features that affected Paul’s companions in the same context likewise need to be balanced fairly.
If these Acts narratives are disallowed or are chiefly downplayed, then such moves serve to emphasize Paul’s own eyewitness statements such as 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8, where the apostle employed the language of normal sight, as taken in the immediate context of chapter 15. These appearance reports are buttressed further by Paul’s major teachings on the nature of the resurrection appearances of Jesus as well as the future resurrection bodies of believers, which Paul held to be bodily events including the accompanying transformation. That this latter view of Paul’s position has even been recognized in recent years by a large number of scholars, even though many of these researchers reject the supernatural features themselves, is surely significant.53
Additionally, it must be mentioned once again, as explained above, that even if the appearance to Paul involved more visionary features than the earlier appearances did two to three years before his conversion, as some scholars have held, the chief issue here is not to attempt to decipher the exact features of Paul’s appearance or to assess a comparison between him and the other earlier events.54 After all, according to Acts, Paul’s appearance at least differs from those of the other apostles in that his was subsequent to Jesus’s glorification. By far the most crucial question at this point concerns whether what occurred to Paul or anyone else actually involved the risen Jesus being present rather than outlining the exact form in which this might have happened. After all, establishing the fact of Paul’s experience is more crucial than delineating its form.
Thus, even an appearance like the one to Paul, if it actually occurred, would affirm Jesus’s actual resurrection from the dead in that Jesus presumably would have been present, whatever form that took, as indicated by the observed aspects of Jesus’s appearances.55 So if these appearances were actually detected in some sense by more than one person, particularly in groups of several individuals,56 or if Jesus had been touched by or eaten food with his disciples, the position that these events actually occurred to Jesus himself would be strengthened. This would lessen the possibility of these testimonies simply being due to the internal states or misplaced perceptions of the disciples.57
Finally, amid all the discussion in this chapter regarding the nature of the appearance to Paul, this apostle’s foremost contribution to resurrection studies may well have been his acquaintance and discussions with the other foremost apostles concerning the nature of the gospel message, namely, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John, as Paul narrates in Galatians 1–2. After hearing their details, Paul confirmed that the other apostolic eyewitnesses to the appearances of the risen Jesus were also teaching precisely what he was regarding the truth and nature of these events, so much so that Paul told his readers that they would get the same answers if any of the apostles were asked for the details (1 Cor 15:11). Paul states these comments carefully too, immediately after providing the creedal list of appearances in which the other apostles like Peter and James had also participated (1 Cor 15:3–7).
Ehrman states that Paul’s direct discussions with the other major apostles are among the two most crucial indicators of Jesus’s historicity. Moreover, he admits that this pre-Pauline creed and others like it that were cited by Paul could have come from Jerusalem, were probably already in existence before Paul’s trip to Damascus, and could have been handed down by the same apostles who witnessed the appearances of Jesus. Since Paul met face-to-face in this same city with these apostolic leaders after his conversion, we are therefore close to their original eyewitness testimony here! At any rate, material like this concerning Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection was certainly in circulation at this very early pre-Pauline date.58
Notes
1 Ehrman, New Testament, 290 (see chap. 4, n. 34).
2 Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:52 (see chap. 4, n. 47).
3 Koester prefers AD 50–56 in Introduction to the New Testament, 2:103–4, while Ehrman takes the general period of AD 50–60 in New Testament, 44.
4 The interpretation of this passage may be the most difficult, including both exegetical as well as theological issues for consideration. For example, it is sometimes disputed whether Paul was speaking in this particular text concerning Jesus’s actual appearance to him, or possibly addressing later spiritual results from this event being manifested in his own life, or speaking of another revelation from the Lord altogether. For example, Wright raises the issue that the Greek preposition en here could emphasize “either god’s [sic] revelation of his son to Paul, or his revelation of his son through Paul.” Or it could mean both at once. Wright thinks that since the context in the very next clause in this sentence indicates Paul’s taking the gospel message to the Gentiles, then God revealing his son through Paul makes the most sense. Regardless, Wright argues that this distinction alleviates the entire discussion of whether or not Paul thought his appearance was a private, internal event. See Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 378–381 (see chap. 6, n. 44). Still, much of the discussion here has often raised the subject of Paul’s experience, with questions pertaining particularly to the preposition that Paul employs (en emoi). Does in or to make the most sense in this context of addressing the nature of Paul’s experience? Of course, this distinction and angle on the discussion often assumes that Paul was describing the appearance of the risen Jesus in the first place, begging the question from the outset, which is not known for sure according to the commentators. Somewhat surprisingly, both Michael Licona in Resurrection of Jesus, 375–79 (see chap. 2, n. 13), as well as Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 380, show how a wide variety of theological commentators are divided between the meaning of the preposition, lining up on the same sides. Elsewhere in this same epistle, Paul has no trouble speaking in terms of Christ living in him (Gal 2:20), or the Holy Spirit living in believers (4:6), or believers being in Christ (3:28). Licona translates every instance of this phrase in Paul’s Epistles, concluding that the context can indicate either of these major meanings with “equal plausibility.” He therefore concludes that the meaning of en throughout similar contexts in this epistle indicates that the meaning of Gal 1:16 is “unclear.” See Licona, Resurrection of Jesus 376–78. Reinforcing this position is that, rather surprisingly, liberal and conservative commentators alike line up with both major views; see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 378; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 380. Overall, many commentators agree that the best way to interpret this passage is to view it through the lens and context of the clearest verses and, most of all, in light of Paul’s overall teaching on the nature of both Jesus’s as well as the believer’s resurrection bodies.
5 Martin, Case against Christianity, 81, also 89 (see chap. 2, n. 28).
6 Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 129 (see chap. 10, n. 56).
7 Hoover, 130–31.
8 Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 4 (see chap. 1, n. 41); Funk, Honest to Jesus, 36, 40 (see chap. 5, n. 7); Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” 15 (see chap. 10, n. 130); Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 80, 83 (see chap. 5, n. 40); Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, 47 (see excursus 1, n. 12).
9 Akenson, Saint Saul, esp. 122–25, 137–43, 166–70 (see chap. 3, n. 118). To the contrary, Dale Allison cautions readers concerning overprioritizing Paul to the extreme. See Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 92–93 (see chap. 2, n. 15).
10 Several of the more influential critical scholars who held similar positions include most notably Theodor Keim, Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 3:506–621 (see chap. 10, n. 104). These specific ideas were presented in 3:602–3. Other major scholars who took this general angle included Kirsopp Lake, The Historical Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (New York: Putnam, 1907). The page numbers here are from the second printing (London: Williams and Norgate, 2012; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, n.d.), 267–77, particularly 269; Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 93, 96, 102 (see chap. 10, n. 24); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 49, 69–70, 170–172 (see chap. 10, n. 23). Many other very influential critical scholars followed these researchers and are discussed in detail in the second volume of this set.
11 For a survey of recent scholarship on this contrast, see Gary R. Habermas, “Mapping the Recent Trend toward the Bodily Resurrection Appearances of Jesus in Light of Other Prominent Critical Positions,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 78–92.
12 Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus?, 103.
13 Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 8–9, also 173, 296–97, 341–45 (see chap. 10, n. 66).
14 “Dialogue: N. T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan,” in Stewart, Resurrection of Jesus, 33, cf. 34, 38. Also, Crossan, Historical Jesus, 407 (see chap. 6, n. 44).
15 John Dominic Crossan, “The Resurrection of Jesus in Its Jewish Context,” Neotestamentica 37 (2003): 42–43, 48–51.
16 Many other scholarly examples are provided in the chapters in this study specifically on the Objective Vision Theory, the New Testament teaching on the nature of Jesus’s resurrection body (especially Paul’s view), as well as elsewhere throughout. It is clear, however, that neither Lüdemann nor Crossan are among those scholars who think that Jesus was actually raised from the dead in any sort of actual, living body.
17 John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), passim.
18 Crossan speaks similarly of a range of literal and metaphorical views on this subject; see Crossan, “Resurrection of Jesus,” esp. 55.
19 For example, allowance must be made for Paul’s rather striking comparisons on this subject in 1 Cor 15:35–49, such as the differences between a seed and the adult plant (15:37–38); between human, animal, bird, and fish flesh (15:39); or between heavenly bodies such as the sun, moon, and stars (15:40–41), not to mention the difference between one star and another (15:41).
20 Wenham, Paul, 369 (see excursus 2, n. 55); Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 158 (see chap. 10, n. 146).
21 It should be noted here that the purpose in this chapter is not to introduce and answer naturalistic challenges regarding Paul’s appearance. That overall theme of alternative theses is the topic for volume 2 of this extended study and hence has not been considered in any detail elsewhere in this initial volume. Further, the questions regarding Paul’s appearance need not even be naturalistic in the first place. As mentioned above, many of those scholars who think that Paul’s appearance was less than bodily still accept the reality of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. This discussion is to help clarify and ascertain how much evidence there is for Paul’s appearance, which cannot be done without entertaining these questions.
22 This would presumably be like the distinctions normally made when someone responds by clarifying that while they did indeed hear the one speaking to them, they still missed enough of the crucial words so as to be unclear regarding the overall meaning being communicated.
23 As pointed out by Keener, Acts, 279n1002 (see chap. 9, n. 38).
24 Lüdemann notes that in these three Acts appearance accounts, Paul’s companions both saw the light (108, 110) as well as heard the voice of the speaker (112). Lüdemann also acknowledges that the text “presupposed” that Saul actually did see Jesus (Early Christianity, 114; see chap. 10, n. 70). As mentioned above, Lüdemann does not accept the literal resurrection appearances.
25 Keener, Acts, the quotation is from 279, cf. also 585.
26 As noted by historian Grant, Saint Paul, 104–13 (see excursus 2, n. 106), who also acknowledges the thinness of the data to argue these alternate views about Paul (108–9).
27 I have responded elsewhere to other recent questions regarding Paul’s experience, such as Evan Fales’s contention that Paul may have converted in order to move up the social ladder(!) or that Paul manifested a case of conversion disorder (which has nothing to do with religious conversion). For my response to Fales, see “On the Resurrection Appearances of Jesus,” Philosophia Christi 3 (2001). A critique of the conversion disorder hypothesis may be found in more detail in Joseph W. Bergeron and Gary R. Habermas, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A Clinical Review of Psychiatric Hypotheses for the Biblical Story of Easter,” Irish Theological Quarterly 80 (2015): 1–16; Habermas, “Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories,” Christian Research Journal 23 (2001).
28 Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 393, with almost the same words on 395, cf. 158, 345–46.
29 Note carefully that though Craig’s words were cited above, he clearly does not favor the objective-vision view of Jesus’s appearances. For example, see Craig’s clear exposition in “The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus,” in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 1:47–74.
30 Keim, Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 3:603.
31 Keim, 3:602–3.
32 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 257–58; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 132–13, 137, 168–69, 176–78, 181, 185, cf. 206–10 (see chap. 6, n. 173).
33 Vermes, Resurrection, 6–7, 75–78 (see chap. 5, n. 14).
34 Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 125 (see chap. 6, n. 173), though Lapide’s view is a little more difficult to ascertain.
35 Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 92–93; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, esp. 317, also 225–27, 265–66, 324–25 (see chap. 1, n. 30). Note that Allison is another scholar who does not deny the resurrection appearances of Jesus.
36 It has been suggested that the reason for these differences in Luke–Acts is because Luke did not count Paul’s appearance on the same level as those to the apostles. But this is a difficult thesis to sustain consistently throughout, especially if Luke was Paul’s companion. Further, Luke clearly portrays Paul as having actually seen the resurrected Jesus, as noted above (Acts 9:17, 27; 26:16).
37 For instance, when the Jesus Seminar considered the historicity of Jesus’s actions, they awarded the highest rating to Paul’s comment in 1 Cor 15:8 that he had seen the risen Jesus (454; also 458). The comment from the early pre-Pauline creed just a few verses earlier (15:3) that Jesus had also appeared to Peter was given the second-highest demarcation (453, 36). This in itself indicates the respect that the Jesus Seminar paid to Paul’s teachings. See Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, pages listed here (see chap. 4, n. 84).
38 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144–45.
39 Paul’s two visits to Jerusalem will not be pursued further in this chapter, since they already formed the center of the previous two chapters on the eyewitness testimony and early minimal facts.
40 Martin, Case against Christianity, 81, also 89.
41 Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 130–31.
42 Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 93–94 (see chap. 11, n. 46).
43 Hoover, “Was Jesus’ Resurrection an Historical Event?,” esp. 78, 82 (see chap. 10, n. 40).
44 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 32–35, 38, 40.
45 Kee, What Can We Know, 1–2, 23, 61, 86 111–14 (see chap. 4, n. 46).
46 Sheehan, First Coming, particularly 110, 118 (see excursus 1, n. 16). Sheehan even grants a pre-Markan passion narrative that he dates at about AD 35 (135–46)!
47 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 92–93, 140–41, 156–57, 251, 254; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–39, 218.
48 Such as he describes in 2 Cor 4:7–12, 16–18; 7:5–7; 11:23–29; Phil 2:28; cf. Acts 14:19–20; 16:22–24.
49 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 230 (see chap. 5, n. 43).
50 Though no one can be sure, of course, it would have been intriguing to know what was behind the large number of Jewish priests who, we are told, became Christians at an early date, especially since they presumably would have known some important items from the inside too (Acts 6:7b). Like Paul, they also converted.
51 Ehrman, New Testament, 331; cf. 418; Sean McDowell, Fate of the Apostles, 99–101 (see chap. 12, n. 19).
52 McDowell, 113.
53 As indicated in detail in several cases throughout this study on the nature of Jesus’s appearances as well as the resurrected bodies of believers.
54 The latter is done in more than one place throughout this study as well.
55 Of course, alternative suggestions as to the nature of these appearances would also have to be entertained, as has been done in many instances throughout this study.
56 Skeptical scholars who reject the resurrection of Jesus obviously do not wish there to be a strong case for such evidenced appearances, particularly the group citations. That this is indeed the case is indicated by frequently forced or strained arguments against group appearances that sometimes appear to be more obviously contrived or argued more poorly than the data would warrant. Examples include Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–39, for one instance, especially when compared to his earlier volume, Did Jesus Exist?, 249, or a report from the Jesus Seminar that addresses these group sightings. See “The Jesus Seminar Spring Meeting 1995,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: A Sourcebook, ed. Bernard Brandon Scott (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2008), 47.
57 This will be one of the chief considerations in the chapter on objective visions in the next volume and was the reason why this view, though disputed in this volume, was still considered to be a pro-resurrection position according to those who held (or still hold) this view. In such a case, the events actually occurred to the living Jesus himself rather than to just the disciples alone.
58 Many of these relevant details are found in several of Ehrman’s works, such as Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 144–48, 232, 251, 261–63; How Jesus Became God, 138–40; New Testament, 253, 292–96, 308; and Apocalyptic Prophet, 227–32.