20: The Gospel of Matthew
20
The Gospel of Matthew
For the majority of critical New Testament scholars, Mark was the first Gospel to be written, between AD 60 and 70, with Matthew and Luke being written perhaps ten to fifteen years later, around AD 80–85. Probably more often than not, Matthew is thought to date just a bit earlier than Luke.1
In Matthew, two women are identified by name as having visited the burial tomb of Jesus, which they find empty. While hurrying away, they encounter the risen Jesus. The account of the guards, a carryover from the previous chapter, is unique to Matthew. Besides the appearance to the women in Jerusalem, Matthew also narrates one more appearance of the risen Jesus in Galilee. Like Luke and the first chapter of Acts, the risen Jesus does offer a final encouragement to his disciples before sending them out to lives of ministry, though there is no ascension to heaven as in these other two texts.
Matthew 28:1–7: The Women
Matthew’s Gospel is the only account that names two of the woman who went to the tomb: Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” (28:1). Robert Mounce suggests that, following Mark 16:1, “the other Mary” is the same as “Mary the mother of James.”2 There are some differences in the names of the women in the empty tomb accounts. But all things considered, the names of the women are not wildly divergent. As E. P. Sanders pointed out, “a calculated deception should have produced greater unanimity.”3
Matthew’s empty tomb account of the women also seems to be the most straightforward of the Synoptic Gospels. The two women are each clearly attested in the other two Synoptic texts, plus quite significantly, all these accounts plus the Gospel of Peter acknowledge that other unnamed women were also present at the crucifixion, burial, and empty tomb. Lastly, no other once-mentioned women, like “Salome” in Mark or “Joanna” in Luke, are named in Matthew.
Matthew 28:9: The Women Meet the Risen Jesus
Matthew could have narrated what may have been the initial appearance of the risen Jesus, though there is some discussion about this. In favor of the two Marys and perhaps another woman or two being the earliest to see Jesus as per Matt 28:9, it would seem from the narration that the ladies running from Jesus’s tomb even before reaching the male disciples would indicate this place of priority among the appearances. On the other hand, the reports from Luke and John necessitate that Mary Magdalene (plus others, as in Luke and John 20:2?) traveled back to the men, who sent their own contingent to check out the tomb and then left again, followed by Mary Magdalene returning by herself, seeing the two angels seated inside the tomb, and then meeting Jesus himself and holding on to him (see below). In short, comparing the two accounts to ascertain which one seems to take less time, it would seem that a “straight shot” from the tomb that gets interrupted by Jesus on the way to the disciples is likely a quicker route than arriving at the men’s location followed by two more subsequent trips to the tomb.
But favoring Mary Magdalene’s second trip to the tomb (by herself) in John 20:11–18 as the time of Jesus’s very earliest appearance is that the long ending in Mark 16:9 specifically calls her the first witness to the risen Lord. True, the longer ending is late and apparently not part of any authoritative report. But there is another tradition, albeit late, that also supports Mary Magdalene being the first witness.4
It may not be possible—or crucial in any way—to ascertain which of Jesus’s resurrection appearances was first. John Wenham argues that while the two appearances to the women were distinct, “Mary Magdalene must be put first (as Mark 16:9 says) and the second [i.e., Matt 28:8–10] must be put at a sufficient interval after the women’s flight from the tomb to allow for all the comings and goings recorded by John.”5 That may be, but notice both the reliance on the perhaps second-century text in pseudo-Mark 16:9 as well as the “sufficient interval” that has to be allowed (some might say “invented”) to count Mary Magdalene’s appearance first, though Wenham could, of course, be correct here.
It is definitely clear, though, that the earliest two appearances were to the women, perhaps both because they had been obedient in a difficult situation and because, conversely, the male disciples had initially fled and were now in hiding. Jesus’s teaching of the first being last and the last being first may be perfectly applicable here (Mark 10:31; cf. 9:35).
Matthew 28:11–16: The Guards at the Tomb
Recorded only in the First Gospel in the New Testament, the story of the guards at the tomb begins in Matt 27:62–66. On the Sabbath, a group of Jewish leaders request Pilate to place a guard in front of Jesus’s tomb to protect it from Jesus’s disciples, who might attempt to steal the dead body or otherwise bungle a situation that they had for so long attempted to alleviate. Strangely, these religious leaders remembered one or more of Jesus’s three-day predictions, the meaning of which we are told more than once that the disciples themselves did not understand (Mark 8:32–33; 9:10, 32; 14:28–31). But enemies may sometimes pay more attention than friends. Pilate grants their request, so they post the guard and seal the tomb with a stone (Matt 27:65–66).
For a few reasons, the guard in the text seems best understood as being a Roman soldier rather than from the Jewish temple guard. The Greek text in 27:65 (especially the words echete koustōdian) seems best considered as a present imperative, indicating that Pilate was saying, essentially, “Okay, you can have a guard,” as opposed to the indicative sense of “Get your own guard.”6 Moreover, regarding what would be another infamous Jewish theological struggle, what would be the benefit of securing the Jewish temple guard in case this word came to Pilate (28:14)? True, Pilate had a potential political stake in whether or not Jesus had risen from the dead, but what makes the best sense is that this comment by the priests was most likely due to their needing to placate Roman soldiers. Also, we will point out below that the seal on the stone would most likely have been Roman in origin rather than Jewish.
After the Sabbath,7 Matthew explains that while the women were on their way to the tomb, there was another earthquake, the second since the crucifixion. An angel who appeared like lightning rolls away the stone. The guards “shook and became like dead men” (28:2–4 NRSV). After the women arrived at the tomb, heard the angel’s message, and left, the soldiers report to the chief priests what they had just seen and are paid handsomely to say that Jesus’s disciples had come in the night and had stolen Jesus’s dead body while they were sleeping(!), with the promise that they would be protected should this story come to Pilate’s attention.8
Then we are told that, even a few decades later when this Gospel was written, this was still the story that the Jews had been circulating widely.9 Craig Keener thinks this entire episode told by Matthew in two parts indicates clearly that “we may be sure that the primary polemic against the Christian claim concerning Jesus’ resurrection was theft of the body.”10 The testimonies of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria further this supposition, especially given the length of the treatments that Matthew devotes to this, plus the likelihood that Matthew employed other earlier tradition behind this material as well.
Of all the Gospel accounts, few are dismissed as summarily as is the account of the guards at the tomb.11 Raymond Brown points out some of the reasons for this sentiment. The story is absent in the other Synoptic burial and resurrection accounts, and Brown thinks that Matthew’s idea of the guards would actually render “unintelligible” and implausible some of the other Gospel comments about the events around the tomb, such as those pertaining to the women going to the tomb if they had known that the soldiers were present. Further, that the Jewish authorities understood Jesus’s meaning when predicting his resurrection, after only brief and intermittent contact, while his own disciples did not understand after much teaching, is also an issue. Further, the “dramatized” appearance of the guards at the tomb and the “apologetic function” of the account also argues against its authenticity.12
Surely, Hugo Staudinger underrates the critical scholarly attitude: “Many exegetes deny that it has any historical basis.”13 William Lane Craig is much closer to the actual sense of contemporary researchers when he states that Matthew’s comments here are “nearly universally rejected as an apologetic legend by the critics.”14 The majority view among critical scholars is certainly to regard as fiction the accounts of the guards at the tomb.15
However, this scholarly tendency by itself certainly fails to recognize that several considerations have been made in favor of Matthew’s accounts here. The most successful and sustained effort to defend the guards at the tomb is probably that by William Lane Craig in his journal article mentioned above, titled “The Guard at the Tomb.” Craig thinks the three strongest objections are that the account in Matthew “is not related in the pre-Markan passion story nor in the other gospels.” Furthermore, as per the comments above by both Raymond Brown and the Jesus Seminar, how did the Jewish leaders understand so clearly what Jesus meant concerning his rising from the dead, while Jesus’s disciples just seem to never get the point? Further, it is also true, as noted by many scholars, that “the story serves an apologetic purpose.”16
But there are also some worthwhile reasons to support the accounts of the guards at Jesus’s burial tomb. While it is the case that there is no confirmation from Mark or Luke, a different form of the story is also found in the Gospel of Peter. While this version is comparably late,17 and not a very reliable account,18 it does provide a minimal amount of independent attestation. Further, Craig notes that “there is a tradition history behind Matthew’s story.” This could potentially provide an earlier source for some of the data that Matthew reports.19 On this last topic, Osborne cites a number of terms from this passage that even very critical scholars such as Ingo Broer think, in Osborne’s words, “proves that Matthew borrowed from tradition (Mark or Q) and wove into a new composition.” Other scholars concur on the point concerning the use of oral or written tradition here.20
Moreover, some of the objections posed against Matthew’s material can be addressed quite easily. As an example, if the guards at the tomb were invented almost entirely as an apologetic for the empty tomb and bodily resurrection appearances, as is so often charged, why does Matthew do such an unpersuasive job with this thesis? After all, the soldiers could have arrived at the very beginning of the burial, on Friday afternoon, rather than coming late, on Saturday. Further, Matthew could also have had the guards check the tomb for a body as soon as they arrived.
Most of all, why not have Jesus appear directly to the Roman guards? Would not that have served a much better purpose of presenting a positive account here? True, the Gospel of Peter goes way too far overboard on this score as the Jewish leaders and scholars (8:4–5), a crowd of onlookers, the Roman guard, and the centurion are all witnesses as three giants—two angels supporting Jesus—emerge from the tomb (9:1–10:5)! That would comprise “a failsafe apologetic,” as Craig notes.21
Additionally, we might add here that it makes no sense to respond that the guards had all fallen asleep on the job and were sleeping so soundly that not a single one of them awoke except to be able to observe, identify, and be absolutely positive that it was Jesus’s disciples who rolled away the stone and stole the dead body. Were the Romans that much afraid of some Galilean fishermen? Did the soldiers fear for their lives? As Keener insightfully quips, “If the disciples did not protect Jesus while he was alive, surely they would not have risked their lives to rob his tomb after his death.”22
Lastly, if the Jewish leaders had just one sustained natural response to offer in place of the very public and unrelenting teaching of Jesus’s resurrection appearances, why adopt this lousy option as the best rejoinder? It is remarked often that perhaps the chief reason for this choice of responses is that the leaders had to at least concede and try to explain the historicity of the empty tomb. After all, any resident of Jerusalem could have confirmed this truth for themselves in a very short time.23
Murray Harris comments regarding the obligatory nature of the negative, “customary” critical attitude toward this account in Matthew’s Gospel: “Such a dismissal is hard to justify . . . apologetic interest and historical reliability are not mutually exclusive.”24 Critical scholars may well wonder about the account, but dismissing it wholesale, especially in light of some of the retorts that may be redirected to this dismissal, is not the best option.
N. T. Wright makes a similar complaint to Harris’s, only in much more detail. He states that while historians always need to be careful concerning “obviously apologetic tales,” additional reflections appear to outweigh this concern in this case. He then mentions four points. Initially, it would be odd to invent this entire story unless the Jewish complaint were already promulgating that the disciples stole Jesus’s dead body. In other words, such a story would most likely arise in answer to an allegation. Further, the story seems to require an actual empty tomb. However, if the empty tomb were only a late story, as many scholars have surmised, why would the story likewise be raised for the first time at such a late date?
Additionally, the entire account is based on Jesus’s predictions of his resurrection from the dead, thus involving his body rather than his spirit alone. And the priests would have to have known about Jesus’s words as well. So if, conversely, Jesus’s body had remained in the tomb and simply rotted, neither an opposing accusation nor a response would even have made any sense at all. Lastly, Matthew would have judged that it was better to answer the Jewish allegation than to simply allow it to go unanswered.
Wright then clarifies that his rejoinder does not argue that the story of the priests paying off the guards must be historical throughout, but only that “it is unlikely to have been invented as a late legend.” Further, the account requires that “the empty tomb was an absolute and unquestioned datum.” Moreover, to attempt to hold to a position like Bultmann’s and to argue against a bodily event altogether would involve such a string of unlikelihoods (Wright names six odd requirements on Bultmann’s thesis) that it would be very difficult to account for this charge plus the corresponding response in the first place. He concludes that Matthew’s account is simpler and more likely than such a convoluted alternate scenario.25
In conclusion, Craig argues concerning the entire matter, “It seems best to leave it an open question.”26 While this may not seem like an overly positive statement at this point, it must be recalled that Matthew’s story of the guards is basically viewed by critical scholars from the very beginning as a hopeless situation. So Craig and others have done a thoughtful job in reclaiming some virtually lost territory on the contemporary playing field!
Though another consideration hardly produces any hard evidence, it may assist with a few relevant details. A marble slab was found in Nazareth in the nineteenth century, without necessarily being produced there. It measures 15 by 24 inches and is apparently the decree of a Roman Caesar, though Brown thinks it probably dates sometime between Caesar Augustus and Septimius Severus, who died in AD 211. However, the paleography points to a most likely window of 50 BC to AD 50, with the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius being suggested most often. Claudius is probably singled out most of all, perhaps because Galilee was not under direct Roman rule in the reigns of Augustus or Tiberius. This is the same Emperor Claudius who kicked Jews out of Rome because of “Chrestus,”27 as per the Roman historian Suetonius and similarly reported in Acts 18:2 (Claud. 25.4).
Beginning with the words “Ordinance of Caesar,” the inscription is a warning declaring that anyone who disturbs the graves of the dead, moves their remains, or disturbs sealed stones or other stones is to be sentenced to capital punishment. If it is an edict of Claudius, why might it potentially be from the town of Nazareth, and why a more solemn punishment decreed on this occasion as opposed to other such Roman warnings of fines paid for grave robbing? Is there any significance to the mention of sealed tombs?
Many publications have appeared over the years analyzing this object and addressing these and other questions. For example, French scholar F. Cumont raises a host of issues. If the warning was decreed by Tiberius or Claudius, and if it originated in Nazareth, is it at least possible that it was placed in Jesus’s adopted town because of reports that he had been raised from the dead? Could it be that reports that his grave was robbed also be a cause of alarm in Rome? Cumont particularly asks why this decree would show up in Nazareth, which is such a little town and surely a location that would be quite unconnected with issues of Roman governance.28
After all, whether or not Pilate wrote a report about these occurrences and sent it to Rome, the story had long made its way around the Mediterranean. Tacitus explains that “Christus” was killed by Pontius Pilate in Judea during the reign of Tiberius, that the Christian teaching nonetheless broke out once again in Judea after Christus’s death, and that Christians in Rome were killed for their faith during the reign of Nero. The story was known all the way to Rome (Ann. 15.44).
Of course, while intriguing, these questions cannot be answered from what we now know. The connections remain, though they are tenuous at best, since there are several places where these scenarios could break down too. We certainly lack the specific data that would come close to making all of the necessary connections. But whether or not this inscription had anything to do with Jesus, the mention of sealing tombs is still very helpful. At the very least, here is a toehold where Matthew’s earlier account in 27:66 touches reality, properly noting at least a verifiable burial practice that was perhaps not widely known. In other words, this Nazareth inscription by no means proves that Matthew is correct regarding what occurred to Jesus’s body, only that one of Matthew’s claims looks like it has some historical roots.29
A few other reasons in favor of the guard at the tomb might also be mentioned. Agnostic classical scholar Duncan Derrett concludes that Matthew’s accounts are “comical,” though he thinks that Jesus’s tomb was perhaps still “guarded” by the young man whom the women discovered there.30 Historian Staudinger asserts that we should not be too quick to assume that the guard accounts were invented. Speaking of the possibility that Matthew may have created the account, Staudinger replies, “According to all our experience of secular history, affairs are generally not quite as simple as that.” Thus, “it must rather be assumed that Matthew’s account of the watch kept at the tomb arose from some sort of actual proceedings.”31
Speaking in evidential terms, then, there are not enough data with which to securely proclaim that the guard-at-the-tomb report in Matthew can be determined to be historical. But it is also premature to proclaim that it must be a legendary story. If Matthew is attempting to use the event as an apologetic device, it fails rather obviously (see above). Just because it is only reported in Matthew alone among the Synoptics certainly does not eliminate it from consideration any more than other one-time reports in the M and L material.
Matthew 28:17: The Disciples’ Doubt
Matthew’s earlier appearance of the risen Jesus was to the women in Jerusalem, who met and touched Jesus on their way from the tomb while delivering the angel’s message to the apostles. The scene of Matthew’s only other appearance of Jesus occurs in Galilee to the “eleven” disciples who met him at the mountain that had been singled out ahead of time (28:16). When Jesus appears, they worship him, though some of them doubt (28:17).
Initially, the doubt itself constitutes an honest report,32 but ought not be an issue. After all, other episodes of such questioning were not rare. Mary’s failure to recognize Jesus upon her return to the tomb could have been due to personal doubts (John 20:14–15), the disciples in Luke doubted even after Jesus stood immediately in front of them and even offered to be touched (Luke 24:41), Thomas’s famous doubting episode arose after his refusal to accept his colleagues’s testimony regarding seeing Jesus (John 20:24–28), and the later, long ending in Mark reports that Jesus reprimanded his disciples for their lack of faith and stubbornness (16:14).
So Matthew’s comment fits rather well into this rather pervasive independent testimony to the disciples’ uncertainty! Even many Christians today would not automatically believe, even if they thought that they had seen personally the resurrected Jesus. Nonetheless, a couple of other matters may also be relevant in the case here of Matthew 28.
For instance, Mounce notes that since the very next verse states that Jesus came toward them (28:18), it is entirely possible that Jesus was a little distance away and as he walked toward them, many of these thoughts may have dissipated.33 Harris agrees, pointing out that the Greek term proselthōn in 28:18a indicates that meaning.34 Others have suggested that, given the mountain scene in the country and Jesus’s prediction that he would meet them there, many more people could have been present who had not yet seen the risen Jesus, including unbelievers. The suggestion is also made quite frequently that this could be where the 500 witnesses from the pre-Pauline list of appearances saw Jesus.35
Keener raises the very insightful suggestion that the sort of doubt depicted here is not the antagonistic, unbelieving variety, but the nagging sort of questioning that Jesus chided the disciples for throughout his ministry (as in Matt 8:26; 17:20; cf. 6:30). Just as the disciples believed in spite of their questions, so these witnesses could too, whether or not there were more present than the just the eleven disciples alone.36 Osborne comments that this sort of doubt “is a central motif in other gospel appearance stories.”37
As a follow-up here, the Greek verb edistasan, “doubted, wavered” in Matt 28:17, appears only one other time in the New Testament, namely, in Matt 14:31 (edistasas). The prefix dis indicates “two” and it means to be divided, hence having the sense of indecision. Note this meaning in 14:29–31, where the context indicates that Peter was doing fine when he stepped out of the boat and began walking on the water, until he noticed the wind and the waves and then he began to sink. Peter had enough faith to get out of the boat and begin walking in the first place, which was no little feat, but then the circumstances caused him to be swayed emotionally. Whatever the makeup of the crowd in Matt 28:16–20, the most likely meaning for the specific term for doubt in verse 17 is, like Peter, to be caught between the two positions of faith and doubt rather than indicating an all-out rejection or unbelief.
This seems to make the most sense of the species of doubt that was being experienced by those who were present in Galilee when Jesus appeared. Matthew’s choice of this Greek verb and how he used it in context (especially in 14:31 of Peter) is our best indication of what is meant by the term. Once again, it points to Matthew being honest and straightforward in his reporting of the apostles’ indecision.38
Matthew 28:18–20: Jesus Meets the Eleven in Galilee, Teaching and Application
In an influential essay written a few decades ago on the resurrection appearance texts in the four canonical Gospels, Cambridge University New Testament professor C. H. Dodd made a now well-known distinction. He classified the Gospel appearance accounts as either “concise” or “circumstantial” pericopes. On the one hand, Dodd argues that the “concise” passages were more brief and succinct accounts “drawn directly from the oral tradition.” On the other hand, the remaining Gospel accounts evinced greater freedom to develop additional details, sometimes telling a story in the process. Dodd concludes that the “concise” resurrection appearance texts were those found in Matt 28:8–10, 16–20; John 20:19–21; and probably Luke 24:36–49, along with pseudo-Mark’s long ending in 16:14–15.39
In addition to the Gospel appearance accounts, Dodd also mentions briefly some texts in Acts 1:3–4, plus several early sermon summaries in Acts 2, 3, 5, 10, and 13 that he identifies as “representing with reasonable fidelity the general type of early preaching.” First Corinthians 15:3–8 is also singled out for special attention, which Dodd terms “primitive tradition.”40 These texts are treated elsewhere in detail.
The Jesus Seminar likewise uses the same term concise (but without citing Dodd) for some of the Gospel appearance accounts and also includes the same first three texts as Dodd’s list. Thus, the Jesus Seminar agrees that the appearances to both the women (Matt 28:8–10) as well as our present text of the Galilee appearance in Matt 28:16–20 are concise. Also like Dodd, the Seminar included texts in 1 Cor 15:3–8; Luke 24:34; and Acts 1, 10, and 13 in the “simple reports” category.41 In these canonical verses above, the Jesus Seminar also seems to be following Dodd very closely.
Note that just because Dodd and the Jesus Seminar often agree where to “rank” the key passages from the Gospels, Acts, and creedal teachings mentioned above, this does not mean that any of the scholars think the historicity of the reported events simply follows. To be sure, Dodd is much closer to judging in favor of the historicity of the events reported in these texts than is the Seminar,42 but there is still not a 1:1 relation here for any of them. Further, while Dodd likewise mentions briefly some of the noncanonical texts, like the Gospel to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Peter, he concludes, unlike the Seminar, that “the material outside the canonical gospels, then, whether in the New Testament or in apocryphal gospels, is of no great importance for our purpose.”43
But it should also be noted here just briefly that while it is no secret that the Jesus Seminar as a whole leans quite far to the left side of the theological spectrum,44 they still have drawn conclusions such as the “appearances of the risen Jesus” or “visionary experiences” to Paul and Mary of Magdalene were “virtually certain” while the appearance to Peter was “probably reliable.”45 Further, the creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–7 was voted by the Seminar fellows as being pre-Pauline.46
As may be appreciated from these chapters on the Gospel texts, the basis for Jesus’s resurrection appearances is really quite strong. That Dodd and the Jesus Seminar could both come to some sort of intermediate agreement on the significance of the Gospel appearance pericopes as concise traditions is significant. The term concise in this context usually has to do with texts that are brief, succinct, to the point, and which lack significant amounts of elaboration, storytelling, or embellishment.
In each of the four canonical Gospels, the truth of Jesus’s resurrection appearances opens the door to one or more lessons of various sorts. The new truths could be anything from lofty theological or other theoretical insights to everyday, practical ministry helps to highly personal applications. The meaning always seems to be that since the resurrection occurred, the world will never look the same or be the same again. This historical event colors all of life, giving our very existence a significance that it has never had for us before. As N. T. Wright likes to repeat, the Gospels teach that “Jesus is raised, therefore God’s new creation has begun and we’ve got a job to do.”47 What might that job be for Matthew?
A text that we just looked at above states that when the disciples saw the risen Lord on a Galilean mountain, some of them doubted. The exact same text also states that the disciples worshipped Jesus (Matt 28:17). This appears to be precisely the juxtaposition that we mentioned above. The Greek verb edistasan tends to describe a person who is caught between two views. When Jesus appeared, something made the eleven disciples (and others present?) desire to worship Jesus.
But we ought not miss a crucial key here: most scholars today agree that it was the event of the resurrection and appearances of Jesus that turned the disciples’s worlds absolutely upside down. These events served as the impetus that marked the very beginning of the road that caused these followers to embark on a lifelong ministry, lasting often until their martyrdoms. True, they had certainly been building their views and ideas concerning Jesus throughout his ministry. However, by the time of this meeting, Jesus had only been raised for a brief period of time—hardly long enough to adjust their thoughts and concepts from the reality of his horrible death. Was this short interval between Jesus’s death and this present moment long enough for them to take the absolutely huge step of deciding to worship Jesus? We dare not underestimate the significance of their decision for monotheistic, law-abiding Jews! What happened?
But as mentioned, this same verse also records that some of those present doubted, implying hesitation or wavering, as was Peter as he was torn for a moment between faith and doubt (edistasas). Peter trusted Jesus, or he would never have stepped out onto the water in the first place (Matt 14:28). In spite of that faith, Peter also vacillated as the situation changed very quickly, and the doubt arose in his mind along with the wind and the waves.
Here Matthew portrays an instructive contrast between the power of worship, the emotions that may accompany it, religious doubt, and the passions that may accompany it. It is absolutely a huge topic, and one to which we want to return later in this study. But for now, some brief words from C. S. Lewis are exceptionally instructive and will have to suffice: “Unless you teach your moods ‘where they get off’, you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith.”48
The Christian faith is a grounded faith. It begins with truth of various sorts—theological, historical, and even scientific, for starters. Upon this bottom floor of God and his revelation to us, the New Testament definitely moves on to myriad practical topics and personal applications. But the latter follows from the former. The disciples knew this, as there are dozens of moves in the New Testament from the truth of Jesus’s resurrection to the truth of some major doctrine (such as the resurrection of believers, as in 1 Cor 6:14) to practicing Christian truth (like contributing to the needs of other believers, as with 1 Cor 15:58–16:4; Gal 6:10).
Applied to religious doubt, it is because Jesus died and rose from the dead that believers are told to stand firmly in their faith (1 Cor 15:58). As Jesus taught both John the Baptist (Luke 7:18–28) as well as the apostle Thomas (John 20:26–29) during their times of questioning, truth trumps our questions and doubts. Because Christianity is true, there are solid answers to our (hopefully momentary) struggles and that truth should be utilized to bring the untruth into line. As the eleven apostles in Galilee hopefully learned that day, the resurrection indicated that Jesus ought to be worshipped. As Harris points out, “To Matthew, the Resurrection made clear the divine status of Jesus for all to see: Jesus is a legitimate object of worship; God has granted him full and universal authority.”49
With that preamble, an absolutely loaded three verses follow, serving as the very pinnacle and culmination of Matthew’s Gospel. There seems to be a fair amount of scholarly agreement concerning the general points that Matthew is making here, though not always on more specific details. Summing up Matthew’s message, he emphasizes the deity of Jesus Christ, which he has tied in throughout his Gospel, the worship of Jesus as deity, the call to discipleship, and the idea of a mission to the entire world, including Gentiles. Some scholars think that at least a portion of these ideas may have included an old (creedal?) tradition.50 The risen Jesus begins with the proclamation that all authority in both heaven and earth has been given to him, presumably by his Father (28:18).
So Jesus would no longer walk and talk while traveling down the sandy paths in Palestine alone, for he was now the Lord of the entire world. Jews and Gentiles alike were to be given the opportunity to embrace him and become his disciples, being baptized into the name of the triune God—Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. But it should be noted here that all three appellations are used here with the singular Greek noun “name” (onoma). Much has been made of this baptismal formula, though other, earlier Trinitarian formulas do appear in the New Testament (2 Cor 13:13; Gal 4:4–7).
With that authority, Jesus commissions the apostles to make new disciples as they minister throughout the world to all nations (panta ta ethnē). Keener makes the intriguing point that ethnē, “nations,” in this context “probably signifies” peoples rather than our modern conception of nation with borders.51 The two key facets of making disciples involves baptizing candidates and teaching them (28:19). This “great commission” text in Matthew is parallel to Luke 24:48–49; Acts 1:8; and the pseudo-Markan ending (16:15).52
James D. G. Dunn adds that baptism in someone’s name is a strong indication of becoming that person’s follower. Those who followed Jesus by means of the disciples’ future ministry were responding the same way that the twelve apostles had responded earlier to Jesus himself, following him in discipleship.53
N. T. Wright, in a study similar to Dunn’s on discipleship, also arrives at some analogous conclusions. The Jesus who was just crucified in Matthew 27 is the same risen master who now signals the announcement, arrival, and establishment of the Son of Man’s kingdom in Matthew 28. Since the Son of Man is hence the king of our world, then his worshippers, both then as well as now, are to follow and obey his command by taking the great commission message to the remainder of the world.54
Even though Jesus’s disciples of course did not understand all the ramifications of his message at the close of Matthew’s Gospel, it is no wonder that they worshipped Jesus! The scene, occasioned by the obvious resurrection authority of Jesus Christ, must have been stunning. In and through Jesus’s resurrection, the entire picture had just begun to come together for them. As Robertson states, “Matthew’s Gospel closes in a blaze of glory.”55
The Power of Worldviews
Before moving on, it would be appropriate to make an additional distinction here concerning our personal worldview beliefs and the influence and control that they often (if not usually) exercise on our thinking. So often the point is simply missed by virtue of the quite stilted and erroneous assumption that the conclusions of others are always skewed by their illogic, while our views are due purely to rationality and research! However, few thoughts could be so very wide of the mark, as a comparison from this chapter indicates.
We commented above on the contrast between C. H. Dodd on the one hand56 and the Jesus Seminar on the other,57 both of whom categorize Jesus’s appearances to the women in Jerusalem (Matt 28:8–10) and to the disciples in Galilee (28:16–20) as “concise” events. For many if not most scholars, concise characteristics are most often viewed quite positively as possessing the sorts of features that, at the very least, might qualify a text as a candidate to be studied seriously for its potential historical value.58
For Dodd, this is the case with concise texts. In his essay just cited above as well as his landmark little study on the Acts sermon summaries and other creedal texts in the New Testament, Dodd makes it obvious that he takes very seriously the potential historicity of “concise” texts, especially when they apply to these early creedal traditions.59 Yet, Dodd very rarely “shows his hand” in allowing the reader to know where he personally stands on the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection.
In the two texts mentioned here, Dodd pursues about every angle and aspect of these topics as one might like and finds a solid historical basis for the early church’s beliefs. Dodd will explain freely where the apostles and the earliest church were on these topics, but he virtually never addresses or comments on his personal perspective. But there is no doubt that he is open to, respects, and considers these key texts as fertile ground for more historical research and conclusions,60 though he allows the text to do its own “talking.” Nowhere does he impose on this or any New Testament text a series of modern-day rules for interpreting limitations or boundaries for what a passage can or cannot mean.
In contrast, how does the Jesus Seminar handle the same texts? They speak quite similarly concerning the exact same two passages in Matthew and elsewhere being “concise,” while at the same time announcing freely that there is no possible way for true scholars today to accept that Jesus was really raised from the dead. Thus, there is an absolutely huge disjunct between the same data and the conclusions that they draw from them. The data may possibly even lean in one direction, but there is, as it were, an invisible barrier of some sort that militates against certain conclusions being drawn from it. In other words, there is a limit to how far we can go today. How does this work?
Here’s the difference: the Seminar acknowledges the existence of what seems to be the same data as Dodd, even employing the same words as utilized by Dodd, though they will never even begin to entertain the possibility of real resurrection appearances. Sure, Paul, Peter, and Mary of Magdalene, at least, thought and believed honestly that they had seen Jesus alive after his death—no denial there. These events, whatever they were, are even colored red or pink in their second major volume! This is rather incredible, and we have no desire to play that down or act like it amounts to nothing. That the historical texts and other evidence are just that strong is crucially important here.
But then the Seminar rejects the views of Jesus’s disciples on this subject and states clearly, also in red (the premier rating possible), their own statements or rules on this or that subject. Thus, their own previous interpretations and rules do not allow particular conclusions.61 We must be clear here. Unquestionably, we all make up our minds about many subjects, whether or not we agree with others on this or that subject. Further, we all are clearly prejudiced in many ways as we look at the world through our own differently colored glasses. But here’s the chief question before us in this case: should we make up our minds before or after entertaining the evidence and the possibilities?
In the case of the Jesus Seminar, this question is answered clearly for us. In their first major volume, precisely at the outset, they are bold (or honest) enough to explain for their readers that they will be applying to the Gospel texts what they term “the more important rules of written evidence.” These consist of some three dozen guidelines, which the Seminar fellows admit “usually [affect] their interpretation.”62 That is indeed a correct assessment, if not a huge understatement! If we begin by recruiting only scholars from our general outlook, who hold only one set of particular views, particularly when they diverge widely from mainstream scholarship, followed by interjecting the dozens of rules ahead of time that we will reach in our study before even viewing the New Testament text, it may not be much of a surprise what the final result might indicate! As stated by the Seminar fellows themselves right up front, this approach certainly does affect their outlooks and interpretations.
As it turned out, many critical researchers did claim that the Seminar’s approach was seemingly rigged and did not even constitute real research at all.63 Wright observed more kindly than many scholars did, that “a certain amount of gentle mockery of the Jesus Seminar has been the custom among scholars not directly involved.”64 On the other hand, Richard Hays pulls no punches. He explained his thoughts that the volume should be dedicated to the famous circus entrepreneur P. T. Barnum(!) and called the work “reprehensible deception.” Hays charged, “Let it be said clearly—most professional biblical scholars are profoundly skeptical of the methods and conclusions of this academic splinter group.”65
It also should be repeated that each of the Seminar’s “rules of written evidence” was written in red as well, corresponding to the color that it designated throughout the volume for their highest category of truth. But notice, their rules of interpretation were a second source placed next to the sayings that were being judged—as if there was no difference between the interpretation and the data. In other words, this seemed to be an indication that the Seminar fellows did not even notice that their a priori rules that trumped, framed, and guided the overall process actually produced the overall results, because they severely corralled and curtailed how the research must proceed as well as determined ahead of time how it was destined to turn out.66 Again, as Wright points out in a similar manner, their previous prescription caused the entire system “to fit into the picture of Jesus which has already been chosen.”67
So how do their own rules apply to the Jesus Seminar’s beliefs regarding the New Testament’s claims pertaining to the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection appearances? One rule states, “Sayings and narratives that reflect knowledge of events that took place after Jesus’s death are the creation of the evangelists or the oral tradition before them.” In commenting on the text of Luke 24, the Seminar’s additional response is: “By definition, words ascribed to Jesus after his death are not subject to historical verification. . . . Such claims are beyond the limits of historical assessment.”68
Really, that easily? Just like that? Some scholars might be curious to find out precisely how potential postmortem words ascribed to Jesus are unverifiable or untrue by definition. Whose definition is it and what does the definition demand? This is a case of category switching—what some might call mixing apples and oranges. How does a definition actually eliminate someone’s words? If the intent is to rule out the possi-bility of dead people talking, by definition, who made up that rule? Was it simply asserted to be the case? Is it possible that an individual may have no measurable heart or brain function for, say, a half hour, or be underwater for forty-five minutes, and then live for many years afterward telling their story? If that’s possible, then definitions at the very least need some very careful nuancing.
In fact, it sounds like the definition that the Seminar had in mind here was composed by naturalistic-leaning folks, who usually affirm that there is no reality beyond the present, natural world, including an afterlife of any sort. That definition might even follow, if, in fact, we already knew that naturalism or something very close to it were actually true! But how do the Seminar fellows know that naturalism is true? Do they wish to discuss this worldview dispute, or is the New Testament worldview simply something they just do not agree with, and so they decided to eliminate the issue rather easily, “by definition” (which presumably means by their worldview definition)? It sounds more like, just because we say so, due to it being so much easier that way.
One last question: would it be fine with the Seminar fellows if someone asserted just as loudly that since orthodox Christianity is true, again by definition, then there is nothing else to discuss and Jesus’s postmortem appearances and recorded red-letter words in the New Testament are now all automatically true? Obviously this would not be allowed, for the Seminar fellows say on their very first page that the evaluations of critical scholars such as themselves “are not predetermined by theological considerations.”69
Once again, really? Do the fellows of the Jesus Seminar not even realize that their own positions are precisely characterized throughout and “predetermined by theological considerations”? Or are having predetermined considerations only the purview of conservative research? Do any other study groups begin by presenting some three dozen “rules of written evidence” that predetermine what the New Testament texts can mean or how they should be interpreted? The situation seems to be so incredibly obvious that it could be wondered if the seminar makes some of their assertions tongue in cheek? Yet increasing the wondering is that they refer to “neutral observers” being able to verify their conclusions.70 Are they unaware, once again, that everyone wears worldview glasses of some color and angle, so there are no “neutral observers” anywhere in the entire world?
This highlights just a little bit of the problem with worldviews. Unless it is known that our worldview is true, we cannot use it as a baseball bat to club into submission anyone who disagrees. There is no “by definition” to this situation. Definitions do not change events in the real world. Perhaps the seminar fellows just do not wish to debate the matter, or doubt that it is worth discussing.
But it may also be the case that it never even occurred to them that their statements were made only from their own assumed (naturalistic?) perspectives. Accordingly, they should not expect their response to either trump or convince nonnaturalists at all. Nor do their own, highly slanted presuppositions even get the fellows to first base in explaining what to do to explain the “concise” nature of the appearance accounts to both the women and the disciples in Matthew 28, thereby leaving these texts as candidates for historical investigation according to the normal criteria for historiography. Perhaps the Jesus Seminar fellows could explain them, but the texts must be investigated and explicated, not systematically discarded and ignored just because they fail to fit the group’s predetermined, contrived rules.
Conclusion
The last chapter of the Gospel of Matthew closes with the women going to Jesus’s tomb to anoint the body, meeting an angel, and finding the grave empty. They left the tomb on their way to bring the disciples the angelic message that Jesus has risen from the dead, as they had been commanded, and Jesus himself met them on the way. They saw him face-to-face and in their excitement they held on to him and grasped his feet.
The (probably Roman) guards stationed there left the tomb, explained the situation to the priests, and got paid to spread the tale that the disciples came to the sepulcher while they were sleeping and stole away Jesus’s dead body. The last chapter ends with the grand appearance of Jesus to his followers on the appointed mountain in Galilee. Jesus was touched by the women but doubted by the men. If it were a movie or a theater production, the crescendo preceding the end of the story would come with Jesus’s words in 28:18–20, as the risen and victorious Son of God assumed his place of glory.
The purpose of this chapter was by no means apologetic in nature, but rather to simply unpack some key issues and questions as they arise naturally in the course of discussing the relevant items included by Matthew, like those just mentioned. While the historicity of few New Testament accounts is rejected more freely than the story of the guards, there are also some indications that the story was not invented. As it stands strictly in historical terms, it appears to be a bit of a stalemate.
None of the many historical reasons for Jesus’s tomb being empty that first Easter Sunday morning were discussed in this chapter. As with the other Gospel chapters, this is not the place for deliberating concerning potential discrepancies. Although there was no attempt to provide arguments for Jesus’s resurrection appearances, there was some discussion of items that will play a role later in the overall historical case. Namely, the chief aspect discussed regarding Matthew’s two appearances to the women and to the group of disciples in Galilee was that they are both “concise” accounts. As such, they indicate and exhibit one of the more important characteristics for a text to be understood as a potential historical report. Though we will have to leave this particular matter here for now, these are not the only two concise appearance pericopes in the Gospels. So this overall category will play a role in evidencing the Gospel resurrection appearance accounts.
Besides the subject of the concise appearance accounts in Matthew and elsewhere, a final item should also be hinted at ever so briefly. In the last few decades there has been a substantial growth of critical studies that have discovered many reasons to trust the Gospels in general and the resurrection accounts in particular, even among the most skeptical New Testament specialists. A bibliography covering these publications would be simply massive. This is not the place to unpack this. However, one sign is certain specialized moves to date the Gospels earlier (like agnostic scholars James Crossley and Maurice Casey opting for AD 38–42 for Mark and at least Casey preferring AD 50–60 for Matthew).71
Add to this a few other non-Christian, agnostic, and skeptical scholars who have gone on record declaring that the Gospel appearance accounts are looking more and more historical than they have in the past.72 This surprising trend will have to be followed up later.
The result of this and other developments, as Casey notes in a chapter on the reliability of the canonical Gospels, caused him to “therefore conclude that the Gospel of Luke, like that of Matthew, is a major source for our knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus.”73
Notes
1 Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 144 (see chap. 4, n. 51); Ehrman, New Testament, 43–44 (see chap. 4, n. 34).
2 Mounce, Matthew, 265 (see chap. 16, n. 73). Matthew also places “Mary the mother of James and Joses” at the crucifixion (27:56), but “the other Mary” appears again at the burial (Matt 27:61), the same as with the empty tomb. Mark has “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses” at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40) and the abbreviated “Mary the mother of Joses” at the burial, and then “Mary the mother of James” going to the empty tomb (Mark 16:1), apparently switching from one child to the other when he is identified the next time! Luke does not mention specific female names at the crucifixion or the burial, but “Mary the mother of James” goes to the tomb (Luke 24:10). Each of the Synoptic Gospels additionally mentions that additional women were also present on these three occasions, though they are unnamed in the specific accounts beyond these mentioned here (Mark 15:40–41; Matt 27:55–56; Luke 23:49, 55). The Gos. Pet. 12:1–2 reports that Mary of Magdala and her friends went to Jesus’s tomb. They also found the stone rolled away, the tomb open, and a “young man” who was seated inside informed them that Jesus was not there, but risen. However, not unlike Mark’s comment in 16:8, “the women fled in fear” (Gos. Pet. 13:1–2).
3 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 280 (see chap. 1, n. 44).
4 While rejecting the literal resurrection of Jesus, the very skeptical Jesus Seminar still holds that Mary of Magdala “is portrayed as the first, or among the first privileged to see and speak with the risen Lord.” In support of Mary’s postresurrection “visionary religious experience” or “appearance” (as it is also called), in addition to Mark 16:9, they also list sources for Mary’s vision or appearance as Matt 28:9; John 20:16–17; and the late Gospel of Mary, which “reports but does not narrate” this appearance (452), which the Seminar dates to the early second century. These texts are termed either “simple reports” or “concise stories” (450), which are positive groupings. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 449–52, 454, 476–78, and 472, for the text of Mary and her friends at the empty tomb (see chap. 4, n. 84).
5 John Wenham, Easter Enigma (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1984), 95.
6 Mounce, Matthew, 262; A. T. Robertson, “Gospel according to Matthew,” 1:239 (see chap. 16, n. 73).
7 What were the disciples doing that first Sabbath after the crucifixion? Were they indeed plotting to steal Jesus’s body? Christians seldom think about the extreme pain, isolation, and forlornness that Jesus’s followers must have experienced on that first Sabbath. While theologian Alan Lewis was himself dying of cancer, he wrote a book that has influenced many readers, titled Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). In a comment on the book itself, Thomas F. Torrence called this volume “the most remarkable and moving book I have ever read”! Another theologian, John Alsup, wrote in the book’s foreword, “You will never again think of Easter as you did before reading this book” (ix).
8 Lest it be thought that the stories of Roman leaders killing their soldiers simply for falling asleep on the job were falsehoods, Luke explains that the apostle Peter was released from his jail cell by supernatural means and so was missing from there the next day. After a thorough search, including interviewing the guards themselves, Herod ordered that the men be executed (Acts 12:1–19, esp. v. 19). But this does not always mean it was a hard-and-fast rule. Tacitus (Hist. 5.22) narrates an incident where some Romans sentinels fell asleep while on duty and there is no mention of punishment, though that constitutes an argument from silence. Brown notes that there was always the chance of striking a bargain with someone or paying them off. See Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1311 (see chap. 6, n. 151).
9 Besides Matthew, this is also mentioned decades later by both Justin Martyr, approximately AD 150 (Dial. 108), and by Tertullian, approximately 200 (Spect. 30).
10 Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 696. Cf. also Keener, Matthew, 397 (see chap. 16, n. 73).
11 The members of the Jesus Seminar colored in black—defined as “largely or entirely fictive” (37)—the accounts of the guard at the tomb in both Matt 27:62–66 and 28:11–15. The negative marks against these stories were because they were reported in the First Gospel (among the canonical texts, that is, since they are supported by the Gos. Pet. 8:1–11:7), and they express high apologetic content to both combat Jewish claims to the contrary plus to support the empty tomb. Hence a guard or guards at the tomb is called fiction on more than one occasion. In fact, concerning the entire incident, the Seminar states, “This is myth-making at its most prolific.” Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 265–66, 533, the quotation is from 473. A vast number of critical scholars reject the texts, and one has to look hard to find many who defend it.
12 Brown, Death of the Messiah, cf. 2:1310–13 on the question of historicity of the guard accounts; Brown, Risen Christ in Eastertime, 25–26 (see chap. 15, n. 28); “Resurrection of Jesus,” 1373–77 (see chap. 19, n. 29).
13 Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 310 (see chap. 10, n. 76).
14 Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 275 (see chap. 9, n. 51).
15 A cross section of some of those scholars who think the account is legendary may be instructive: Reginald Fuller agrees with Rudolf Bultmann on this matter in Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 73 (see chap. 10, n. 23); Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 177–81 (see chap. 6, n. 151); Crossan, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1–8),” 138–39 (chap. 15, n. 43); Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 45–46 (see chap. 5, n. 40); Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 34n17 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship,183 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Robert Morgan, “Flesh Is Precious: The Significance of Luke 24.36–43,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 9; Carolyn Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 99 (see chap. 15, n. 10); John C. Lodge, “Matthew’s Passion-Resurrection Narrative,” in The Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord: A Commentary on the Four Gospels, ed. Reginald H. Fuller et al. (Mundelein, IL: Chicago Studies, 1985), 18; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 12–13 (see chap. 1, n. 19); John Alsup even excludes the guard account from his study because it is heavily redacted and is not an appearance story anyway, in Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 117 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Houlden, “Resurrection: History, Story and Belief,” 63 (see chap. 17, n. 122); even Craig Evans seems to agree with the criticism. See Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” 33 (see chap. 1, n. 44).
16 Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 273, 275. Grant Osborne adds that the passage in Matt 28:11–15 “increases the apologetic force of the earlier episode of the guards.” See Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 84 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Cf. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 638 (see chap. 6, n. 44).
17 The Jesus Seminar predictably dates the “original form” of the Gospel of Peter to the late first century AD! Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 553, 555. Like the Jesus Seminar, Crossan also dates Peter to the mid-first century. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? 193. Bart Ehrman places the Gospel of Peter at AD 120 in New Testament, 120. For skeptics who might conclude that we are utilizing the earlier, more critical dates for the Gospel of Peter because it helps our thesis, notice that Darrell Bock’s date for Peter is not incredibly later, even in the mid-second century AD. See Bock, Missing Gospels, 218; cf. 78–79 (see chap. 6, n. 151). Actually, Bock’s conclusion reflects a date that is much closer to the majority consensus.
18 The Gospel of Peter is not a generally reliable historical text and very few researchers conclude that it is, though critical scholars do sometimes cite a few items here and there that may provide some independent confirmation for other sources. Raymond Brown dates it to the first half of the second century and specifically comments that Mark’s account of the Passion has “a greater historical component” than Peter’s (2:1346), but overall, Brown is generally sympathetic to the Gospel of Peter and includes a copy of the text as his first appendix in Death of the Messiah, 2:1317–49; cf. Wenham, Easter Enigma, 72, 74–75. But even the Jesus Seminar uses black (defined as “fictive” on 37) to color the relevant Passion verses in the Gospel of Peter. See Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 441–48, 462–64, 473–75, 480. On a list of purported events from Jesus’s arrest onward, only the designated “core event” in each category (which includes the Gospel of Peter more than once), such as Jesus’s arrest; his multiple trials before the high priest, the Jewish Council, and Pilate; Jesus’s crucifixion and death; as well as the appearances of the risen Jesus to his followers, are colored either red or pink. Very few of the specific, individual texts are ever colored red or pink with the exception of the appearance to Paul in 1 Cor 15:8 (red, and mentioning 1 Cor 9:1 elsewhere as well; see 458), the appearance to Peter in 1 Cor 15:5 (pink), and a general appearance to “Mary of Magdala” without highlighting a specific passage (453–54, 476–79, 565–68), and none of these specific texts are from the Gospel of Peter. Intriguingly, Paul’s appearance accounts in Acts 9; 22; and 26 are all marked gray (“possible but unreliable,” 37) instead of black (455–458), as is the Johannine appearance to Mary in 20:1–2, 11–18 (470, 475, 478). While a grade of gray is not terribly significant because of its very low rating, at least it breaks the monotony in the sea of otherwise black coloring (defined as improbable, unverifiable, with “a value of zero,” 37, 555)! Hence specific events from the Gospel of Peter do not make the grade. As the Jesus Seminar remarks, “The Gospel of Peter depicts a mythical Jesus” (451). However, in the Jesus Seminar’s earlier volume on Jesus’s sayings, while the Gospel of Thomas was included (though with only three sayings out of 114 judged as red), the Gospel of Peter is not even considered. See Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels (see chap. 2, n. 19).
19 Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 274. One potential example is Kankaanniemi, who argues for such a previous tradition behind Matthew’s account in Guards of the Tomb (see chap. 9, n. 51).
20 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 201–2. Cf. also Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 636–37.
21 Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 278.
22 Keener, Matthew, 398.
23 As we remarked in the three chapters devoted to German liberalism and the responses to it (both liberal and conservative), this may well have been the worst of all the major naturalistic theses, with very few critics adopting this hypothesis in over 200 years! We note just a few of the more minor reasons above.
24 Harris, Raised Immortal, 19–20 (see chap. 8, n. 17).
25 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 637–40.
26 Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 278–79.
27 This event was discussed in our earlier chapter on the historicity of Jesus.
28 Franz Cumont, “Un rescrit impérial, sur la violation de sépulture,” Revue historique 163 (1930): 241–66, esp. 266.
29 Cumont provides a photograph of the marble slab from Nazareth on an unnumbered page between 242 and 243. Paul Maier includes an English translation of the decree; see Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 202 (see chap. 1, n. 24). Cf. also Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1293–94 for more information and evaluation. For another historian’s thoughts on the subject, see Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 323–24 (see chap. 10, n. 76).
30 Derrett, Anastasis, 59 (see chap. 9, n. 155).
31 Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 324.
32 As Wright notes, it is an indication that Matthew is quite straightforward here, not hiding anything; see Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 643. But given the best meaning of the Greek edistasan here, as pointed out below, it is not necessary to agree with Wright when he implies that not all the resurrection witnesses (disciples?) believed (693). The term seems to indicate that like Peter walking on the water in Matt 14:31 (the only other time that this same Greek word is used in the New Testament), true believers are still human beings and frequently doubt, question, or are uncertain.
33 Mounce, Matthew, 267. Jesus was presumably much further away (100 yards) when he was seen from the seashore in John 21:4, 8, but the point is that distance can obviously cause some indecision, questioning, and doubts, though of a somewhat different sort than how the word is normally utilized.
34 Harris, Raised Immortal, 21; cf. Robertson, “Gospel according to Matthew,” 1:244.
35 Wenham, Easter Enigma, 114–16; Robertson, “Gospel according to Matthew,” 1:244; Mounce, Matthew, 267. Wright mentions the view that the 500 witnesses could have been there at the same time, but does not provide his view, only noting that Matthew does mention the “eleven” here, without any hint that there were many more. See Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 642. Licona likewise lists this possibility without necessarily being committed to it; see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 322 (see chap. 2, n. 13).
36 See especially Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 716; cf. Keener, Matthew, 399.
37 Osborne seems to agree with Keener here; see Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 88.
38 Harris, Raised Immortal, 21; Os Guinness published a book titled In Two Minds: The Dilemma of Doubt and How to Resolve It (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976). Years later, an edited version of the book appeared as Doubt (Batavia, IL: Lion, 1976). The latest version of this book of which I am aware is titled God in the Dark: The Assurance of Faith beyond a Shadow of Doubt (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1996). This is brought up here for two reasons. First, these are excellent books for dealing with the practical and often very painful episodes of doubt that beset many believers. The second reason is that Guinness opens his volumes by explaining the original title, In Two Minds. He comments, “The heart of doubt is a divided heart” (23 in the latest Crossway edition). After defining several New Testament words for doubt, Guinness mentions the term used in Matt 28:17, defining it as having reservations or “hanging back” instead of jumping in with two feet (25). Just a few lines later, the next section is named: “DOUBT IS NOT UNBELIEF” (Guinness’s emphasis, 23, Crossway edition). I have had probably as many as 600 discussions of various sorts with doubters—both believers as well as unbelievers. (I originally kept track of these in a file, making notes on the many lessons learned.) But to my finite mind, it seemed more than obvious that probably the majority of these who suffered were true believers in every sense of the word, who usually could not handle their emotional what-ifs. Guinness is right that doubt is quite often not unbelief, but has to do more with shared characteristics of both camps. This seems to be the sense of many of those in Matt 28:17, at least those who were described by the Greek term edistasan. After all, when John the Baptist was in Herod’s jail cell at the end of his life and ministry, he sent two of his own disciples to Jesus to ask if he were truly the Messiah (Luke 7:18–30)! But John was hardly an unbeliever. In fact, while John’s two disciples were taking Jesus’s answer back to their teacher in prison, that was precisely when we are told that Jesus issued his famous compliment that no man was greater than John the Baptist (7:28), even precisely while he was perhaps suffering his toughest questions in life. So faith and suffering painful doubts are clearly compatible.
39 C. H. Dodd, “The Appearances of the Risen Christ: An Essay in Form-Criticism of the Gospels,” More New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 103–18.
40 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 123–26.
41 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 450. The Seminar cites four categories, moving from the most to the least succinct: “Simple reports” such as the early pre-Pauline creedal traditions along with some traditions and sermon summaries in Acts, as just cited above, plus some brief noncanonical accounts like the long ending in Mark 16:9–11, 12–13, and even the Gospel of Mary 7; “Concise stories,” which also includes the Gospel of the Hebrews 9; “Intermediate stories” including only canonical passages; and “Legends,” including Mark’s long ending in 16:14–18 and the Gos. Pet. 9:1–14:3. Incidentally, the Seminar’s moniker for the long ending in Mark is “pseudo-Mark.”
42 This should not be a surprise, since as the Jesus Seminar explains, overall they only gave the highest red (virtually certain) or pink (probable) rating to 16 percent of the total number of events recorded as having happened to Jesus, and only 18 percent of the total number of words that Jesus supposedly spoke. Since the color gray (unreliable) was the next color, this indicates that more than 80 percent of both the recorded actions and words of Jesus were rejected by the Seminar. See Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 1.
43 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 117–18, quotation on 117. One reason for Dodd’s lack of interest in these noncanonical writings is very possibly because research on these volumes had not progressed overly far when his essay was written and published.
44 Rather than a “right-wing” criticism of the Jesus Seminar, see the especially trenchant critique by Luke Timothy Johnson, Real Jesus, esp. chap. 1: “The Good News and the Nightly News” (see chap. 5, n. 49). For example, speaking of the Jesus Seminar’s first joint work published in 1993, Johnson asks, “What sort of scholarship, then, do we find in The Five Gospels? It is not of an impressive quality” (25). Earlier in the same chapter, Johnson remarks concerning Robert Funk, the founder of the Jesus Seminar: “Funk’s statements reveal a strange combination of grandiosity and hucksterism” (8).
45 Even given these two phrases, the Seminar does not narrow down exactly what such an “appearance” or “vision” was like, perhaps because more than one nuance was represented by those who were present.
46 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 36, 450–55, 533.
47 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 21 (see chap. 18, n. 1). For a couple of books that concentrate on how the resurrection can transform all of life, see Peterson, Living the Resurrection (see chap. 13, n. 55); Andrew Purves, The Resurrection of Ministry: Serving in the Hope of the Risen Lord (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010).
48 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 1980), 138–43, quotation on 141. Two other excellent essays on religious doubt by Lewis are: “On Obstinacy and Belief,” in The World’s Last Night and Other Essays (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1960), 13–30; and especially “Religion: Reality or Substitute?,” in Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 37–43.
49 Harris, Raised Immortal, 22.
50 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, cf. 639; Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 717; Harris, Raised Immortal, 22.
51 Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 719.
52 For these ideas in the previous three paragraphs, sometimes affirmed by more than one author each, see Dunn, Jesus’ Call to Discipleship, 121–28 (see excursus 1, n. 34); Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 642–46, 618; Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 716–21; Keener, Matthew, 401–2; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 92; Robertson, “Gospel according to Matthew,” 1:244–46; Harris, Raised Immortal, 21–22; Mounce, Matthew, 267–68.
53 Dunn, Jesus’ Call to Discipleship, 123–24.
54 N. T. Wright, Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 29–31; cf. 112–14.
55 Robertson, “Gospel according to Matthew,” 1:246.
56 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 103–4.
57 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 450.
58 Such as Wright, who even cites Dodd’s essay “The Appearances of the Risen Christ” as one of the prime examples of ascertaining the difference between telling a story straightforwardly and doing so in an apocalyptic or other similar, bombastic fashion. See Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 604–5.
59 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching (see chap. 2, n. 22).
60 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 103, 118, 124, 127, 131–33.
61 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 461–62, 568.
62 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 19.
63 The Jesus Seminar has been absolutely strafed with unfriendly fire from across the scholarly spectrum. Most of it probably came from conservative scholars, though a number of major researchers were among those who attacked the views and methodology of this group as well. For some examples, see especially two devastating reviews of The Five Gospels: Richard B. Hays, “The Corrected Jesus,” First Things 43 (1994): 43–48; and N. T. Wright, “Five Gospels but No Gospel: Jesus and the Seminar,” a critique of Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 83–120; also in Crisis in Christology: Essays in Quest of Resolution, ed. by W. R. Farmer (Livonia, MI: Dove, 1995), 115–57. Other critiques included Johnson, Real Jesus, esp. chap. 1; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (see excursus 1, n. 65), see especially the excellent critique on the Seminar’s methodology (29–35); Ben Witherington III, The Gospel Code: Novel Claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Da Vinci (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004); Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006); Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire (see chap. 8, n. 35); Boyd, Cynic Sage (see chap. 15, n. 28).
64 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 30.
65 Hays, “Corrected Jesus,” with the last two quotations being found in part 3.
66 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 16–19.
67 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 33.
68 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 25, 398.
69 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, 1; similarly on 34, 37–38, 549.
70 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, 34.
71 Crossley, Date of Mark’s Gospel, 206–9 (see chap. 4, n. 41), plus other texts of Crossley’s; Casey, Jesus, 90, 107–8 (see chap. 4, n. 41).
72 Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, particularly 79–84, most of all 80 as well as a seeming change of position for Perrin on 83 (see chap. 5, n. 40); Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:83–86, esp. 84, where he lists the appearances to Paul, Peter, Mary Magdalene, and James as occurrences that “cannot very well be questioned.”; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, esp. 15, 28, 95–99, 123–31 (chap. 6, n. 173); Vermes, Resurrection, 111–12, 121–23, 141–49 (see chap. 5, n. 14).
73 Casey, Jesus, 104 (emphasis added).