17: The Last Four Known Facts

17: The Last Four Known Facts

17

The Last Four Known Facts

Earlier in this lengthy study it was pointed out that many recent critical scholars over the past few decades began their forays into “Jesus studies” by setting forth lists of data that were largely admitted as historical events by their peers. Seldom were debates ever initiated by any of these counts, due to the general and well-evidenced nature of the facts. Such endeavors were probably attempted to establish accredited data as a common ground and a convenient way to begin research without having to relay groundwork and to avoid much controversy.

One incredible element that largely characterized these ventures was the diversity of the views held by scholars. These nearly unanimous historical verdicts were represented and held by a very wide cross section of both scholars and relevant disciplines. As to their personal beliefs, the individual researchers included atheists, agnostics, other skeptics, adherents to non-Christian religions and belief systems, as well as moderate and conservative scholars. Regarding their specific fields of study, these academics were New Testament theologians, historians, classicists, archaeologists, philosophers, and practitioners of other religions. Each of these scholars was a specialist, almost always with terminal degrees in their respective fields, and often possessing relevant publications as well.

The “Known Facts” and the “Minimal Facts”

Earlier in this study, we produced a list of a dozen facts concerning the end of Jesus’s life. Half of these were then singled out for special attention.1 These twelve facts, and especially the shorter list of six taken from them, are recognized as historical by virtually all critical scholars who have studied this material. The chief reason for this widespread scholarly acceptance is the strong data that stand behind and support each of these details.2 Again, the events chosen all occurred at the end of Jesus’s life and are conceded as historical by virtually all critical scholars who have addressed these data, regardless of their overall theological positions.

The longer list of some dozen events has variously been called the “known” or “accepted” historical facts. The shorter list has been designated as the “minimal historical facts.” This latter reduced list functions basically as a “lowest common denominator” and is capable of building a strong case for the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection appearances by itself, as supported by the available data that stand behind each of these six occurrences. In spite of commentators sometimes confusing the two lists, only the briefer one comprises “minimal facts.”3

To be sure, New Testament specialists, theologians, historians, classicists, archaeologists, and other scholars of various relevant disciplines, persuasions, and schools of thought of course still differ on many items, sometimes even widely so. One example concerns the amount of historical content contained in the Gospels and other early material. Yet, as pointed out here, these broader differences do not impede the basic agreement or general consensus that emerges regarding a select number of incidents during the last days of Jesus’s life, such as enjoyed by the minimal facts method.

It should be repeated once again that none of this scholarly agreement depends on particular persuasions pertaining to the general reliability of the Gospels or any other canonical texts. These minimal historical facts being spoken of here follow almost totally from the seven “authentic” Pauline Epistles, plus the data derived from early creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries, along with the application of the historical textual criteria with a very few additionally outstanding considerations along the way. But neither standard reliability considerations nor arguments for the inspiration of Scripture or anything like this come into play toward establishing any of these particular historical facts.

Actually, these minimal facts are derived just fine, even superlatively so, when operating with an unreliable New Testament, such as with a recognized list of historical facts provided by potential atheist, agnostic, self-identified non-Christian scholars, or otherwise skeptical commentators who do not recognize either the inspiration or even the reliability of the canonical writings. As explained on many occasions over the years,4 these groups of individuals are often the very best researchers to work with, and for more than one reason.

Therefore, as also mentioned many other times, repeated identifications of these academics in the contexts of this study as atheists, agnostics, non-Christian commentators, or skeptics are definitely not derogatory terms but are meant to note that even those with no faith-based reasons for admitting the existence of particular historical facts or New Testament texts, especially when they do so in the strongest terms, is a likely indication that there is probably some solid ground for accepting their judgments. Even so, these authors must still be scholars with terminal degrees, majoring in the appropriate disciplines as defined early in this study, with applicable areas of specialization and with accompanying publications.

Thus, a wide swath of critical scholars still generally recognize that there are a number of established historical facts from the end of Jesus’s life. Following are the dozen facts from earlier in this study, with just slight changes, acknowledged as historical by virtually all researchers who have investigated this area, regardless of the many differences in their other theological or philosophical tendencies, or in spite of their views of the New Testament, as long as the scholars being discussed fit the description provided above.5

Now we need to unpack some of the ramifications here. In this list of twelve recognized historical facts, six of them have been designated in this study as the minimal facts. These lowest-common denominator events are the ones numbered 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12. The historicity of these six have been treated in great detail throughout this study. Two other occurrences from the longer list of the dozen “known” or “accepted” details—namely Jesus’s burial plus his empty tomb (2 and 4)—have also been defended in chapter-long treatments above. We will not be arguing further for these occasions here. But the remaining four events (3, 8, 9, and 10) will be the subject of the remainder of this chapter.

The Disillusionment and Despair of the Disciples following the Crucifixion

The Historical Evidence

Throughout this study of both the slightly longer listing of the “known” or “accepted facts” as well as the shorter list of “minimal facts” that were drawn out from that initial count, the effort has been made to begin the treatments by providing the historical and other data that establish the fact(s) in question. Only after the factual investigation was a tally provided that listed the critical scholars from a variety of different positions who affirmed the conclusion(s). As repeated often in this study, this order is due to the observation that by far the most important criterion here is that each of the facts be supported by a large array of credible material. We will now view some of the data on behalf of these facts of the disciples’ despair and angst, considerations that motivated the scholars below to make these moves in the first place.

(1) Given the unexpected arrest and trial of Jesus, along with the horrible process of the crucifixion of Jesus and its inevitable effect upon his disciples, especially when they apparently had other ideas about perhaps shortly being a part of the installment of God’s kingdom on earth, they must have been terribly shocked! From straightforward psychological principles, such dejection and depression from those who had followed Jesus for a few years at great potential cost to themselves would practically be demanded of this situation. There is no need to unpack these matters further, but the surrounding situation itself is a strong consideration pointing to this psychological outcome.

(2) Moreover, multiple independent (or chiefly independent) sources attest to this reaction in these early believers. Relevant details can be found in at least five sources—Matthew’s source M, Luke’s source L, John, the pseudo-Markan appendix, and the Gospel of Peter. In each of these sources with the exceptions of Matthew and the Gospel of Peter, this theme of the disciples’ despair and lack of belief is mentioned more than once.8 If Peter’s threefold denial just before the crucifixion is counted, Mark would be a sixth witness (Mark 14:66–72 and parallels, including John 18:15–17, 25–27). Additionally, Ignatius very soon after the close of the New Testament canon, in approximately AD 107–10, cites the situation in Luke 24:36–43 (Smyrn. 3) and Jesus’s offer to be touched along with his eating in front of his followers. While Ignatius does not mention the disciples’ doubt per se, this was precisely the reason in Luke’s text that drew Jesus’s offer of touching and eating in the first place (24:37–38). This is a respectable number of sources, especially to highlight such a negative theme.

(3) To follow on the heels of the comment just made, the criterion of embarrassment is on full display here repeatedly in more than one form. Peter and the male disciples abandoned Jesus in the garden during his initial capture, and they seem not to have been present at the most crucial times, such as Jesus’s public condemnation at the hands of Pontius Pilate, during the march to the crucifixion, or during the event itself (except for John’s comments). During these times it was reported that the disciples were scared and in hiding. True, as Jesus’s male followers, the men were more at risk than the women, but in general the men were basically not heard from between Jesus’s arrest and Peter and John checking out the women’s story of the empty tomb, even though it was mentioned that they failed to believe the report anyway! Even when Jesus appeared, he usually had to seek out the men.

On the other hand, according to Luke 23:27–31, the women were present during the march to the cross, at the crucifixion (though perhaps mostly at a distance), as well as overseeing the care of Jesus’s burial along with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, returning to the tomb by themselves on Sunday morning to complete the anointing of the body, and being the first ones to greet the risen Jesus.

Again, this is not at all to belittle the male disciples, but rather to point out that this well could be regarded as a double case of embarrassment at opposite ends of the spectrum. Not only were the men and later the chief leaders of the later church basically absent at almost every important juncture, but the women were very much present in most of these same places, both repeatedly and at key times. This is in spite of the low view of women witnesses in ancient Mediterranean cultures as a whole.

(4) The strictest criterion—termed dissimilarity or discontinuity—is also fulfilled here as well, at least in a slightly restricted but still useful sense. This rule is usually applied to the teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels without being either anchored in Old Testament thought or repeated in the rest of the New Testament. The criterion can also be applied to Jesus’s deeds that are reported in the Gospels. Before his death, Jesus led his followers out to the Mount of Olives and predicted both the disciples’ deserting him as well as Peter’s threefold denial not long afterward (Mark 14:27–30; Matt 26:31–34; cf. Luke 22:34). This twofold prediction by Jesus that precipitated some of the actual events discussed here would certainly appear to be genuine.

While the Old Testament prophets were frequently ignored, mistreated, and even abused in various ways, there do not seem to be any direct parallels to what occurred in the case of Jesus and his followers. It would seem difficult to claim that the general scenario of the disciples’ abandonment of Jesus at his arrest, Peter’s denials, or their doubt and despair after Jesus’s death were inspired either by an Old Testament or Jewish context, especially across all four canonical Gospels along with a few other texts.9 However, it is likewise somewhat amazing that the theme of the disciples’ actions as well as their fear after Jesus’s crucifixion seems to be missing from the remainder of the New Testament, at least in this specific sense discussed here. The most likely indication here is that, as with the women who visited the tomb, these events were recorded because this is the way they happened.

This lack of mention in the remainder of the New Testament is especially noticeable in light of the open recognition of other negative and surprising failures mentioned in the later texts that also involved the apostles, like Judas’s failure and fall from grace in betraying Jesus (Acts 1:15–20), Paul’s role in approving of Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 7:54–8:3; 22:20) as well as his agreeing to the persecutions and deaths of other believers (Acts 26:10; Gal 1:23), the confrontation between Paul and Peter in Gal 2:11–14, the heated disagreement between Paul and Barnabas over the accompaniment of John Mark in Acts 15:36–41, or even Paul’s self-criticism in light of his prior persecution of the Christian believers, where he identified himself as the least of the apostles (1 Cor 15:8–9; cf. Acts 9:1–2; 22:4–5, 20; 26:10–11). Thus, both Jesus’s prior teachings here as well as the disciples’ fulfillment of Jesus’s prediction would point to the disciples’ fear, despair, and discouragement being a genuine part of the original story directly after the crucifixion.

(5) Given that the texts discussed here concern the Gospel material regarding the disciples’ doubt and despair after Jesus’s death, it may be a minority view among New Testament critical scholars that we have eyewitness testimony for these observations. Hence, we have saved this consideration for the end. But if Richard Bauckham is correct in his detailed and highly acclaimed research that the author of the Fourth Gospel was not the apostle John but an eyewitness nonetheless,10 as many other researchers agree to varying degrees,11 many important conclusions could result from such conclusions. Many scholars have preferred either Johannine authorship or the perhaps more nuanced view that John or other eyewitnesses were either the major source behind the Fourth Gospel or at least one of the main eyewitnesses who contributed testimony to its writing. Keener regards these additional positions as commonly held views,12 including strong positions held by some top-notch scholars that demand attention.13

The chief idea here is that these authorial and source assessments, in descending order, could indicate the presence of accurate eyewitness remembrances in the Fourth Gospel. Since it is known and held generally that each of the Gospel authors utilized at least one other important source,14 it is additionally conceivable that other eyewitness testimony could have existed behind the other Gospels too, providing the same sort of testimony.

If this is the case, then there might be a decent chance that events like Peter’s denials and the apparent disappearance of the disciples when Jesus was arrested was recalled by someone who was actually present on those occasions or at least heard it from eyewitnesses, especially when these were such major and embarrassing sets of circumstances concerning the disciples. Particularly since these men later became the leaders of the first church, it would seem that these are precisely the sort of details that would have been remembered. The same could be said given the multiple Gospel sources mentioned above pertaining to the possibility of firsthand knowledge of the disciples’ actions between the time of Jesus’s arrest and his resurrection appearances.15

In some of the very early Acts sermon summaries just mentioned, the apostles are repeatedly termed “witnesses” (martures) of these things (Acts 2:32; 3:15b; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31), with Jesus’s death and resurrection appearances always being at the very center of these proclamations. Granted, along with most commentators, this designation was probably Luke’s own chosen term that represented or characterized the point being made in the sermon summaries regarding those who had observed these events (cf. also Luke 24:48). Even so, this was the author’s representation that the crux of what had been passed on to him came from reliable witnesses, perhaps not unlike those sources he mentions in Luke 1:1–4 and Acts 1:1–3.

In short, the multiple independent sources and the numerous examples of embarrassment, along with the discontinuity of having no significant influence from the Old Testament and virtually nothing reappearing in the New Testament, all add further data to this case. Lastly, the likelihood that one or more of these recollections was contributed ultimately by an eyewitness or drawn from a reliable source that knew the eyewitness would further serve to clinch the matter rather strongly. Thus, we conclude that the disciples’ emotional struggles from just before the crucifixion until they thought they witnessed appearances of the risen Jesus is a firm fact of history.

As will be shown below, there is little disagreement on the part of critical scholars, including the most skeptical members among them, that the disciples’ disillusionment and despair following the crucifixion was precisely what occurred in the earliest time after this momentous event. Probably leading the way in this direction is that such a process would have been the normal psychological response of close friends in light of all of these deeply disturbing details.

Scholarly Research

Critical scholars very seldom question the claim that the crucifixion of Jesus was a very difficult event for his disciples to understand and internalize. This especially would have been the case for those who were in Jerusalem when the trial and crucifixion occurred. Then later that night (traditionally Friday evening) plus all day Saturday, it would make sense that they would have suffered tremendous psychological pain.

How could this not have been the case? The physical pain and discomfort of their time with Jesus would potentially have been behind them. Many of Jesus’s closest followers had accompanied him for some time, often conventionally thought of as a period of some three years; many having left behind fishing or other businesses, presumably traveling without their family members, possibly staying outside in little shelter, and so on. Even if they returned home occasionally (as in Mark 1:21–34 and parallels), it would not have been an easy life.

However, the physical discomfort would presumably have been far less than the psychological pain and shock of Jesus’s death. There seems to have been a hope that Jesus would soon right all wrongs and their sacrifice would be well worth it all. They would reign with him. After all, was Jesus not the one who would set up his kingdom presently, being revealed in all his glory (Mark 10:35–40)? Had not his death cut short these expectations, all in an exceptionally brief whirlwind of time (Luke 24:20–21)? How could they possibly have been so mistaken—so wide of the mark? And now the disciples had been reduced to hiding lest what happened to Jesus would also occur to them (John 20:19). These followers can be forgiven if kingdom aspirations may have been forgotten or placed on hold for a brief time due to the imminent danger. Creating far more existential angst was the unimaginable fact that Jesus’s body lay dead in a nearby grave. Had God abandoned him and them as well?16

Even highly critical scholars have freely admitted that this was indeed a dark time for Jesus’s disciples. Highly discouraged, despondent, and even despairing of life and its meaning alike, where would they go from here? Not surprisingly, perhaps, some of the most skeptical theologians have been the most graphic and outspoken on this subject. The slate of quotations here could be filled totally with atheist, agnostic, and other skeptics alone.

Robert Funk asserts that, after Jesus’s death, his early followers faced disappointment and were frightened. They fled the scene of his death. The result was “the defection of Jesus’ closest followers, including Peter.” He states further, “scholars are confident that the disciples abandoned Jesus and fled at his arrest.”17 As Elaine Pagels remarks, “After Jesus’ execution his followers scattered, shaken with grief and terrified for their own lives. Most assumed that their enemies were right—the movement had died with their master.”18 John Shelby Spong states forcefully, “The overwhelming probability is that the uncompromising truth was expressed in the phrase ‘they all forsook him and fled.’ Jesus died alone.”19

Continuing these concessions, Hugh Jackson speaks graphically of the disciples being “portrayed as numbed by the shock of the crucifixion” in spite of Jesus’s previous comments about this event. “The crucifixion, therefore, must have been acutely psychologically inconsistent with the disciples’ expectations. . . . They had expected a triumph; they had witnessed a humiliation.”20

Jack Kent points out that “the disciples’ pattern of coming to grips with the death of Jesus falls into the normal stages of bereavement as described in contemporary bereavement research.” Explaining further, Kent attests that Jesus’s disciples “were plunged into grief and experienced uncertainty, fear, guilt, anxiety, and denial.”21

For Willi Marxsen, to some extent the early resurrection faith was the answer to the disciples’ doubts, fears, perplexities, and confusion. Out of that state their faith emerged, as Jesus was thought to have comforted them in some sense: “They have experienced his presence.” Marxsen states that because the texts preserve the centrality of sight, then “quite generally, what is being spoken of is a vision.”22 Helmut Koester comments succinctly: “Most of all, the resurrection changed sorrow and grief, or even hate and rejection, into joy, creativity, and faith.”23

For Hans Küng, Jesus’s death by all appearances appeared to be a terrifying event where Jesus was left alone on the cross, seemingly abandoned by both his Father as well as his disciples. The existential pain was thick and real. But Easter was the event that rectified a painful situation.24 A. J. M. Wedderburn addresses this subject often, in that the available sources employ terms and attitudes such as disarray, dismay, despair, denial, hopelessness, despondency, and flight, noting that a “dramatic recovery” occurred out of “what had seemed like a crushing defeat.”25

Historian J. K. Elliott concludes that though the resurrection accounts are beset by legend, the writings accurately portray the disciples’ rescue from fear and doubt, for the reality of these situations is too embarrassing to have been invented.26 Philosopher Thomas Sheehan thinks that after Jesus’s death by crucifixion, Peter was “a drowning man” who was caught up in his own despair as well as that of his fellow apostles. Whatever the nature of Peter’s original experience, it fit precisely the needs of the “dark days after Jesus’ death” by rescuing both Peter himself as well the others from their time of trial.27

For Dale Allison, the disciples “suffered a moral collapse” and fled the scene of Jesus’s arrest. However, the early disciples’ ensuing responses were unlike similar situations where, in “a whole row of messianic movements around the first and second centuries A.D. the violent death of the leader meant the end of the movement.” Something was different this time, most likely including visions of Jesus, belief that Jesus’s tomb was empty, along with some previous eschatological expectations.28

Thus, researchers across a wide spectrum of views agree here, and many more critical scholars could be added to the ones already provided, where a dozen quite-skeptical researchers acknowledge without question the dark psychological state in which Jesus’s disciples found themselves after their master’s death by crucifixion.29 There is so much agreement on this that it may even prove difficult to ascertain the skeptics from the conservatives if the author’s names were removed. This is not surprising. In fact, any other psychological response on the part of human beings under these or similar circumstances would seem to be ruled out of court.

Christian Preaching and Teaching Began in the City of Jerusalem

Many scholars think that at least many of Jesus’s male disciples fled back to Galilee either after Jesus’s arrest and just before the crucifixion, or immediately after the crucifixion. But either way—Galilee or Jerusalem—it is again virtually unanimous among researchers that the band of early male believers ended up in Jerusalem and began their preaching and teaching careers in that city. There are a number of major reasons to conclude that this was the case.

The Historical Evidence

(1) Eyewitness testimony regarding the early Christian preaching and teaching that originated in Jerusalem is provided by at least the apostle Paul when he visited the city purposely to inquire of “Cephas” (historēsai Kēphān) and James, the brother of Jesus (Iakōbon ton adelphon tou Kyriou), not long after Jesus’s crucifixion (Gal 1:18–19). Paul knew that Jerusalem was the place to visit to initiate a meeting with these two apostles, since they were the early leaders of the movement located there. Even Bart Ehrman speaks of Paul’s trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James as one of the “two key data” that supports the historicity of Jesus, with one of the reasons for this conclusion being the closeness to Paul’s obtaining eyewitness testimony here.30

Then when Paul returned to the city of Jerusalem some fourteen years later, Peter and James were also there again, and on this latter occasion the apostle John was also present (Gal 2:1–10). These four apostles meeting together in this second meeting in Jerusalem involved the four most influential early apostolic leaders (Paul refers to them as those “who were acknowledged pillars” in 2:9), with the three already in the city seemingly headquartered in the city over these years.31 Whether or not this event was the same as the one described in Acts 15:1–29, where Peter (15:7) and James (15:13) are both named, the Acts scenario either provides confirmation for Paul’s comments in Gal 2:1–10 or else relates still another occasion when the city of Jerusalem was the center of apostolic activity as well as the base for the earliest believers.

Moreover, additional support for the dominant and vital role of the Jerusalem hub could come from the sermon summaries in Acts. Potentially either eyewitness information or material drawn from eyewitnesses may be present in some of these very early summaries. Passages regarding Jerusalem contained in this Acts creedal information could include 2:14, 29; 3:13b; plus 13:31. Also, as discussed earlier in this chapter, any further reliable material in the early chapters of Acts could add to this testimony.

(2) Further, these two trips to Jerusalem were likewise dated exceptionally early. The consensus critical view is that the first occasion in Gal 1:18–20 took place approximately five or six years after Jesus’s crucifixion, around AD 35–36.32 The second visit to Jerusalem in Gal 2:1–10 was also very early as well, usually being dated by critical researchers to the late 40s and still most likely preceding the writing of Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians in about AD 50.33 As just noted, these two trips to Jerusalem by Paul along with other data, such as James’s martyrdom in the same city a little over a decade later, basically place James in Jerusalem through the entire thirty years, with Peter and John also being there for the better part of a decade or two after the crucifixion. As such, Jerusalem was clearly the headquarters of activity for the earliest believers.

(3) This geographical location for the birth of what would later become the early church as well as the hub of preaching and teaching for years is multiply attested in independent or largely independent sources. These texts incorporate a diversity of materials as well, from canonical to noncanonical as well as secular sources. Most obviously, the major canonical texts include Luke 24:13–49 and John 20:16–23,34 along with the appearance to at least the women in Matthew (M?) as they left the empty tomb in Jerusalem (28:8–10), as they did not follow any disciples who may have returned to Galilee. Beyond the canon, the appearances narrated in the longer and later conclusion of Mark (i.e., pseudo-Mark)35 is an addition that is often dated to the second century.36 The narrated events in the Gospel of Peter (9:1–13:3), likely also a second-century writing,37 are likewise specifically positioned in Jerusalem (9:1). In this text (14:1–3) at least some of the disciples were apparently fishing in Galilee.

Though almost always taken as an extension of Luke’s Gospel and hence not represented as a separate source in this count, the location of Christian preaching throughout the early chapters of Acts is obviously Jerusalem. This activity begins in Jerusalem and then branches out everywhere else (Acts 1:8), extending at least through Acts 8:1.

As is the case with contemporary critical scholars as a whole, Paul’s testimony is considered to be preeminent. The two visits to Jerusalem in Galatians 1 and 2 to inquire of the chief apostles living there are the most important of his comments, as already mentioned, with the first one dating a mere five years after Jesus’s crucifixion and the second still before the earliest canonical text.

Additionally, Paul comments several times on the funds that were being collected among gentile churches to be taken to Jerusalem for the poor believers there.38 The Gentiles had an opportunity here to contribute to the Jews in a physical way after the latter’s spiritual blessings had been extended to them (Rom 15:27). Paul no doubt refers here to the entire Jewish history and revelation, as Jews were the channel of God’s grace to the world (cf. John 4:22). But it ought not be missed here that Paul is clearly referring in these texts to the Christian saints now residing in Jerusalem.39 As the center of the Christian world, this would also include the key apostles who lived there. In other words, Paul continues to recognize that the birth of Christianity originated in this city as well.

While writing in the late first century, Jewish historian Josephus explains comparatively little about Jesus or the early Christians. Historian Barnett notes five total passages in Josephus that “throw light on Christ and Christian origins.” He notes that two of these comments are direct and three are indirect.40 One of Josephus’s statements pertains to the martyrdom of James, to whom he refers as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” Josephus explains that James was stoned to death in the city of Jerusalem, an event that occurred in AD 62 (Ant. 20.9.1). This notation helpfully indicates that more than thirty years after Jesus’s crucifixion, James was still ministering in the same city where Luke states that he was present in the “upper room” shortly after Jesus’s death (Acts 1:14), and where Paul found him twice in the mid-30s and the late 40s. This timeline indicates virtually by itself that the center of the earliest Christian activity remained in this same city.

Roman historian Tacitus explains that during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, while Pontius Pilate (Pilatus) was the Roman procurator in Judea,41 Jesus (Christus) suffered capital punishment. However, even after Jesus’s death, “a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome” (Ann. 15.44).42 Here an ancient secular historian identifies Judea as the birthplace of Christianity. With Pilate residing in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’s trial, this serves to further identify the same area discussed above.

Even without attempting to be exhaustive in this treatment, we have enumerated eight independent sources that witness to the birth of the Christian movement in Jerusalem and the earliest preaching and teaching that took place there, spread over canonical, noncanonical, and secular avenues.43 For a nonminimal historical fact, this seems to be a fairly significant number.

(4) These sources are also derived from multiple forms. The chief idea here is that if a particular theme can be located across several literary kinds of material, then those ideas were “deeply embedded in the earliest church traditions.”44 These include the Gospel narratives with their stories of Jesus (from different Gospel sources, as already noted), Paul’s Epistles, creeds and Acts sermon summaries, and a couple of ancient historians.

(5) A last criterion to be mentioned here is plausibility or coherence, given other similar stories of Jewish kings, prophets, or major events. If one would pick a likely geographical scenario in the environs of Judea for a major new movement to begin, grow, and spread, it simply should be expected that Jerusalem would be the most likely choice. It was the chief city in that entire region at that time and was the home of so many huge happenings throughout the past. Plus it was the location of Jesus’s crucifixion, so almost everyone was already there. Therefore, this should be anything but a huge surprise—it ought to be expected.

For a series of events in and around the city of Jerusalem that is already so widely recognized as historical without major dispute, five historical arguments are enough to further solidify these historical occurrences. In fact, considerations such as these could even be the sorts of reasons that led to this scholarly recognition in the first place.

Scholarly Research

Further, even though the birth of the church in Jerusalem is not one of the minimal facts in this study, it is still included in the next stage of events—in what has been called here the “accepted” or “known” historical data. So it is still both important and helpful to apply the second prong of the stricter minimal facts argument that would require a high proportion of critical scholars to agree to the general outline of what has been stated here. We may note that the presence of this quality agreement is precisely what we do find here, even including the most skeptical representatives.

Several influential Fellows of the Jesus Seminar have weighed in on these topics and have affirmed at least the basics of this issue in spite of their underlying skepticism. Five of these members are included here. John Dominic Crossan,45 Marcus Borg,46 Robert Funk,47 among others, each clearly affirm that the early events from Jesus’s crucifixion to many of the disciples’ original experiences occurred in the area of Jerusalem.

As John Shelby Spong attests strongly: “To the best of my knowledge, it is not questioned that Christianity broke out in human history in Jerusalem rather than in some other remote region of Galilee . . . there is no doubt that Jerusalem is the city in which Christianity was born.”48 Another Jesus Seminar fellow, Gerd Lüdemann, also affirms the historicity of Jesus’s crucifixion along with some sort of appearances in Jerusalem.49

It has already been mentioned that atheist New Testament specialist Ehrman takes it basically for granted that the city of Jerusalem was the central location for many of the key events in the early church, from the heavily attested crucifixion of Jesus all the way through many of the disciples’ postmortem experiences of Jesus; from Paul’s two trips to the same city to dialogue with the other chief apostolic leaders Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John all the way through to James’s martyrdom, covering over thirty years in the process.50 Ehrman even considers some of the key events here to be exceptionally well established.51

Rather intriguingly, a number of non-Christian Jewish scholars have also affirmed the historicity of these early church events in Jerusalem. These include former Oxford historian Geza Vermes and New Testament specialist Pinchas Lapide.52 It should probably be assumed that whatever is allowed or confirmed here must be due to the conviction that the historical and other data are significant.

Many other critical scholars have also affirmed the set of “Jerusalem events” such as those enumerated here, including especially the most crucial occurrences among them.53 In fact, a nearly unanimous list of the members of the scholarly community could probably be produced, since there is exceptionally little objection to these items. The title of Dunn’s volume listed in the footnote below, Beginning from Jerusalem, summarizes this entire matter quite well. But this brief survey of recent researchers should be sufficient to indicate the widespread acceptance of these events in and around Jerusalem as the earliest Christian gospel was being proclaimed.

The Church Began Meeting on Sunday and Spread

Following the beginnings of Christian preaching in Jerusalem, groups of believers began to gather in this city and elsewhere as the message spread to other locations. Acts 2:42–47 summarizes well the reasons for regular meetings, including ongoing teaching, worship, fellowship, prayer, and sharing possessions as well as meals. The special Communion supper instituted by Jesus was a highlight, as reproduced especially by Paul in the pre-Pauline creedal passage in 1 Cor 11:23–25, which some scholars think actually goes back to the period before Paul’s conversion and possibly even to Jesus himself, just as Paul states in introducing the tradition.54

According to Acts, 3,000 people joined the movement after Peter’s first sermon on Pentecost (2:41), with that number swelling to a total of 5,000 persons soon afterwards (4:4). Of course, many of these new believers probably returned home after the Passover season, which would presumably account for more groups moving and meeting elsewhere. This and similar cases of spreading to still more locations provides some indications of how the early church movement grew.

The Historical Evidence

It would appear that few arguments are necessary to demonstrate the existence of the church, in that it is recognized by both believers and unbelievers as the phenomenon which sprang up after Jesus’s resurrection, primarily due to the many solid reasons in favor of its occurrence. After all, it is a sociological phenomenon in itself. But a few brief things should still be mentioned beyond what has already been stated here, to link the existence of the church to the resurrection of Jesus.

(1) That there was no church before Jesus’s resurrection while one appeared directly after this event is a pointer to the potential connection between these occurrences. Further, as presented in Acts 2, even Peter’s sermon that led directly to the first 3,000 “members” was based chiefly and centrally on Jesus, his death, and resurrection (2:22–36). That was the connection there.

(2) Strong eyewitness testimony of the existence of the church in the Jerusalem area comes from the apostle Paul, plus any firsthand word drawn from the independently attested sources in the Acts sermon summaries mentioned in the previous point as well. Additionally, some pre-Pauline creedal reports like 1 Cor 11:23; 2 Cor 13:13; and 1 Thess 1:9–10 also provide information that presupposes the existence of the church. These plus any more direct testimony taken from the Gospel passages also mentioned above combine to draw into focus again a significant array of potential eyewitness data, or close to that.

(3) Though early data do not always follow necessarily from eyewitness testimony, this is another time where they do indeed indicate this. Paul’s trips to Jerusalem at approximately five and eighteen years (respectively) after Jesus’s crucifixion, along with the Acts sermon summaries plus a few pre-Pauline creeds that are dated to the 30s, are all before the appearance of the very first New Testament writing. Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem plus the creeds and sermon summaries all date more than a full decade beforehand, as conceded by the majority of even skeptical critical scholars. It is also possible that some sources that were utilized by the Gospel authors, such as particular personal testimonies like those mentioned in Luke 1:1–4, could also fall well within this time frame, foreshadowing the coming church.

(4) The chief and usual day of worship in the New Testament was the first day of the week, Sunday,55 though some variation of this scenario may possibly be reflected in Rom 14:5–6a. For example, Jewish Christians may have attended the synagogue on Saturday and met with their church groups the next day. But for those who were Jewish law observers, Jesus’s resurrection is seemingly the best way to explain what they were doing by worshipping on Sunday. N. T. Wright argues that 1 Cor 16:2 shows that, by the mid-50s, Sunday was being kept by early Christians as the Lord’s Day.56

(5) The connection between Jesus’s resurrection and the birth, life, and nurturing of the church is attested by multiple independent sources. Probably no writing makes this clearer than the book of Acts. Luke’s Gospel ends with the risen Jesus explaining that he had to suffer, die, and rise from the dead, then predicting and projecting that through these events the gospel would go out from Jerusalem into the entire world (Luke 24:45–48). This appears to signal the projected outline for Acts, where the book begins with the roadmap of 1:8, followed by the first five chapters on the founding of the church, with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ being the key to each chapter and speech alike.57 It seems more than clear that it was the gospel proclamation that gave rise to the church.

Similar to the final chapter of Luke, which looks ahead from the teaching of the risen Jesus to the later birth of the church, Matthew, John, and the pseudo-Markan ending make similar moves. In John, the risen Jesus sends out his disciples into the world for ministry, extending to them, in some sense, the right to forgive sins (John 20:21–23), as well as speaking about those who would come to believe in him later without the advantage of physical sight (20:29–31). Matthew closes his Gospel with Jesus’s admonition to his followers to make disciples among all the nations, baptizing them and teaching them obedience (Matt 28:18–20; see also the additional hints in 10:22–23; 16:18; 18:17–19). Even in Mark, there are slight hints of the disciples’ future ministry after Jesus’s death, as in mentioning what appears to be the future martyrdoms of brothers James and John (Mark 10:38–39). In Mark’s long ending, Jesus also commands the “eleven” to go everywhere in the world and preach the gospel, baptizing them with accompanying signs (16:15–18).

An additional ministry for Jesus’s followers, especially beyond his own resurrection, is therefore in view in these texts. Some would not think of a ministry with others as necessarily being a church. But going to the entire world and proclaiming the gospel message along with teaching, baptizing, and making more disciples, alongside being martyred like Jesus, hints broadly that many people began following Jesus postresurrection. As simple as it sounds, it must be remembered that churches are not buildings, and the converts that would result from these exercises that Jesus commanded of his disciples can certainly be called a church, since the term ekklēsia (see Matt 18:17) is used of a group of people and was used that way in secular Greek as well (like in Acts 19:39). In texts such as 1 Cor 16:19; Acts 10:24–25; and Phlm 2, local churches were small enough to meet in private homes.

Without attempting to be anywhere near comprehensive, even a modicum of New Testament texts should be sufficient to indicate many other passages that build bridges between Jesus’s resurrection and the birth of the church. Many other canonical texts also indicate the interconnectedness of the resurrection with the birth and maturing of the church.58

Regarding the Epistles of Paul, the clearest texts regarding the existence of the Jerusalem church are probably Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem in Gal 1:18–20 and 2:1–10, where Paul dialogues with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, in the first visit and with the same two apostles plus John in the second trip respectively. Beyond the visits with these apostles, there is much evidence here of a church already in existence in that area. Paul reports after the initial trip that there were churches already in Judea at that time (Gal 1:22–24), only about five or six years after Jesus’s crucifixion. On the second occasion, Paul speaks of individuals who challenged Barnabas and himself who may have been connected with the church there in some way.59 Still, Gal 1:22–24 is enough by itself, and at an earlier date at that, to indicate that the church existed in that area.

Another helpful Pauline text here is 1 Cor 15:12–20, where Paul basically argues that if Jesus had not been raised from the dead, there would be no church, no doctrine, no ministry hence without good practice. But these aspects will be unpacked more fully below on the issue of the centrality of the resurrection, so this is sufficient for now. Second Corinthians 4:7–18 constitutes another beautiful passage that links together Jesus’s and the believer’s resurrections with the ongoing problems faced by the church at Corinth, which follows the earlier discussion at the outset of the book in 1:1–7.

How Paul’s Epistles are counted will obviously affect the source total here. If only the seven “authentic” epistles are tallied as belonging to Paul, then we have so far mentioned twelve total texts that reflect the growth of the church in Jerusalem. But if all thirteen epistles attributed to Paul are counted together,60 a smaller total of nine sources will be the count so far because the other letters that critics think are falsely attributed to Paul will no longer be separate texts.61

Beyond the canonical texts plus the long ending of Mark, two other possibilities might be mentioned. The Gospel of Peter may have been only a Passion and resurrection document alone, although the end and beginning of the text are missing, deterring a definite reading of the text. Thus it is possible that if the Gospel of Peter is anything like the canonical Gospel texts just mentioned, perhaps Peter also originally at least hinted of an additional ministry for Jesus’s followers after his death. Additionally, if the opening sentence of the Gospel of Thomas is taken in the way that it often is, namely, where the reference to the “living Jesus” is actually the resurrected Jesus who is the one who is doing the speaking in this book,62 then some of the contents of the work would also most likely point in its own sometimes convuluted way to early church teachings.

Moreover, it was also shown above that two ancient pagan historians both seem to refer to the activity of Jesus’s followers after his death. Jewish historian Josephus indicates that Christians still held to their faith after the crucifixion of Jesus, including also the possibility that Jesus’s disciples claimed that Jesus appeared to them after his death (Ant. 18.3.3). Roman historian Tacitus also explains that after Jesus was sentenced to death under Pontius Pilate and died by crucifixion, his followers still continued to spread his teachings in Judea and also as far as Rome (Ann. 15.44).

These four additional sources—the Gospels of Peter and Thomas along with two probably stronger ones from Tacitus and Josephus—potentially bring the source total (depending on the Pauline count and the status of Peter and Thomas) to somewhere between eleven and sixteen different texts establishing the Christian church in Jerusalem after Jesus’s resurrection. Like the previous tally, this includes canonical, noncanonical, and secular sources.

(6) This wealth of independent sources also exists in multiple forms. Paul’s Epistles, the Gospel narratives from both canonical and noncanonical writings, the appropriate creeds and Acts sermon summaries, along with a couple of ancient historians indicate the widespread nature and depth of these reports.

It is no wonder that the birth of the church, featuring Sunday as the preferred meeting day, enjoys almost total agreement from the community of critical scholars, including skeptical researchers. This strong list of historical reasons probably plays a large role in this recognition and may well account for the absence of much major opposition.

Scholarly Research

Even skeptical scholars of various stripes trace the origin of the earliest Christian church directly to the disciples’ post-crucifixion experiences. Lüdemann points out that the preaching of Jesus’s appearances took place right away. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:14–47 along with other “instruction by the apostles is also to be accepted as historical” since these leaders had a major role in the founding of the Christian community.63 In a large volume on Jesus, John Dominic Crossan notes that the resurrection apparitions reflect the movement that Jesus inspired, including his continuing presence, the leadership of the apostles, and the swift spread of the Christian faith.64 Such were Jesus’s influence, ethics, and magnetism. For Elaine Pagels, we know that certain disciples led by Peter were the link between the resurrection proclamation and the Christian organization that developed.65 Ehrman affirms often that it was precisely the preaching of Jesus’s resurrection that “changed absolutely everything.”66 Whatever the Easter visions were, John Hick notes, “Less than this could hardly have launched the movement which sprang up so vigorously after Jesus’ death, and more is probably not required to account for it.”67

Agnostic historian Elliott agrees the apostles’ belief in Jesus’s resurrection is what changed these “frightened men . . . into church founders and missionaries.”68 Then more succinctly, in the Gospels, “the foundation of the church began with the resurrection.”69 Barnabas Lindars concludes that the list of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15 probably accounts for how “the primitive Church came into being.” In particular, the events witnessed by the disciples marked “the formal inauguration of the Church.”70 Skeptical questioner Margaret Thrall asserts that some sort of real or psychological experiences had to have happened to Jesus’s disciples to account “for the origin of the Christian Church.”71 John A. T. Robinson lists the church as one of the many benefits that the resurrection brought into existence.72

This is another topic taken from our two lists of historical facts in this study—the “minimal” and the “known” or “accepted” data (with this one being drawn from the latter)—where there is such widespread recognition from careful researchers that the vast majority of scholars could be included as affirming these results. So it will be sufficient here to conclude this point by adding to the more skeptical comments above an additional number of other researchers who share similar views to those that were just mentioned, that the belief in Jesus’s resurrection gave rise to the existence of the church.73

Are “the Third Day” after Jesus’s Death/“First Day of the Week” Historical Markers?

The previous two historical facts treated in this chapter fit together well as they concern the initial Christian preaching and teaching of the death and resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem, the same location as Jesus’s crucifixion. Further, the city was also the traditional location of the empty burial tomb of Jesus as well as the environs for Jesus’s initial postresurrection appearances recorded as occurring on the same day to both the women at the tomb and later to Jesus’s disciples.

At an early date, the actual event of Jesus’s resurrection, the empty tomb, and his initial postresurrection appearances were placed on the third day after his death, which was also variously referred to as the first day of the week (Sunday), that is, the day after the Jewish Sabbath. This accounts for the references in the New Testament to the earliest believers meeting for worship, prayer, and study on Sunday to commemorate the resurrection and appearances of the risen Jesus.

Yet, critical scholars have questioned whether seemingly historical demarcations such as the “third day” and “the first day of the week” were meant to commemorate exact days like the crucifixion weekend, or whether these markers might simply refer to “a brief time later” or something similar, especially since “after three days” is used especially in Mark.74 Also suggested is that these time references may point to theological fulfillments or celebrations of one sort or another rather than to historical days.75 Still others think that the time references here are taken from early Christian remembrances that date back to the original historical events.76 Interestingly enough, the lists here indicate rather clearly that while scholars may often be identified as liberal, moderate, or conservative, depending on where they line up on various issues, this occasion presents some intriguing “crossover” views that sometimes transverse the expected “party lines.”

Reginald Fuller maps out some of the possible terrain here. The historical view would most likely point to the empty tomb and the initial appearances of Jesus as the reason for the demarcation of the third day. However, in the early creedal tradition of 1 Cor 15:3, the “third day” applies specifically to the resurrection event itself (15:4), which oddly enough was not witnessed by anyone.77

A common doctrinal solution seeks to tie these Gospel events to Hos 6:2 and the day of Israel’s corporate resurrection on the third day. But a difficulty here is that this text is never specifically cited in the New Testament to refer to the phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor 15:4. The Jonah and the great fish comparisons in Matt 12:38–40 and 16:1–4 (cf. Luke 11:29–30, 32) are used as the sign to vindicate Jesus’s teachings as “an analogy to the burial and resurrection of Jesus,” and the third day is employed in Matthew’s context as a time marker here. But Fuller thinks that the chief issue for this option is that this Old Testament text was not used until comparatively late in the Synoptic tradition, in contrast to the exceptional earliness of the Corinthian creed.78

In what Fuller terms the “cultic origin” option, the earliest New Testament reference to Christians worshipping on the first day of the week is 1 Cor 16:2 (see also Acts 20:7; Rev 1:10; and Did. 14:1), but the creedal reference to the third day in 1 Cor 15:4 is earlier still, probably originating with the Christian belief that this was the day on which Jesus arose. The suggestion argued by some nineteenth-century German liberal scholars of the well-known religionsgeschichtliche Schule that the third day was probably borrowed from ancient pre-Christian tales is treated by Fuller as having “dubious evidence” in its favor since “the parallels are by no means exact,” as well as this pagan material being “too remote from the New Testament.”79 Fuller opts for the suggestion that the utilizing of the “third” and “first” day references are not to be taken historically. Rather, these terms indicate the view that Jesus’s resurrection marks the beginning of the end times.80

However, in response to Fuller, if the clause in 1 Cor 15:4b that includes the reference to the “third day” most clearly indicates the resurrection event itself, which was not observed by human eyes, how would that change anything? This occurrence still would have had a very strict terminus a quo and terminus ad quem. After all, the resurrection event could not have happened before the crucifixion! Further, the empty tomb or Jesus’s earliest appearances (especially if taken traditionally as having occurred on the first Sunday after the crucifixion) would quite clearly serve as cut-off dates.

In such a case, according to the majority scholarly view, the length of time during which Jesus’s resurrection was at least thought to have occurred would stretch only from the Friday crucifixion and late-afternoon burial to very early Sunday morning. Thus, whether or not human eyes witnessed the resurrection event itself, that’s a tight demarcation window of just one and a half days! In short, if Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and if either the tomb had been discovered to be empty or if Jesus’s followers reported experiences that they took to be appearances of the risen Jesus just some thirty-six hours later, these bookend events would account fairly for an event that occurred in between those two times.

Further, regarding Fuller’s comment that the angle taken in Matt 12:38–40 (cf. Matt 16:1–4) came late in the Synoptic tradition, much later than the 1 Corinthians 15 creedal tradition, these texts in Matthew 12 and 16 (plus the parallel in Luke 11:29–32) are taken by most scholars to be drawn from a citation in the Q source.81 If so, this would place the reference to the third day far earlier than the Synoptic tradition,82 possibly providing some reason to agree with Hans Bayer that the “sign of Jonah” in Jewish texts that predate Christianity was a reference to Jonah being resuscitated from death.83 If this angle is sustained, the two arguments that the third day may well commemorate the resurrection event itself using a reference from both pre-Christian Jewish and early Christian traditions would favor the interpretation that “the third day” and “the first day of the week” fit more closely as literal reminiscences from the early church.

Fuller is correct that even recent skeptical New Testament scholars almost always reject the conclusions of the nineteenth-century religionsgeschichtliche Schule regarding the early church borrowing the concept of the third day from pagan sources.84 As far as fulfilling these “third” and “first” day markers, many of the specialist researchers into the dying and rising god scenarios note the major disparities between this category and the early Christian teachings concerning these specific days.85

A survey of the relevant New Testament references and other data both confirm this historical core as well as point further to the criteria that indicate a more literal meaning for these phrases, as will now be presented. What are some of these data?

Initially it should be mentioned that we must be cautious in utilizing some of the typical historical arguments on behalf of the designations of the third day after the crucifixion or the first day of the week. For example, it might be asserted that these comments were embedded in the very early tradition (as in the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–7) or that they were derived from eyewitness observations (such as Paul’s comment in 1 Cor 16:2). Presumably most critical scholars would even concede these themes. However, such references fail to answer the prior question of how these phrases were originally employed in these early, perhaps apostolic scenarios.

Thus, unless it were already known that these demarcations of time were meant originally as literal descriptions, comments that they were originally used chiefly as theological applications would not necessarily be refuted in this manner, for it could always be concluded that the theological meaning was the original sense from the beginning. Do any additional considerations help here in deciding the nature of the original intent?

Whatever the precise, intended sense of the original meaning, it remains the case that these expressions certainly came into use at a very early date. Referring to 1 Cor 15:3, Metzger asserts, “The formulation of belief in Christ’s resurrection on the third day was fixed before Paul’s conversion.” This would place this dating just shortly after Jesus’s crucifixion, indicating that it “was proclaimed openly as part of the general apostolic kerygma from the very earliest days of the Church, as the evidence in all strata of Acts makes abundantly clear.”86

The empty tomb story in all four canonical Gospels opens by remarking that the women’s trip to the sepulcher occurred on the first day of the week.87 All four of these texts likewise state either directly or indirectly that this visit occurred the day after the Sabbath (Mark 16:1; Matt 28:1; Luke 23:56; John 19:42). Whatever else is thought here, the Gospels give the impression that Jesus’s hasty burial occurred late Friday afternoon, followed by the observance of the Sabbath day. The walk to the tomb by the women then occurred just as soon as it could be accomplished, directly after the close of the Sabbath. There they discovered that the grave had been vacated.

At this juncture in the present discussion, neither the historicity of Jesus’s burial nor the conclusions regarding the emptiness of the tomb are in view—these are matters taken up elsewhere in this study in much detail. But for now it is crucial to note initially that each of the four canonical Gospel authors at least thought rather clearly that they had been narrating a historical sequence here. A crucifixion and quick burial were accomplished on Friday, a Sabbath rest was observed on Saturday, and the women’s trip to the tomb occurred quite early the very next morning.88 It would seem rather difficult to argue that another option other than a linear progression of days was in view in these scenarios, thus supporting the literal, historical meaning of this first day.

Metzger’s thoughts above cited the strata in Acts too. Acts 10:40 may have been one of those indications that he had in mind here, where in one of the Petrine sermon summaries Jesus is declared to have been raised on the third day rather than employing Luke’s own designation of the first day of the week in Luke 24:1. The difference here may very well have been due to the presence of a pre-Lukan sermon summary in Acts rather than the author’s own earlier phrase. We have already seen that the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:3 also mentions the third day. Moreover, in both the pre-Lukan sermon summary as well as the pre-Pauline creedal tradition, the third day clearly refers to the amount of time between the day of Jesus’s crucifixion and the time of his initial appearances to his followers.

In Luke 24:19–24, the two travelers to Emmaus state perhaps even more plainly that the day of Jesus’s resurrection and empty tomb both occurred on the third day after the crucifixion. Of course, this text makes it plain that these two walkers were at that very minute also beholding a postresurrection appearance of Jesus. Thus, both the three-day and the one-day sequences at least purport to measure dual paths in representing the time from the crucifixion to the resurrection event itself, the empty tomb, and the beginning of Jesus’s appearances. The three-day scenario depicts the total elapsed time, while the one-day count refers to the day following the Sabbath on that same weekend.

Additionally, both the three- and one-day time measurements are multiply attested. The three-day sequence is found in at least five independent sources: Matt 12:38–40 (from either Q or M); Luke 24:21 (L); a pre-Lukan sermon summary in Acts 10:39–41; the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:3–5 (both early creedal traditions); plus being represented in Jesus’s resurrection predictions located in Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34; and John 2:20.

The mention of the first day as applied to Jesus’s resurrection is found in Mark 16:2 (plus parallels) and John 20:1, making two independent sources. If the Epistle of Barnabas is counted here, then there are three independent sources. In speaking of the Sabbath as no longer possessing its original spiritual significance, the Epistle of Barnabas refers to the next day after the Sabbath as the one on which Jesus rose from the dead, as the eighth day, which is plainly the first day of the week (Barn. 15). (This is reminiscent of John’s speaking of the next Sunday after the resurrection as being eight days later in John 20:26.)

Moreover, the third-day references are also located in multiple literary forms since they are found in each of the Gospels plus in a couple of creedal traditions. The first-day demarcation is also located in all of the Gospel narratives, and if the Epistle of Barnabas is counted this would add a noncanonical epistle too. If the Epistle of Barnabas is not added here, then only the three-day texts would be found in multiple literary forms.

Lastly, if Dodd,89 alongside several other scholars,90 is correct that the original form of some of the Acts sermon summaries, or the individual verses contained in them such as Acts 10:40, may originally have been circulated in Aramaic, this would add another historical criterion to the mix, thereby pointing again to the exceptionally early date of these texts. The same conclusion would also apply to a potential Aramaic original for 1 Cor 15:4, with this latter argument having both its detractors, like Hans Conzelmann,91 as well as its defenders, such as Joachim Jeremias.92 Further, Hans Bayer argues that the Q saying in Luke 11:29–30 is an independent source for the three-day theme and indicates an Aramaic syntax as well.93

As agnostic New Testament scholar Wedderburn points out, another major argument that also favors a sequential time thesis is too often overlooked.94 In 1 Cor 16:1–2, Paul mentions that already in the 50s, in the locations of both Galatia and Corinth, local believers met on the first day of the week. In Acts 20:7, Troas is added to the mix where the first day represents the Christian day of worship. Ignatius teaches the same about AD 107, calling the same day where Jesus was raised from the dead “the Lord’s day” (Magn. 9). About AD 150 Justin Martyr also notes that the first day of the week is the commemoration of Jesus’s resurrection and appearances (1 Apol. 67.7). As just mentioned, the Epistle of Barnabas identifies the first day of the week as the “eighth day,” noting that it is the time when the church met due to it being the day when “Jesus rose from the dead” (Barn. 15). In Rev 1:10, “the Lord’s day” is also another likely reference to the day of Jesus’s resurrection, especially with the vision of Jesus just moments later being identified as the one who was dead but is now alive, living forevermore (1:18).

But what ought not be overlooked here is that the tradition being established in these texts that Sunday had become the primary day of Christian worship in celebration of Jesus’s resurrection also favors another linear argument. The “first day” used here pertaining to the time of Christian worship, prayer, and collecting funds is the extenuation of the accounts above. The original reference was the sequence of the three days from the crucifixion to the resurrection event, the discovery of the empty tomb, and the initial appearances of Jesus. So just as the Gospels and Acts employ the “third” or the “first” days as alternate ways to delineate the day of Jesus resurrection, this original linear demarcation had now elongated into the worship on that same, physical day. The beginning of Sunday worship was an extension of the resurrection event, the discovery of the empty tomb, and Jesus’s initial appearances.

Thus, what had been the original three-day sequence at the end of Jesus’s physical life was now represented as many ongoing weekly celebrations of these same events. The emphasis all along, from first to last, was shown to have been a historical one, based on the original events, rather than as a nonchronological, theological celebration such as depicted in Hos 6:2. As repeated by several authors, this original historical weekend later gave rise in many places to weekly worship and proclamation, all following strictly from the historical remembrance and celebration of the original saving acts in history.

Earlier it was mentioned that some scholars preferred the view that the designa-tions “third” and “first” were simply a sort of shorthand for a “brief time later.” Initially, even that label still accentuates that Jesus’s resurrection and appearances occurred soon after the crucifixion. But with the second argument above of Christian worship falling predominantly on the first day of the week (Sunday), this appears once again to point backwards to the original weekend in a way that is difficult to avoid.

Another argument for the historical view should be mentioned briefly. It is noteworthy that the idea of a theological fulfillment rather than a historical one is generally favored by those who reject the literal resurrection and appearances and even the empty tomb. If on the other hand, as this entire study argues, the resurrection of Jesus, the empty tomb, and especially the initial appearances of the risen Jesus were actual events, then this would seem to turn the entire argument to the historical response. While a theological reason can exist with or without a literal event, as will be pointed out momentarily, such actual occurrences would refocus the chief attention and emphasis to what arguably would be the most spectacular manifestations in history. As such, these events would almost certainly become precisely what was described and meant by the notations “first” and “third.” For why would early believers settle for a Jewish theological description of these days when the real events on which their eternal salvation was based were near at hand, within their reach?

On many of these occasions where the theological view is mentioned positively, it is simply just stated without a detailed argument, if any at all.95 Further, the theological option seems to be the odd view out here, in that it is unsupported by the sustained data. On the other hand, both the literal view of three consecutive days and a more middle-road “short time later” view point to occurrences or experiences in actual time from a relatively brief period later. As just mentioned, these actual occurrences would undoubtedly become the focus of the “third” and “first” days. Then, beginning soon after that, these things would indeed be celebrated theologically in worship, preaching, and teaching.

We may now return to a brief consideration of the force of the early and eyewitness reports mentioned earlier in this excursus. It was remarked there that it would have to be known what terms like third and first meant originally before the value of these two species of evidence could be ascertained or applied to this case. But the conclusion just reached here is that these words were both most likely references to a physical day, namely either the first Sunday immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus, or at worst a short time later though still occurring on a Sunday.

Thus, a last conclusion on this matter may be drawn now. The considerations raised above seem to point more firmly to these days being historical time markers instead of theological celebrations of victory.96 If that is the case, the value of having both exceptionally early testimony,97 and even eyewitness references to these events,98 can be better assessed. Historical events reported the weekend or so after Jesus’s crucifixion by eyewitnesses would seem to weigh in as well on this historical side of the argument as exceptionally powerful, confirmatory indications that further cement these “third” and “first” day conclusions.

Concluding then, thoughts of theological victory such as those taught in the Old Testament need not be simply dismissed. These should be woven in here and probably were, as some of the applications in the New Testament Epistles indicate. After all, extraordinary events such as these we have considered would normally be expected to resonate into worship, celebration, and application. But in a case such as the one here, the likelihood of historical events would serve better as the base meaning, trumping the idea that the theological interpretations alone could serve in that role. This is a final rejoinder to the theological arguments such as those of Karl Lehmann and others that the Jewish stories alone could serve as the foundational undergirding for the use of these terms.

The Centrality of the Message of Jesus’s Death and Resurrection

The last “known” or “accepted” historical fact to be treated in this chapter presents a bit of a different situation than the preceding ones. On the one hand, the conviction with which this point is held, even among most of the very critical commentators, is amazingly uniform and robust. Nonetheless, there is somewhat strangely a small amount of dispute coming from at least a couple of areas of scholarship. These objections will be treated here as well, even if only briefly. Initially, some of the arguments in favor of the central and crucial nature of the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus will be addressed, with the first point taking significant time to establish.

The Historical Evidence

(1) When discussing the chief source traditions in the canonical writings, the textual case for the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ seems quite vigorous and untouchable. A brief overview should hopefully make this clear.

In the Synoptic Gospel narratives, many indications from different angles support the position regarding this central emphasis. For example, Jesus predicts on many occasions the shocking news of his death and resurrection, attributing special significance to these events.99 In this study, we have already discussed more than once that a number of these occasions are supported several times over by the relevant criteria. Their frequency and emphasis alone, especially since several of the sayings are well established, indicate that they represent an important theme. Beyond the rate of predictive recurrence, its emphasis, and the backup regarding one of these pronouncements in chapter 10, Mark follows that prediction with the remark that the foremost goal of Jesus’s entire ministry was to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28)—it was his overall purpose.

Further, in a Q saying in Matt 12:38–40 and Luke 11:29–30, Jesus addresses the Jewish leaders’ request for a sign to back his authority. In Matthew, Jesus clearly points to “the sign of the prophet Jonah,” referencing his death and resurrection as the only indication that they would receive. Luke also notes the presence of “the sign of Jonah” but does not specify its nature.100 In another passage that is presumed by many scholars to also be from the Q sayings source, a very similar question is answered by both Matthew (16:1–4) and Luke (11:29) as being provided by “the sign of Jonah.”101

Still more indications are available that Jesus’s death and resurrection are the very apex of the Synoptic Gospels and the chief emphasis in these writings. The highly solemn event of the Last Supper was instituted by Jesus to commemorate his death (a ransom according to Mark 10:45 that was “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”), along with the comment that Jesus would be alive to celebrate the event again in God’s kingdom (Mark 14:22–25 and parallels). Though according to the majority of scholars there are no resurrection appearances in Mark, Jesus’s many predictions and the pronouncement by the angel at the empty tomb that Jesus would appear to the disciples in Galilee make it more than clear that Mark knew about at least one appearance of the risen Jesus.102

The conclusions in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke bring it all together from a similar perspective. In Matthew, it is the resurrected Jesus (28:8–10, 16–17) who appears and proclaims that all authority has been given to him. That was precisely the standpoint from which the ongoing gospel discipling, baptizing, and teaching were to be taken to all nations (28:18–20). Similarly in Luke, the truth of Jesus’s resurrection as witnessed especially in 24:36–43 leads straight to verses 46–49. It is precisely because of the resurrection that the path to life had been laid. The gospel message is the absolute center of this message (24:46). Like Matthew, repentance and forgiveness were to be preached (24:47) and the disciples were the designated witnesses of these things (24:48). In both of these Gospels, without the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no offer of the gospel, hence no message, and therefore no postresurrection church.103 Each in their own flavor, Matthew and Luke both close their Gospels in the same manner—working out from the center of the gospel events and proclamation.

Perhaps another way to view this subject is to consider the large percentage of each Gospel that is dedicated to the last week of Jesus’s life. Hence the Gospels have sometimes been viewed as Jesus’s Passion Week prefaced with some prior narratives.104 The large portions being devoted to these themes is another indication of where the authors are placing their foremost attention.

But there is another absolutely crucial matter here that needs to be specified. Just a few high points throughout the Synoptic Gospel teaching were highlighted here—such as Jesus’s predictions of his death and resurrection, the Jonah sign comments, plus the Last Supper—as clear indications that these events form the center of the overall teaching. But it also must be remembered that ever since Rudolf Bultmann (and actually even before his notoriety), it has been correctly recognized throughout contemporary theology that the Gospels are largely reports written from the standpoint of looking back through the lens of Jesus’s resurrection.105 So, without this central perspective, there would simply be no Synoptic view whatsoever, at least in the form that it exists now. In this sense it is far too shortsighted to ask where the specific resurrection teachings are located in the Gospels, for in a sense everything is about Jesus’s death and resurrection. These writings would not be here but for these grand occurrences.

In John, the situation is not that much different from that of the Synoptics. John also makes it clear that he is concerned with this same key theme. For example, Jesus predicts his death by itself (3:14–15; 12:32–33; cf. 11:50–52), as well as his death and resurrection together (2:18–22). This latter instance is quite reminiscent of the Jonah texts in Matthew and probably Luke, in that the answer to the Jewish request for a sign is also the resurrection. Many of the teaching portions of this book also depict (as well as predict) the gospel message of Jesus’s death and resurrection.106

Likewise, the resurrection and appearances of Jesus are the crowning capstone of Jesus’s life, with scenes like Jesus’s appearance to Mary Magdalene (20:13–16), to the disciples (20:19–23), and later to Thomas (20:24–29) to quell their doubts and disbelief. Then to make matters clear, the author pronounces the theme of the entire book as a closing admonition, commenting that the miracles recorded therein, culminating with Jesus’s resurrection, were narrated to invite personal belief and eternal life (20:30–31). In the last chapter, whether written by the same author or as an appendix (21:24), Jesus’s threefold charge to Peter to follow him and to “feed his sheep” (21:15–22) carries 20:31 forward into the world, as signified through the person of Peter as the apostolic leader. As with the Synoptics then, Jesus’s death and resurrection clearly are what provide both the overall theme here as well as the admonition to take this gospel message to the world.

The existing portion of the Gospel of Peter is fragmentary, but the narrative begins with a brief treatment of Jesus’s trial, progresses through the crucifixion, burial, and a rather incredible scene of a giant Jesus exiting the tomb assisted by two very large angels. Another amazing scene with the soldiers and Pilate follows afterward. The women go to the tomb and discover that it is empty except for a young man dressed in an exceedingly bright white robe who announces that Jesus has risen from the dead. The fragment ends with the disciples, who had left some time earlier presumably for Galilee, preparing to go fishing. Of course, questions remain here, including a reliable date of composition and whether the original source was more than a Passion and resurrection source. Nonetheless, judging from what is available, the author(s) of the Gospel of Peter arguably considered these events to be central, at least in as far as they are the sum of the narrative.

Perhaps no canonical book sets forth the central nature of the death and resurrection of Jesus as clearly or frequently as does the book of Acts. The book opens immediately in 1:3 with the comment that Jesus died, rose again, and appeared over a period of forty days. The first five chapters explode on the scene with the teaching of the risen Jesus followed by his ascension (1:1–11), then the choosing of a twelfth apostle to take Judas’s place, where the requirement is having been a witness to Jesus’s ministry and especially to his risen appearances (1:22).

The next four chapters include the best known of the very early sermon summaries, with every one of them centering on the resurrection. Sometimes the idea is something akin to providing evidence for the Christian claims (like Acts 2:22–24; 3:12–16). In fact, Acts 4:2 states that the apostles’ theme on that occasion was teaching the people that en Iēsou, “in Jesus,” the dead would be raised too. Then after their confrontation with the Sanhedrin, the text asserts that “with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 4:33 NRSV). This text appears to identify the main theme of the apostles’ teaching, namely, that the Lord Jesus had been raised from the dead (tēs anastaseōs).

The other two chapters that contain the best examples of the early sermon summaries are Acts 10 and 13, and these also center on the death and resurrection of Jesus. In Acts 10, Peter appeals to what his Gentile listeners already knew about Jesus (humeis oidate, 10:37). He gets to the crux of the message when he states that the apostles had preached the good news that the Lord Jesus (houtos estin pantōn kyrios, 10:36) had been hanged on a tree and was raised from the dead on the third day and was seen by God’s chosen witnesses (10:39–41). This foundational theme propelled these messengers to preach to everyone, informing them that God was the judge in these matters but that faith in the Lord Jesus could gain forgiveness (10:42–43).

In Acts 13, when Paul reaches the portion of his preaching concerning the salvation message (ho logos tēs sōtērias tautēs, 13:26), he asserts that the Jerusalem leaders sought out Pilate to crucify Jesus, the Son of God, after which they took him down from the tree and buried him in a tomb. But before his body began decaying, Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to those who were now his witnesses (13:26–35). These witnesses were now themselves preaching this message of faith for the forgiveness of sins (13:38–39).

Though much less frequently, some influential commentators consider portions of Paul’s proclamation in Acts 17 to also contain early sermon summaries and confessional materials as well.107 This chapter begins in Thessalonica, and scholars note that a likely confessional phrase probably occurs. In the opening of the chapter, the reader is told that Paul’s normal custom (kata to eiōthos tō Paulōi, 17:2) was to enter a Jewish synagogue and dialogue regarding the dual truth that Jesus was the Messiah and that he had also risen from the dead (17:2–3). Later in the chapter, having traveled to Athens, Paul argues with the influential philosophers at the Areopagus, proclaiming the truth of the Christian message that God commanded repentance from everyone and providing assurance (pistin paraschōn, 17:31) of these things on the grounds of Jesus’s resurrection (17:31). Some of the intellectuals sneered (hoi men echleuazon), some asked to hear more, and some even believed and became followers of Paul (kollēthentes autō episteusan, 17:32–34)!

From this exceptionally quick tour of a number of textual highlights in the book of Acts, it should be clear that the resurrection of Jesus is the center of these major passages. As Longenecker states concerning Luke’s practice throughout this volume, “In almost all of the sermons he records, he presents the resurrection of Jesus as the crucial topic and focal point of what was proclaimed.”108

Lastly, we come to the apostle Paul, regarded by almost all critical scholars as the most important writer in the New Testament. There is no better passage in the New Testament on the centrality of the resurrection of Jesus than 1 Cor 15:12–20. After discussing the testimony for Jesus’s appearances (15:3–8) and the apostolic agreement on these data (15:11), Paul turns to the theological and practical value of the resurrection. He states clearly that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then preaching is vain or empty (kenon) and so is faith (15:14). Moreover, then all Christians would be false witnesses for God (pseudomartures tou theou) (15:15). Again, without the resurrection, faith is a lie (featuring a different, stronger Greek term: mataia) and the Christian approach has not achieved the forgiveness of our sins (15:17).

Further, if the dead do not rise (15:15b–16), then our loved ones who have died in Christ have perished or are destroyed (apōlonto) and there is no hope for a Christian view of the afterlife (15:18). In sum, all of this means that Christians would be the most miserable and pitiable (eleeinoteroi) of all people, the most pitiful (15:19) if Christ has not been raised from the dead! This is a horribly negative picture at every single turn!

However, then the tide turns completely: since Christ indeed has been raised from the dead, he is the firstfruits of the resurrection to come, culminating in the resurrection of the dead in the last day (15:20)! In a nutshell from 1 Cor 15:12–20: without a risen Jesus, there is no Christianity. Even distinctly Christian ethics are ungrounded and thus have been lost apart from the resurrection (as in 15:32). But with this event and what it entails, the entire Christian worldview, theology, practice, and more follows! Then the remainder of this chapter patterns the resurrection bodies of believers on Jesus’s resurrection body (15:35–57).

Besides the Gospels, Acts, and 1 Cor 15:1–20, other key passages could be mentioned as illustrating the centrality of Jesus’s resurrection in the New Testament, not only in Paul109 but also in other biblical writings.110 But the texts mentioned here should serve the purpose of establishing this essential theme.

(2) The next indication that the death and resurrection of Jesus occupy the central position in the New Testament is in addition to major passages that clearly state the overall importance of this event, such as those texts above. In contrast to the passages described above that broadly proclaim the centrality of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, other New Testament texts offer a closer examination of this theme. On most occasions, the factual portion of the gospel message is mentioned more or less as a whole without parsing out the specific factual details, and a faith commitment is encouraged in light of this offer of salvation. But sometimes the factual side of the gospel message is spelled out, in which cases the resurrection is precisely in the middle of the equation.

Before providing the key creedal tradition, Paul initially reminds his audience in 1 Cor 15:1–2 that he had preached the gospel in Corinth and that whoever had responded in faith was thereby saved. Then in verses 3–5, Paul sets forth what might be seen as the component parts on the factual side of the gospel: that Christ died for sins, had been buried, rose from the dead, and appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve. Other appearances are mentioned as well.

In the very first Christian sermons in Acts 2–5, 10, and 13, including the exceptionally early sermon summaries, not a single one leaves out Jesus’s titles or descriptions, such as Christ (2:36; 3:18–19; 4:10; 10:36),111 Lord (2:25, 31, 36; 10:36; cf. 4:33), Son of God (13:33), the author of life (3:15), Savior (5:31; 13:23), and among the most important, Jesus being seated at the right hand of God (2:33–35; 5:31). Each of these sermons emphasizes most of all the death and resurrection of Jesus.112

Elsewhere, other examples include the unpacking of the gospel facts. In the succinct summary in 2 Tim 2:8, 11, the gospel message includes Christ being descended from David, dead, and raised from the dead. A chapter earlier, in dying Christ is said to have destroyed death and by being raised from the dead he introduces life and immortality for others (2 Tim 1:8–11).

Two early creedal traditions are among the chief witnesses here. In Rom 1:1–7, Paul repeats an early confession in verses 3–4 that calls Jesus the Son of God with power (a very significant phrase regarding the deity of Jesus),113 Christ, and Lord by virtue of his resurrection from the dead. In the creedal statement in Rom 10:9, the gospel message is also stated very succinctly: Jesus ought to be confessed for salvation as the Lord in light of faith in his death and resurrection.

As a brief additional note, confessing Jesus as Lord in Rom 10:9 is the apex of a number of claims which indicate that Jesus was regarded in earliest Christianity with a particularly strong belief in his deity. As to the specific meaning of “Lord” here, Paul incorporates in the same context (10:10–13) this notion of calling on Jesus as Lord with the Septuagint version of Joel 2:32.114 The encouragement is that whomever calls upon the most sacred name of God (kyrios in the Greek but literally YHWH in the original Hebrew) will be saved. Bauckham states firmly that this “makes a very serious identification of Jesus with YHWH.”115 Hurtado offers similar comments, speaking of this same passage in Rom 10:9 (along with others) that “it represents the inclusion of Jesus with God as recipient of public, corporate cultic reverence.”116

Bauckham refers to this and other similar references as the “divine identity” of Jesus with God, which “is already a fully divine Christology, maintaining that Jesus Christ is intrinsic to the unique and eternal identity of God.” Based on these considerations, Bauckham asserts, “The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology.”117 As mentioned above, this entire high Christology is linked inextricably in Rom 10:9 and elsewhere to the death and resurrection of Jesus as indispensable and inseparable components.

The first two indications here, taken together, provide a number of clear angles on what has been referred to often in this volume as the homologia, or the very earliest, central message that emerged after Jesus’s resurrection. We have remarked that the chief topic of the creedal traditions is Christological in nature. The gospel proclamation of the Son of God who died, rose from the dead, and appeared again is in turn the center of this Christological message. The creeds could be said to be the husks that house the homologia.

(3) As seen above, the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was expressed in the New Testament through both more general key texts as well as specific passages that define the actual content of the gospel message itself. Beyond these categories, we turn now to more evidential indications of this centrality. The truth of these messages was indicated by Paul’s own eyewitness testimony plus the testimony of other leaders as well. This has already been discussed above and will only be mentioned briefly in this context. Paul met the apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem in about AD 35 (Gal 1:18–20). Later he traveled to meet with these same two apostles plus John to discuss the gospel message (Gal 2:1–10). As Paul states elsewhere, this topic of the person, death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of the risen Christ occupied the most important Christian message (1 Cor 15:3). Paul adds here that the other apostles were teaching this same gospel message as he was (1 Cor 15:11).

These meetings involved the four most influential early Christian leaders, each of whom were apostles and eyewitnesses, all discussing the truth and proclamation of the gospel message. As we have observed from numerous angles, the death and resurrection of Jesus occupied the centermost places of distinction here.

(4) Likewise, these two meetings along with most primitive creedal traditions and sermon summaries (the vast majority of which also focus on the gospel content) all date exceptionally early. Up through Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem, potentially even the majority of the creedal traditions were already in existence, placing them within the first five or six years after Jesus’s crucifixion.118 As already pointed out, conclusions such as these are conceded far more commonly in the research. Reginald Fuller even remarked in 1979 that essential items such as the factual content of the gospel preaching and teaching were passed on to Paul by AD 35 at the “very latest” when he visited Jerusalem on his initial trip. Even in 1979, Fuller attests that this was the “consensus” position among scholars.119 Much more recently, James Ware has confirmed this same “almost universal scholarly consensus.”120

Moreover, even by the time of Paul’s second journey to Jerusalem, many of the creeds that he recorded later still predate the earliest New Testament writings, such as 1 Thessalonians. This is extraordinarily early indeed. As historian Paul Barnett points out, “In terms of the historical reference to noted persons in antiquity, this would represent a brevity without parallel.”121

(5) Another indication of the strength of the eyewitness and early testimony for the reports of Jesus’s death and resurrection is that this information is well attested by multiple independent sources. Though we did not pursue an exhaustive list, the sources above consisted of early creedal traditions and sermon summaries, Mark (including Matthew, Luke, and Acts), Q, M, L, John, a few of Paul’s epistles, at least three other canonical epistles (according to the way critical scholars count them), Revelation, and the noncanonical Gospel of Peter. This makes a total of at least a dozen sources for these events. That is a good number of texts that witness to the centrality of the gospel message.

(6) Besides the independent sources that attest to the centrality of the gospel report, there is also a decent representation of multiple literary forms that do similarly. The idea from critical scholars is that several such differing types of literature help to indicate teachings that more likely were spread throughout the early church traditions. In this case, we observed Gospel narratives (from both the canonical texts plus the Gospel of Peter), the many early creeds and sermon summaries plus Q sayings, the various epistolary mentions even outside the New Testament, as well as an apocalyptic account in Revelation, for a total of at least five forms.

Two Objections to the Centrality of Jesus’s Death and Resurrection

It was remarked earlier that questions on some fronts had been raised by other critical scholars regarding the centrality and the very early teaching regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus. Two examples will be mentioned.

Initially, Leslie Houlden raises several lines of questioning as to whether Jesus’s resurrection was of central import, at least in the Gospels and a few of the later New Testament Epistles. He charges that this event was surely not needed to augment either the spread of Christianity or its continuance, since many religious movements have been established and grown very well on other grounds. Further, while “the fact that a half dozen of the shorter books contain no mention of the resurrection need not detain us,” it may still indicate that “early Christian minds were not consumed by it.” Even while conceding that for Paul, according to several key passages like 1 Cor 15:12–19, the resurrection was of central importance, Houlden still muses that Paul’s emphasis on a spiritual resurrection body for both Jesus and believers subtracts something of the emphasis.122

Though recognizing the bodily resurrection emphasis in the Gospels except for a few comments by Mark, Houlden spends the most time trying to point out that this event remains “less central” even in the three Synoptic Gospels. He does admit that for Luke the resurrection takes on more meaning, particularly in Acts, where “indeed it appears as the very heart of the preaching” as it comes to the forefront of various texts time and again. But even there Houlden wonders why Luke appears to struggle continually with validating the resurrection and is willing to move past this occurrence to Jesus’s “ascended glory.” While John spends some time on the resurrection, Houlden states that the Fourth Gospel emphasizes that faith is better than sight, thereby diverting its readers away from the event itself. In short, for Houlden the Gospels report important things about Jesus’s resurrection to be sure, but as a whole their chief interest is elsewhere: they are more concerned with Jesus as Savior, securing salvation for those who act in faith.123

It would take many pages to respond in detail to Houlden, in that there are so many misunderstandings and false conundrums in his essay, and many of these would take time to explain in more detail than he took to spell them out somewhat superficially in the first place. But it will have to suffice here to respond with a number of short comments, leaving the reader to fill out the specifics from the relevant details in the remainder of this study.

For starters, unlike with some researchers, the quick spread of the church is only mentioned in passing here and there in Houlden’s essay, but not as any sort of special evidence for the event of the resurrection, since other movements have spread quickly as well. But we will let that pass. Certainly some later New Testament Epistles do not mention the resurrection (seven in total, depending on the meaning of a few verses).124 However, over half of these writings are only a single chapter long and most of them are focused very narrowly in their scope. Even so, several of these texts make comments that still imply the resurrection. Houlden is correct in his comment not to press this matter very far. As for Paul, the discussion about this apostle’s view of Jesus’s resurrection body along with that of believers has progressed much further in the more than two decades since Houlden wrote these comments, and the tide has turned against his position with regard to the actual data.125 But even if Paul’s view was that Jesus still actually rose in a spiritual body, that remains a resurrection view along with its corresponding centrality. That would not be a denial of the resurrection.126

Houlden’s discussion concerning the Gospels frankly needs much help and reworking. Since when does Matthew’s concern to refute the disciples’ theft of Jesus’s dead body, or the Gospel’s attempt “to serve this-worldly ends of teaching and apologetic,” militate against the teaching of the resurrection when these defenses appear precisely during a resurrection appearance and therefore concern this event? Houlden basically concedes the resurrection emphasis in Luke and John, but again finds fault with the treatments. But how does Luke’s validation of Jesus’s Passion and resurrection quoting the Old Testament, his anxiety over presenting the bodily nature of Jesus’s appearances, or his interest in Jesus’s ascension to glory, strive against the Third Gospel’s emphasis on Jesus being raised from the dead? And are we truly to accept that John steers a path away from Jesus’s resurrection by being more concerned about Jesus’s person, death, and the need for faith?127

What must be kept in mind here is that Houlden thinks that all of these ideas serve to indicate that the resurrection is not central in the Gospels. How can this possibly be the case? Are we truly to accept that the items he mentions are opposite concerns? He considers a plethora of notions: whether the topic of the resurrection is opposed to answering natural resurrection challenges, that the subject may lead to teaching or presenting apologetic motifs, Old Testament confirmation of these same truths, concerns for evidencing the bodily nature of these appearances, along with Jesus’s death, saviorhood, and faith. It must look strange to Houlden that Paul mentions every one of these topics in one way or another in the major New Testament text on centrality, namely, 1 Cor 15:3–20. So Houlden’s objections apparently would have been news to Paul as well!

Perchance we can extend to Houlden some semblance of a small olive branch if we interpret him this way: perhaps a semblance of what seems to be rather grossly misplaced concerns are more simply the age-old view that faith is being juxtaposed to evidence or facts, such that the latter are not thought to concern the same subject. While this would not solve the problem entirely, and while the issues raised above still appear to be a strained interpretation throughout, it softens the blow somewhat. If this is not the angle Houlden meant, and particularly if it is not even close, then more serious difficulties remain perhaps now with a few others.

A second objection to resurrection centrality in the New Testament is the notion that, for certain pockets of Christians, this event was not at the center of their radar. In particular, this objection is usually raised by rather radical scholars who generally speak of writings such as the Q sayings in Matthew and Luke as well as the Gospel of Thomas. Although these scholars hold that these works are only collections of sayings that do not address the purported teachings and actions of Jesus, these critics often still hold or are at least open to the position that the communities who were responsible for assembling these teachings did not know about Jesus’s death, let alone his resurrection and appearances. Thus, these themes were not necessarily at the center of these groups’ interest in Jesus.128

Aspects of this second view are addressed at several points in this study, but the majority of critical scholars oppose these positions for a variety of reasons, but chiefly because of serious questions regarding their dating and interpretation of Q and the Gospel of Thomas and due to the almost unanimous persuasion that there is highly significant data for accepting the centrality of Jesus’s death and resurrection in the New Testament teachings. These critical testimonies will be indicated directly below.

As for more specific considerations behind the majority critical rejection of these radical stances, several critical factors will be mentioned here just briefly.

(a) Since the two foremost sources that are most employed in such critiques are the sayings documents Q and the Gospel of Thomas, how is it known that traditional interpretations of events such as Jesus’s death and resurrection were either unfamiliar to, or even largely ignored, or even rejected by these communities? Though there may be some textual hints, the extent of Q is unknown without a complete source for assessment. Further, according to key researchers, both Q as well as the Gospel of Thomas apparently went through many additions, editorial changes, and textual adjustments that would certainly have a bearing on their dates of composition, potential contradictions within the documents, their homogeneity, and so on.129

For example, while often noting the likely existence of the Q sayings, many major critical scholars recognize several additional exacerbating problems, like the original date and extent of the earliest composition, the doubtful existence of a Q community, stages in the Q sayings based on radical presuppositions, or whether Q is an actual Gospel or simply a sayings document. Particularly for the purposes here, many scholars deny any warrant for asserting that it can be known whether or not the importance or centrality of Jesus’s death or resurrection has been denied in Q. The conclusions regarding these questions are crucial but are anything but straightforward judgments yielding clear responses.130 Raymond Brown speaks of the status that some give Q that “betrays a dubious confidence that the total knowledge/faith of the Q author can be known from our reconstruction of the document.”131 Meier retorts regarding the chief matter before us in this study, commenting that the critical thesis that the Q group had no “knowledge of or interest in Jesus’ death and resurrection is simply not verified by the data at our disposal.”132

(b) The incipit (the opening sentence) in the Gospel of Thomas states that the person who is speaking in these 114 sayings is “the living Jesus” (Iēsous ho zōn; cf. also sayings 52, 59, 111; see also Rev 1:17–18 where the same Greek words ho zōn clearly indicate Jesus’s death and resurrection). Recent scholarship is split on the issue of whether or not this incipit was meant to indicate that it was the risen Jesus who uttered these key words, but suffice it to say that a number of even very critical scholars raise the possibility that this may be the case.133 Even the members of the Jesus Seminar attest that the Gospel of Thomas “assigns all sayings to the ‘living’ Jesus, which may mean the risen Jesus.”134 If the resurrected Jesus potentially could be depicted as the one who is speaking in this work, then this outlook would obviously change our understanding of the role of Jesus’s resurrection in the Gospel of Thomas. Though this is still presently an unsettled question, the possibilities are worth pointing out.

(c) Of the two major sayings sources, Q is dated earlier than the Gospel of Thomas. Q would necessarily predate Matthew and Luke, while the Gospel of Thomas is often dated from about AD 90 to 150.135 On the other hand, the early creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries predate these two sources by at least a couple of decades, and most likely many more decades at least in the case of the Gospel of Thomas, with the consensus scholarly view placing them by AD 35 at the latest, as pointed out elsewhere in this study.136 Even more radical scholars, such as the Jesus Seminar members, acknowledge this difference in spite of their dating these two oral works far earlier than most other scholars.137

(d) Further, while the authors and origins of Q and the Gospel of Thomas are unknown and can only be guessed, it has been shown in this study and agreed upon by critical scholars that the early creeds and sermon summaries are traceable to eyewitness testimony and the earliest traditions. As Allison emphasizes in the context of discussing Q and these earlier creedal teachings in 1 Cor 15:5, the concept of Jesus’s resurrection appearances “must go back to people who knew Jesus himself and were part of the earliest Jerusalem community, and this is all that matters in the present discussion.”138

(e) The traditional canonical teachings regarding the centrality of Jesus’s death and resurrection appearances are confirmed by multiple independent sources, such as the early creeds and Acts sermon summaries, Paul’s Epistles, all four Gospels, as well as the later epistles, the apostolic fathers, and the book of Revelation. Nothing of this nature attests to the veracity of Q and the Gospel of Thomas.

(f) These same traditional canonical teachings are likewise supported by multiple forms, as just argued above. Without attempting to be exhaustive, we observed the Gospel narratives (from both the canonical texts as well as noncanonical writings such as the Gospel of Peter), the many early creeds and sermon summaries plus a few Q sayings, the various epistolary mentions including some references from the apostolic fathers,139 as well as an apocalyptic mention in Revelation. This is a varied collection, indicating a broad cross section of first-century traditions.

(g) Even beyond all these particular problems with Q and the Gospel of Thomas that often keep hard conclusions to a minimum, plus the far stronger considerations that support the traditional views, there still remain all the New Testament sources, especially from the four Gospels and Paul’s Epistles, that argue for both the centrality of Jesus’s death and resurrection in general plus the specific salvation data in particular. True, any putative Gospel of Thomas audience would no doubt reject many of these texts, but the chief point being made here is that the far better established orthodox texts oppose the alternate plans of salvation, and that clearly favors the former teachings.

All of these counterarguments above provoke a serious overall inquiry. The minority, more radical scholarly positions today on Q and especially the Gospel of Thomas appear to be opposed by all of these challenges above, but with little or no accompanying evidence with which to eliminate these objections and establish their own alternate views, especially when the critiques are even admitted by those of other opinions. Yet they clearly get the worst of the comparison regarding supporting texts and historical arguments on behalf of the opposing canonical view. Moreover, many more scholars think other evidential considerations indicate that Q and the Gospel of Thomas actually do not deny the centrality of the death and resurrection message of Jesus in the first place, or at least that there is not enough information to answer these issues. Given all of these considerations, the question, then, is how can the views on behalf of the more radical minority alternative readings concerning Q and the Gospel of Thomas hope to show that their thesis is the superior position?

Scholarly Research

Our initial consideration was the state of the textual, historical, and other data and where that stands on the centrality of Jesus’s death and resurrection in the New Testament documents. It is precisely because the best data appear to support strongly the side of the more traditional positions on these issues that the vast majority of critical scholars (even very critical ones) still favor the centrality of these subjects as easily the chief focus of the gospel claims in earliest Christianity. They hold these views whatever their own personal scholarly views are on the subject.

Beginning with some of the more radical scholars to make the above point, the critical agreement here can be indicated further by a representative survey. Ingo Broer thinks that after Jesus’s death, the inward experiences of the original disciples were the key from the beginnings of Christianity and provided assurance for Jesus’s followers that God had confirmed Jesus’s teachings.140 According to Jesus Seminar cofounder Robert Funk, the “Resurrection was the centerpiece of a comprehensive compensatory scheme.”141 Further, that Jesus “was now risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of God became the cornerstone of the confession that he was the son of God.”142 Borg agrees that “the resurrection of Jesus . . . [is] central to the New Testament.”143

Helmut Koester arrives from a slightly different angle in that the resurrection and the appearances were the “catalyst” that prompted the early Christian missionary activity.144 Even Jack Kent reports, “According to the Gospel writers the central message of the disciples changed from the teachings of the historical Jesus to their belief that Jesus of Nazareth had been actually resurrected from the dead. The disciples were now changed into apostles and they went forth to preach the good news.”145 Hans Werner Bartsch makes it clear that 1 Cor 15:3–7 plainly confirms that the Christian faith arose at Easter, due to Jesus’s appearances, with the first Christians believing in the Lord Jesus Christ because of these events.146 The resulting faith began with a functional Christology that soon became an ontological Christology.147

For J. K. Elliott, “it is a matter of historic fact that the Christian church owes its foundation to the belief that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was raised from the dead on the third day after his death and burial.”148 After commenting on Jesus’s death, which occupies one-third of Mark’s Gospel and half of the Gospel of John, John A. T. Robinson points out that the death and resurrection of Christ is of “decisive importance” for the early Christians, as this message “dominates” the early preaching.149 Historian Michael Grant attests, “Without this certainty that Jesus Christ had risen, there would never have been a Christian church at all.”150 Grant also observes that the resurrection is “an indispensable and undetachable part of the Christian religion. . . . This has always seemed to be the case, from the very moment at which the event was first believed to have occurred.”151

Helmut Merklein details an early form of messianic Christology that may have marked the beginning of the oldest form of that belief in the Aramaic-speaking congregations. These believers consistently placed the salvation event of Jesus’s death and resurrection at the center of the Christian faith, which may have marked the early development of an explicit Christology where the risen one was the Messiah and the Son of God, as well as being related to the Son of Man concept.152 Werner Georg Kümmel likewise holds that it was the experiences that the disciples believed were appearances of the risen Jesus that catapulted them to faith in Jesus Christ, as his mission had been confirmed by God.153

Even moving from the earliest church forward to the present, the centrality of the resurrection could hardly be stated more forcefully than by Hans Küng: “Christianity begins with Easter. Without Easter there would be no gospel, not a single narrative, not a letter in the New Testament. Without Easter, Christendom would have no belief in Christ, no proclamation of Christ, nor any Church, any divine worship, any mission.”154 In spite of his strong skepticism on the nature of the appearances, Willi Marxsen’s opening comment in a major volume on the subject echoes Küng, referring to Jesus’s resurrection as playing “the decisive part” in the present-day church and its theology. Indeed, if there is “uncertainty” or “obscurity” on this matter, “there is a risk of jeopardizing more or less everything to which a Christian clings.”155

Many other skeptical scholars could be mentioned here beyond those just surveyed.156 Many major moderate to conservative scholars also agree regarding the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus in early Christianity. N. T. Wright is one of the most quotable researchers here: “The question of Jesus’ resurrection lies at the heart of the Christian faith. There is no form of early Christianity known to us—though there are some that have been invented by ingenious scholars—that does not affirm at its heart that after Jesus’ shameful death God raised him to life again.”157 Or again: “Christianity began as a resurrection movement . . . there is no evidence for a form of early Christianity in which the resurrection was not a central belief. . . . It was the central driving force, informing the whole movement.”158 Lastly: “It is totally absurd to say that Christianity from [the earliest times] didn’t make the resurrection of Jesus central.” Rather, the exact opposite is the case—the resurrection cast its light over the Gospels to such an extent that we sometimes have problems trying to differentiate what happened and how things got interpreted in light of the resurrection.159

In his celebrated critiques of the Jesus Seminar, Luke Timothy Johnson sounds a note similar to Wright’s message: “Despite the efforts of some contemporary scholars to hypothesize forms of a ‘Jesus movement’ that continued after his death with no belief in his resurrection, there is no positive evidence for any such movement.” Continuing, Johnson emphasizes, “Our earliest Christian writings are diverse in many and important respects, but they are in agreement on this point: Jesus who was crucified is now the living Lord.”160 Reginald Fuller carries forth this same tune: “The resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the central claim of the church’s proclamation. There was no period when this was not so.”161 Following up on this comment, Fuller continues, “At the very earliest stage in the tradition, the resurrection events were . . . proclaimed.”162

For Jean-Marie Guillaume, Jesus’s resurrection is the very center of the historical gospel message.163 According to F. X. Durrwell, in the book of Acts where the definition of an apostle is being a witness to Jesus’s resurrection, “the whole apostolate is bathed in the glow of Easter.”164 Walter Künneth makes a detailed study of Jesus’s death and resurrection as the grounds for salvation as well as Christian theology as a whole.165

Jürgen Moltmann takes a straightforward angle: “It is in fact true that the Christian faith stands or falls with Christ’s resurrection.”166 After a similar remark years earlier, Moltmann observes, “In the New Testament there is no faith that does not start a priori with the resurrection of Jesus.”167 In speaking of the disciples’ original experience of the risen Jesus, Ulrich Wilckens commented, “If it were not for this experience Christianity would undoubtedly not have come into existence.”168 Such comments could be multiplied several times over from numerous other scholars, even beyond these listed here.169

Beyond the New Testament as a whole, skeptical scholars also recognize that especially for the apostle Paul, the death and resurrection of Jesus stood at the center of the Christian faith. Hans Conzelmann points out, “The proclaiming of his resurrection is not supplementary to some other kind of proclamation of Christ, but is identical with it.”170 Funk asserts that it was “the death of Jesus and his appearance to Paul in a vision on the Damascus road that became the focal point of Paul’s gospel . . . the two incidents that comprise the formal content of his gospel.”171 Borg likewise recognizes this centrality for Paul,172 as does Jewish scholar Dan Cohn-Sherbok.173

Alan Segal affirms that “Paul’s central proclamation” is that Jesus is Lord and that believers share by faith in his death and resurrection.174 Wedderburn explains that, for Paul, the resurrection of Jesus is “something that is integral to the Christian faith.”175 Kent freely admits this truth for Paul as well: Paul “founded churches based on his idea of belief in the resurrected Jesus Christ.”176 Kent adds later that “Paul’s most important and bedrock theme was his deeply felt and absolute faith that Jesus of Nazareth was ‘resurrected’ from the dead by God and thus became Jesus Christ.”177

On a more moderate to conservative side, Wright points out graphically that Paul “had woven resurrection so thoroughly into his thinking and practice that if you take it away the whole thing unravels in your hands.”178 For F. X. Durrwell, Paul’s apostleship was also grounded upon the appearance to him by the resurrected Jesus.179 G. B. Caird points out that after his conversion due to a resurrection appearance of Jesus Christ, Paul “rapidly built it into the structure of his theology.”180 Stephen T. Davis states these matters in rather succinct terms: “The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the heart of Paul’s message” and especially of the center of the gospel that he preached.181 Thorwald Lorenzen attests that for Paul, “the encounter with the risen Christ forms the very foundation of his life and apostleship.”182

In sum, the overall witness of the New Testament testifies to the centrality of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection as being the very heart of the Christian message. This teaching is very strong and is observed in a wide variety of both theological venues as well as practical ministry situations. The great majority of scholarly testimonies proclaims the same. Rather amazingly, this is even the case among those researchers who do not actually accept the historicity of the event themselves.

Conclusion

This survey of the last four historical facts completes the discussion in this study of both the shorter list of “minimal facts” studies earlier with the slightly longer group of “accepted” or “known” historical facts, which were treated here. Beginning with the disciples’ disillusionment, despair, and even hopelessness due to their dashed hopes, this study progressed to the earliest preaching having its birth in the city of Jerusalem, to the phenomenon of church growth and Sunday worship featuring the message of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection at the very center and heart of the New Testament proclamation.

After the study of Sunday worship in the early church, an excursus allowed an examination of the usages of the “third” and “first day” in the New Testament writings. The conclusion was that historical events on that initial weekend after the crucifixion of Jesus best accounted for the data over against a theological interpretation involving victories for God’s people over God’s foes.

Being accredited to the vast extent that these historical facts are recognized as such by the nearly unanimous community of critical scholars, this information completes our larger list of documented data that must be considered in any resurrection study. It has been argued throughout this entire study that these facts that are so well established that they are accepted as historical by even the vast majority of skeptical researchers (including atheists, agnostics, adherents to other religions, and various other species of skeptics among them), thus acknowledging the minimal and known/accepted facts. As such, we must push ahead to the most likely conclusions that may be derived from this research.

Notes

1 Both the larger as well as the smaller list have varied slightly in number over the years and publications, depending on the overall circumstances as well as the audience. This smaller listing, for example, has likewise varied from three to seven of these same dozen facts.

2 Over the years very similar arrangements of the data in other publications appeared as well, again varying rather slightly. For example, these lists were utilized in three dialogues with (at that time) the prominent atheist philosopher Antony Flew, who did not object to this procedure. Details can be found in Gary R. Habermas and Antony G. N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, 19–20, 23–27 (see chap. 1, n. 68); Habermas and Flew, Atheist and Theist Dialogue, 2–53 (see chap. 4, n. 5); Habermas and Flew, Did the Resurrection Happen? A Conversation with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, ed. David Baggett (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 22–54.

3 On this aspect of methodology, see especially Habermas, “Minimal Facts Approach,” 15–26 (see chap. 4, n. 2). As explained throughout this study and elsewhere, sometimes a single fact has been adopted from the longer list with a “+ 1” designation, with this fact always being the empty tomb. It has been designated as such because the empty tomb of Jesus is supported by almost two dozen critically ascertained reasons, as pointed out in the chapter on that subject. This is required for a minimal fact designation. However, the empty tomb lacks the second “minimal facts” criterion, namely, having a strong but not the nearly unanimous verdict that is required for the minimal facts. For this “+ 1” designation, see chapter 3, titled “A Quintet of Facts (4 + 1): The First Two,” in Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 48–63 (see chap. 4, n. 2).

4 Such as Habermas, “Minimal Facts Approach,” 18.

5 In other words, we are not including here self-designated scholars who lack the credentials described above. Rather than make a personal critique here, atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman describes many of the differences between these two groups of critics in his own work, such as Did Jesus Exist?, esp 2–3, 17, 19–34, 167, 194–96, 268 (see chap. 2, n. 15), where many of Ehrman’s criticisms are very strong and sometimes quite biting. Cf. also Gary R. Habermas and Benjamin C. F. Shaw, “Agnostic Historical Jesus Scholars Decimate the Mythical Jesus Popularists,” Philosophia Christi 18 (2016): 485–95.

6 While a small percentage of critical scholars either holds or at least entertains the possibility of Jesus being buried in a common grave or otherwise, that Jesus was buried somewhere still occurred according to the vast majority of scholars. That Jesus was buried in a private tomb is still held by the highest number of these researchers.

7 Admittedly, as remarked in almost all my writings on this subject, the belief that Jesus’s burial tomb was later found empty is not as widely accepted as are the other facts listed here. However, it is still accepted by a significant majority of contemporary scholars, as we have argued.

8 For details, see these surprising and repeated themes in Matt 28:17b; Luke 24:11, 21a, 37–38; John 20:15b, 19–20, 24–29; cf. John 21:4b with 21:8, 12; as well as the pseudo-Markan appendix in Mark 16:10–11, 13–14, along with the Gos. Pet. 14:1–3.

9 Some commentators, such as Larry Hurtado (along with other influential researchers), think that Jesus took the words of Zech 13:7 as an apt passage where the Old Testament author spoke of a situation that in some sense would soon enough also parallel or typify in a different way what was about to occur to Jesus’s disciples. However, even such a potentially analogous insight by Jesus would not at all dispute the above comment that neither the Old Testament nor Jewish thought in general taught something like the situation which Jesus faced in the desertion of his closest followers along with their later disillusionment and doubt. For these ideas by commentators, see Hurtado, Mark, 241 (see chap. 13, n. 1); and France, Gospel of Mark, 575–76 (see chap. 10, n. 87), where other similar ideas are listed on 575 n. 75.

10 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, esp. chaps. 14–17, cf. also chaps. 10–11 (see chap. 1, n. 25).

11 Keener, Gospel of John, 1:81–139 (see chap. 9, n. 111), with several major conclusions on 139; Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 252–83 (see chap. 10, n. 134), such as 269–70, 275, including listing and discussing evidence and alternative positions; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 8–30. Morris then states on 30 that the best conclusion is that the apostle John was indeed the author of the Fourth Gospel.

12 Such as Keener, Gospel of John, 1:114; also 83, 139; Guthrie mentions several options in his New Testament Introduction, 275–76, 278–81.

13 For a potpourri of interlocking considerations along the lines just mentioned above, especially regarding the Gospel of John, compare the conclusions found in Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 165–67 (see chap. 1, n. 3); Dunn, “Let John Be John: A Gospel for Its Time,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 299; Brown, John, 1:xcii–cii, esp. ci–cii (see chap. 9, n. 148); cf. also Brown, New Testament Essays (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965), esp. 129–31; Dodd, Fourth Gospel (see chap. 9, n. 153), esp. the careful conclusions on 144, 423–32. While R. V. G. Tasker does not think it can be ascertained conclusively that John was the author of the Fourth Gospel, he does conclude in the context of speaking about John the son of Zebedee that this volume “contains . . . the testimony of one of the original apostles to the life and teachings of Jesus.” See Tasker, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 11–20, quotation here on 11.

14 Such as the majority views that a common sayings source (designated as Q) plus at least one other witness each was utilized by both Matthew (M) and Luke (L), plus any additional interviewees from Luke’s list that he specifically asserts contained eyewitnesses (autoptai) in Luke 1:1–4, a Greek term indicating that the observations made came from the individual’s own eyes. John is regularly thought to have utilized a miracles source that listed various purported supernatural acts performed by Jesus. According to some researchers, this appears to have been the case for Mark’s Gospel as well. Additionally, Acts is peppered with creedal texts designated as “sermon summaries” that have been discussed other places in this study, chiefly located in the Petrine passages in Acts 1–5, 10 plus the Pauline sermon in Acts 13.

15 The most vexing of the canonical Gospels for which to determine authorship is probably Matthew, and even here surprising conclusions can be found. Though an older essay, see the arguments of C. Stewart Petrie, “The Authorship of ‘The Gospel According to Matthew’: A Reconsideration of the External Evidence,” New Testament Studies 14 (1967): 15–33.

16 See the moving and highly acclaimed study by Alan E. Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). Cf. also Matthew Y. Emerson, “He Descended to the Dead” An Evangelical Theology of Holy Saturday (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2019).

17 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 40, 220, 230, 270, quotations on 230 and 270 (see chap. 5, n. 7).

18 Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 8 (see chap. 6, n. 129).

19 Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, 240–42 (see excursus 1, n. 12); also Spong, Easter Moment, 192 (see chap. 12, n. 25).

20 Hugh Jackson, “The Resurrection Belief of the Earliest Church: A Response to the Failure of Prophecy,” Journal of Religion 55 (October 1975): quotations on 419–20.

21 Kent, Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth, 41, 47; also relevant are 21, 33 (see excursus 2, n. 106).

22 Marxsen, Jesus and Easter, esp. 66–68, quotations on 67 and 69 (see chap. 5, n. 39). Also relevant is Marxsen’s earlier work, Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, 66–67 (see chap. 5, n. 39).

23 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:84–86 (see chap. 4, n. 47).

24 Hans Küng, Eternal Life?, 94–96, 106–7 (see excursus 2, n. 123).

25 Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 39, 41, 45–47, 188, quotation on 47 (see chap. 1, n. 42).

26 Elliott, “First Easter,” 210, 215, 218, 220 (see excursus 2, n. 111).

27 Sheehan, First Coming, 104–5 (see excursus 1, n. 16).

28 Allison, End of the Ages, 164, 166; see also 168 (see chap. 13, n. 34).

29 A representative list of many more scholars across the spectrum, among still many others, would include Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” 210 (see chap. 15, n. 89); Doré, “Croire en la résurrection,” 536–37 (see chap. 12, n. 25); Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 215, 217 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 96 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 125, 129 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 276, 278 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Raymond E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1973), 107; Hengel, Atonement, 65 (see chap. 6, n. 86); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 2, 82, 100, 101 (see chap. 10, n. 23); O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 115, 118 (see excursus 1, n. 86); Kee, What Can We Know, 45, 59–63 (see chap. 4, n. 46); Wright, Challenge of Jesus, 108 (see chap. 11, n. 113); Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 135, 137 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 120–22, 184, 270 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 124–25, 139 (see excursus 1, n. 12); Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 22, 36–37, 71–72 (see excursus 1, n. 12).

30 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 145, also 148 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

31 Of course, the apostles could have traveled temporarily out from Jerusalem to preach and teach the gospel message in other geographical areas, such as Peter’s travels to Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea (Acts 9:32–10:9, 23–24). Then afterward, Peter returned to his base in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2). For further details on Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem to speak with the other apostles, see the chapter in this study on the disciples’ original eyewitness experiences.

32 For a few of the many scholarly sources on the consensus here, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–67, particularly 266; Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475–98, most crucially 475 (see chap. 10, n. 47); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 854–57; Ehrman also agrees on the earliness of Paul’s two visits in Did Jesus Exist?, 144–46. John Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351 (see chap. 10, n. 146); Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction,” particularly 582, 584, 587, 589 (see chap. 11, n. 44).

33 Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:103–4; Meier, Marginal Jew, 3219–20 (see chap. 1, n. 27); Paul Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 13. It should be noted here that Barnett dates the crucifixion to 33, thus closing the time gap between that event and this meeting in Galatians 2, making it three years earlier.

34 Whether or not the two main Gospel accounts of Jesus’s first major appearance to the group of his disciples are thought to refer to the same episode in spite of several differing details, they still constitute two separate sources due to the relative independence of John from the Synoptic Gospel tradition.

35 In rather stark contrast to the angel’s prediction in Mark 16:7 regarding an upcoming appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee, each of the appearances in the longer ending of pseudo-Mark presumably occurred in Jerusalem or the environs. These appearances include Jesus’s first appearance to Mary Magdalene probably at or near the empty tomb (16:9), who then went and related this occurrence to Jesus’s disciples, who were still nearby in Jerusalem; another appearance to two disciples walking in the country who must have been just outside of Jerusalem since they also went back and told the disciples (16:12–13, which is quite reminiscent of the trip to the village of Emmaus that is recounted in Luke 24:13–35); and an appearance to the “eleven” disciples who had doubted the testimonies of both Mary Magdalene and the two country travelers (16:14–18), followed by Jesus’s ascension into heaven at an unspecified time and place but seemingly not far away (16:19–20). As an aside, between just the long and short endings of Mark, Luke Timothy Johnson holds that the short ending is “far and away the best attested in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts.” See Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 153–54 (see chap. 4, n. 51).

36 Hurtado states that “nearly all scholars” accept a second-century date or possibly somewhat later for the longer ending; see Hurtado, Mark, 287–88. Details in favor of a second-century date are contained especially in Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (London: SCM, 1985), particularly 167–69; also, France, Gospel of Mark, 687; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 103 (see chap. 10, n. 20).

37 Ehrman opts for an early second-century date for the Gospel of Peter in New Testament, 184. N. T. Wright asserts that the “great majority of scholars” agree that the Gospel of Peter “is dependent upon the canonical gospels.” Wright produces eight characteristics that it is a second-century document, perhaps even late in that century, in Resurrection of the Son of God, 592–96, quotations on 593 (see chap. 6, n. 44); John Meier just mentions the second century in Marginal Jew, 3:79, 121, as does Barnett in Finding the Historical Christ, 41. Darrell Bock dates the Gospel of Peter to the mid-second century in Missing Gospels, 218 (see chap. 6, n. 151). The more radical Jesus Seminar thinks the Gospel of Peter may have been written in the second half of the first century. See Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 553 (see chap. 4, n. 84). But Raymond Brown has argued in great detail against this last proposal in that it fails on numerous fronts, leading him also to date the Gospel of Peter to the first half of the second century in “The Gospel of Peter: A Non-Canonical Passion Narrative,” in Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1317–49, esp. 1343 (see chap. 6, n. 151).

38 These collections are mentioned in passages such as Rom 15:25–27, 31b; 1 Cor 16:1–4; and 2 Cor 8:1–9:15.

39 This is observed in Rom 15:25, 26; 1 Cor 16:1; 2 Cor 9:1, 12.

40 Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ, 47–55, quotation on 47.

41 As pointed out by Ehrman as well as others, Tacitus was mistaken with regard to applying this title to Pilate since he was not a procurator but a prefect in Judea. Ehrman, New Testament, 1096–97 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

42 Translation from Church and Brodribb, Complete Works of Tacitus (see chap. 1, n. 31).

43 These sources included Luke–Acts, Matthew (M?), John, the pseudo-Markan addition (most likely second century), the Gospel of Peter (also most likely from the second century), Paul, Josephus (end of the first century), and Tacitus (early second century).

44 Stein, Gospels and Tradition, 162 (see chap. 2, n. 35).

45 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 372–75, 397–98, 407, 435–36 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Crossan, “Dialogue,” 33–34, 38, cf. 175–76 (see chap. 10, n. 94).

46 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 178–85 (see chap. 2, n. 32); Borg, “The Truth of Easter” in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, ed. Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 87–91, 130–37.

47 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 34–36, 38–40, 220, 237–39, 260, 266–72, cf. 273.

48 Spong, Easter Moment, 88.

49 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 23–32, 34–39, 50–54, 66, 145–46, 156–57, 162–63, 176–79 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 16–18, 29–31, 36–37, 47–49, 54, 132–33, 169–73 (see chap. 10, n. 70).

50 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 130–32, 156–58, 163–64; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 137–40, 183–88, 290–91 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 201, 227–31 (see chap. 5, n. 43); Ehrman, New Testament, 197, 263, 307–8.

51 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 144–46, 251, 290–91.

52 Geza Vermes, The Passion (New York: Penguin, 2005), 13–14, 116; Vermes, Resurrection, 1–2, 7, 94–105, 120, 141–49 (see chap. 5, n. 14); Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 66–67, 92, 95–99, 125–29; for a survey of additional Jewish scholars on this subject, see Mishkin, Jewish Scholarship, 39, 44, 134, 142, 166–67, 201–14 (see chap. 8, n. 7).

53 Examples of additional researchers include the following: Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 100; Pannenberg, “Die Auferstehung Jesu—Historie und Theologie,” in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 91 (1994): 326–27; Hengel, Atonement, 1, 34–39, 65, 69; Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 67 (see chap. 10, n. 59); Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, esp. chaps. 22, 23 (see chap. 10, n. 17); Brown, Virginal Conception, 78–113; Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:219–20; Moltmann, “Resurrection of Christ,” 75 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 226–27 (see chap. 2, n. 13); Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 170 (see chap. 12, n. 34); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 14, 28–30, 42; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 126–27; Harris, Raised Immortal, 38–39 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Williams, Resurrection, 8, 11, 27 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Dawe, Jesus, 107 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Anderson, Jesus Christ, 125 (see chap. 8, n. 73).

54 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 96–105 (see chap. 11, n. 37), esp. 101, 105; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138; cf. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131.

55 Acts 20:6; 1 Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10; Did. 14; Ign. Magn. 9 (this reference to “the Lord’s day” is identified in the text itself as the day on which Jesus was raised from the dead, and it is contrasted in the same sentence with the “Sabbaths” that were no longer observed); Barn. 15 (the “eighth day” in this passage is described as the one on which the church met and is also identified as the day on which Jesus rose from the dead. This is contrasted in this same context with the Sabbath. The numeral “eight” may be a reference to the Greek text of John 20:26, when Jesus appeared to Thomas on Sunday, the eighth day—hēmeras oktō—after he was raised from the dead).

56 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, esp. 297, also 579, 594.

57 Acts 1:1–11, 21–26; 2:22–36; 3:13–15, 18; 4:2, 10, 33; 5:29–32.

58 For just a few of these, compare Eph 1:11–14 with 2:4–7; Col 3:1–17; 2 Tim 2:8–13; Heb 7:23–28; 10:11–12, 19–25; 13:20–21; 1 Pet 1:1–5; and Rev 1:4–18; 5:5–14.

59 Though it is difficult to ascertain exactly whose camp these men belonged to, depending on which description—“false” or “brothers”—should be emphasized from Gal 2:3–4! But if Acts 15 describes this same event, as many scholars think is the case, then it is more obvious that this group of Pauline “harassers” were believers, as per the comment in verse 5. Further, the larger group in Acts indicates more so the setting of a church conference or theological discussion. But if these are not the same occasion, the men in Acts 15:5 may still be connected with or at least describe the status of the accusers in Galatians 2 as well, since they were both making roughly the same theological charge.

60 As does Johnson in Writings of the New Testament, 255–57.

61 Of course, views of the possible Pauline authorship number could also fall anywhere between seven and thirteen writings too, and then still another adjustment would have to be made there.

62 Cf. Gos. Thom. 40, 52, 59, 111; Robert M. Grant, Gnosticism: A Source Book of Heretical Writings from the Early Christian Period (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961), 183; also 37, 52, 59; Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered, 124 (see excursus 2, n. 106).

63 Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 49.

64 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 397–98, 400, 402, 407, 422–23.

65 Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 9.

66 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 131; see 131–33, 137–40, for just a few of the many examples; also, Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 260–63.

67 Hick, Death and Eternal Life (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), 177.

68 Elliott, “First Easter,” 210.

69 Elliott, 219.

70 Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 127 (see chap. 15, n. 37).

71 Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” 197.

72 Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 113 (see chap. 1, n. 43).

73 Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 99–102; Pannenberg, Die Auferstehung Jesu und die Zukunft des Menschen (Munich: Minerva, 1978), 14–17; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 340, cf. 240 (see chap. 5, n. 19); Kremer, Die Osterevangelien—Geschichten um Geschichte, esp. 184–200 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:251–52, 625; Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus mystere de salut, 10th ed., 21–29; Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 170; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 109–12 (see excursus 1, n. 65); O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 109–10, 118; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 68 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 226–29, 339–40; Robert H. Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977): 123; Davis, Risen Indeed, 184–85 (see chap. 1, n. 16); Wand, Christianity, 92–94 (see chap. 1, n. 22); Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 164–64 (see excursus 1, n. 19); Samuel, “Making Room in History,” 111 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 103 (see chap. 6, n. 81); Anderson, Jesus Christ, 125; Walter Künneth, Theologie der Auferstehung, 6th ed. (Giessen, DEU: Brunnen, 1982), 200–215, 285–86.

74 As mentioned by John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 191 (see chap. 6, n. 151); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 823; Elliott, “First Easter,” 210; C. F. Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament (London: SCM, 1970), 49; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 324–29. Licona provides a very helpful overview of the original language in the key texts, including his rationale for preferring this view. Besides the scholars listed here, Licona also includes Allison, Bayer, Bruce, and Mettinger as preferring this option (325–29). Of course, as Licona recognizes, the “after three days” references are often found in Jesus’s predictions of his upcoming death and resurrection rather than in the resurrection narratives themselves. In all three references in Mark, the phrase follows directly after Jesus’s comment about his own death. But when used in such a way, it possibly could be that the term after refers not to a period of time beyond the third day, but that it would be three days after the crucifixion. In this sense, Jesus’s meaning could be that he is stating that he would suffer, die, and then in another three days after that death, he would be raised again. Further, this could be the best way to explain why Matthew has no trouble utilizing both the phrases “after the third day” and “on the third day” as in Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:63–64. In the final reference here (Matt 27:63–64), the two phrases are even used together in the same text. Here at least they must have had the same meaning or else it would have been fruitless for the chief priests to only ask for guards just until the third day! It must be remembered too that though Mark states “after three days” in 8:31; 9:31; and 10:34, where each of the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke include the phrase, they write “on the third day.” So it appears to be obvious that these are not different meanings, let alone competing time sequences. In agreement here especially on the last point are both Hurtado, Mark, 142, as well as France, Gospel of Mark, 336–37.

75 Examples of those who take or seem to favor nonhistorical interpretations of these time elements include Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, ed. George W. MacRae, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 256; Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 47; Küng, Eternal Life?, 105; Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 218; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 27; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 140; Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament, 48–50; Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 125; Evans, “Empty Tomb Tradition,” 51–52 (see chap. 15, n. 28). Pheme Perkins seems unsure, concluding that there is not a clear answer to this question in Resurrection, 86, 89–91 (see excursus 2, n. 111). John E. Alsup takes a position between the nonhistorical and historical positions in Post-Resurrection Appearance, 58–59 (see excursus 2, n. 111).

76 Some of these scholars include Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 48–50; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, esp. 321–22; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 823, 861–62; Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life, from Systematic Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 464–65; Alan F. Segal, Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 448; Elliott, “First Easter,” 210; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 15 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 49–50 (see excursus 2, n. 98), cf. the entire argument on 42–50; for a highly detailed argument on this matter, see also Craig’s volume Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 94–115 (see chap. 10, n. 146); Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 225, 296, 327; Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, esp. 337 (see chap. 8, n. 70); Metzger, “Methodology,” 18 (see chap. 11, n. 67); Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, 165–67 (see chap. 7, n. 18); Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 35–40 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Craig L. Blomberg, “Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith,” 101 (see chap. 15, n. 28).

77 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 23–24.

78 Fuller, 24.

79 Fuller, 25.

80 Fuller, 26–27.

81 Borg, Powelson, and Riegert, Lost Gospel Q, 75 (see chap. 8, n. 25), with this saying numbered as Q41.

82 Of course, this also gets into the heart of the discussion mentioned below as to what exactly was the event being spoken of in these passages. See the discussion there.

83 Hans Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection: The Provenance, Meaning and Correlation of the Synoptic Predictions (Tübingen: Mohr, 1986), 120, 142–44. Again, see the entire discussion of Jesus’s predictions of resurrection and vindication directly below in this chapter.

84 Few critical scholars give more complete summaries of the problems here than does atheist New Testament scholar Ehrman in Did Jesus Exist?, 207–30. A less detailed but also insightful critique from an agnostic New Testament scholar is that by Maurice Casey in Jesus, 1, 19, 230–34, 244 (see chap. 4, n. 41). For an in-depth treatment of many aspects that are involved here, see the two chapters on this subject in this present study. Other quite critical scholars who came to similar views include Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 256 and Crossan in “Response to Robert M. Price,” 85 (see chap. 6, n. 38), where Crossan asserts clearly that “the dying-rising gods have nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus.” Others who also affirm this in this same dialogue are Dunn, who refers to the “savior myth” as “Sad, really,” in “Response to Robert M. Price,” 95 (see chap. 6, n. 40); and Luke Timothy Johnson, who charges that the dying-and-rising-god thesis falls prey to what the early church actually taught about Jesus, as well as being refuted by “the stubborn resistance of certain historical facts” in “Response to Robert M. Price,” 90–92 (see chap. 6, n. 39).

85 Just a few of these include Jonathan Z. Smith, “Dying and Rising Gods,” in Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed., ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 4:2535–40; Günter Wagner, Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem von Römer 6, 1–11 Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Zurich: Zwingli, 1962), 282–83; Tryggve Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 136–40, 214–5; Metzger, “Methodology,” 13, 18–21.

86 Metzger, “Methodology,” 18.

87 Mark 16:2; Matt 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1.

88 The long pseudo-Markan ending written at a later date likewise agrees in placing Jesus’s resurrection early on the first day of the week (Mark 16:9).

89 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 19–21, 26–30 (see chap. 2, n. 22). Dodd is especially insistent concerning Acts 10:34–43, stating that it is the most likely of the sermon summaries in this book to have had an Aramaic original (20–21, 27–28).

90 Such as Max Wilcox in Semitisms of Acts, 171 (see chap. 9, n. 12), who finds Semitisms not in the Acts sermons as a whole, but in a number of at least potential texts within these sermon summaries.

91 Conzelmann sums up some of the arguments both for and against this view in First Corinthians, 252–54.

92 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 102–3.

93 Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, 120. Licona makes this point as well in Resurrection of Jesus, 325.

94 Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 48–50.

95 Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 256; Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 190–91; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 140; Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 47; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 26–27.

96 William Lane Craig provides a very careful assessment of one of the strongest defenses of the view that the third day is a theological conclusion rather than a historical one, concentrating particularly on the arguments of Karl Lehmann in Auferweckt am dritten Tag nach der Schrift, Quaestiones Disputatae (Freiburg: Herder, 1968). Lehmann argues on the grounds of many passages in the Old Testament (including Septuagint readings) where events occur on the third day, plus references in Midrash and other rabbinical literature such as the Talmud. Oftentimes, rescue and revival come to Israel or to individuals on the third day. While acknowledging that Lehmann’s case is well documented and even persuasive, Craig moves on to point out several major problems. These critiques include the very damaging comment that the references from the Midrash and the Talmud all postdate the New Testament by hundreds of years each. Increasing the force of this first critique is that Hans Conzelmann, who even prefers a similar view to that of Lehmann, still regards Lehmann’s exceptionally late dates here as alone being enough to dismiss Lehmann’s argument! Nor do these later rabbinical views show up either in Jewish sources from intertestamental times or those of the first century, where the third-day motif as the day of resurrection does not appear at all. There is also no indication that New Testament authors knew of this interpretation. Lastly, if the empty tomb and Jesus’s appearances (however the latter are construed) were actual events, this moves these occurrences into the driver’s seat as the best sense of the third-day teachings. See Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 100–115. Conzelmann’s comments on Lehmann’s view are found in the German edition of his commentary, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 302, as well as in the English translation of First Corinthians, 256.

97 As with the early creedal traditions such as 1 Cor 15:3–7, plus the Acts sermon summaries among other early reports that are explored elsewhere in this study, buttressed further by Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem to ascertain the truth of the gospel message in Gal 1:18–20 and 2:1–10 (cf. especially Paul’s direct comment in 1 Cor 15:11), Paul’s own testimony in 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8, and so on, all before the dates of the Gospels.

98 These eyewitness data begin with Paul’s personal testimony regarding his own appearance just mentioned above. Additionally, Paul received more indispensible eyewitness testimony from Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and later the apostle John on the two occasions of Galatians 1 and 2, presumably regarding their own appearances while they were expressing the contours of the gospel message in these two meetings. Again, Paul’s testimony in 1 Cor 15:11 specifically told of the other eyewitnesses’ firsthand experiences with the risen Jesus. Further, there is also additional accurate testimony regarding Jesus’s appearances that may be garnered from the authors of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, given what is increasingly known concerning any reliable sources they may have utilized.

99 Such as Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34; 12:1–12; Luke 22:15–20//1 Cor 11:24–25; Mark 14:18–28 (plus parallels). Jesus predicts his death by itself in Mark 10:45; 14:32–40; and Luke 13:32–33. For specifics see the excellent discussion in Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, particularly 284–302.

100 Many discussions have ensued as to whether Luke also had Jesus’s death and resurrection in mind in this text. Doctoral dissertations have been written on the responses. I. H. Marshall argues in the affirmative here, in agreement with Matthew’s rendering in Commentary on Luke, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 485; cf. Craig A. Evans, Luke, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 188. Licona also agrees, largely based on the research of Hans Bayer, who argued in his own dissertation and elsewhere that the “sign of Jonah” in several pre-Christian Jewish texts refers to Jonah’s resuscitations from death. Plus, Luke does refer to Jonah’s actions in question here as a “sign,” hence the presumed agreement with what Matthew makes explicit. See Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 292n55. Not all agree here, as in the rendition in Borg, Powelson, and Riegert, Lost Gospel Q, 75. At any rate, Matthew’s response in this text is clear.

101 That both Matthew and Luke responded in the same manner this time by referring to “the sign of Jonah,” especially given Matthew’s earlier expansion of this reference to refer to Jesus’s death and resurrection in 12:38–40, would appear to raise the likelihood of this best fitting Luke’s response as well, especially given the additional reasons listed in the previous footnote.

102 We have already remarked earlier that some scholars take the angel’s comment to the women at the empty tomb to “go tell . . . Peter” to be a reference to the appearance to the chief disciple, as in Luke 24:34 and 1 Cor 15:3–5.

103 Remarkably, these items and the progression from one to the next in the conclusions of Matthew and Luke sound somewhat similar to Paul’s list in 1 Cor 15:12–20 of what would otherwise be lost, apart from the resurrection!

104 Martin Kähler famously remarked, “To state the matter somewhat provocatively, one could call the Gospels passion narratives with extended introductions.” See Kähler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, trans. Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1896), 80n11.

105 Perhaps this also has something to do with the remarks made earlier in this chapter as to why there are “flash ahead” looks in the Gospels to times when Jesus will no longer be present with the disciples, as in Matt 16:18; 18:17–19; or Mark 10:38–39.

106 Such as John 13:1, 33; 14:1–3, 18–19, 28–30; 16:5–7, 16–22, 28; cf. 17:13.

107 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:81 (see chap. 4, n. 84); Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 169; Vernon H. Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 145 (see chap. 8, n. 70); Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 22, 36, 94 (see chap. 11, n. 14).

108 Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 108–9.

109 Like Rom 6:1–14; 8:9–11; 2 Cor 4:7–18; Phil 3:10–21; 1 Thess 4:13–14, for examples.

110 Through the entire book of Hebrews, the sustained argument revolves around Jesus currently being superior to the Jewish high priests, prophets, and all others precisely because he was raised from the dead (13:20–21) and hence is alive at present to make ongoing intercession for the saints. Other important passages include 1 Pet 1:3–5 and Rev 5:1–14.

111 Though the title “Christ,” or Messiah, is one example here that often does not include the indication of deity among its range of meanings. Christ is paired with “Lord” in Acts 2:36 and especially Acts 10:36, but even this does not require the term “Christ” to mean deity. But it can have such a meaning. The juxtaposition of titles in Rom 1:3–4 comes much closer to deity.

112 Acts 2:23–32, 36; 3:14–15, 26; 4:10–11; 5:30–32; 10:39–41; 13:27–37.

113 For instance, see Simon J. Gathercole, “What Did the First Christians Think about Jesus?,” particularly 103–6 (see excursus 1, n. 57).

114 In the Septuagint this verse is Joel 3:5.

115 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 196 (see excursus 1, n. 95). Cf. other texts in Paul that similarly compare Jesus with YHWH, such as 1 Cor 1:21; 2:16; 10:26; 2 Cor 10:17; see Bauckham, 129, 185–86, 191–97.

116 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 197–206 (see excursus 1, n. 95), quotation on 199, but also including many additional strong and powerful insights. Bauckham quotes approvingly Hurtado’s discussion here in Jesus and the God of Israel, 129.

117 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, quotations on page x. For other relevant references and discussion here, see ix–xii, 6, 23–31, 101, 106, 195, 207–9, 211, 216–17, 233–35, 253, 264–68. As Oxford University professor G. B. Caird stated quite similarly, “This will in turn lead us to an astonishing conclusion: the highest Christology of the New Testament is also its earliest.” New Testament Theology, 343 (see chap. 11, n. 17).

118 Some of the specific details are supplied by Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 22, 27, 92–93, 130–32, 140–41, 144–46, 155–58, 170–72, 249–51, 254, 260–63, 290–91; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138.

119 Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 93–94 (see chap. 11, n. 46).

120 Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475.

121 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210 (see chap. 1, n. 23).

122 Leslie Houlden, “The Resurrection and Christianity,” Theology 99 (1996): 198–202, quotation on 200; also, Houlden, “The Resurrection: History, Story and Belief,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1993), esp. 61 on Paul. Somewhat similar is A. Collins, “Empty Tomb and Resurrection according to Mark,” 119–20 (see excursus 2, n. 24).

123 Houlden, “Resurrection and Christianity,” 202–5, with the three quotations above being located on pages 202, 203, and 204; Houlden, “Resurrection: History, Story and Belief,” 62, 64–65.

124 Those epistles that are often named are 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude.

125 Habermas, “Mapping the Recent Trend,” 78–92 (see chap. 4, n. 17).

126 See the chapter in volume 2 of this study, plus other discussions on the objective-vision thesis.

127 Houlden, “Resurrection and Christianity,” 203–5; Houlden, “Resurrection: History, Story and Belief,” 62, 64–65.

128 Different angles on this objection are found in Mack, Lost Gospel, 5, 8, 43, 247 (see chap. 8, n. 25); Mack, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, History and Theory 28 (1989): 218; Price, Deconstructing Jesus, 56 (see excursus 2, n. 106); A. Collins, “The Empty Tomb and Resurrection according to Mark,” 119–20.

129 A major source defending many of these aspects of Q is John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, though he also admits some of these caveats in Excavating Q: The History and Settings of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 1, 142, 317, 388, 394–96. A searching critique across many of these areas is Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ, esp. 218–21, 226–43, 252, 256–57. A defense of some of the more distinctive critical views regarding The Gospel of Thomas is that by Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered, 127–56, 176–79. Another major evaluation of this and similar theses is Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ, 452–85.

130 Besides the many cautions and critiques issued by Hurtado already mentioned above, see also John Meier, “Dividing Lines in Jesus Research Today: Through Dialectical Negation to a Positive Sketch,” Interpretation 50 (1996): 357–59; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:116, and especially the lengthy list of questions concerning Q raised by Meier on 177–181, even though he accepts the general thesis; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 41; Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” particularly 426, 442 (see excursus 2, n. 123); Dale Allison Jr., “A Plea for Thoroughgoing Eschatology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (1994): 651–58; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 244n180 (see chap. 1, n. 30); Gerald O’Collins, “The Resurrection: The State of the Question,” in The Resurrection: An International Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 18.

131 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:478n23.

132 Meier, “Dividing Lines in Jesus Research Today,” 359.

133 James M. Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982); Marcus Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” Bible Review 10 (1994): 49; Grant, Gnosticism, 183; other relevant comments include 37, 52, 59. On the other hand, Simon Gathercole, in an erudite commentary of over 700 pages on the Gospel of Thomas, notes the scholarly difference of opinion and seems to think that either view could be the case, but seems to lean to the position that the “living Jesus” in the incipit probably does not represent the risen Jesus. See Gathercole, The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 191–93.

134 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 398 (see chap. 2, n. 19).

135 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, dates the Gospel of Thomas between AD 90 and 160 (473). Darrell Bock dates Thomas from the late first century to the early second century, with most of it being later within this range (61, 63, 219). Bock also notes that most researchers reject the radical dates mentioned above (61–62) and date the “bulk” of Thomas to the second century (61, 63). Page numbers from Bock, Missing Gospels, also 7. Mack even dates Thomas to AD 90 with some relation to what he calls “Q2” at 65; see Mack, Lost Gospel, 259 (chart).

136 For just two critical sources among the many already cited, see Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 111, 130–31, 144–46, 251, 261–62; Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 93–94.

137 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 18 (chart), plus esp. 454; Mack, Lost Gospel, 259 (chart).

138 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 243–45, quotation at 244n80.

139 Such as 1 Clem. 24–25, 42; Ign. Eph. 20; Magn. 11; Trall. 9; Phld. Incipit, 8; Pol. Phil. 1–2, 8.

140 Broer, ‘Der Herr ist wahrhaft auferstanden’ (Lk 24,34): Biblische und systematische Beiträge zur Entstehung des Osterglaubens (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 60–61.

141 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 275.

142 Funk, 40.

143 Borg, “Truth of Easter,” 137.

144 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:84.

145 Kent, Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth, 48.

146 Bartsch, “Inhalt und Funktion des urchristlichen Osterglaubens,” New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 180. An interesting comparison can be made with another earlier article by Bartsch, which investigates attempts to separate the resurrection appearances from the empty tomb (16–18), resurrection appearances as legitimation formulas (19, 26), the importance of apocalyptic terminology concerning the resurrection providing a theme of hope (22, 27) but still dealing with the theme of the early Christians’ functional approach to Christology from the resurrection appearances, moving later to ontological concerns (as with 23). Bartsch, “Der Ursprung des Osterglaubens,” Theologische Zeitschrift 31 (1975): 16–31.

147 Bartsch, “Inhalt und Funktion des urchristlichen Osterglaubens,” 194–96.

148 Elliott, “First Easter,” 210.

149 Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 114.

150 Grant, Saint Paul, 79, also 75 (see excursus 2, n. 106).

151 Grant, Saint Peter, 89 (see chap. 12, n. 25).

152 Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu, und die Anfänge der Christologie (Messias bzw. Sohn Gottes und Menschensohn),” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche, 72 (1981), esp. the detailed abstract on 1 along with the early creedal expressions on 2 and the Christological titles being discussed on 4–26.

153 Kümmel, Theology of the New Testament, 102–5 (see chap. 15, n. 37).

154 Küng, Eternal Life?, 107. This comment by Küng is fairly similar to a statement on this same subject by Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), 181.

155 Marxsen, Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, 12. This seems to be an amazing final statement, given Marxsen’s own views set out elsewhere as well.

156 Such as Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 10–11; Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 11 (see chap. 5, n. 40); Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 3, 19, 111; Sheehan, First Coming, 113–14; Lindars, “The Apocalyptic Myth and the Death of Christ,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 57 (1975): 379; Brooke Hopkins, “Jesus and Object-Use: A Winnicottian Account of the Resurrection Myth,” International Review of Psychoanalysis 16 (1989): 93, 96.

157 Wright, Challenge of Jesus, 126; also 127.

158 Wright, “Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus,” 117, also 112, 119 (see chap. 11, n. 112). Similar wording in part also occurs in Challenge of Jesus, 133.

159 Wright, Who Was Jesus?, 34 (see excursus 1, n. 43). For other strong comments on the same subject, see also Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 400, 463 (see chap. 1, n. 15).

160 Johnson, Living Jesus, 6.

161 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 48.

162 Fuller, 168.

163 Guillaume states, “La résurrection de Jésus est le centre de l’histoire du salut, le sommet du fait évangélique”: The resurrection of Jesus is the center of salvation history, the apex of the Gospel facts” (Habermas translation). See Guillaume in Luc Interprè des Anciennes Traditions sur la Résurrection de Jésus, J. Gabalda et Cie, ed. Études Bibliques (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1979), 266).

164 Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus, 225 (see excursus 2, n. 111). In the French edition, Durrwell includes a detailed discussion on a survey of early creeds, plus all four Gospels and Paul, on the centrality of these events (20–38). Of 1 Cor 15:3–5, Durrwell clearly asserts, “La formulation est, sans doute, antérieure à la conversion de Paul” (22). As pointed out a number of times in this study, for Durrwell, this would clearly place the creedal tradition before Paul’s trip to Damascus.

165 Künneth, Theologie der Auferstehung (154–65), on the resurrection as the basis for salvation as well as its role for many other theological categories (112–233, 253–58).

166 Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 213.

167 Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology, trans. James W. Leitch (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), 165.

168 Wilckens, Resurrection, 131 (see chap. 8, n. 17).

169 Caird, New Testament Theology, 412; Jacques Perret, Resusscité? Approche historique, Collection: Théologie Nouvelle (Paris: FAC ēditions, 1984), 26–27, 38–39; Ben F. Meyer, Aims of Jesus, Princeton Theological Monograph Series 48; Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” 442; Perkins, Resurrection, 17, 316; Hans Frei, “Of the Resurrection of Christ,” in Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 201; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” Theological Studies, vol. 45 (1984), 409; John P. Galvin, “The Origin of Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus: Two Recent Perspectives,” Theological Studies 49 (1988): 44; Robert F. Scuka, “Resurrection: Critical Reflections on a Doctrine in Search of a Meaning,” Modern Theology 6 (1989): 77; Peter Selby, Look for the Living: The Corporate Nature of Resurrection Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 1; Stephen Barton, “The Hermeneutics of the Gospel Resurrection Narratives,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 108–112, 114; Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 167; Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 15 (see chap. 15, n. 28); David Marshall, “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Qur’an,” in D’Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, 175; Dawe, Jesus, 107; Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 288–89; Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 128 (see excursus 1, n. 94); Robert C. Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus, I: Theological Orientations,” Heythrop Journal 16 (1975): 23; Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” 23 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Davis, Risen Indeed, 1; Smith, Easter Gospels, 199 (see excursus 2, n. 123); Paul Lehmann, “The Politics of Easter,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 19 (1980), 37; Hagner, “Gospel, Kingdom, and Resurrection,” 118–19 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Barnett, Jenson, and Peterson, Resurrection, 38 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Paul Avis, “The Resurrection of Jesus: Asking the Right Questions,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1; Christopher Rowland, “Interpreting the Resurrection,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 76–77; Marguerite Shuster, “The Preaching of the Resurrection of Christ in Augustine, Luther, Barth, and Thielicke,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 308; Margaret Barker, “Resurrection: Reflections on a New Approach,” in Barker, The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1996), 98; Perry, Resurrection Promise, 1 (see excursus 1, n. 12); Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 317, 319 (see chap. 10, n. 76); Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 29, 42–43; Helmut Thielicke, “How Can I Be Sure of the Risen Christ?,” Christianity Today 27 (1983): 14–17; Doré, “La resurrection de Jésus,” Tome 65, 280–81 (see chap. 10, n. 19); Doré, “Croire en la résurrection de Jésus-Christ,” Études, tome 15 (1982), 536–37; Charles P. Price, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, in Virginia Seminary Journal 42 (1989–1990).

170 Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 265.

171 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 35.

172 Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” 15.

173 Cohn-Sherbok, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish View,” in D’Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, 185.

174 Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 413; also 414 (see chap. 10, n. 70).

175 Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 117.

176 Kent, Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth, 62.

177 Kent, 96.

178 Wright, “Early Traditions,” 126 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Cf. also Wright’s works, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 46–47, 49–51, 145, 150; and Challenge of Jesus, 130, 180. Most of all, see Wright’s volume Resurrection of the Son of God, 207–98, for the most in-depth of his treatments.

179 F. X. Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus mystère de salut, 226–28.

180 Caird, New Testament Theology, 267; cf. 239.

181 Davis, Risen Indeed, 196.

182 Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 135.

↑ Back to top