21: The Gospel of Luke
21
The Gospel of Luke
In terms of total verses, the account of the empty tomb and Jesus’s resurrection appearances in Luke 24 is much longer than either Mark’s or Matthew’s final chapters, and it is only a few verses shorter than Paul’s magnum opus in 1 Corinthians 15. Unlike Mark’s predictions but without any narrated appearances, or Matthew’s account of two appearances in Jerusalem and Galilee respectively, all of Luke’s appearances take place in and around Jerusalem.
Like Mark, Luke also names three women who visited Jesus’s tomb on the first Easter morning, though also like Mark one of the three (Joanna) appears in none of the other Gospel trips. However, all three Synoptic Gospels comment that other women were in the environs, in addition to those that were named in the context. Whereas Mark (counting the young man inside the tomb) and Matthew have one angel each appearing at the tomb, the women in Luke meet two angels there.1 In all three accounts, the stone has already been rolled away. In Luke alone among the Synoptics, an unspecified number of male disciples visit the tomb to check out the women’s story.
Luke 1:1–4: Checking Out the Eyewitness Traditions
It would be difficult to move straight into Luke 24 without at least taking a brief look at the four verses of the Lukan prologue. This initial text represents Luke’s statement that he has done a thorough job studying the many traditions that had been handed down from the eyewitnesses and others concerning Jesus. Luke states that he checked these events carefully, in order that the “most excellent Theophilus” (perhaps a friend, patron, Roman official, or house church leader?) might know the truth of what had been reported.
This prologue has received an incredible amount of attention over the years. Joel Green and Michael McKeever have produced an invaluable tool of categorized, annotated references to more than 500 scholarly research books and articles related to Luke–Acts. Of these, more than 200 are devoted to the theme of Luke’s two volumes vis-à-vis various aspects of the subject of ancient historiography. This is a tremendously helpful aid in ascertaining the direction of scholarship on these crucial themes.2
For example, the two Lukan prologues (including the briefer one in Acts 1:1–2) along with the overall genre have been studied often, usually alongside early Hellenistic literature and historical sources. Sometimes these studies have concluded that Luke and Acts should be categorized as ancient novels of one sort or another.3 But the far more typical conclusions are that these volumes need to be viewed in the mold of Hellenistic thought and literature (and for Luke, potentially as a Greco-Roman biography4) and in Luke’s chief aim to ascertain the truth of the Christian message.5
Not all the scholars, of course, have arrived at the same conclusions regarding the degree of success that Luke’s research achieved. We mentioned that a few writers thought that some Acts accounts read more like a novel, while other researchers have concluded that Luke invented many of the speeches in the book. But a good many critical scholars are quite complimentary of Luke’s historiography. Eminent German New Testament specialist Peter Stulmacher concludes that Luke’s historical material is reliable, even more so than typical Hellenistic biographies.6 For van Unnik, perhaps considering the language in Acts 1:3, Luke does first-rate research of gaining historical data that were “unimpeachable” by the historiographical criteria in his day.7 Robbins is one of the many scholars who think that Luke’s Gospel seems patterned on Hellenistic biography and that Luke utilized this method to defend the truth of Christianity.8 Richard Burridge has done more than any other scholar to actually convince the majority of contemporary scholars that the canonical Gospels are best classified by the Greco-Roman category of bioi.9
Therefore, while critical comments come from a variety of angles, to be sure, the Lukan prologue in 1:1–4 is generally taken quite seriously and respectfully. While that does not mean it guarantees the historicity of the complete contents of this Gospel in the sense of its being generally reliable, it does indicate that scholars tend to write as if Luke has earned the right to be heard, so to speak.
Major Resurrection Texts in Luke 24
Luke 24:1: The Women
As with Mark, three women visit the tomb in Luke to anoint Jesus’s dead body: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna (instead of Mark’s lone mention of Salome). Oddly enough though, while both Mark (16:1) and Matthew (28:1) report their names immediately while they are on their way to the tomb, Luke only reports that “they” came after mentioning some unnamed women two verses earlier in the burial account (25:55–56). Moreover, when Luke does mention their names later, he acknowledges that other unnamed women were also among them (24:10).
Actually, this roughly follows a bit of a pattern. In the crucifixion accounts (Mark 15:40–41; Matt 28:55–56; Luke 23:27–28, 49, though without any of the names in Luke), as well as in the burial accounts (Mark 15:47; Matt 27:61; Luke 23:55–56, again without any of the names in Luke), a number of women had accompanied Jesus to Jerusalem from Galilee. Referring back to these earlier accounts as required in Luke to explain the pronoun they in 24:1, both Mark (15:40–41) and Matthew (27:55–56), like Luke in 24:10, also point out that other unnamed women were also present.
In light of this tendency in each of the Synoptics, namely the specific acknowledgment that other women were present but unnamed, it is thus apparent that identifying by name each of those who were present at these events was never an explicit goal of the three authors. In the three accounts, then, Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” are each mentioned. Mark adds Salome and Luke adds Joanna.
Luke 24:4: The Angels
Given that the “young man” dressed in white in Mark 16:5 is an angel (as discussed earlier), Mark’s account states that the women witnessed the presence of an angel at the tomb when they arrived. The women in Matt 27:2 also found one angel present who wore white clothing, though he appeared like lightning. Here in Luke 24:4, two young men in “dazzling” (NRSV, ESV) clothing are seen by the women, and they were terrified—two hints that these men were angels too. Solving the issue rather clearly is that these two were identified later as angels (24:23).
Speaking only concerning the number of angels at the tomb (without names!), it is widely acknowledged that the more difficult question would be that of the very existence of any kind of angels in the first place! But if one accepted or at least tabled the existence of angels, there is room inside or outside the tomb so that more than one could have been present. While admittedly these matters are not the only questions in the Synoptic accounts regarding the angels, we will return in much more detail in the chapter on discrepancies to specifics regarding both the women and the angels alike.10
Luke 24:11: The Disciples’ Doubts
The Gospels emphasize most of all the preaching and teaching of the “good news” as proclaimed by Jesus himself (Mark 1:14–15). This message is designed to encourage its readers and hearers to accept and practice Jesus’s teachings. Yet quite amazingly, when the women get to the disciples’ location and tell them about the empty tomb and the angels (as recounted later by a few of the men in verses 22–23), the disciples are very skeptical. Instead of believing the women with open hearts as the greatest message in the world, the men accuse the women of spreading an “idle tale” (NRSV, ESV), or “nonsense” (NIV)!
Here is a case of honesty. Some believers today want to whitewash tough questions concerning their faith, perhaps for fear that there will be difficult interrogations or similar reactions of unbelief when they are proclaiming the message. But the New Testament far from avoids tough subjects. Luke mentions other serious doubts from the apostles themselves when they saw the risen Jesus personally (24:36–42), as does Matthew (28:17), and John too (20:24–29). Such accounts are hardly rare, whether it be Peter’s denials of Jesus before the crucifixion, Thomas’s rejection of his colleagues’ resurrection message, or Jesus’s own family members rejecting him and concluding that he was mentally disturbed.11
On the other hand, we are told that Jesus faced directly the disciples’ resurrection doubts by providing straightforward answers to their questions (Luke 24:36–42; John 20:20, 24–28) and even giving some pastoral encouragement to Peter after his denials (John 21:15–19).12 Likewise, rather than abandoning others who have “fallen” from the faith, believers are commanded to strive to bring them back (Jas 5:19–20), including also dealing with doubters (Jude 22). Today there is much informed material on working through religious doubt.13
Luke 24:12, 24: Some Disciples Visit the Tomb
The story in John 20:2–9 of Peter and John running to Jesus’s tomb to confirm that it was indeed empty may be one of the best known of the resurrection accounts. But the Lukan description of this event involving Peter is more obscure and hence not as well known. One issue that probably does not figure into how well Luke’s account is known is that 24:12 is missing in a few sources, such as the fifth-century Western text D. Still, most scholars seem to treat the text as genuine, many without even a comment, though some register a mild question. It is pointed out, too, that many of the same words are also found in the John 20 account. Most importantly for our considerations is that the two men on the way to Emmaus confirm the story by telling the stranger (Jesus) that “some” among them had gone to the tomb for themselves to check out the women’s story and had found it to be true.14
An aside here needs to be mentioned. Conservative scholars addressing the number of women or angels at the tomb frequently make comments regarding the angels such as, “If there were two, there was one.”15 While that statement is certainly true, the overall effort, without much question, generally tends in the direction of never allowing or admitting any issues or divergences whatsoever—hardly even noticing any differences at all!
On the other hand, critical scholars who tend to be more liberal push the contradiction or discrepancy buttons very easily. On the same issue, when the Gospels provide different numberings of women or angels, time of day, and so on, some immediately contend that there is an error or contradiction here—a “There’s another one” sort of approach.16
Each case must be viewed in its own context and on its own merits. In some pericopes, there is a difference from one Gospel to the next, such as with the Gerasene demoniac. Were there two demoniacs (as in Matt 8:28–34) or only one (as in Mark 5:1–20 and Luke 8:26–39)? The issue in these passages exists because the different texts disagree.
But what if a single Gospel clears up the issue internally on its own? In the text that we have been viewing, only Peter is specifically mentioned by name as having gone back to the tomb to check out matters (Luke 24:12). So if this text had ended here, or if Mark never came back to this account, we would have to consider Luke’s “one” versus John’s “two” disciples. But since Luke 24:24 clarifies that several of the men went back to check out the tomb, we conclude that it is only fair that we allow for at least Peter along with at least one more companion. So this text is helpful in indicating an actual example of how two always includes one. Unfortunately, not all texts are explicated in such a manner, so other hints and sometimes even outright explanations are necessary.
Luke 24:16: Jesus Is Not Recognized
Why did Cleopas and his traveling companion on their way to Emmaus not recognize Jesus immediately? Here in Luke the reason seems to be supernatural—Luke states that they were kept from recognizing Jesus (ekratounto tou mē epignōnai auton), though the long pseudo-Markan ending appears to differ on the reason.17 In this context, it seems that God purposely kept the two men from identifying Jesus.18 For that matter, we could also ask as well about Mary Magdalene in John 20:14–15.19 Many thoughts have been expressed on this topic. Osborne makes the thoughtful point of application that “God permits blindness only until the time is ripe.”20
The nonrecognition question is an intriguing one, especially since there are a few potential reasons, given the differing circumstances. But it could be that in Luke, God caused the event so that the two men could later learn an easy but important lesson about Jesus’s presence. Or it could be a psychological issue—one does not normally go to a funeral and then admit to a friend just a few days later that he thinks he walked and talked for a few miles with a dead man! Potentially, it may simply not occur to someone. It could also be physical—the apostles fishing out in the boat could be excused for not recognizing Jesus when he was 100 yards away (John 21:8). Some paintings depict the situation with Mary, with her looking down or away, weeping and forlorn, without making eye contact, though the text states that she turned around and looked at him but still failed to recognize him (John 20:14).
Another plausible explanation is that Jesus probably did look somewhat different than he did just before his crucifixion. For example, when we have not seen even a good friend for some time and are startled for a moment, a little unsure, we might respond by questioning, “Is that really you?” Paul states that there is definitely a difference of some sort between our physical and our resurrected bodies (1 Cor 15:35–57; Phil 3:21). True, Paul teaches that our resurrection bodies will be substantial, and that it will be our own body too. But that does not mean there will be no changes whatsoever. Paul’s words require change of some sort—after all, seeds are not the same as the plants that they grow into (1 Cor 15:37–44)! When you see your friend after an absence, they are certainly in their same body too, but they still may be older, taller, heavier, bald, and so on. This seems to be a very likely explanation, all things being equal.21
Luke 24:34: Jesus Appears to Peter
We saw earlier the somewhat puzzling charge to the women by the angel in Mark 16:7 to “go, tell the disciples and Peter” that they would see Jesus in Galilee. In Luke 24:34, the two men who returned from the walk to Emmaus with Jesus found the eleven apostles and others, reporting, “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!” So stories were exchanged regarding the two visits of the risen Jesus just before the key appearance in this Gospel to the eleven disciples and the others who were with them.
But here we must note a special item regarding Luke 24:34. We have mentioned throughout this work that the New Testament is filled with dozens of brief texts that are variously called (though not synonymously) creeds, traditions, confessions, formulae, or sermon summaries. The vast majority of these texts are located in the Epistles and there are different species and various purposes for these invaluable statements, some of which go back to the apostles. This is perhaps due to the work on the Gospels lagging somewhat behind contemporary scholarship being done on the Pauline Epistles, but that is another subject.
As detailed directly below, there is virtually no objection from critical scholars to Luke 24:34 being a tradition that goes back to the early church.22 As pointed out earlier, some of the characteristics used for identifying these creeds include the brevity, recognizable cadence or rhythm, and wording of the sayings, among other indications.23 Concerning this specific case in Luke, Licona points out that a number of these early formulas make statements such as “God raised Jesus from the dead,” citing almost two dozen New Testament references just like this that include some clear creeds, such as Rom 4:24 and 10:9.24 Another indication is that the name Peter is used in Luke 24:12, whereas “Simon” in 24:34 just a few verses later argues for two “different sources or traditions.”25
Luke 24:34 is one of the few creedal traditions found in the Gospels that is recognized as such by critical scholars across the liberal-conservative spectrum. For example, Jean-Marie Guillaume states regarding this text, “La donnée la plus ancienne est la formule kérygmatique. . . . Cette formule est l’une des premières de la Résurrection que nous connaissons.”26 Even John Kloppenborg agrees on another insight: “That Luke 24:34 is pre-Lucan and not a Lucan summary is indicated by the fact that Luke nowhere narrates the appearance of Jesus to Peter mentioned in 24:34.”27
But more significant than the creedal question per se is Jesus’s appearance to Peter, which is allowed regularly even by critical scholars. In just one surprising example of this, the dozens of highly skeptical Jesus Seminar members voted that Jesus’s appearance to Peter should be colored “pink” on their grid of Jesus’s actions, meaning that it was deemed to be a “probably reliable” event. Commenting on this appearance in comparison to Paul’s vision, “the Fellows were inclined to agree that Peter also had a similar visionary experience.”28
Luke 24:36–43: Jesus Appears to the Twelve
In current critical studies, an analysis of a resurrection appearance of Jesus to his disciples would more likely be taken from 1 Cor 15:3–7 than from the Gospels. However, the attention given to the Gospel accounts has increased in recent years. Various reasons for this expansion would have to include the growing interest in the traditions and other potential sources, plus the presence and influence of potential eyewitness testimony, regardless of the identification of the authors, that lie behind the Gospel data.29
An older but quite influential study on the appearance narratives in the Gospels was published in 1968 by the celebrated Cambridge University New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd. Distinguishing between “concise” and “circumstantial” Gospel resurrection appearances, Dodd argues that the former were “drawn directly from the oral tradition” and were shorter and more succinct, whereas other accounts involved greater freedom to give additional details. “Concise” resurrection appearance texts include Matt 28:8–10, 16–20; John 20:19–21; and probably Luke 24:36–49.30
Along with several of the sermon summaries in Acts depicting the apostolic kerygma plus especially these “concise” appearance accounts in the Gospels drawn from the early, more standardized tradition, Dodd concludes that in his opinion, this last group represents “with reasonable fidelity the general type of early preaching” in the church, including that by the apostles.31
Applying Dodd’s influential study to our two texts here, Luke 24:34 is definitely an early tradition. Luke 24:36–49 is most likely considered a concise appearance account in the Gospels, at least in its core details. In the latter text, while apologetic aspects do appear, the core aspects of conciseness are also present, though modified.32 It has already been noted that Jesus’s appearance to the women in Matt 28:8–10, then to the disciples in Matt 28:16–20 and John 20:19–21, are other examples of concise texts. On the other hand, Dodd judges that Jesus’s appearance to the two men on the way to Emmaus, as well as John’s three accounts of Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene on her return trip to the tomb, to “doubting Thomas,” and at the seashore, do not quite make the same grade of “conciseness.”
Besides Dodd’s distinction regarding the differences in the narratives themselves, other signals indicate that Jesus’s appearance to the Twelve is historical as well. There is a high likelihood that John 20:19–21, also one of Dodd’s concise texts, parallels Luke 24:36–43, both occurring later on Easter Sunday evening when the disciples are together (except for Thomas in John 20:26–28, though the group retains the title “twelve” in the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:5). If so, then this appearance to the Twelve is multiply attested by independent sources. There are other appearances to the Twelve too, which could well be additional attestation for the same event, most notably in 1 Corinthians 15, namely, the appearances to the Twelve (15:5) and perhaps another to “all the apostles” (15:7).
Most scholars think Luke and Acts were written by the same person, but Acts 10:38–43 and 13:26–31, 38–39 may also describe the same event as Luke 24:36–43. Acts 10:38–43 has a number of similarities to Luke 24:36–43 (most notably Jesus eating with his disciples and his command to them to preach the gospel message), and why not? Multiple attestation on behalf of Luke’s chief appearance report is strong support.
Though not favored quite as much by critical scholars, the appearance to the disciples as a group is also present in multiple sorts of literary forms. Of course the most valuable form is from the list of Jesus’s appearances in the pre-Pauline, didactic summary of 1 Cor 15:5, 7(?). The other mentions above are narrated accounts of the appearance(s) to the disciples, and as types or forms, these are usually differentiated by critical scholars.33
A lesser indication but worth mentioning are the embarrassing differences in the two scenes between the behavior of the men and that of the women. Of course, during the crucifixion a number of women were present, even if from a distance, whereas it is debatable how many of the disciples were present at all. Afterward, John states that the disciples were hiding behind locked doors “for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19 NRSV) and Luke has the disciples “gathered together” (Luke 24:33 NRSV, ESV) and when they saw Jesus shortly afterward, they were “startled and terrified” (24:37 NRSV). In contrast, the women were fearful at times, as mentioned above, though they were the ones who ventured out in public, walking to the tomb and to the disciples (both potentially risky) and doing their jobs! This embarrassment further links the accounts in Luke and John.
Lastly, we have mentioned at some length Luke’s emphasis on historical matters and his assertions that he checked out his sources, including the eyewitnesses (1:1–4). Now we may combine this with the predominant scholarly view today being that the author of Luke’s Gospel and Acts was “a traveling companion of Paul who received his information from Paul and other eyewitnesses who had been with Jesus.”34 What these items contribute is an additional argument indicating that Luke had access to many key persons and historical facts.
So given Dodd’s literary investigation of the concise nature of some of Luke’s appearance accounts in Luke 24:34 and 24:36–43, the backup from multiple attestation of independent sources, multiple attestation of literary forms, embarrassment, and the data favoring Luke’s careful manner of investigation of the data, these are strong considerations favoring the accuracy of his resurrection appearance accounts.
Luke 24:44–49: From Resurrection to Theology and Practice
Another remarkable feature of the resurrection accounts in both the Gospels as well as throughout the New Testament is that this event is linked to virtually every area of Christian theology as well as to practicing the Christian life. Unless one opts for another ending in Mark, we see these applications in Matthew, John, and Luke–Acts. The general idea comes with some slight variations, but basically the overall theme is that since Jesus was actually raised from the dead, then other Christian beliefs variously either followed naturally as a result, were modeled for us, or especially were confirmed to be true through this event. The result is that various actions should be practiced in daily life in terms of personal growth or ministry, just like Jesus did. Several comments attributed to the risen Jesus either have a bearing on or application to theology or practice.35
Not to miss the obvious, in what sort of body did Jesus appear? Few areas in resurrection studies are more discussed, and each of the Gospels contribute something here. Even in Luke alone, these connections are made regularly. On the one hand, Jesus appeared as a normal human being rather than as a ghost or a disembodied shade from Sheol, which is what occurred initially to his followers (Luke 24:37). Jesus corrected those faulty notions initially, indicating his substantiality by talking with them and offering to be touched (24:38–40). Hence it was at least implied that it was possible for them to encounter a substantial body, and other texts witness his being touched. Further, he asked for food and ate in the presence of others as well (24:41–42; Acts 10:41; cf. Luke 24:30).
But Jesus also displayed some other important qualities: he appeared and disappeared at will. He surprised the women who came to the tomb and found it empty in spite of a giant stone that had blocked their path (Luke 24:2),36 and disappeared from the presence of the two men who had walked with him to Emmaus (24:31b). He appeared through locked doors and startled the disciples (24:36). Finally, he disappeared for good, or in Luke’s case, ascended (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:9). Later, he appeared quite suddenly, likewise surprising and stunning Paul and his traveling companions while they were on their way to persecute Christians in Damascus (Acts 9:3–9; 22:6–11; 26:12–18). Nor was he always recognized immediately (Luke 24:15–16).
However, N. T. Wright notes that a couple of elements appear to be missing in the Gospels on this subject of Jesus’s resurrection body. First, whereas it is taught frequently in the remainder of the New Testament that believers will be raised like Jesus, even in a body like his, this direct application is missing in the resurrection chapters of each Gospel. Second, the key Old Testament text for the resurrection of the righteous among Old Testament Jews is Dan 12:2, where believers will shine like the stars forever and ever. Yet surprisingly, none of the Gospel resurrection appearance texts depict the risen Jesus as being endowed with or surrounded by anything like a bright light or a halo, as the classic paintings often depict him.37
For Wright, these are a couple of the four examples that show how “primitive” these underlying Gospel traditions are, calling them “essentially very early, pre-Pauline, and have not been substantially altered except for light personal polishing, in subsequent transmission or editing. . . . The stories, though lightly edited and written down later, are basically very, very early.”38 Elsewhere, Wright asserts, “None of these four features can be explained, I’ve argued, if the stories are as late in origin even as the fifties, let alone as the seventies, eighties, or nineties, as some have persisted in arguing.”39
In two of his encounters with his followers, with Cleopas and his companion on the way to Emmaus (24:25–27, 32) and with the Twelve (24:44–47), Jesus develops the idea in some detail that his followers should have been more aware of what had been taught about him in the Old Testament Scriptures. In particular, both times that day Jesus especially emphasizes examples that depicted his suffering, death, and resurrection. Jesus implies that this had apparently been neglected by his disciples.
Certainly we might add that the Old Testament harbingers of the Messiah that Jesus may have pointed to are likewise a topic that we rarely hear about today, at least among scholars. So would the risen Jesus have delivered the same message to believers in our day? Could this be something like Revelation 2–3, as in a current word to us? If so, what texts and applications might Jesus cite from the Old Testament? The comment seems to be made often enough that this would be a sermon that many believers would love to hear Jesus teach. But would it be an uncomfortable message as well?
N. T. Wright raises another question here: why would the resurrection appearance accounts eschew any actual references to Old Testament Scripture being fulfilled? After all, words such as “it was fulfilled which was spoken by,” or simply, “it is written,” reverberate through many Gospel passages (such as Luke 3:4–6; 4:17–20; 7:27; 20:17–19, 41–44; 22:37). So especially with the risen Jesus twice telling his followers rather firmly that they should know what was written about him in the Old Testament, why are none of these passages actually mentioned as being fulfilled by Jesus?40
Another theme in Luke 24:30–31 is that of the Lord’s Supper, a meal perhaps fresh in the minds of the two disciples in Emmaus, whether or not they had been present on that very special evening or just learned about it later. Even in a general sense, what caught their attention could have been the distinctive way in which Jesus blessed, broke, and passed out bread before eating (see Luke 9:16). Whether just having been present a few days previously with the disciples or on another occasion, Jesus’s distinct practice was somehow very striking to the two men. Luke no doubt saw special significance in the self-revealing nature of this occurrence.
Still another key application indicates a message as prominent as any, one that is virtually always present in extended passages on the resurrection. Among the canonical writings, it is found in Matthew, John, Luke, and Acts. This is Jesus’s repeated pronouncement that the disciples will be his witnesses and, as such, they will take his gospel message of repentance and forgiveness of sins to the world (Luke 24:47–48; cf. Acts 1:8).
This squarely indispensable Gospel theme, for example, is the focal point of each of the Acts sermon summaries as well as the vast majority of the early creedal statements.41 Having posed the question as to identifying the “central content of faith,” Cullmann points out, “The points in common, which are regularly repeated in the oldest formulas, however short they may be, represent the essential elements of the evangelical Gospel as the earliest Christians understood it.”42 Specifying, Cullmann adds, “We can conclude that the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ and His elevation to the dignity of Kyrios, as a consequence of His death and resurrection, are the two essential elements in the majority of the confessions of the first century.”43
Dodd concludes similarly to Cullmann regarding the earliest Christian message. Categorizing and summarizing the heart of the earliest kerygmatic message, Dodd also emphasizes the “divinely accredited” ministry of Jesus, including his death and his resurrection. As a result, featuring the apologetic angle mentioned above, the resurrection indicates that “Jesus has been exalted at the right hand of God. . . . God has made Him Lord and Christ.” Moreover, “this is what the author of Acts meant by ‘preaching the Kingdom of God.’” Here we have the “framework within which the Jerusalem kerygma is set.”44
Then, receiving power from both the risen Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit is a major theme at least in Matthew, Luke (24:49), and Acts (1:8a). The disciples were not to be abandoned or left on their own in preaching the gospel message. Here again, in their survey of the earliest church messages, Cullmann and Dodd agree. Cullmann discusses how the tripartite formulas began, stating that early believers in Jesus as Lord also believed in God the Father as well as the Holy Spirit.45 Speaking about the early church message, Dodd states it this way: “The Holy Spirit in the Church is the sign of Christ’s present power and glory.” This theme also appears in the early kerygmatic preaching of the sermon summaries (Acts 2:16–21, 33; 5:32). So the work of the Holy Spirit is always close to the message of offering forgiveness of sins, salvation, and the eternal life of the age to come.46
The Gospels also allude to or hint at still other theological or ministerial topics that are connected to, or date from, the resurrection appearance of Jesus. These might include referring to the initial Easter Sunday both as the first day of the week (Luke 24:1) as well as the third day (24:46; cf. 24:21b). Another could perhaps be the subject of hospitality (24:28–29), which may have come from Jesus’s examples exemplified at the Last Supper (22:7–30; cf. 22:30 with the Q text in Luke 13:28–29) and the meal with the two believers in Emmaus (24:28–32; see Heb 13:2; 3 John 5–8, 10; and 1 John 1:7). Still another possibility would be the themes of worship, praise, and joy as connected to the resurrection (24:52–53; cf. Acts 5:41–42; 1 Pet 1:3–5, 8–9).
Luke 24:50–53: The Ascension
Rather than attempt a theology of the ascension, here we simply want to note several items briefly. In Luke and Acts, this account functions as the last appearance of Jesus. Critics often belittle the ascension story as an awkward conclusion somehow needed to end the story, or a flat-earth teaching where “up” was the way to heaven, as well as asserting that because Luke is the only writer who knew of the event, it must have been concocted by him.47
Another example is John Shelby Spong, who thinks that Luke emphasized the physical appearances of Jesus so much that when the end of the story arrives, it “became a necessity” to incorporate a physical ascension too. Spong quips that since Luke chose such “crudely physical” appearances, a physical ascension was the only means of getting “this very physical Jesus off his stage” to make room for the Holy Spirit directing the church.48 Regarding John’s references to ascension (like 20:17), Spong relates ascension to a range of similar concepts such as glorification and exaltation.49 He also makes the required point concerning ascension up to heaven not being very fitting in our space age.50
But the ascension is also defended in one way or another by numerous critical scholars too. Raymond Brown and Reginald Fuller both think that Luke made use of a pre-Synoptic tradition. For Fuller, Acts 1:9–11 “may well be based on a primitive kerygmatic formula, belonging to the Palestinian-Aramaic christological stratum.” Defensibly, Acts 1:9–11 was built on “a very primitive kerygmatic affirmation” that was “expanded into a narrative” and finally included in Luke’s “historical work.”51 Holding that some scholars are overly critical of the ascension, Joseph Fitzmyer asserts that it is the event where “Christ took his final leave from the community of his followers”52 as if to say, what’s so horrible about that?
Stephen Davis makes some strong retorts while responding to Lüdemann’s criticisms of the ascension as well. Though the ascension is narrated only in Luke–Acts, it is “referred to or implied frequently elsewhere in the New Testament.” Davis lists the following references: John 3:13; 6:62; 8:14, 21; 13:3, 33, 36; 14:4–5, 28; 16:5, 10, 17, 28; 20:17; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; 4:8–10; 1 Tim 3:16; Heb 4:14; and 1 Pet 3:22! Moreover, if God raised Jesus from the dead, why “recoil” at the ascension? Davis concludes by stating, “I find nothing in Lüdemann’s arguments about the ascension of Jesus that casts doubt on the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.”53
In an exceptionally insightful essay on the ascension, biblical scholar Bruce Metzger also takes aim at many of what he considers to be shortsighted criticisms. Metzger initially points out that while it is true that the ascension is actually only described in Luke-Acts and the longer pseudo-Markan ending, it is also referred to explicitly in John 6:62 and 20:17. Though we do not get any details in other sources, even the use of the term shows prior knowledge of the teaching.54 Moreover, the language of ascension, including related Greek terms such as being taken up, exalted, being seated at God’s right hand, and so on, is found in a large collection of New Testament writings, including Luke, Acts, Romans, Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, and 1 Peter.55
Sometimes the resurrection and exaltation of Christ are linked together, and in terms of dates, many of these references come from the early creedal traditions (like Rom 8:34; Eph 1:19–23; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 13:20), indicating how these themes even predate Luke by decades. Yet, resurrection and ascension are clearly distinguished in the literature—they are separate events.56
Additionally, Metzger also correctly emphasizes that the imagery of Jesus ascending has nothing to do with Ptolemaic physics, just as the phrase “ascending on high” (Eph 4:8) is not making the point that Jesus was, at that very moment, several hundred feet above sea level. Or in a related matter, what does it mean for Jesus to be seated at God’s right hand? Are we supposed to think that Jesus was now resting or seated on a heavenly throne precisely next to his Father? These expressions have to do, rather, with entering another sphere. Even with all of our greater scientific knowledge today, “there is no other symbolical action that can be imagined which could convey the desired impression.”57
Even from a brief look then, Jesus’s ascension is hardly something which is significantly problematic. There are far more foundational matters to solve first. Here are two considerations, for example: If Jesus was raised from the dead, why are we balking at an ascension (as Davis asked too)? Disprove the resurrection and then we can talk about how unlikely the ascension would be if Jesus had remained dead. But if the resurrection had occurred and Jesus had actually appeared, then an ascension offers no roadblock whatsoever—it is just another of the appearances, though distinct. As French scholar Jean-Marie Guillaume states, “L’Ascension de Jésus correspond, par certain côté, au type «conclusion d’une apparition».”58
Second, the early church did not have to invent an ascension simply to get Jesus “off his stage,” as Spong quipped. Jesus regularly appeared and disappeared, and nothing would be inappropriate had he told his followers that a particular appearance would be the last one, and then he never returned after that. His disciples certainly would have been saddened, but that would have been an apt close to his ministry as well. Thus, the ascension was unnecessary simply as a means of allowing Jesus to “get away.” Either way, he had to say goodbye!59
Conclusion
Luke 24 is certainly one of the richest and most picturesque series of accounts on Jesus’s resurrection appearances. From the women at the tomb, to the two disciples walking on the road to Emmaus and culminating in the intimate meal, to the appearance to the fearful Twelve, whatever we are to say textually and evidentially, these are some of the best known and most beautiful stories of these occurrences. Moving music, beautiful paintings, eloquent sermons, along with dramatic retellings and elaborations of the stories have been conducted ever since the events transpired. Our chief interest throughout has been the question of what actually happened, though we have drawn some conclusions from each Gospel regarding personal and corporate applications as well.
We will close this chapter by drawing two additional historical conclusions. First, to highlight a crucial distinction regarding the value of creedal traditions, an additional, seldom-made point is in order. The earliest of these creedal traditions can be traced closely to the apostolic milieu, and that is a huge evidential advantage in our overall discussions. Both Oscar Cullmann and C. H. Dodd, two of the greatest authorities on this subject, concede these results.
Cullmann notes how, in the early church, the crucial test for truth is that “essential doctrine” could have “objective worth only if it could claim the apostles themselves as its authors.”60 Nonetheless, Cullmann points out that the early traditions cannot be traced to particular apostles. However, most of these creeds take us back to the apostles’ time. When particular themes are repeated over and over in the oldest creeds, those elements are the essential components in the earliest evangelical message.61 Clearly, as both Cullmann and Dodd have reiterated, it is the Gospel essentials regarding Jesus that occupy the center position.
Dodd is more detailed and seems to go even a bit further. Paul probably received the creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7 directly from Peter and James in Jerusalem just a few years after the crucifixion, not to mention communicating with the apostles enough during their two weeks together to realize that they agreed in essential doctrine (1 Cor 15:11). This was a fortuitous meeting indeed:
Thus Paul’s preaching represents a special stream of Christian tradition which was derived from the main stream at a point very near to its source . . . but anyone who should maintain that the primitive Christian Gospel was fundamentally different from that which we have found in Paul must bear the burden of proof.62
Though the creeds or even the Acts sermon summaries were not verbatim accounts of Paul’s apostolic teaching, they “are based upon a reminiscence of what the apostle actually said.” With Peter as well, these creeds and speech summaries were not verbal reports, but they were the “kerygma of the Church at Jerusalem at an early period.”63
After providing an outline of the Gospel message of the lordship, death, and resurrection of Jesus and ending with an appeal for salvation, Dodd states, “This summary provides the framework within which the Jerusalem kerygma is set.” Then “Paul must have received the tradition very soon after the death of Jesus.” The result of this comparison is that we gain “a fairly clear and certain outline sketch of the preaching of the apostles.” When the material is compared, the teachings agree.64
So the overall sense of Cullmann’s and Dodd’s studies seems to be that the creedal traditions that permeate chiefly the New Testament Epistles and sermon snippets in Acts come from the time and location of the apostles in Jerusalem. By cross-checking the various texts, authors, and messages, an extraordinary amount of agreement may be ascertained between these statements. Dodd adds that if we extend this evaluation to the Gospels too, we would find that “in their central and dominant tradition they represent the testimony of those who stood nearest to the facts, and whose life and outlook have been moulded by them.”65
The upshot of all this here is that, though the Gospels receive far less attention than do Paul’s Epistles, plenty of early and authoritative material is found here as well. Though we are not writing a text on the historical Jesus, there is a wealth of material from which to pursue such a goal.
The second historical point to make here is a much briefer one. The majority of our primary method throughout this study has been to apply the minimal facts method to the subjects of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Such a method has the potential advantage of indicating that Jesus’s resurrection is by far the best explanation of the data that we possess, even if the New Testament texts were un-reliable! Nonetheless, since the study of the Gospels continues to establish various levels of assurance regarding the reliability of the Gospel resurrection accounts, combining these two research methods would yield an additional, independent approach to establishing the historical foundation for Jesus’s resurrection.
In short, the minimal facts method starts from the ground up and deals only with a relative handful of the lowest common denominator of highly probable historical facts. The reliability approach works from the top down and uses a larger number of facts that follow from the text as a whole being shown to be more trustworthy overall. Again, since the minimal and reliability approaches are independently argued by making use of different data, there is no logical reason why the two cannot “coexist,” thereby producing a “backup system” for establishing the resurrection. In doing so, this second approach strengthens the overall case for the resurrection of Jesus. The idea is that the event can be argued either way, both utilizing different sorts of historical evidence.
Notes
1 Although the two are described as young men in shining clothing, the two men walking with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, in describing the women’s account, report their having seen “angels” (Luke 24:22–23).
2 Joel Green and Michael McKeever, Luke-Acts and New Testament Historiography (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994). The sources in the next few footnotes below were culled from different categories in this text, based on the helpful annotations.
3 When this is the conclusion, it is usually a reference to Acts: S. P. Schierling and M. J. Schierling, “The Influence of the Ancient Romances on Acts of the Apostles,” Classical Bulletin 54 (1978): 81–88; R. I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); S. M. Praeder, “Luke-Acts and the Ancient Novel,” Society of Biblical Literature 1981 Seminar Papers, ed. K. H. Richards (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 269–92.
4 H. J. Cadbury, “Commentary on the Preface of Luke,” in The Beginnings of Christianity: Part 1, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume 2, Prolegomena II Criticism, ed. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake (London: Macmillan, 1922); V. K. Robbins, “Prefaces in Greco-Roman Biography and Luke-Acts,” Society of Biblical Literature 1978 Seminar Papers, ed. P. J. Achtemeir (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 2:193–207; L. C. A. Alexander, “Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing,” Novum Testamentum 28 (1986): 48–74; H. Riley, Preface to Luke (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1993); C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974); Talbert, What Is a Gospel? (see chap. 19, n. 9); R. I. Pervo, “Must Luke and Acts Belong to the Same Genre?,” Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); D. L. Balch, “The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or Political History?,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (1990): 5–19; P. L. Schuler, “The Genre(s) of the Gospels,” The Interrelations of the Gospels, ed. D. L. Dungan (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990); esp. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? (see chap. 4, n. 71); G. L. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 374.
5 W. C. van Unnik, “Once More St. Luke’s Prologue,” Neotestamentica 7 (1973): 7–26; I. I. Du Plessis, “Once More: The Purpose of Luke’s Prologue (Luke 1:1–4),” Novum Testamentum 16 (1974): 259–71; Robbins, “Prefaces in Greco-Roman Biography,” 193–207; R. J. Dillon, “Previewing Luke’s Project from His Prologue (Luke 1:1–4),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 205–27; T. Callen, “The Preface of Luke-Acts and Historiography,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 576–81; Alexander, “Luke’s Preface”; R. R. Creech, “The Most Excellent Narrattee: The Significance of Theophilus in Luke-Acts,” in With Steadfast Purpose: Essays on Acts in Honor of Henry Jackson Flanders Jr., ed. N. H. Keathley (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 1990), 107–27; F. Ơ. Fearghail, The Introduction to Luke-Acts: A Study of the Role of Luke 1,1–4,44 in the Composition of Luke’s Two-Volume Work (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991), esp. 85–116; Sterling, “Historiography and Self-Definition,” 374; D. P. Moessner, “The Meaning of KAΘΕΞΗΣ in the Lukan Prologue as a Key to the Distinctive Contribution of Luke’s Narrative among the ‘Many,’” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992); Riley, Preface to Luke; Balch, “Genre of Luke-Acts,” 5–19; P. Stuhlmacher, “The Genre(s) of the Gospels: Response to P. L. Shuler,” in The Interrelations of the Gospels, ed. D. L. Dungan (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 484–94; D. W. Palmer, “Acts and the Historical Monograph,” Tyndale Bulletin 43 (1992): 373–88.
6 Stuhlmacher, “Genre(s) of the Gospels,” 484–94.
7 Van Unnik, “Once More St. Luke’s Prologue,” 19.
8 Robbins, “Prefaces in Greco-Roman Biography,” 193–207.
9 Burridge, What Are the Gospels?
10 Again, the amount of necessary discussion to get to the heart of each of these topics is what determines the chapter in which they are discussed. Incidentally, the Gospel of John will be included in these discrepancy discussions as well.
11 Elsewhere, John explains that on one occasion when God spoke from heaven to confirm Jesus’s words, some in the crowd concluded that it was simply thunder (John 12:28–30). Luke also tells the story of Peter getting out of jail by the intervention of an angel, and when the believers who were praying for him heard about the miracle, they disbelieved the rescue and told the messenger that she was crazy (Acts 12:1–16)!
12 Another sensitive “counseling” example is Jesus ministering to his friend Martha after her brother Lazarus had died (cf. John 11:21–27).
13 Guinness, God in the Dark (see chap. 20, n. 38); Paul K. Moser, Why Isn’t God More Obvious? Finding the God Who Hides and Seeks (Norcross, GA: RZIM, 2000); Bobby Conway, Doubting toward Faith: The Journey to Confident Christianity (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2015); Gary R. Habermas, The Thomas Factor: Using Your Doubts to Grow Closer to God (Nashville: B&H, 1999); Habermas, Dealing with Doubt (Chicago: Moody, 1990); Habermas, Why Is God Ignoring Me? What to Do When It Feels Like He’s Giving You the Silent Treatment (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2010). Note that the first two Habermas volumes here are freely available under the “books” tab on the website: www.garyhabermas.com.
14 Wright mentions the issue and remarks that with the vast majority of the manuscripts keeping 24:12, Luke would “more likely” know at least a shorter version of the story anyway, but that 24:24 confirms the account. See Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 613, 648, 663–64 (see chap. 6, n. 44). But an older, more pastoral text by celebrated Greek scholar A. T. Robertson seems to express a little more doubt than does Wright on Luke 24:12; see Robertson, “The Gospel according to Luke,” in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 2:291–92.
15 See Wenham, Easter Enigma, 87 (see chap. 20, n. 5).
16 A list of issues, “some admittedly trivial, some less so,” is provided by agnostic New Testament scholar A. J. M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 24–37 (see chap. 1, n. 42). Wedderburn ends, fairly, by saying that the resurrection accounts “cannot just . . . be written off or discounted as pure fiction” (37). Rather, various aspects seem to be historical, so we need to bring historical tools and do the research (12–22). Prominent American New Testament scholar Raymond Brown is another who thinks that there are many divergences in the burial, empty tomb, and appearance accounts, but the historical core still can be deciphered and worked into a historical pattern. See Brown, John, 2:966–94 (see chap. 9, n. 148).
17 Intriguingly, Mark 16:12 states that Jesus appeared to these two companions “in another form” as they walked along. While not authoritative, this text seems to imply that Jesus apparently looked differently enough to be unrecognizable.
18 See Evans, Luke, 352 (see chap. 17, n. 100); Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 119 (see chap. 1, n. 44).
19 The seven disciples who were out in a boat fishing in John 21:4 do not really count in the same way, for though we are told that the disciples did not recognize him, Jesus was standing on the shore, some 100 yards away from them (21:8b).
20 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 119. Osborne treats the subject further in 219–26. The apostle Paul on the way to Damascus may come to mind here as well.
21 Strangely enough, just yesterday someone showed me two different videos of a good friend I was together with not terribly long ago. Both videos were fairly recent. In the first one, my friend looked quite “normal”—and I identified him immediately. But if you had shown me the second video by itself, I would never have recognized him. Even though it was a video where I could see entire sequences from different angles and views, even with close-ups, it was still to no avail! It happens!
22 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 324.
23 The classic treatment of this topic is Oscar Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 20n1 (see chap. 2, n. 22).
24 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 222 (see chap. 2, n. 13).
25 Licona, 322.
26 Guillaume, Luc interprète des Anciennes Traditions sur la Résurrection de Jésus, Études Bibliques (Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1979), 269. Other critical scholars who agree with various aspects here include: Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 31 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:901 (see chap. 1, n. 27); Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 63 (see chap. 10, n. 70); O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 123 (see excursus 1, n. 86); O’Collins, review of Risen from the Dead by Henry Wansbrough, in Heythrop Journal 20 (1979): 193; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 66, 112 (see chap. 10, n. 23); Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125 (see excursus 1, n. 12); Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 63 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Craig, “The Disciples’ Inspection of the Empty Tomb (Lk 24,12.24, Jn 20,2–10),” in John and the Synoptics, ed. Adelbert Denaux (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 618n6; Geffrey B. Kelly, “‘He Appeared to Me.’ 1 Cor. 15:8 as Paul’s Religious Experience of the End Time,” in Critical History and Biblical Faith: New Testament Perspectives, ed. Thomas J. Ryan (Villanova, PA: Villanova University, 1979), 110.
27 Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 358n43 (see chap. 10, n. 146). In the same note, Kloppenborg mentions Wilckens, who thinks that Luke 24:34 may even predate 1 Cor 15:5a! It is also noteworthy that, because the current amount of attention being placed on these creedal statements, even Rudolf Bultmann recognized Luke 24:34 in this regard. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:45 (see chap. 4, n. 84).
28 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus (see chap. 4, n. 84). It should be noted that the Seminar’s “pink” coloring here regarding the appearance to Peter pertained specifically to his listed appearance in the creed in 1 Cor 15:5, rather than to the creed in Luke 24:34 (453–54). Yet, Luke 24:34 is also acknowledged in the context (450, 452). Incidentally and equally remarkably, the Seminar also judged that the creed in 1 Cor 15:3 and following was pre-Pauline, thus dating from before Paul’s conversion (454). The chief point here is that, in their skeptical judgment, Peter still experienced such a similar vision as Paul’s (454). The pink coloring is found on page 453 with the definition of this color on 36–37. As a further note, the resurrection appearance to Paul (that he tacked on to the creed) was actually colored red (454), which is defined this way: “The historical reliability of this information is virtually certain” (36). Further information regarding Paul’s vision is also provided on 458–459.
29 It signals an additional development rather than a shift, since the interest in creedal passages like 1 Cor 15:3–7 and Acts sermon summaries such as 10:39–43 are still preeminent and occupy the front seat of research.
30 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 103–18 (see chap. 20, n. 39), quotation on 103. Pheme Perkins is an example of a critical scholar who finds value in Dodd’s demarcation here. Perkins, Resurrection, 114 (see excursus 2, n. 111). Incredibly, not only does the Jesus Seminar employ the same term, concise, as Dodd (without citing him) for one of the types of resurrection appearances in the Gospels, they also remarkably include the same passages as Dodd in this category: Matt 28:8–10, 16–20; and John 20:19–23 (extending this text two verses). Though Luke 24:36–49 “probably” belongs in the concise category for Dodd, it is moved down one category to “intermediate” for the Jesus Seminar. Nonetheless, the similarities between Dodd and the Jesus Seminar at this point are striking. See Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 450.
31 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 118–27. As remarked above, and quite intriguingly given the lesser attention to creeds in the 1960s, Dodd in his final conclusions also thinks that the “earliest extant form” for reports of the resurrection appearances are still the early kerygmatic statements that provided evidence and grounding for the apostolic preaching (131).
32 Dodd, 124–26, 111–13 respectively.
33 Perhaps one would even want to make use of Dodd’s study above and differentiate the narrated appearances even further by distinguishing between the “concise” and the “circumstantial” accounts (or “Tales”), as well as the further differentiation between “Class I” and “Class II” examples of the concise narratives. The distinctions are found in Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” particularly 102–9. Dodd calls these the “two clearly distinguishable types of resurrection narrative” (109). The chief point is that the “concise” and the early creedal passages are closer to the original form of preaching or teaching, but that does not mean the other narratives were distorted or corrupted (103, 124–27, 131–33).
While Wright does not speak in exactly these terms, his four characteristics of the Gospel appearance accounts indicating that they are quite early might be summarized under the word concise. For example, Wright notes that in the Gospel resurrection accounts, there are as yet no allusions to the Old Testament prophecies being fulfilled and no promises of what is found quite often in the Epistles: that believers would be raised just like Jesus, both of which would expand the narration and would probably earn Dodd’s “circumstantial” moniker, due to the theologizing. See Wright’s remarkable text, Surprised by Hope, 53–58 (see chap. 18, n. 7).
34 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. New Testament scholar R. T. France agrees with this assessment of the majority position here. See France, Evidence for Jesus, 122 (see chap. 6, n. 3).
35 The connection between these subjects will be pursued in much more detail in the final volume of this set. Here we are simply setting the stage, as it were, for those later treatments.
36 Compare Matt 28:1–7, where when the angel rolled away the stone, Jesus seems already to have exited the premises. Note that there is no mention of the guards seeing the resurrected Jesus as in countless paintings, though that does occur in the Gos. Pet. 10:1–11:3.
37 Of course, in Paul’s case perhaps two or three years after the crucifixion, as Paul states, “as to one untimely born” (1 Cor 15:8 NRSV, ESV); Luke narrates in three different texts that Jesus appeared to Paul and his companions, featuring a dazzling light that was brighter than the noon sun, that blinded Paul for three days (Acts 9:3; 22:6, 9, 11; 26:13).
38 Wright, Surprised by Hope, 55–57, quotation on 57; cf. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 602–7.
39 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 21 (see chap. 18, n. 1).
40 Wright, Surprised by Hope, 53–54; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 599–602.
41 See the candidates in Acts 1:21–22; 2:22–36; 3:13–16; 4:8–10; 5:29–32; 10:34–43; 13:28–31; and possibly 17:1–3, 30–31. For further details, see Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17–31 (see chap. 2, n. 22).
42 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 49.
43 Cullmann, 57.
44 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 21–22, 24 respectively.
45 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 52.
46 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 22–23. On the last point, cf. Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 45, 53, 62.
47 Two of the critics include Gerd Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 73–79 (see chap. 6, n. 173) and Küng, Eternal Life?, 120–23 (see excursus 2, n. 123).
48 Spong, Resurrection, Myth or Reality?, 82, 84 (see chap. 13, n. 26).
49 Spong, 92, cf. 88.
50 Spong, 104–5.
51 Brown, Risen Christ in Eastertime, 57 n. 68 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 120–23. Fuller’s first quotation is from 123, while the last three briefer ones are all from 129; cf. also 120–23, 127–30.
52 Fitzmyer, “Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” 424–25 (see chap. 17, n. 169).
53 Stephen Davis, “The Question of Miracles, Ascension, and Anti-Semitism,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 77–80, with Davis’s three quotations being located on 77, 79, and 80 respectively. Other meaningful defenses of the ascension have been made by Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection, 143–58 (see chap. 15, n. 109); O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 86–88 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Eugene LaVerdiere, “The Passion-Resurrection of Jesus according to St. Luke,” in The Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord: A Commentary on the Four Gospels, ed. Reginald H. Fuller, Eugene LaVerdiere, John C. Lodge, and Donald Senior (Mundelein, IL: Chicago Studies, 1985), 49–50; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 136–38, 266–70; William Lane Craig, “Second Rebuttal,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 58; Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 274–75 (see chap. 15, n. 28).
54 Even Spong concedes, “The story of Jesus’ ascension was not told in John, but it was assumed.” See Spong, Resurrection, Myth or Reality?, 88.
55 See Bruce Metzger, “The Meaning of Christ’s Ascension,” in Search the Scriptures: New Testament Studies in Honor of Raymond T. Stamm, ed. J. M. Myers, O. Reimherr, and H. N. Bream (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 118–28. Several authors have also noted that while these terms are similar and even related in some regards, there are also differences from each other as well. Besides Metzger himself (above), this is also noted by Brown, who cites Benoit in “Resurrection of Jesus,” 1377 (see chap. 19, n. 29).
56 For these distinctions, see Metzger, “Meaning of Christ’s Ascension,” 118–23.
57 Metzger, 123–28.
58 Guillaume, Luc interprète des Anciennes Traditions sur la Résurrection de Jésus, 260 (see chap. 15, n. 28).
59 Interestingly, Spong charges that Paul knew nothing at all about Jesus’s ascension, taking instead an option that seems similar to the second option above regarding Jesus going to be with his Father in some sense, depending on the meaning of Spong’s words; see Resurrection, Myth or Reality?, 51. Spong would do well to interact in detail with Metzger’s treatment above as well, especially regarding the earliest creedal traditions in Paul’s writings and elsewhere, plus the Acts sermon summaries.
60 The text that accompanied the second-century Muratorian Canon contains additional information that witnesses to the importance of apostolic testimony. Speaking of the Gospel of John, the text explains that the apostle wrote his volume in the presence of other apostles such as Andrew, but John’s name was the one they agreed to place on the work. The document, originally published by B. F. Westcott, can be found in Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 28–29.
61 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13–17, 49.
62 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, cf. 13–16, esp. 16.
63 Dodd, 18–19, 21, respectively.
64 Dodd, 24, 26, 31, respectively.
65 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 12–17, 49–59; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 13–35. Dodd’s last comment is from 56 and is the conclusion of chapter 2 on the Gospels.