19: The Gospel of Mark

19: The Gospel of Mark

19

The Gospel of Mark

It was concluded in the previous chapter that new data in recent decades have led many critical scholars to regard the process of Gospel traditioning as having produced a fair amount of usable material in these four canonical texts. However, nuances are certainly needed here. This should not be taken to mean that many critical scholars accept the overall reliability of the Gospels or some such notion, for this is not the case. Exceptions would most likely include evangelical or more conservative Catholic scholars.

So the Gospels are seldom viewed by the larger critical community as being generally reliable. However, the point to be made is that this general view does not affect the critical acceptance of separate theories, pericopes, texts, or smaller portions within the Gospels. These individual slices are often thought to be historical by the same critical scholars, perhaps as the likely teachings or actions of Jesus or of the early church. Thus, acceptance comes on a case-by-case basis rather than because a passage is a part of the whole.

Examples of the latter individual, critical “slices” could include having a more traditional view of authorship on one or more of the Gospels, or at least an openness to a Gospel author having had some contact with the early eyewitnesses, even if the writer’s actual identification is unknown. Other instances within the Gospels that many critical scholars affirm as historically accurate may include Jesus calling people to come and follow him, his in some way being the path to reaching God, Jesus being a healer or an exorcist, his having a personal Christology, or his making particular Christological confessions. It could also consist of viewing positively the likelihood of an empty tomb or of holding that something actually happened to Jesus himself after his death by crucifixion, even if he did not appear bodily.

Among the scholars mentioned in the previous chapter are some of the most influential researchers writing today, including agnostic and skeptical researchers who have still acknowledged many positive items, among them some of the ideas above. One hypothesis indicative of a more positive view that is often called the majority assessment today is the idea that the Gospels are often considered to be examples in the category of Greco-Roman biographies, or Lives (bioi), in spite of there being much variation in this category. Of course, it cannot be denied that there were even greater Old Testament influences on the Gospel authors, even if the genre in which these ideas were expressed were bioi.

Another view that is definitely a majority position includes the existence of dozens of early creedal traditions along with perhaps some of the sermon summaries in Acts. The earliest of these are often viewed as being pre-Pauline and dated regularly even by very critical scholars in the 30s, providing windows into the world of the earliest church. We will take up this topic again in a separate chapter.

So there are scholars in the past few decades who clearly fit along the entire scholarly spectrum, from atheist to moderate to conservative and in between as well. The views of some fall along several places in the continuum. Throughout our Gospel survey, we will treat a wide-ranging overview of several key ideas in each Gospel as well as Acts. We will follow this typical order: Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts. Many of the larger, more involved subjects are left for discussions in other chapters, such as the nature and cause of Jesus’s death, whether or not Jesus was buried, as well as how and where this took place, potential discrepancies in the accounts, details on the nature of Jesus’s body, and so forth. In this chapter, we are aiming more for briefer comments that retain interest for many readers as found in these five books.

The Place of Evidence

One other item should be mentioned before we launch into the Gospel resurrection narratives. N. T. Wright makes this absolutely crucial statement in one of his dialogues with John Dominic Crossan on the resurrection:

I eschew, to the dismay of some, any attempt at a tradition-history of the stories, since trying to write a tradition-history of the resurrection narratives presupposes that we know which elements in such stories must be early, whereas, in fact, we can only know such a thing with the help of an a priori belief about the development of resurrection belief in the early church. And such attempts, in my experience, routinely make the mistake of starting with the assumption of one or another of the revisionist schemes, whose foundations, as I have shown, are built upon quicksand.1

Wright should be commended not only for his insight here, but also for his willingness to state this rebuke, an almost unspoken warning that many scholars no doubt think but seemingly few are willing to address publicly.2 That is perhaps why comments of this nature only rarely reach our ears. Higher critical thinking has changed repeatedly since Friedrich Schleiermacher at the very close of the eighteenth century, taking many twists and turns in the process. The times change and with them the philosophical leanings of the critical crowd. But for many, the denunciations are largely the same.

Wright and Stephen Neill add elsewhere: “Historical study of the New Testament has been long and widely distorted by the acceptance of assumptions which rest on no evidence whatever.”3 This is a topic in itself. But if Wright and Neill are correct here, why should a minority of the most critical interpreters, particularly those who reject the central Christian tenets, have their way if, indeed, they lack the least fragment of actual evidence for their denunciation?

Is it largely because we are simply too modern to believe this or that, as Rudolf Bultmann declared: “It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.” Just pages later, he adds, “But what of the resurrection? Is it not a mythical event pure and simple? Obviously it is not an event of past history.”4

Of course, this was not Bultmann’s entire message. However, he did speak and write like this dozens of times and made dozens more straightforward comments without any argumentation.5 During his entire program, he regularly failed to produce what would be called historical or other evidence against the New Testament position. Even Bultmann’s perhaps most accomplished interpreter,6 John Macquarrie, levels the following blistering criticism of this theologian’s a priori dismissals of events like the resurrection of Jesus:

Here we must take Bultmann to task for what appears to be an entirely arbitrary dismissal of the possibility of understanding the resurrection as an objective-historical event. He dismisses it because of some prior assumption in his mind. . . . The fallacy of such reasoning is obvious. The one valid way in which we can ascertain whether a certain event took place or not is not by bringing in some sweeping assumption to show that it could not have taken place, but to consider the historical evidence available, and decide on that. But Bultmann does not take the trouble to examine what evidence could be adduced to show that the resurrection was an objective-historical fact. He assumes that it is myth.7

This comment by Macquarrie is followed by a few more thoughts on how the resurrection should be approached.8

Not desiring to be guilty of similar a priori dismissals, we will concentrate on utilizing the best-evidenced data to reach our conclusions in this study. One way we will do this is to cite scholars who line up across the theological spectrum on different sides of the issues. Assisting in this process of getting to the heart of some issues here is to pose some major questions along with some preliminary responses.

Is the Gospel of Mark a Reliable Source of Information regarding Jesus and the Empty Tomb?

General statements often do not address with specificity the reliability of particular pericopes or brief texts. Yet, there are a few tendencies in Mark’s Gospel that have drawn the attention of a good number of contemporary scholars. Three of these items that could possibly have a bearing on this question can be mentioned here just briefly.

(1) The vast majority of recent researchers agree that Mark is most likely the earliest of the canonical Gospels and that these volumes were most likely a species of ancient biography. Further, Mark is often preferred by these scholars at least in part because it is frequently thought to be the most reliable of the Gospels, dating approximately forty years after the crucifixion of Jesus.9 As ancient biographies, scholars have noted that the canonical Gospels are dated much closer to Jesus than, say, biographies of Alexander the Great are to their subjects.10 As prominent critical scholar E. P. Sanders remarks, “The sources for Jesus are better . . . than those that deal with Alexander. The original biographies of Alexander have all been lost, and they are known only because they were used by later—much later—writers.”11

(2) Further, while there are of course other positions, a recent survey released in 2020 of over 200 critical scholars who published their views since 1965 indicated that a large majority of New Testament scholars in this study also took the traditional view that this Gospel was the work of John Mark.12 This adds the possibility of a known author with traditional connections to more than one apostolic source.

(3) Besides the early date of this Gospel composition plus the possibility of a known author, the same survey just mentioned also revealed that most of these same critical scholars favored the view that the apostle Peter was in some sense Mark’s chief source for his reminiscences.13 In an earlier text, Raymond Brown also agreed,14 though he nuanced this stance later.15 It is sometimes thought that Peter being singled out by the angel at the tomb may have been a reflection of Peter’s memory of Jesus’s private appearance to him.16 When considered along with the possibility that the Gospel author may also have employed an early pre-Markan Passion source often dated to the 30s or 40s, as per the discussion in this chapter below, this opens up additional possibilities for strong sources standing behind this earliest Gospel, especially being gathered from the end of Jesus’s life. And although Ehrman does not name any specific sources, he states, “Many of the oral traditions found in this Gospel must go back to the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus.”17

Did Mark Intend for His Gospel to End at 16:8?18

The point at which Mark ended his Gospel is probably the best known and perhaps the most pressing question drawn from the final chapter of what most scholars take to be the earliest Gospel. Hence we begin here due to the shadow that this inquiry casts over several other subjects related to the resurrection and appearances of Jesus.

Some of the chief options are that (1) Mark indeed ended his Gospel at 16:8, either purposely or not (for whatever reason), and he did not write any more. (2) Mark wrote beyond 16:8 and we have a good idea what he wrote. (3) Mark wrote beyond 16:8, though we do not know what he wrote beyond some possible guesses. At any rate, his ending is now lost as far as is known. Reginald Fuller suggests some further tweaks here: Mark may have been prevented from finishing this work due to his death, religious persecution, or because of other reasons. The lost ending could perhaps have been due to an accident with the papyri or even to its deliberate mutilation.19 France also lists suggestions such as these, plus sickness or deliberate removal, adding, “We simply do not know, and there seems no point in speculating.”20

Grant Osborne provides a helpful overview of the relevant issues here: he begins by noting that answering this initial question provides an important end in itself, besides very possibly shaping Mark’s meaning for his entire narrative. “Most critics today are convinced the evangelist did conclude his book with verse 8.” Then he adds later, “The belief that Mark ends with 16:8 is so widely accepted that most modern literature assumes it and probes for implications.”21

Osborne lists four reasons, each cited by several major scholars, in support of this popular conclusion. (1) Mark thought that the resurrection event inspired the “awe and fear of God in light of Jesus’ victory over death.” The appearances were simply too awesome even to be described in words. Thus, ending the Gospel with the women’s fear was the perfect way to emphasize these convictions (citing Lightfoot, H. Anderson, and Pesch). (2) Mark’s chief emphasis was not the element of the women’s fear, but the early church’s previous near silence on the empty tomb teaching. Therefore, he was content to hint at the appearances, which were already well-known among believers, to argue on behalf of the women finding the tomb empty (citing Creed, Dibelius, H. Grass). (3) Mark preferred to extend his theme of the messianic secret in 16:7–8 to emphasize the “imminent parousia” (citing Lohmeyer, Marxsen, Perrin). (4) Since only lists of appearances existed in Mark’s day rather than extended resurrection narratives, and sightings of angels often ended in silence and fear, this was the way Mark ended the story (citing Fuller, Wilckens). Osborne mentions William Lane’s suggestion that several other Markan texts (4:41; 5:15, 33, 36; 6:50; 9:6, 32) also evoked the major expression of fear in response to incidents involving Jesus’s transcendence.22

Approving Osborne’s initial comments regarding the scholarly agreement, Watson also states that “most recent scholars” think that Mark ended his Gospel at 16:8.23 Senior is even stronger in this regard, holding that “almost all modern interpreters agree” that Mark stopped at 16:8.24 Though R. T. France thinks that Mark intended to write past 16:8, he states that this is “the view of all but a tiny minority of scholars.”25 Murray J. Harris identifies the majority view as “virtually unanimous.”26 Carolyn Osiek agrees that there is “a scholarly consensus that the original ending of Mark is at the end of v. 8.”27 Barnabas Lindars utilizes similar words to describe current scholarship and also seems to agree personally with this conclusion.28 Confirming these claims concerning the majority view that Mark’s original text ended at 16:8 are a plethora of critical scholars, from skeptics to conservatives and in between.29

However, then Osborne turns the subject the other way around, noting two arguments that favor a lost ending for Mark’s Gospel. (1) The ever-popular initial linguistic charge is that Mark could not have ended his Gospel with the conjunction gar, “for.” Yet, this objection appears to have been mitigated in recent years. Osborne notes a half dozen major researchers who have located many New Testament examples of sentences or paragraphs that end with gar. (2) Osborne considers some literary reasons to be stronger than this linguistic concern. For example, unless Mark includes additional explanations, the reader does not know how to reconcile the tension of the angel’s command to the women to give the disciples the message that Jesus is risen, combined with the women’s ensuing silence in 16:7–8.

Osborne also introduces a few other considerations favoring the conclusion that this Gospel has been lost. Mark likewise would not leave unresolved the failures in the disciples not comprehend Jesus’s resurrection teaching, the seeming disobedience of the women, as well as indications of a “victory motif” throughout the book, such as Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God, which would otherwise remain unexplained.30

After his survey on some of the many details involved, Osborne opts for the view that the ending of Mark’s Gospel was lost. While some critical scholars such as the early Eta Linnemann and others made suggestions on how to reconstruct Mark’s likely conclusion based on hints and parallels in Matthew and Mark, others like Kurt Aland and Hans Werner Bartsch have disagreed and sometimes strongly so. Although Osborne does think there would be similarities between Mark’s and Matthew’s appearance accounts, in the end there are simply too few answers, such as how Mark’s final verses may have been lost in the first place.31 Perhaps strangely enough, in spite of all the possible endings for Mark’s Gospel, “most critics today would say neither the longer nor shorter endings are the original ending of Mark, both on textual and linguistic grounds.”32

Other prominent scholars also agree that the ending of Mark is lost. Ben Witherington prefers this position,33 as does R. T. France. While France still considers the abrupt ending of 16:8 to be a possibility, his inclination is toward the “increasingly unfashionable minority” view!34 C. F. D. Moule also favors the Gospel’s ending being lost after 16:8, finding the gar ending to be too large of a hurdle to be overcome. Moule is also tempted to think that the beginning of Mark was mutilated and lost.35 N. T. Wright thinks that Mark’s conclusion was broken off and lost and agrees with Moule that this may as well apply to the beginning of the book as well.36 For France, though it is fruitless to speculate on precise details, he thinks that any additional text by Mark would have addressed how the women went from scared and silent to becoming witnesses to the resurrection message, as well as offering details regarding Jesus’s appearance in Galilee.37

Occasionally, a scholar will prefer an either-or scenario here for the close of Mark. Perhaps the most common grouping is to narrow down the question to the two most obvious endings and just leave the matter there: either Mark ended at 16:8, or the original ending was lost for some reason.38 Just slightly differently, Alston thinks “the most reasonable hypothesis is that either Mark was prevented from finishing the book or that the end has been lost.”39 Fenton is not alone when he surveys the responses to the issue but makes no clear decision on the bottom line.40

Did Mark Make Use of Any Earlier Source(s) That Reported Details of Jesus’s Passion, Burial, and Empty Tomb?

One of the most intriguing developments in recent decades on studies in Mark (as well as in each of the other three canonical Gospels) is the rather frequent claim that Mark also could have utilized a pre-Markan passion narrative in his Gospel that may have included details of Jesus’s suffering, crucifixion, burial, and empty tomb.41 It is reported as well that perhaps even the majority of contemporary scholars agree that the available evidence indicates such an earlier source.

There is widespread critical agreement that dozens of earlier sources, individuals, as well as specific texts are either present or at least were consulted in the writing of the Gospels. These include the specific mention of the availability of eyewitness data in Luke 1:1–4, the Acts sermon summaries (particularly in chapters 1–5, 10, and 13), an “M” source employed by Matthew as well as an L source by Luke, the Q sayings in Matthew and Luke, a possible miracles source that appears to be cited by John, and most notably of all, the exceptionally early, pre-Pauline creedal statements in Paul’s Epistles. Traditions like the apostle Peter possibly being Mark’s major referent as well as the apostle John standing behind the Fourth Gospel figure into these considerations too. Granted that a number of these possibilities appear to be majority critical positions due to the force of the supporting data, this is far from an objectionable position, at least on the face of it.

Largely confirming this conclusion in Mark is a major and exceptionally detailed study by New Testament scholar Marion Soards, who surveyed the research of thirty-four influential New Testament scholars and summarized his “positive” verdict that the data did indicate that a pre-Markan passion narrative indeed existed and was employed in the Gospel of Mark. Soards reached the verdict that “we may safely conclude that Mark uses a source in writing his PN [Passion Narrative].” However, even after the minute, painstaking verse-by-verse study that was reproduced, Soards also concluded that the scholars utilized more than one method, necessitating careful nuancing when treating this subject. His final conclusion was still quite positive in spite of the careful qualifications.42

Concerning the origination for this pre-Markan passion narrative, a number of commentators date it quite early. After a detailed discussion, historian Paul Barnett appears to even favor a date in the late 30s, since the name of the high priest is not given anywhere in Mark despite other key persons being named, while Caiaphas was probably the best known among those living in Jerusalem at that time. Thus, the priest probably needed no introduction during these years. In contrast, Matthew does provide his name (26:57). But Caiaphas was deposed in AD 37, which could demarcate this source.43 Though perhaps a helpful consideration here, this seems not to be determinative, at least in the sense of providing solid evidence at this point. William Lane Craig seems also to date Mark’s Passion source in the 30s “given its summary in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5.” Further, there is no contrary data that disputes the reported information.44 Bauckham notes regarding Mark’s Passion Narrative that “many scholars take the view . . . that it goes back to the Jerusalem church in, at the latest, the 40s.”45

This pre-Markan text has some strong argumentative considerations in its favor, garnering much critical acceptance. In historical terms, Mark’s Gospel itself is an early text at just four decades after the crucifixion. Hence, these considerations point more in the direction of additional information that may evidence Mark’s knowledge of Jesus’s resurrection appearances, based at least on the several prior predictions by Jesus in this source. Plus, Craig concludes that this earlier narrative also included a reference to at least one resurrection appearance of Jesus.46 John Alsup comes to some quite similar conclusions for the pre-Markan text, at least from Jesus’s passion to the empty tomb, perhaps even contributing to Mark’s knowledge of the resurrection appearances.47

The intriguing possibility of this pre-Markan source is that it could have significant implications for the early testimony of Jesus’s resurrection. Because such a narrative would obviously predate the composition of Mark, the earliest Gospel, it would push back the account closer still to the events of the first Easter morning. Unfortunately, too much uncertainty surrounds its precise contents and provenance to afford a firm conclusion.

Mark 16:1: Which Women Visited the Tomb?

Just a few brief thoughts are included here.48 Mark mentions the names of three women who watched the crucifixion from a distance—Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome (15:40). Shortly afterwards, the two Marys are mentioned again as having observed Jesus’s burial (15:47). Then on the walk to the tomb, the original three (including Salome) are included by name (16:1).

Mary Magdalene appears in the trips to the empty tomb in all four Gospels. The second Mary, mentioned in each of the Synoptic Gospels, is more difficult to identify for sure. Some have argued that she is the mother of Jesus, though some questions could be raised. Mark adds the name of Salome, who is not mentioned anywhere else in the other Gospels, nor is she identified further by Mark. But Mark explains that many other women had also accompanied Jesus on the way to Jerusalem (15:41).49

So the variation in Mark’s narrative makes a good test case. For instance, in the space of less than ten verses, between the crucifixion and the women heading to the tomb, Salome’s name appears in the crucifixion list, though it is deleted from the second list of burial observers before being included again in the third list of observers at the empty tomb. The second Mary is identified as the mother of James and Joses, then as the mother of Joses, and the third time as the mother of James! Obviously then, providing an exact list of names was not necessary. Most of all, informing the reader that a company of other unnamed women had accompanied Jesus to Jerusalem is the final indication that it was not Mark’s intention to give an exhaustive list, or else he would have been required to be far more thorough instead of just saying that there were “many other [nameless] women” there as well.

We return to these issues elsewhere. But as an aside, there are not as many comments as one might expect concerning the number and identification of the women who came to the tomb to anoint Jesus’s dead body. This would seem to be a fair indication that this is just not that much of a concern in contemporary scholarship. France states that, except for Mary Magdalene, there is no certainty regarding the other two names.50

Mark 16:4–5: What Is the Current Critical Stance on the Facticity of the Empty Tomb?

For many years, I have lectured on or published overviews of critical scholars and their positions on dozens of facets pertaining to the resurrection question.51 Many of these trends have been reported as they have emerged from my twenty-year survey of the relevant material published in English, German, or French. On the subject of the empty tomb, the scholarly figures have shifted dramatically in the past few decades.

Many notable scholars have disputed in one way or another the facticity of the empty tomb and its being discovered by the women who came to anoint the body of Jesus. A minority but popular view is that Mark invented the tale in his Gospel narrative.52 Bart Ehrman experienced an intriguing change of heart on this subject. Earlier, he had accepted the possibility and even the actuality of the empty tomb. At the very least, Ehrman had concluded that:

we can say with complete certainty that some of [Jesus’s] disciples at some later time insisted that (a) women from their group went to anoint Jesus’ body for burial and found it missing, and (b) he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead.

Their conviction on this matter eventually turned the world on its ear. Things have never been the same since.53

However, while acknowledging that he had once accepted the historicity of the empty tomb, Ehrman has recently changed his position. He seems now to agree with Crossan that “the discovery of the empty tomb appears to be a late tradition” found in Mark.54

While popularity or unpopularity of course does not indicate whether views are ultimately either true or false, many are still interested in terms of the scholarly “lay of the land.” To that end, positions such as those by Crossan and Ehrman are minority interpretations on the empty tomb, especially concerning Mark being the inventor of the tale. Current and recent research indicates that approximately 67 to 75 percent of critical scholars accept or at least favor the historicity of this event.55 But this entire matter of scholarly percentages, and most of all the historical reasons which may buttress each position, is another discussion that we must table for our specific study on that topic.

Mark 16:5: Was the Young Man Seated inside the Tomb and Dressed in White an Angel?

Especially in nonscholarly books of a very critical nature, it is mentioned frequently enough that Christians who assume that someone described as a man should automatically be identified as an angel is a clear indication of how religious folk turn down-to-earth descriptions into mythology. In the other three Gospels, the one or two men at the tomb are called angels, hence due to obvious legendary growth.

However, even critical scholars are clear that the young man here is meant to indicate a heavenly figure. The white clothing certainly portrays purity, and the sense here is that of majesty and transformation (as elsewhere displayed in 2 Macc 3:26, 33; Mark 9:3 at Jesus’s transfiguration; Gos. Pet. 9:36). The young man is seated on the right side, thus indicating more authority. The women’s response of amazement, as skeptical New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann points out, is not because the tomb was empty but due to the extraordinary sight of the man, whom Lüdemann calls an angel. Lüdemann concludes that “this passage is clearly a Markan theologoumenon” though with Markan coloring.56 France states that any other position is “untenable.”57

Mark 16:6: How Triumphal Did the Central Message of Jesus’s Resurrection Sound?

For all the questions that this text in Mark raises, the central focus remains that the angelic messenger proclaimed that Jesus has risen from the dead. Doubtless, we are incapable today of even beginning to understand the women’s frame of mind. The world had just turned upside down. Everything had changed for the better—forever. How could this news ever be trumped?

Even though the women would not have had time to immediately think through all of the ramifications, this certainly must have sounded to their ears like triumph, hope, and vindication! Even crucifixion and death could not prevent this occurrence! Note the passive form of the verb “he is risen” (ēgerthē) indicates that Jesus did not raise himself from the dead. Rather, he was acted upon by another—his Father. We need to return to this notion later. But the crucial question of why God would do something like this naturally introduces the next idea that the Father must have approved of Jesus’s teachings. Hence, vindication and eternal anticipation are certainly in view here.58

Mark 16:7: Was Peter’s Place Restored among the Twelve Apostles?

Many commentators think that a key reason for Peter’s name being included (and even singled out) along with the invitation to the disciples to go to Galilee to see the resurrected Jesus, is to emphasize that Peter had been reinvited back into this august group. This would signify themes such as forgiveness, acceptance, and reunion for the premier disciple who had denied his Lord just before the crucifixion. It represents a sort of “happy ending” to the story, before Jesus is taken away from them.

For N. T. Wright, this theme counts among the half dozen indications of how the first Easter looked from Mark’s perspective. The emphasis is on “rehabilitation” for all the disciples, with Peter being specified, in that the entire group had abandoned Jesus.59 Additionally, we will maintain below that the mention of Peter in this context also presages the resurrection appearance to him, as in 1 Cor 15:5 and Luke 24:34.

Are There No Resurrection Appearances in Mark 16?

Kenneth Grayston speaks for the vast majority of scholars when he states that no explicit appearances are found in Mark’s closing chapter.60 But then Howard Clark Kee adds a note of hope regarding the ending at Mark 16:8: “Mark is content to affirm that God will bring Jesus among them again, but he does not depict that event. The faithful reader of Mark is persuaded as to what did happen.”61

Of course, this question depends almost entirely on the verdict to our earlier inquiry as to whether or not Mark ended at 16:8. If he wrote more, then asking why there are no appearances makes little sense, although even then we would still not know any details! Of course, for the majority of scholars who think that Mark meant to stop at that point, perhaps to emphasize a particular theme, then they may continue to wonder if he left behind any textual hints, leading to the next question.

What Indications Are There That Mark Knew and Believed There Were Resurrection Appearances, Whether or Not He Reported Them?

Whether or not Mark originally included narrative accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances, it is more than clear to contemporary scholars that he was well aware that these events had actually occurred. As Hurtado contends, “[Mark] 16:1–8 demonstrates that Mark knew and approved of the tradition that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, whether Mark recorded such an appearance or not.” Interestingly, as Hurtado adds, “That Jesus is risen and alive . . . is unambiguously presented in a passage about which there is no textual uncertainty.”62 Where are these hints in a mere eight verses?

Fuller mentions Mark’s comments that Jesus would appear to his apostles in Galilee (14:28; 16:7). Further, the enigmatic reference to Peter (16:7) portends another appearance to the chief apostle.63 Even Grayston agrees with the last point that Mark “probably knew the appearance tradition in part since he awkwardly added ‘and Peter’ to ‘his disciples.’”64

Emerging from their almost covert hiding places in Mark’s Gospel, then, there are at least three indicators (or perhaps even seen as three extended aspects of one loftier point) that Mark was more than aware of Jesus’s appearances to his followers. (1) Mark records a number of occasions where Jesus predicts his own death and resurrection (see Mark 8:31; 9:9, 30–31; 10:33–34; 14:28).65 Since this Gospel was obviously written a few decades after Jesus had died, Mark would hardly have included such false predictions in the accounts if these events had never occurred at all!66 Moreover, if Mark believed that Jesus had not been raised from the dead in the first place, it would be exceptionally difficult to believe that this Gospel even would have been written in the first place! Thus, there is little argument from critical scholars that opposes the view that Mark clearly thought Jesus had been vindicated!

(2) A key indication that Mark knew of Jesus’s appearances came from the angelic word at the tomb. Jesus had earlier predicted his death and resurrection several times. Here the angel repeats Jesus’s prediction, explaining to the women that the time had arrived: the Twelve would indeed see him momentarily. The two messages from Jesus and the angel inside the tomb take slightly different angles. The first is the voice of the Lord explaining ahead of time what would take place after he had been abandoned and crucified. Then, seated inside the open tomb, the angel refocuses the women’s thoughts and steps on where things are going from there. Peter would see the risen Jesus, as would the other disciples as well—Jesus had taught them as much when he was with them.

(3) Further, when the women witnessed the angelic announcement, “Go tell the disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7, emphasis added), they might have inferred from this that Peter was back in the Lord’s good graces. Considering that Peter was one of the disciples as well as his being singled out here, scholars like Fuller and Grayston above have drawn attention to a fairly popular view, namely, the foreshadowing of Jesus’s appearance to Peter. If so, this would then be a well-evidenced, multiply attested event, with the occurrence being referred to here as well as mentioned briefly in two very early creedal texts (1 Cor 15:5; Luke 24:34). Fuller even holds that the initial two appearances to Peter and the Twelve would confirm the first two events in the pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor 15:5) and may indicate further that Mark was not even attempting to present a narrative description of the appearances but was following the pre-Pauline creedal practice of listing the appearances.67 These three proclamations can even be taken as facets of one and the same indication of the resurrection—the predictions, the appearance to the apostles, and the possible hint of the appearance to Peter.

So, did Mark know and understand that Jesus had already appeared to his disciples even though he did not narrate any of the actual events? It certainly seems clear that he did know. Of course, even more questions could be raised if Mark’s Gospel did not end precisely at 16:8.

Especially if 16:8 Is the End of Mark’s Original Chapter, Why Did the Women Leave Jesus’s Tomb While They Were Both Scared and Silent, without Speaking to Anyone?

We have already addressed above some of the issues involved in this question. The chief consideration, once again, pertains to whether or not Mark’s Gospel ended at 16:8. If Mark wrote more, then the question of how to reconcile verses 6–7 is easily one of the major considerations that it seems he would have addressed. The incredible angelic command for the women to go tell Jesus’s apostles that Jesus had been raised from the dead seems a bit opposed to the next verse in 16:8 concerning the fear and silence of the women as they left the tomb. After all, the women did need to testify about this miracle to get the word out. To introduce such a conundrum would seem to require an answer.

Some commentators seem quite sure that the women’s dread and quietness would have melted away and been shown to be quite a temporary state should they have seen the risen Jesus at that point or soon afterward (as reported in Matt 28:9 or John 20:16–17). Needless to say, then, the question of Mark’s ending is a crucial one.

Other potential themes have already been mentioned but not discussed yet: Pheme Perkins notes that “Mark’s Gospel originally ended with the women’s flight and silence.” Perkins raises the question as to whether Mark could possibly have been asking if, “like the male disciples before them, the women have also failed by fleeing?” On the other hand, Perkins notes, “Matthew makes it clear that the women fulfilled their commission (Matt. 28:8).”68 So Mark’s readers are “to complete the story” themselves, based on other clues. For the record, Perkins points out, as eyewitnesses chosen by God for their task, the females were also called to be faithful and had many tasks to perform as witnesses of the risen Jesus.69

More ideas concerning the silence of the women have also been offered. Fuller thinks that Mark may purposely and deliberately have left out the appearances because he wanted the matter to remain a mystery!70 After all, this Gospel is certainly well known for its secrets and enigmatic twists, such as the infamous “messianic secret,” where it was thought that Mark preferred sayings where Jesus could keep his messianic comments and similar opinions from others to a minimum. This was often thought to be due either to the different senses in which this term was used at that time, hence risking much room for confusion, or because Jesus did not desire to share these truths yet.

Gerald O’Collins agrees that the women’s silence was an appropriate response in light of their culture and what they had just witnessed. Further, O’Collins also shares the idea proposed more than once earlier in this chapter, somewhat similarly to Fuller’s response above, where various notions of “disclosure and concealment” fit and confirm Mark’s view of revelation.71 That the women were simply disobedient to the angelic command has also been mentioned frequently.72

Frans Neirynck includes another possible angle on the concept of silence—that apologetic purposes can be served by the nature of this motif.73 On the other hand, Grayston attempts to employ the strange idea that Mark ended his narrative with the women’s silence because he did not want to lend any support to the idea of making Jesus’s tomb a memorial for worship. So Mark “intended to destroy tomb devotion,”74 apparently by directing attention away from that location. But this last response seems entirely anachronistic in more ways than one, such as the lack of support of first-century evidence for this ever being the case with Jesus’s tomb. So with Mark writing a few decades after the event, why would it ever have been an issue?

Commentators often mention that, especially in a Jewish context, the women responded with the proper awe, fear, and respect in the presence of God’s revelatory response revealed at the tomb. Further, in Mark, this is the sort of reaction that is repeated over a half dozen times when Jesus’s glory and transcendence are revealed.75 The women in the Gospels of Matthew (28:5, 8) and Luke (24:5) were also afraid when they encountered the angels at the tomb, and in John’s Gospel, Mary Magdalene wept at length and was asked by both the two angels as well as Jesus himself why she was crying (20:10–17). Even the male disciples were fearful (Luke 24:37; John 20:19) and some of them doubted (Luke 24:38b; Matt 28:17b). Thus, each of the Gospels contains related ideas.

So even taken at face value, why is Mark’s narrative thought to be so strange or difficult? Should all of Jesus’s followers, male and female alike, simply and immediately have reacted with total joy? Eventually (and sometimes only moments later), that is precisely what we are told did happen. The disciples were indeed overcome with joy (Matt 28:9b, 17a; Luke 24:41b, 52–53; John 20:20b).

Even today, we may suspect strongly that this same mixture of initial emotions—fear, trembling, bewilderment, precisely in the presence of absolute amazement, mixed with boundless and uninhibited joy—might be the modern reaction as well if the exact same phenomena had occurred. This would especially seem likely in groups with our best friends, where all those present had just witnessed the same supernatural elements along with us. Now imagine all the prior torture and crucifixion of their Lord and best friend that had just occurred that exact same weekend with their dashed and destroyed dreams. In this light, the women’s reaction may actually be counted as being quite restrained!

But then, what if they learned that Jesus was in fact alive and that they would soon get to see him? It may have taken a little while for that message to “register,” but presumably nothing would keep them silent any longer at that point. Dale Allison suggests that in a very similar Greek construction in Mark 1:44, Jesus heals a man but then commands him not to tell anyone, but rather to go to the priest without getting sidetracked along the way. So the sense of the angelic message could have been that the women were to do nothing else before telling the disciples. According to this scenario, the women’s silence lasted only until they delivered their message to the disciples, just as they were instructed. This does make more sense.76

Mark 16:9–20: What about This or Other Endings for the Gospel of Mark?

Citing Harris, there is “virtual unanimity among textual critics” that scholars support none of the other endings for Mark beyond 16:8.77 Depending on how the counts are made, there is some variation on the number of endings.78 But that is of little consequence in that they all lack manuscript attestation. Much of the contents may even be taken from the other Gospels, with the longer ending dating to perhaps the beginning of the second century.79 About the only value here is a study of when and how these endings, in and of themselves, developed or, in the last case, perhaps an early second-century source for the longer ending could still have some value, coming as it may from the time of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, or Polycarp.

One other matter should be mentioned here. Only occasionally has a well-trained scholar defended the last twelve verses of Mark (i.e., pseudo-Mark). Getting the most attention a few decades ago was a volume by former Southern Methodist University New Testament professor William R. Farmer. Even published by Cambridge University Press, the bulk of the book addressed the situation in the first few centuries of the church, especially Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, as well as the earlier manuscript issues. An important essay in part two of this book concentrates on dictional differences between Mark 9:9–20 and the rest of Mark.80

A much earlier example came from nineteenth-century Oxford University professor and vicar John Burgon, who published an 1871 book by the same title as Farmer’s work. It is a rather fascinating read in parts that produces more relevant material than might be found elsewhere, and it assembles a number of mysteries that may be enough to get someone thinking. However, several of the arguments are a bit anachronistic, such as favoring the Byzantine text while criticizing Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.81 Mid-twentieth-century Harvard scholar Edward Hills introduces the volume in a fifty-six-page essay that provides an overview of Burgon’s arguments.82

So the bottom line is that the earliest New Testament witnesses did record several resurrection appearances of Jesus.

While most scholars consider the Gospel of Mark to be the earliest of the Gospels, it is not the earliest witness to the resurrection within the New Testament. Of course, quite significantly, the Pauline Letters are earlier, including the most famous text of all, in 1 Cor 15:3–7. Further, though they are generally very brief, the pre-Pauline and other early creedal traditions, in addition to the Acts sermon summaries, are exceptionally crucial for our purposes due to their being the earliest witnesses of all. They are also authoritative in that some of them speak for the original apostolic community. As such, they reflect the earliest preaching and teaching messages. The majority of these texts address the central gospel proclamation, including remarks on Jesus’s resurrection and appearances.

Actually, 1 Corinthians 15 may even be the earliest pre-Pauline creed of all. It is definitely the one for which we have the best evidence, besides being the most significant tradition for the area of the gospel proclamation. In terms of our study in this chapter, its list of six resurrection appearances certainly predates Mark’s composition.83 Moreover, as mentioned in detail, Mark gives ample acknowledgment of his awareness that Jesus appeared to his followers, whether or not those events were actually described. The bottom line, then, is that there is absolutely no force to any charge that the earliest New Testament writings contain no appearances, even though such is still heard popularly.

The Value of Jesus’s Death, Resurrection, and Vindication Predictions

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus makes four major predictions regarding his coming suffering, death, and resurrection (8:31; 9:30–31; 10:33–34; 14:28 plus Synoptic parallels), although in the last instance his death is only implied, in addition to the parable in Mark 12:1–12. On other occasions in Mark, Jesus mentions his death by itself (2:20; 9:12; 10:38, 45; 14:8, 21, 30–32 and parallels) and his resurrection is also mentioned alone (9:9). Further, Luke 13:31–33 indicates an apparent L source reference pertaining to Jesus’s death, and Matt 12:38–40 plus 16:2–4 may possibly point to an M source prediction for Jesus’s death and resurrection. In the Gospel of John, Jesus likewise predicts both his death and resurrection (2:19–22; 10:15, 17–18) and, as in Mark, Jesus’s death alone is also mentioned (3:14; 8:28; 12:7, 32–33; cf. 1:29).84 From outside the Gospels, the very early pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Cor 11:24–26 must also be mentioned concerning Jesus’s upcoming death.85

Several considerations favor the authenticity of these predictions by Jesus. For example, many scholars have mentioned that Jesus was well aware of potential factors which could well facilitate his assurance of similar poor treatment from certain others, including the previous Jewish record of having mistreated various prophets during earlier times (Matt 23:29–39; Luke 11:47–51) and the killing of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas (Mark 6:17–28), not to mention the many threats on his own life.86 In fact, Brown thinks “that a Jesus who would not have thought about any of these things would have been an oddity.”87 Beyond the potential abuse, “a figure so God-imbued as Jesus” could also have been convicted deeply that even if he died horribly, he could still “emerge vindicated.” Such a conclusion could be due to “his conviction on this score to his status as the one whom God sent to proclaim the kingdom.”88 Hence, such knowledge and pronouncements on Jesus’s part would even have made decent sense, not to mention any actual foreknowledge which he may have had as well.

Further, there are a number of historical indications that argue strongly in favor of Jesus’s predictions of his death and resurrection and exaltation. These arguments include, first, a variation on the early source theme concerning Mark’s Gospel. Namely, a rich collection of multiply attested, independent sources for Jesus’s predictions have already been mentioned above. These texts include Mark, Luke’s L source, John, the possibility of both Matthew’s M source and the Q source as well, plus a very early creed in 1 Corinthians 11. This is a strong number of independent texts.

It is helpful on this initial theme to remember Ehrman’s highly instructive comment on what this means in terms of the early dates of these reports: “If a word or action is found in several sources and they did not collaborate with one another, then none of them made it up; the tradition must predate them.”89 Accordingly, Ehrman has pointed out an exceptional number of independently attested historical examples of the well-evidenced data from Jesus’s life, including many relevant and well-established dates,90 Jesus’s family and other background such as the existence of the town of Nazareth,91 and his brother James plus other brothers.92 Moreover, Jesus was baptized,93 was a teacher with twelve disciples,94 worked miracles,95 and preached the kingdom of God, including apocalyptic themes.96 Jesus had enemies among both Jewish and Roman leaders,97 died by crucifixion,98 and his disciples reported that Jesus had been raised from the dead and at least some of them claimed to have seen appearances of him after his death.99 Though Ehrman accepts adoptionistic theses, he also accepts a relatively high Christology being proclaimed regarding Jesus, to the point of including Jesus’s preexistence, exaltation, and even being called God.100

Second, the additional theme mentioned above regarding strong sources existing behind the Gospel of Mark, such as the potential Petrine testimony plus the likely pre-Markan Passion source, also improve the chances that these predictions were actually uttered by Jesus. Obviously, better research foundations could only improve the final product.

Third, at least some of these sources, especially Mark 8:32–33 (but also Mark 9:32 and parallels) are quite embarrassing to the interests of the early church in that they place the apostles and future church leaders in a very negative light. Obviously, Jesus referring to the chief disciple, Peter, as Satan is just such an instance! This makes it unlikely that these accounts would have been invented by the Gospel authors or other early tradition.

Fourth, in addition to the multiple independent sources, multiple literary forms are also apparent in these texts. These include the many Gospel narratives already noted above, a parable (Mark 12:1–12), and a critically recognized early creedal tradition in 1 Cor 11:24–26. Fifth, the contextual consistency and overall coherence of these ideas fit together well, in that similar persecution lessons had already occurred to the Old Testament prophets, as additionally reported by Josephus and other Jewish sources as well as the Gospel witness itself. The mistreatments of God’s messengers, the death of John the Baptist, as well as what Jesus had witnessed in his own life provided enough information to indicate that the handwriting was already on the wall before the crucifixion.

A sixth confirmatory mention should also be made of Josephus’s testimony concerning the Jewish opposition that perpetrated the stoning of James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20:9:1) as a similar case of “prophet abuse.” This additional case provides an example of enemy attestation from a non-biblical writing.

Seventh, the initial three of the four major Markan prediction texts plus Matt 12:38–40 are examples where the predictions are embedded within “Son of Man” passages. Although it is difficult to provide provenance for many of the Son of Man sayings, at least a few of the individual examples are well attested. Further, given the key attestation that these teachings are found in all five of the major, independent Gospel strata (Mark, M, L, Q, and John), plus satisfying the exceptionally strict criterion of discontinuity with its seemingly unique application of this phrase by Jesus to himself, as well as being found in multiple forms (including Gospel narratives, parabolic and apocalyptic texts), there is a firm basis for Jesus having utilized this title for himself.101 This raises the likelihood that one or more of these predictions can be verified in historical terms.

Eighth and last, while very skeptical scholars seldom state it straightforwardly, thereby making it more difficult to be overly dogmatic in judging their intentions, it does seem clear in various critical contexts that having rejected the resurrection event itself appears to be a harbinger for a priori rejections of Jesus’s predictions of this event as well.102 Regardless of the possibility that such critical moves like these have been made, if the resurrection were shown to be a probable historical event, then there understandably should be much less objection to the “lesser miracle” that Jesus predicted this event.

The point to be made here is not simply that the historicity of the resurrection determines the outcome of these discussions regarding Jesus’s predictions. Rather, if the historical event occurred, the prior historical predictions would hardly be an issue while deepening the significance of this occurrence in the sense of helping to provide a worldview outlook for the context of this event. In such a case, Jesus’s previous knowledge would also raise the overall probabilities that he was both a unique interpreter as well as the participant in these occurrences, thus having an additional bearing on his claims regarding himself, such as his being deity and presenting the unique path to salvation.

That Jesus predicted his suffering, death, and resurrection on many occasions indicates several important truths. For starters, both the historical evidence as well as the scholarly agreement are solid enough to persuade Licona to argue more than once that the considerations in favor of these sayings are strong enough data that they ought to at least be considered as candidates for becoming a part of the historical bedrock of which we can be sure.103 Further, these occurrences would most likely indicate that Jesus was well aware of who he claimed to be and the role he played in salvation history. Jesus,104 as well as the early church,105 claimed that his miracles were signs that his Father was confirming his message. After all, as the chief participant who would have been raised from the dead, these events arguably make Jesus the one who is most likely to know the meaning and interpretations of these events. After all, he was not simply a bystander in these occurrences.

Lastly, that Jesus had specific prior knowledge of these events is one of several clear indications that he shared in the overall plan itself along with the inherent worldview significance and meaning of his life. That he stood at the apex of the central proclamation of world history points forcefully to the sorts of rare events that shape the meanings of these and other events, thereby critiquing ideas that fail to measure up to this central teaching. To know ahead of time, understand, interpret, and be the chief participant in the epic event of the resurrection yields huge clues of worldview significance.106

Conclusion

While Mark 16 clearly introduces many original, striking, and even exciting topics in a brief space, a few difficult issues also get raised in the process. Who rolled the stone away when it was in place only a very short time before? Where was Jesus’s crucified and dead body? Who was the young man dressed in white inside the tomb? What did he mean by declaring that Jesus had been raised from the dead, was now alive again, and would appear soon to his followers?

Perhaps above all, did the original text end abruptly at 16:8, whatever the reason? If that is the case, why is the very last word in the Gospel that the women then left the area, scared and silent, not communicating with anyone? While these last two questions appear to introduce the lion’s share of the attention, there are also a variety of very creative responses too.

We will close with some final thoughts on the women’s response as they fled from the tomb. What, exactly, is the chief issue here? Even agnostic scholar Duncan Derrett, writing on the resurrection, notes that the fear and silence of the women were certainly “genuine” emotions.107 Some sort of pensiveness or post-fear response of this nature is possibly even demanded by the situation. If it is thought that the women should have left the tomb at least a little more exuberantly, we just noted that all four Gospels interchange, alternate, and blend similar responses of both fear plus joy. So particularly with editorial perspectives included, who is to judge the appropriate or exact moments along that back-and-forth passionate roller coaster at which different emotions are revealed, and by very different personalities as well, later or even quickly to be superseded by new emotions?

There certainly are a wealth of potential scholarly options as to what was occurring in Mark’s last few verses, as pointed out above. Amazingly, these responses do not divide along liberal-conservative avenues either. But above all, it must not be forgotten that it would have been impossible that the last word on the subject is that the women never spoke even a single word to anyone else, ever again!

Nor could they have remained afraid, especially with the reported appearances of Jesus soon to surface. Really?—they remained silent and afraid forever, concerning the most incredibly positive thing that had ever occurred in their lives? Once we realize the silliness of such a literal charge, we are open to other results, whether or not Mark meant to write them.

So whether the closing note regarding the women’s fear and silence is considered the end of the book, or perhaps one of the oft-suggested, purposeful literary devices used by Mark, or what remains of a broken-off and lost document, it cannot be the case that the women never reported to anyone a single word of their experiences at the tomb or never got over their fear. Whatever the reason for the ending that we possess, Mark 16:8 certainly describes a temporary condition.

Further, we have seen that it is agreed by scholars with few objections, taken especially from Mark’s own hints, that he definitely knew of Jesus’s appearance to his disciples in Galilee and probably of others, perhaps including at the very least the appearance to Peter. Therefore, all told, it is truly difficult to see why this potential situation in Mark 16:8 is considered more than a fairly minor question, perhaps even an original, purposeful emphasis of Mark himself, as opposed to some type of intractable problem.

A few scholars,108 along with many amateur skeptics and blog writers, treat Mark’s ending like a blotch on the resurrection narratives. True, it is scarcely ever viewed by itself as a serious challenge to the historicity of the resurrection appearances, but why does it appear to be even a nagging issue for some? It must not be forgotten that if an unfinished text simply stopped abruptly or prematurely at 16:8, or originally went further, even one more paragraph from Mark could easily have solved the entire issue. But the immediate point at hand is that, whatever the chosen option, the silence and fear of the women would have solved itself naturally without any additional pleading.

Although admittedly far from a mainline view, at least two agnostic New Testament scholars both date Mark at approximately AD 40 or just a few years after the very earliest of the pre-Pauline creedal traditions! Perhaps most intriguingly, James Crossley and Maurice Casey both arrive at these conclusions for mostly different reasons. Crossley largely bases his argument on Markan reflections on the Old Testament law and especially handwashing.109 Casey prefers “the evidence that some parts of Mark’s Gospel are unrevised translations of written Aramaic sources.” Further, Casey is willing to date Mark between the mid-30s and the mid-40s!110

Ending our present discussion here, it should not be overlooked that Mark 16:1–8 includes some early testimony for the crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, and projected resurrection appearances of Jesus. This is the case even if one agrees with the majority of scholars against Crossley and Casey placing Mark so early. Even opting for a traditional date in the 60s to the 70s for the composition of Mark, as do Bart Ehrman and most other scholars,111 three or four decades after the crucifixion is certainly plenty early enough not to discount Mark’s reports.112

This early date is especially helpful if there are also strong reasons for concluding that Mark is a reliably accurate source.113 Surprisingly to some, the majority scholarly view today is that John Mark is indeed the author of this Gospel, and just as Papias reported in the very early second century, Mark’s chief source was the apostle Peter.114 While establishing this conclusion is not at all necessary to support the historicity of the resurrection appearances,115 if it is an accurate assessment with strong reasons to back up this eyewitness testimony behind Mark, the early date just mentioned plus Markan authorship together strengthen tremendously the overall case for some species of general reliability.116

Notes

1 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 20 (see chap. 18, n. 1).

2 Though he is an agnostic New Testament scholar, James Crossley also criticizes contemporary critics for their presuppositions on a date for Mark that is “far too speculative to carry any weight” seeming at times to just arrive at these conclusions simply because most scholars think it must have been written after the Jewish War. See Crossley, Date of Mark’s Gospel, 206 (see chap. 4, n. 41).

3 Wright and Neill, Interpretation of the New Testament, 63; cf. also 20–23, 25–26, 29 (see chap. 4, n. 16).

4 Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth, 5, 38 (see chap. 5, n. 29).

5 Bultmann, 3–4, 9, 34–37, 39, 41–44; Bultmann, “Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” 28, 35, 46–49, 58, 61, 66, 69–72 (see chap. 5, n. 28); Bultmann, History and Eschatology, 7, 23, 37, 47, 50–52, 113, 118–19 (see chap. 5, n. 28); Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, 34, 60–62, 71–72, 80, 84 (see chap. 15, n. 4).

6 Bultmann himself states in the foreword of Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology, that even when he cannot always agree with Macquarrie, the latter is “not only fair and perceptive, but also touches on points that are really problematic and must be cleared up in future discussion.” Bultmann adds, “I have seldom found so unprejudiced and penetrating an understanding of my intentions and my work as in this book. . . . The author’s book is a distinguished performance” (viii) (see chap. 15, n. 4).

7 Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology, 185–86.

8 Macquarrie, 186–89.

9 Ehrman, New Testament, 43 (see chap. 4, n. 34), with Ehrman dating Mark “sometime between the mid 60s to early 70s” (43) and identifying the Gospels as a species of ancient biography (58–59). Also Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 144 (see chap. 4, n. 51). Further on the conclusion of Greco-Roman biographies may be found in Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); Burridge, What Are the Gospels? (see chap. 4, n. 71); cited by Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?, esp. 3–8 (see chap. 4, n. 43).

10 Some of Alexander the Great’s officers and battle companions during his conquests wrote of his exploits. So far as is known, each of these works was lost and no longer exists today, though they were sometimes known and were utilized by later historians. Unfortunately, these later historians wrote from almost 300 to more than 450 years after Alexander’s life! The problems here should be apparent. Though some of the underlying accounts were much earlier, what portions did the later writers keep, what parts did they reject, and what was recast with perhaps different interpretations entirely? Think of it this way: what if some of Jesus’s companions took notes during Jesus’s life, but the first accounts that contained these notes did not appear until sometime after AD 300, until almost 500? Christians would claim, “Yes, but there were notes from the time of Jesus’s teachings!” And without a single doubt, the critics would respond, “Maybe so, but the first sources to reveal the notes did not write and spin the tales their way until at least 300 years later!” What an absolute field day this would be for the Jesus critics! Details are found in Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 1:6–12, 129, 132 (see chap. 4, n. 47).

11 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 3–4, quotation on 3 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Another example is Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (London: Penguin, 2006), 409, 417–19.

12 Pelletier, “Modern-Day Scholarly Opinion,” 2020 (see chap. 4, n. 42). The findings of this study were shared with the author directly by Pelletier on December 30, 2022, and also detailed independently by New Testament scholar Michael Licona, who directed this MA thesis and reported the same results to the author on April 15, 2020.

13 Likewise, Pelletier, “Modern-Day Scholarly Opinion.”

14 See Brown, John, 1:ci–cii (see chap. 9, n. 148).

15 Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 158–61.

16 Cf. Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, who mentions several scholars in 205n26, 322 (see chap. 2, n. 13).

17 Ehrman, New Testament, 74.

18 The textual comments on passages from the four canonical Gospels and Acts throughout this section of the volume will only include a few relevant Bible commentaries.

19 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 64–65 (see chap. 10, n. 23).

20 France, Gospel of Mark, 673 (see chap. 10, n. 87).

21 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 56–57 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

22 For these four reasons, see Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 56. Besides the references above, Osborne also mentions other proponents in the text.

23 Francis Watson, “‘He Is Not Here’: Towards a Theology of the Empty Tomb,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 99; Neirynck, “Marc 16,1–8,” 63–64 (see chap. 15, n. 60).

24 Senior, “Crucible of Truth,” 32 (see excursus 1, n. 93).

25 France, Gospel of Mark, 670, 684.

26 Harris, Raised Immortal, 15 (see chap. 8, n. 17).

27 Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 98 (see chap. 15, n. 10).

28 Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 131, 101, in that order above (see chap. 15, n. 37).

29 Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 201 (see chap. 6, n. 151); Crossan, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1–8),” 145 (see chap. 15, n. 43); Crossan, Birth of Christianity, 559–62 (see chap. 15, n. 37); Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 16–34 (see chap. 5, n. 40); Küng, Eternal Life?, 99 (see excursus 2, n. 123); Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 135 (see chap. 10, n. 56); Brown, Risen Christ in Eastertime, 9–10 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Brown, “The Resurrection of Jesus,” in Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968), 1373–77; Brown, New Testament Christology, 167 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Derrett, Anastasis, 131, 135 (see chap. 9, n. 155); Elliott, “First Easter,” 211 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 97–98 (see chap. 11, n. 46); Kee, What Can We Know, 86 (see chap. 4, n. 46); Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 88, 94 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Johnson, Living Jesus, 134–35 (see chap. 1, n. 19); A. Collins, “Empty Tomb and Resurrection according to Mark,” 119–48, esp. 128 (see excursus 2, n. 24); Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 36 (see chap. 10, n. 70); John Fenton, “The Four Gospels: Four Perspectives on the Resurrection,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 40; Stanley, “To Know Him,” 27–28 (see excursus 2, n. 29); Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 167–72, esp. 168 (see chap. 12, n. 34). The following scholars seem to agree: Andrew Lincoln, “‘I Am the Resurrection and the Life’: The Resurrection Message of the Fourth Gospel,” in D’Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, 284; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 309–26, esp. 318–19 (see chap. 10, n. 76); Smith, Easter Gospels, appendix (see excursus 2, n. 123); Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” 3–36, particularly 32 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Craig, “The Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 54 (see excursus 2, n. 98); Francis Young, “The Mark of the Nails,” in The Hermeneutics of the Gospel Resurrection Narratives, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 139, 149n2; J. I. H. McDonald, The Resurrection: Narrative and Belief (London: SPCK, 1989), 69, 140.

30 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 58–63.

31 Osborne, 63–72, particularly 63 and 65.

32 Osborne, 59. Larry Hurtado agrees with Osborne here, plus he extends the comment to any of the other variant readings for Mark after 16:8 in the ancient manuscripts; see Mark, 287.

33 Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 135–36 (see chap. 1, n. 19).

34 France, Gospel of Mark, 673.

35 Moule, Birth of the New Testament, 131–32n1 (see chap. 4, n. 46).

36 Wright, “Early Traditions,” 136–37 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

37 France, Gospel of Mark, 673–74.

38 Alistair Kee, From Bad Faith to Good News: Reflections on Good Friday and Easter (London: SCM, 1991), 91; Evans, “Empty Tomb Tradition,” esp. 52–53 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 228 (see excursus 1, n. 19); Hurtado, Mark, 279–85; 287–89.

39 William P. Alston, “Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection,” in The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 162–63.

40 John Fenton, “The Ending of Mark’s Gospel,” in Barton and Stanton, Resurrection, chap. 1.

41 There has been considerable discussion on what precisely this pre-Markan source contained and, in particular, if it included the empty tomb narrative (16:1–8). A helpful summary is found in Robert H. Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 627–29.

42 Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 2:1523–24 (see chap. 4, n. 40). Soards notes several commentators who conclude that there was more than one pre-Markan Passion source included within this Gospel material, including Rudolf Pesch remarkably finding evidence of “at least seven blocks of preMarcan tradition” in the text here (1499)! Even Rudolf Bultmann argued that this older account in Mark “told very briefly of the arrest, the condemnation by the Sanhedrin and Pilate, the journey to the cross, the crucifixion and death” of Jesus (1494). Still, Licona points out that Soards finds little agreement in the more exact details of Mark’s overall Passion material at this juncture; see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 215–16. Other scholars include numerous comments and discussion on these issues, often of a positive nature. Some of these sources include Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 167 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 104 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Perkins, Resurrection, 115–16 (see excursus 2, n. 111); France, Gospel of Mark, 597–99; Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 127; Guillaume, Luc interprète, part 1 (see chap. 15, n. 28); cf. also Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 102; Neirynck “Marc 16,1–8,” 56–88.

43 Paul Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ, 87–88 (see chap. 17, n. 33).

44 Craig, “Closing Response,” 171–72 (see chap. 16, n. 111).

45 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 243 (see chap. 1, n. 25).

46 Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 164, 192–95, 220–23, 251–52, 343, 351–52.

47 Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 90, 93–94.

48 Some of the common inquiries, such as the number or identification of the women or angels present at the tomb, or the time of day the incidents occurred, and so on, will be discussed in far more detail in our treatment of discrepancies.

49 France, Gospel of Mark, 663. It appears both Pheme Perkins, Resurrection, 116–17, and Reginald Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 52, 56, consider the slight changes in the Markan lists to be a positive indication of the pre-Markan accounts.

50 France, Gospel of Mark, 664–65. France is one of the researchers who mentions that the other Mary is sometimes suggested by scholars to be Jesus’s mother (664). On another oft-mentioned issue, negative views on the worth of female testimony are found in Josephus, Ant. 4.8.15. France lists on 665 a few other negative sources as well (e.g., m. Rosh Hashanah 1:8 and Shevuʽot 4:1). On the same subject, Wright, 607n55, adds b. Bava Qamma 88a.

51 Earlier in this book, a “scholar” was defined as an individual with a terminal degree in a relevant area of study, hopefully with an accredited teaching position in a college, university, or seminary, and with peer-reviewed publications. Frequently I receive correspondence from “Jesus mythicists” asking me why I do not include “their” scholars in my lists? This question is even more embarrassing when the inquiry is from one of these unqualified persons who assumes he is—perhaps because he writes a blog! While I am more than pleased to include scholars who largely fulfill the criteria that I have defined, such as Robert Price and Richard Carrier, the vast majority of the bloggers and other often-outspoken critics have no credentials at all as far as anyone can ascertain. Interestingly, Bart Ehrman uses a yardstick that is very close in certain aspects to my own. See Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 2–3, 17–21 (see chap. 2, n. 15)

52 This idea is discussed and evaluated in detail in our treatment of the empty tomb. No scholar is better known for his stance concerning Jesus’s alternate burial plus the rejection of Mark’s empty tomb account than John Dominic Crossan. As examples, see “Dialogue,” 33 (see chap. 10, n. 94); Crossan, Historical Jesus, 392–94 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 392–94, 185, 209; Crossan, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1–8).”

53 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 228–30, quotation on 230 (see chap. 5, n. 43).

54 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, esp. 164–69, 184–85, also 7, 141–42, 151, 173–74 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

55 Some examples of my earlier publications that report this percentage of critical scholars include Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 23–24, esp. 45 n. 127 (see chap. 2, n. 33); “Resurrection Research,” 135–53, particularly 140–41 (see chap. 4, n. 4); “Experiences of the Risen Jesus,” 288–97, esp. 292 (see chap. 4, n. 4); “Case for Christ’s Resurrection,” 180–98, esp. 188–89 (see chap. 10, n. 75); cf. “Tracing Jesus’ Resurrection,” 214 (see chap. 4, n. 4).

56 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 112–13, for these and other comments (see chap. 6, n. 173).

57 France, Gospel of Mark, 675, 678–79; cf. Hurtado, Mark, 281–82, 286.

58 For further ideas on Mark and vindication, see France, Gospel of Mark, 279, 284–86; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 408–11 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

59 Wright, 629.

60 Kenneth Grayston, “The Empty Tomb,” Expository Times 9 (1981): 266.

61 Kee, What Can We Know, 86.

62 Hurtado, Mark, 288.

63 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 66–68.

64 Grayston, “Empty Tomb,” 266.

65 See the excursus on this subject below.

66 Nor would Mark have concocted the predictions on his own, especially repeating them so many times. If he knew clearly that there was no reason to affirm that these previous comments had occurred, he would hardly have placed those claims on Jesus’s lips in the first place, since they would render Jesus a false prophet. By far the best conclusion is that Mark both knew of the predictions as well as at least thinking that Jesus had appeared to his followers, even though Mark may have chosen not to record them.

67 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 66–67. Alsup also casts his vote for the option that Mark was aware of the resurrection appearance tradition but “deliberately avoids making narrational use of it” in Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 93–94.

68 Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 31–41. For the quotations, see 36, 32, 33, respectively.

69 Perkins, 40–41. The idea of Mark offering an “open-ended” story has been mentioned by others; see France, Gospel of Mark, 670–71.

70 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 66.

71 O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 41 (see chap. 1, n. 19). However, O’Collins also asserts here that the women could not relay the message to the disciples anyway, because they had already left for Galilee. However, this does not match up well with the other Gospel accounts, most of all not with the detailed Jerusalem appearances to the apostles in both Luke 24:36–53 and John 20:19–29. Moreover, whether or not Mark wrote anything beyond 16:8, we do not know for sure his view on the whereabouts of the disciples on Sunday morning, though it appears to make the most sense to conclude from 16:7 that these men were still in Jerusalem. Matthew narrates an appearance to the women in Jerusalem (28:9), but it is even more clear here that the disciples were still in the city (28:10). Perhaps some men had left; regardless, this seems to pose another sort of issue: if the men had left for Galilee no earlier than Friday, the one-and-a-half days between then and Sunday morning is an insufficient time to arrive back there. So how realistic is it for the women to be told to go tell the disciples unless at least some of them were still in Jerusalem?

72 For a couple such charges, see Perkins, Resurrection, 121; France, Gospel of Mark, 684.

73 Neirynck, “Marc 16,1–8,” 56, 63–64.

74 Grayston, “Empty Tomb,” 263–67, particularly 266.

75 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 56; Perkins, Resurrection, 121–23; Hurtado, Mark, 286; France, Gospel of Mark, 682–83.

76 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 304 (see chap. 1, n. 30). Besides Allison, Licona also lists other scholars who suggest this or a similar notion as well, including Bauckham and Hendrikson in Resurrection of Jesus, 346–47. Licona points out a difference with the case in Mark, though. The chief reason the women did not speak was precisely because they were scared. But as Licona states, this must be taken in the Markan context of “fear” and the role that revelation plays in the lives of those who experience it, not to mention the Markan parallel in 1:44 (347). For a more recent treatment by Allison that presents five reasons why the women did not remain silent indefinitely, see Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 125–27 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

77 Harris, Raised Immortal, 15.

78 Depending on how the additional endings are counted, Harris, Raised Immortal, 14–15, lists four endings, whereas Hurtado lists only three in Mark, 290.

79 For a chart of similarities between the longer ending and all three of the other Gospels, see France, Gospel of Mark, 686 in the context of 685–88. Cf. Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 36; Hurtado, Mark, 283–90; Harris, Raised Immortal, 14–18.

80 William R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974). Farmer’s book is respected by scholars but is often taken as something like a conspiracy theory concerning the Alexandrian scribes, who, it is argued, suppressed the verses. But as Harris notes, there is no evidence for such a conclusion; see Harris, Raised Immortal, 15. France likewise respects Farmer but makes similar critical comments; see France, Gospel of Mark, 685nn40–41.

81 John Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark according to S. Mark, intro. Edward Hills (London: Parker, 1871). The details are often fascinating, but on the comments above, see 20–21 in the introduction by Hills, plus 148–68 and 371–74.

82 Hills, “Introduction,” 17–82.

83 While the half dozen sightings include Paul’s personal appearance that he apparently added to the end of the list in 1 Cor 15:8 (9:1 being another example), his epistle still predates Mark’s Gospel according to the great majority of scholars; hence he is counted in the list in the statement above even though his appearance was not an original part of the creedal statement.

84 In an especially instructive discussion regarding Jesus’s predictions here, Brown judges that similarities between the Synoptic predictions and those in the Gospel of John probably indicate “a preGospel” collection of sayings from which these different accounts were derived. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1485.

85 The subject of whether or not Jesus predicted his passion, death, resurrection, vindication, or exaltation has been an important area of research during the past few decades. For some of the very best arguments on different aspects of these multifaceted questions, see the edited version of Hans F. Beyer’s PhD dissertation, titled Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection (see chap. 17, n. 83). One of the very best treatments here is Licona’s Resurrection of Jesus, 284–302, 617. For an excellent, more succinct synopsis, see Licona’s article “Did Jesus Predict His Death,” 47–66 (see excursus 1, n. 78). It will only be remarked that at present, the number of scholars in support of Jesus’s Gospel predictions exceeds those who deny these predictions. But once again, as we have clarified and emphasized many times throughout this work, the chief question does not consist of the scholarly numbers or head count, but which views are supported by the better data. Still, some readers enjoy knowing the tendencies in scholarship, and on this question it is intriguing to note the impressive shift in scholarship toward a positive assessment. Why would that occur? One hint regarding some of the most persuasive arguments is that a number of well-known critical and even skeptical scholars have also taken the pro-prediction views. For one example, emeritus New Testament scholar at both Oxford and Duke universities E. P. Sanders points out that the prophecies from both Jesus and the young man in the tomb “implies a resurrection story like Matthew’s.” Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 276, 311n1.

86 These would include examples such as John 5:18; 7:1, 25; 8:37, 40, 59; 10:31–33; 11:8.

87 Cf. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1486–89, quotation on 1488.

88 Brown, 2:1488.

89 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 290. Some could potentially question if (or the extent to which) the Gospels or other sources collaborated with one another, but elsewhere Ehrman also points out repeatedly that sources which contain or draw from a combination of texts such as Mark, Q, M, L, John, and Paul are independent or mostly so, and hence qualify according to this statement above, even if they are chiefly or mostly independent in several of the attesting traditions (74–78, 92–93, 111–12, 130–31, 140–41, 163–64, 172–73, 193, 232, 251, 261, 288–93). The authors borrow from other sources and sometimes note it as well, such as Luke 1:1–4; 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3–5, along with more general references elsewhere that tradition is being cited (like 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11–13). These acknowledgments by the authors that other sources are being used by them sound a little like ancient footnotes!

90 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 141, 171–73, 251, 261; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 84, 138–40, 153, 216–17.

91 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163, 193, 291.

92 Ehrman, 131, 144–48, 291–93.

93 Ehrman, 111.

94 Ehrman, 92, 110–11, 131, 261.

95 Ehrman, 261, 315–17.

96 Ehrman, 162, 263–64, 305, 312, 314–15.

97 Ehrman, 171–72.

98 Ehrman, 92, 163–64, 173, 261, 291.

99 Ehrman, 111, 172, 251; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 48, 132–33, 148–51, 174–78, 183–88, 192, 202–4, 217.

100 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 110–12, 170, 232, 261–62; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 3, 84, 208, 249–50, 279, 370.

101 See Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 233–62 (see excursus 1, n. 56); Robert Stein makes many of these textual points in his succinct article “Jesus Christ,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 629–32, esp. 630–31. Many of Oscar Cullmann’s arguments in his classic volume, The Christology of the New Testament, are still quite relevant for today; see 137–92 (see chap. 11, n. 14).

102 A couple of examples where this appears to be the case include Elliott, “First Easter,” 213–20; Price, Deconstructing Jesus, chap. 7, esp. 221–24 (see excursus 2, n. 106).

103 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 468–69; Licona, “In Reply,” 56 (chap 4, n. 2).

104 See Mark 2:1–12, esp. vv. 5–12; Matt 11:1–6; 12:38–40; 16:1–4; Luke 11:20; 24:45–48; John 5:36–40; 10:17–18, 25–26, 31–33; 11:40–45; 14:9–11; 15:24.

105 For examples, these include the very early Acts sermon summaries in 2:22–24, 32–36; 3:12–26; 4:8–12; 5:17–40; 10:34–43; 13:16–41. See Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 20, 29 (see chap. 2, n. 22).

106 As I have argued elsewhere: Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 91–92; The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), appendix 1, esp. 124–25, 133; and “Evidential Apologetics,” in Five Views on Apologetics, ed. Steven B. Cowan and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 116–20.

107 Derrett, Anastasis, 64 (see chap. 9, n. 155).

108 James Crossley argues that if the women remained silent, as per Mark 16:8, then there were no real eyewitnesses to the empty tomb! Crossley, “Against the Historical Plausibility,” 177–78 (see chap. 15, n. 33).

109 Crossley, Date of Mark’s Gospel, 206–9; a briefer statement is found in Crossley, “Against the Historical Plausibility,” 178.

110 Casey, Jesus, 80–86, quotation on 83 (see chap. 4, n. 41).

111 Ehrman, New Testament, 43.

112 Ehrman allows historical sources for Jesus’s life until a century after the crucifixion, or until about AD 130 in Did Jesus Exist?, 290–91.

113 As with Casey’s comments in Jesus, 53, 83, 87, 133.

114 Michael R. Licona, “What Are the Primary Sources for Jesus’ Resurrection?,” 25 (see chap. 10, n. 155). Licona checked with several prominent New Testament specialists to confirm this view. Cf. also R. T. France, Evidence for Jesus, 122 (see chap. 6, n. 3).

115 France, Evidence for Jesus, 122–25.

116 As already pointed out, our primary method in this study is to apply the minimal facts method, which has the advantage of showing that the resurrection occurred even if the New Testament texts are unreliable! Nonetheless, establishing even the general reliability of a Gospel would be an additional, independent approach to establishing the historical foundation for the resurrection. As a “backup system” this second approach strengthens the case for Jesus’s resurrection.

↑ Back to top