16: Objective Visions

16

Objective Visions

Throughout the past two centuries, many alternative notions have been proposed as rivals to the orthodox view of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead and his bodily appearances. One such family of options actually comprised a different species altogether in that it held that the resurrection actually did occur, though not in the traditional, orthodox sense. While favoring Jesus’s resurrection over the naturalistic suggestions, it was sort of a midpoint between the better-known stances.

Especially from the last third of the nineteenth century until the present, this less-influential rival to the conservative view of Jesus’s bodily resurrection appearances has often been referred to as the telegram or telegraph thesis. A more accurate designation for this option would be the objective vision thesis. The early forms tended to hold that Jesus rose from the dead, went to heaven, and relayed objective visions back to his disciples. These bodiless but quite real appearances informed his followers that he was truly alive and with his Father, and that he would be with them as they spread his message. Later forms skipped the notion of relayed visions from heaven and held the simpler thesis that Jesus actually appeared to his disciples in this new form and visited with them, though in a nonbodily, usually ­nonevidential manner.

The Objective Vision Theory and Its Supporters

The notion of “telegrams” to describe earlier aspects of this outlook was derived from the older idea that after Jesus was truly raised from the dead, this event was followed by his spiritual ascension to heaven. From that location, Jesus and his Father relayed images of himself back to his followers in order to indicate that he was indeed alive and doing well in his exalted heavenly abode. By far the most influential nineteenth-century scholar to hold this view was German liberal theologian Theodor Keim, who referred to these notions as “telegrams from heaven.” After an influential set of criticisms of the subjective vision thesis of David Strauss and others, Keim defended his own position. But these roundabout gyrations between earth and heaven involving some sort of telegraphed images turned out to be a far too convoluted set of unnecessary and difficult concepts, particularly if the living Jesus had sent the images without actually being present with the disciples, since this was clearly thought to be the case.

Others in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries likewise favored a similar view of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Another major scholar who did so shortly after Keim was Kirsopp Lake of Harvard University. Like Keim, Lake first criticized the subjective vision thesis as inadequately postulating that Jesus never actually rose or appeared in the first place. Then he defended the position that Jesus really did rise from the dead and showed himself to his disciples in what Lake described as “a real though supernormal psychological event” that nonetheless did not suspend nature’s laws. Already Lake seems to have dropped the notions of telegrams to simply describe these occurrences of Jesus showing himself to his disciples in his own “objective presence.” But these events were not the sort of bodily occasions where Jesus could have been touched.

Slightly less than a century after Keim published his major three-volume treatise (in German) a similar hypothesis was championed by another German theologian, Hans Grass. For Grass, like Keim and Lake, the empty tomb and bodily appearances of Jesus were due to legendary embellishment. Yet it remains the case that Jesus really did appear to his disciples after his death by crucifixion, according to the early testimony in 1 Cor 15:3–5. In fact, that Jesus’s family members (such as James) were converted due to the appearances is one of the surest indications that Jesus appeared and could be observed as such.

Finally, New Testament scholar Reginald Fuller was also a prominent supporter of this thesis. Perhaps surprisingly, unlike Keim, Lake, and Grass, Fuller accepted the historicity of the empty tomb. Fuller also provided more details than most of the other commentators, defining Jesus’s appearances as being revelatory in nature and meant for the disciples alone, as “visionary experiences of light, combined with a communication of meaning.” Through these events, Jesus commissioned the disciples to a missional ministry. Like the others who held this view, Fuller considered these appearances to be real but unable to have been photographed or otherwise objectified.

A number of other academics over the years have held the objective vision thesis in one form or another. A hallmark of this position is that the vast majority of these scholars generally describe their conceptions of the actual nature of these appearances in only the briefest of terms, with very few details. There is general agreement that the outward manifestations were in the form of visions of light, perhaps surrounding a human image that was not photographable or otherwise measurable, where Jesus imparted messages (possibly telepathically) to the recipients that chiefly commissioned them to missional endeavors and service to others.

There is a marked contrast between the subjective vision thesis and the objective vision theory. The subjective version of David Strauss, Ernest Renan, and many others almost always relies on some species of hallucinations or other internal states of mind without any corresponding external reality whatsoever being present while seeming to the recipients to be real. On the other hand, the objective version presented in this chapter postulates quite real though revelatory experiences, sometimes with external indications. For instance, these occurrences were actually viewed by single persons or by groups of people at the same time. The latter included appearances to the twelve disciples, to the more than 500 “brothers” (adelphois) at once, as well as to a group called “all the apostles,” in 1 Cor 15:7, a group that was apparently larger than the Twelve noted in the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:5.

The objective vision thesis was most popular between the late period of German liberalism and the close of the “No Quest” period in the first half of the twentieth century, which was dominated at its close by Bultmann’s strongly anti-­supernatural views, to the time just before the initial publications later dubbed the “Third Quest for the historical Jesus.” Viewed over against these times, the popularity of the objective vision hypothesis seemed in some ways to have been a sort of middle ground for those mid-twentieth century scholars who thought that Jesus was raised from the dead in some sense. Most of the examples from Hans Grass onward were published in the 1960s and 1970s. It may be wondered if some of the scholars just mentioned may have preferred stronger bodily appearance views (in some sense) had the theological climate been more conducive to it, as it became soon afterward.

Though it is difficult to know for sure, when stronger historical positions began to appear as part of the Third Quest’s efforts or simply as part of the growing ethos of the day, the objective vision view seemed to lose a little of the urgency to make a case for Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Many scholars in the late twentieth century and beyond have offered arguments that the predominant Jewish view in Jesus’s day was that of the resurrection of the body, including that this was the primary New Testament position as well. Even skeptical scholars who reject Jesus’s resurrection frequently agree that a bodily position was the major Jewish and New Testament view here. Many other researchers have argued straightforwardly for the bodily nature of Jesus’s resurrection appearances and usually for the empty tomb tradition as well. While many arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb were constructed, as argued at length in volume 1 of this study, this approach usually went beyond what most of the objective vision theorists were willing to argue, as we saw. By the end of the twentieth century, then, the supporters of the objective vision position were no longer on an island by themselves. Yet they were outnumbered by the scholars who held to the bodily appearances of Jesus.

Why does the objective vision thesis appear to have a less prominent role to play at present? After all, it acknowledges that Jesus was truly raised from the dead and really appeared to his followers, even if these were less than fully bodily events. Further, it might be viewed as a position that is somewhat less offensive to the modern mind. Additionally, if the evaluation above is correct, the approach should be given some credit for the valuable service it performed by opposing a large portion of the most influential theological trends at the mid-century mark. Still, we turn to some of the other issues involved.

Critiquing the Objective Vision Thesis

A number of shortcomings are also apparent in the objective vision position, as argued by those who opposed the view. Some of the critiques are major, cutting to the heart of this stance.

(1) Arguably the initial issue is that the objective vision theory is still a supernatural thesis that postulates and even basically requires the existence of God, a living Jesus, another world beyond this one, and the resurrection and immortality of believers. Actually, except for the crucial aspect of a nonbodily resurrection appearance, virtually everything else that is normally believed by orthodox Christians could potentially still be held in this thesis. It is at least possible on this scenario that Jesus was embraced as the divine Son of God who died for human sin, was buried, and rose from the dead. Most or even all of Christianity’s other major doctrines could all be true as well. For example, Keim even recognized that his thesis was supernatural in nature, and he held that Jesus and his Father cooperated to send the telegrams to the disciples in the first place, along with grounding human immortality in the process. In fact, rather surprisingly for some, he even allowed that Jesus’s appearances may actually have been corporeal in nature.

So, the chief question here is how much actual difference is there between Keim’s thesis and the orthodox view, especially given Keim’s concession that Jesus’s appearances still could have been bodily in nature? The advantage to be gained in the late nineteenth century may possibly have been thought to appeal more to the other German liberal scholars of that era. But the point here is that where the strong supernatural stances of orthodoxy are still maintained just the same, this reconfiguration does not appear to gain overly much by this middle ground. This is especially the case in circles where the stronger bodily appearance tradition followed more easily as per Keim’s comment, with arguably fuller results, and a few decades later became the dominant appearance position anyway. Of course, in keeping with this consideration, if Jesus did not appear in a resurrected body, that would be a serious problem for later configurations.

(2) Further, a huge problem for the objective vision thesis is the strong historical data in favor of the empty tomb. Most of the older researchers who took this position dismissed the empty tomb basically out of hand without detailed arguments, most likely at least partially in order to solve their issue of Jesus’s physical body. It was an easier position to take because the historicity of the empty tomb was more unpopular throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But the relevant historical research has changed much in the ensuing century since these earlier positions were adapted and the robust evidences that favor the historicity of the empty tomb are today held by the majority of critical scholars, as already detailed thoroughly in volume 1.

Fuller clearly recognized the state of the data here and argued for the empty tomb. This development would seem to place these older theorists in a bind. If the tomb had been found empty, though other options are possible, this would more likely seem to indicate a direct correlation between what happened to the body and the subsequent appearances—it would seem that the one who vacated the tomb also would have been the same one who appeared. As Wolfhart Pannenberg asserted years after his earlier comments that leaned more to objective visions, this configuration favored more bodily appearances.

(3) Although there were definitely differences in the overall Jewish outlook throughout the Second Temple period through the New Testament period and beyond, the predominant Jewish view remained that of bodily resurrection. This was especially the case regarding the Pharisees’ view. As such, this would provide some background milieu that would be helpful in arguing for the most likely background behind the New Testament teachings.

(4) The Third Quest for the historical Jesus arose during the last quarter of the twentieth century and remains a very influential movement today, centering most of all on the Jewish background of Jesus. Due in large part to these developments and building particularly on this Jewish soil with regard to the dominant resurrection background at that time, there has been an apparent shift in scholarship of late. As mentioned above, the newer emphasis has migrated toward understanding the entire New Testament ethos of Jesus’s resurrection appearances in a more bodily manner, even if the modern researcher did not hold that position personally.

It is hardly disputed that Jesus’s bodily resurrection appearances is the overall view that is taught in the Gospels. This position was increasingly held even for Paul’s views. In fact, this even may be the majority view at present based on the available data. This shift is even acknowledged by many skeptical scholars, as has likewise been mentioned above. Thus, even among those researchers who personally doubt or deny the historicity of the resurrection, or hold to the objective vision thesis, many still acknowledge that the bodily resurrection concept was the New Testament position for Jesus’s appearances, including for Paul. This information would of course directly oppose much of the objective visionary suppositions along with the other critiques that argue that less than bodily notions of the resurrection appearances are out of step with the predominant Jewish views at that time. This argues for different philosophical understandings lying behind these interpretations.

(5) Even as asserted forcefully by Keim and many other scholars against subjective visionary views like hallucinations, commentators have pointed out that the New Testament authors regularly differentiated between the resurrection appearances of Jesus and other sorts of heavenly visions. Examples of nonresurrection visions could include visionary phenomena such as Jesus’s transfiguration (Mark 9:2–8; Matt ­17:1–8; Luke 9:28–36), Stephen’s premartyrdom vision of the exalted Jesus (Acts 7:55–56), Peter’s vision of the large sheet of animals coming down from heaven (Acts 10:9–16), or other visions reported by Paul (Acts 16:9; perhaps 2 Cor 12:1–4).

But there is another application to be made here concerning this distinction between the resurrection appearances and other heavenly visions. While Keim applied this dissimilarity to subjective visions or hallucinations, if the resurrection appearances are also to be viewed as revelatory, disembodied visions as distinct from these others (as some of the objective vision theorists might want to do), then on what grounds would these later, clearly nonresurrection visions be differentiated from the position of Keim and those who took similar positions? In other words, might not their own objective visionary view be seen as lacking just such a differentiation here?

It is quite clear that Paul, for instance, made just such a separation between Jesus’s resurrection appearances and these nonresurrection visionary experiences. For example, Paul held that the resurrection appearances were unique. Why else would he have included a creedal list of Jesus’s resurrection appearances in his epistle with the original list apparently ending before his own appearance (1 Cor 15:3–7, 8)? Moreover, Paul thought that his appearance on the road to Damascus was the “last” one (15:8). Further, how would Luke have been able to state that Jesus’s resurrection appearances ended after just forty days (Acts 1:3)? Of course, since Luke also reported Stephen, Peter, and Paul’s visions, he clearly did not consider these to be appearances of the risen Jesus either!

But that is exactly the issue at hand here: on what grounds could these early New Testament authors differentiate so clearly between the two species of phenomena if they were both disembodied revelatory types? If the objective vision thesis is favored, the distinctions may seem to break down a bit. This distinction favors a different quality for the resurrection appearances. What was it, then? The bodily view of the resurrection appearances provides such a differentiation, and a major one at that. Of course, this does not by itself demonstrate the truth of bodily appearances but is at least a pointer in the right direction. There are of course other considerations besides this one, but here at least bodily appearances would have to be recognized as holding the upper hand.

(6) A further point also needs to be added here. Some evaluators throughout church history may have been content with glorified and disembodied appearances alone—such events may even have been impressive. But simply in terms of normal human psychology that differs from person to person, it also seems fair to say that many everyday people, both centuries ago as well as in the present, would not have been satisfied with such appearances—especially those who held the majority Jewish views of bodily resurrection. The disembodied proposals would assuredly seem to cause many more occasions for doubt and second-guessing afterward, possibly for the remainder of the witnesses’ lives. Did Jesus truly appear to them after his death or was it merely imagined?

For those who believed in a bodily resurrection who also had the psychological make-up that generally favors more empirical data, something more substantial than a vision would seem to have been necessary. For this substantial portion of the witnesses, a desire to touch the risen Jesus would be necessary in order to be sure. Glorified appearances of Jesus that were perhaps located above or even beyond the witnesses, as some commentators have suggested, would seem not to satisfy a fair percentage of these witnesses. As such, visionary appearances would not seem to be objective enough to convince these kinds of followers that Jesus was really there in their presence, particularly upon later reflection.

Strangely enough, whatever is concluded regarding the Gospel writers, several passages argue precisely this way. The women are said to have held Jesus’s feet (Matt 28:9), and Mary Magdalene desired to touch the risen Jesus and apparently did so on her second trip to the empty tomb (John 20:17). Granted, these occasions may have been more out of love for Jesus rather than to gain evidence. But in other texts, such as Luke 24:36–43 and John 20:24–29, Jesus offered to be touched, most likely because he sensed that some there, as with the depiction of Thomas, wanted or even demanded it. At least one of the very earliest postcanonical texts stated that, after Jesus offered, the disciples did exactly that and touched him (Ignatius, Smyrn. 3).

The chief point here is easy to miss. This contrast is definitely not a question regarding the strength of this Gospel testimony or the reliability of these texts. The nature of the Gospel witness itself is not at all the point in view. Rather, the idea not to miss is that the Gospel writers seem to have precisely recognized these psychological needs for different people. In other words, particularly for the women as well as possibly some of the male disciples too, a fairly decent percentage probably would have been satisfied with less evidence and simply believed that they had seen Jesus. But this would clearly not have been the case for many others—namely, for the evidentially minded doubters (as in Matt 28:17). Jesus knew this too, and hence offered to be touched.

Thus, unless there had been a more solid experience than disembodied visions, as impressive as they might have been in their own way, what else could better explain a large number of these witnesses apparently going out and turning the world upside down without ever looking back (as far as is known)? Once again, the Gospel writers capture just that need for such human differences in assurance—it is a built-in human response for many persons. Bodily appearances are obviously strong here and would fulfill this desire.

True, it is not a question here of which option leaves us with the stronger evidence, but the issue is which scenario actually obtained. Yet this component also must be considered and evaluated carefully: Could the disembodied scenario of the scholars who hold the objective vision thesis even have produced the resulting exuberance, strongest convictions, and the all-out missionary zeal that were clearly manifest in most or all of the disciples alone, as we have already investigated in volume 1 of this study? Most crucially, were there a few “doubting Thomas” personalities among them? Could the personal transformations have lasted as long as they apparently did for some of them, such as Peter, Paul, or James—probably during the entire lifetimes of these witnesses—unless there had been at least some attending evidence?

In summary, several items might be mentioned regarding the objective vision theory or particular aspects of it. Keim’s view probably exhibited the most problems among these like-minded theorists—as in leaving unexplained why Jesus did not simply appear to his disciples instead of sending the visions. Again, perhaps Keim did not want to press too far the German liberal psyche of his day, but it leaves a yawning question there. Others have remarked that Keim’s thesis would have tended to make both Jesus and his Father appear to be deceivers by convincing the disciples that he was actually present with them when this was not the case. But Keim should at least be given credit for going as far as he did in postulating supernatural events that exposed some quite definite liberal shortcomings.

None of these objective visionary configurations account for the robust New Testament textual evidence that, even for Paul, Jesus’s appearances were bodily in nature. Further, the predominant Jewish view of that time regarding bodily resurrection remains unexplained while the reigning nineteenth-century German idealistic philosophy was preferred. As we have also argued, objective visions would not have provided objective enough data to convince at least a fair number of Jesus’s followers, though commentators like Fuller and Pannenberg had an advantage here in espousing the empty tomb, based on the strong evidence for that event, as well as moving in the direction of more carefully defined manifestations of Jesus’s presence.

But some progress was definitely made here nonetheless by introducing solid considerations against the theological presuppositions of the times in which they appeared, perhaps somewhat like the way Karl Barth struck at the heart of nineteenth-­century German liberal theology a few decades later, even though he failed to push forward in more evidential directions himself. Sometimes these huge endeavors needed to be taken in smaller steps. But especially given that objective visions affirmed the resurrection appearances against the naturalistic hypotheses, this particular step was a bit more substantial.

Responding to a Related Thesis

The objective vision thesis just considered generally holds that the risen Jesus really appeared to his followers in actual though nonbodily appearances. In both formal research as well as in quite popular, unevidenced testimonies, myriads of very common occurrences have often been reported in recent times where many individuals have described witnessing spontaneous visions of their deceased loved ones or friends very soon after those individuals’ deaths. These sightings usually last just brief seconds or so. Many claimed occurrences include a variety of closely related phenomena of slightly different sorts, often termed after-death communications (ADCs). The visionary examples among these experiences might be termed post-death visions (PDVs). These experiences are usually perceived privately, but a number of these reports have also included multiple witnesses simultaneously or additional claims that could be checked.

A number of these studies pursue more rigorous compilations of a wide array of experiences. Probably the most common scenario is that of a recently widowed spouse or a bereaved parent who seemingly witnesses what appears to be the actual presence of their loved one who had recently died and was buried (though some of these experiences also happened years after the original events). These occasions quite often take the form where the deceased individual appears seemingly out of nowhere, usually for just seconds, as a spirit-like presence in the place occupied by their living loved one(s). A sparse number of spoken words, or even simply an understanding expression without words, provides the expressly stated or other sense that the departed person is doing just fine. Hence, the living persons were not to be worried about them. This scenario and responses are often essentially the same from case to case, with the brief, spoken messages being frequently very similar in this regard. These reports have essentially developed into a genre of their own.

The occurrences such as these just mentioned most frequently resulted in a great amount of subjective assurance and peace for the loved ones. Even when the event was private and without any attending corroboration, the typical result for the living was still the assurance that their loved one was doing well. Seldom can the recipients be dissuaded from their assured conviction either. Evidential cases often provided still greater amounts of calmness and degrees of acceptance, though the typical results generally included a positive impact on grief resolution.

While it might be thought or simply assumed that there is a somewhat similar relationship between ADCs (and PDVs in particular) and Jesus’s resurrection appearances, it is seldom made clear in the studies whether particular researchers considered these phenomena to be somewhat or essentially the same species or family of events, or whether it was just being pointed out that the cases exhibited similarities but not sameness, probably in the sense of being various afterlife indications. These distinctions may be supported by various researchers or more likely left un-answered altogether.

Regarding the varieties of emphasis, these lesser-known PDV experiences and phenomena (to the extent that they occur at all) seem generally to be bodiless occurrences rather than more bodily encounters. A popular interpretation of PDVs is that deceased loved ones have sometimes appeared to their loved ones and friends in a disembodied state. As such, whether or not this was the intention of the reporter, some have asserted that this is similar to the form in which Jesus’s real but nonbodily appearances may have occurred, similarly to objective vision theses. If this is the case, could these PDVs, ADCs, and resurrection appearances feasibly be viewed as the same species of phenomena? Of course, there could also be ramifications here not only concerning the literalness of Jesus’s appearances, but especially pertaining to the uniqueness of these events too, if they in fact are also experienced by many others.

So, options that consider PDVs or other ADCs to be hallucinations or some similar variety of subjective, internal phenomena without external referents are not examined in this chapter. Such options are treated in detail along with other similar claims in the chapter in this volume on Jesus’s appearances being interpreted as hallucinations or other subjective experiences. These latter subjective cases are not at all what is in view in this chapter, where the emphasis throughout has been on outward sightings, whether objective visions or more bodily appearances of Jesus. Nor will any potential evidential data in favor of PDVs or ADCs be investigated here, which is beyond the scope of this study. The chief interest in this chapter has been placed more on the subjects of whether these more recent experiences are the same (or quite similar to) Jesus’s resurrection appearances, the potential uniqueness of Jesus’s sightings, and whether disembodied appearances like those that we have viewed are adequate to the task at hand.

Evaluating PDVs and Jesus’s Appearances as the Same or Similar Phenomena

It is argued various ways in this study that Jesus’s resurrection appearances are certainly examples of the afterlife in general. Further, throughout the New Testament the explicit Christian hope is that believers will be raised like Jesus, who became the “firstfruits” of the believer’s resurrection. It is undeniable from a Christian perspective that Jesus’s resurrection and that of believers are rather intricately connected, manifesting various aspects of the afterlife as a whole. There is thus no effort to place a wedge between Jesus’s resurrection and the afterlife: this comparison and relationship has strong connections on many levels. In terms of our study, “Jesus’s resurrection appearances would in some sense comprise after-death messages.”

At the same time, careful commentators who address this issue also note that Jesus’s afterlife teachings and especially his resurrection appearances themselves reach far beyond other afterlife teachings and manifestations, such as the usually brief, far more general and generic reports already mentioned above. There are certainly similarities to some PDVs and more general ADCs in both details as well as the overall sense of afterlife stories. Yet on these topics, Jesus’s appearances indicate markedly unique characteristics when compared across the entire, broad subject. Several of these more exclusive aspects involved with Jesus’s postmortem presence make rather difficult the identification that they comprise the same species of PDV phenomena.

Earlier in this chapter, a half dozen major problems plus a few further issues were pointed out regarding the objective vision theory. These critiques, especially taken as a whole, point clearly in the direction of the bodily nature of Jesus’s appearances being the best explanation of the New Testament teachings plus the additional developments in current research. We will summarize these concerns again briefly before emphasizing a couple of additional areas of difficulty with the intent of adapting these six considerations more narrowly to this second, somewhat-related hypothesis concerning PDVs and ADCs.

The initial critique of objective vision theories above was that both this as well as the traditional, bodily views of Jesus’s appearances require the occurrence of supernatural events in ways that place them beyond the reach of the natural universe. Moreover, those who hold to objective visions, such as Keim, sometimes even acknowledge that such events would involve the miraculous actions of God. But incredibly, minus chiefly the embodied aspects, the heart of Christian theology could actually follow from disembodied appearances of Jesus, even though this thesis fails to account for the available data.

(1) Aspects of this initial observation could likewise still apply to differences with ADVs as well, such as Jesus’s appearances being actual, supernatural events caused by God, and accompanied by incredible amounts of evidence. In other words, though not the New Testament teaching, those who hold the position that Jesus could have appeared as some type of ADV (or a series of these occasions) could also hold that Jesus Christ was nonetheless still the exclusive Son of God who offered himself as the exclusive path of salvation and similar doctrinal positions. This is a crucial point to make, in that the disembodied views can potentially still embrace much or even most of the unique New Testament theology, including Jesus Christ’s deity and the miraculous nature of this event. After all, as expressed earlier, disembodied appearances of the risen Jesus are still appearances.

(2) In volume 1 we collected almost two dozen primary and secondary historical arguments in favor of the empty tomb, with each one being drawn only from critical sources and arguments, as done with the minimal facts. What happened to Jesus’s body in the tomb is a strong consideration in terms of the nature of Jesus’s appearances, for it would appear that the dead body that was buried was connected materially to the risen body that emerged from the tomb. Of course, other possibilities exist to explain this disappearance, and these options have been explored exhaustively by critical scholars during the past two centuries. But as seen chiefly in two chapters and elsewhere in this volume, the overwhelming testimony of recent researchers is that these suppositions have proved quite inadequate and increasingly unpopular over the years. As Allison emphasized after identifying several of these challenges to the empty tomb, “We have no reason to endorse any of these speculations, for which there is not a shred of evidence.” The inability of alternate theses against the empty tomb strengthens the likelihood that Jesus’s resurrection was bodily in nature, driving a wedge between it and PDVs.

Given the general scholarly rejection of natural explanations for the empty tomb along with there being no decent evidence in their favor, the empty tomb is a remarkably well-evidenced factual challenge to Jesus’s appearances being disembodied PDVs, since these are the majority of PDVs. After all, would anyone think that even the strongest recent PDV cases would be accompanied by empty caskets in the ground?

This argument is weighty. In our 2012 dialogue on this topic, I argued that the empty tomb was one of the strong responses against Vincent’s ADC thesis. He responded, “I prefer to leave the question of the empty tomb a mystery, as an empty tomb is simply unnecessary for Jesus’s spiritual resurrection.” Of course he preferred not to respond—this argument opposed his position in a crucial place, leaving him without a comeback! Such a critique provides a powerful argument for the uniqueness of Jesus’s resurrection appearances, which are not synonymous with PDV occurrences.

(3) The data indicate that the predominant Jewish view in the first century was that of bodily resurrection. While not overpowering by itself, this stance continues to add to the reasons why Jesus’s appearances more likely point in the direction of bodily events rather than disembodied ones.

(4) Similarly, even if it is not the primary position of modern critical scholars themselves, the predominant notion among these specialists appears to be the recognition that the New Testament authors generally held that Jesus rose bodily. Thus, Jewish and canonical Christian views in the first century, including both anthropological and social factors in the New Testament, favor the notion of bodies being raised, both Jesus’s and believers’ alike. Such positions continue to favor Jesus’s bodily appearances over against them having been the same as modern PDV notions.

(5) Other supernatural visions in the New Testament (such as Acts 7:55–56; 10:9–16; 16:6–10; possibly 2 Cor 12:1–4; Rev 1:9–16) are clearly distinguished from the resurrection appearances. Each of these occasions, except for Stephen’s martyrdom, occurred after Paul’s conversion, but Paul stated clearly that his resurrection appearance was the last (1 Cor 15:8) and Luke seems to end the appearances with the ascension (Acts 1:1–3).

On the other hand, that the later, apparently bodiless appearances were of a different character is quite problematic for the view that Jesus’s appearances were the same as PDVs according to the New Testament writers. In fact, on the PDV view, it should be quite difficult to distinguish the PDVs from these other spiritual visions at all. Why do the appearances end after forty days and why is Paul’s appearance the very last one, thereby separating these events from the later disembodied occurrences? In short, the New Testament definitely considers these two phenomena to be quite different. What determines the difference here, if not that between bodily and nonbodily events? This distinction clearly seems to be the most likely difference. Once again, Jesus’s appearances and PDVs are distinct.

(6) Moreover, the differing personalities regularly observed in normal human psychology would suggest that a number of the witnesses to Jesus’s appearances most likely would have been less than satisfied had they been unable to touch or otherwise ascertain that Jesus was actually present with them. As mentioned, this normal human tendency is observed several times in the Gospels (Matt 28:9; Luke 24:36–43; John 20:17, 24–29). Without stronger confirmation than is usually gained from typical PDVs, it is difficult to understand the seeming group explosion out of the gate immediately after the resurrection appearances. If these experiences emanated from insubstantial manifestations alone, this simply seems to fall quite short of the immediate and especially the ongoing convictions that willingly placed at least many of these witnesses repeatedly in the line of fire and accounted for some deaths. Just like today, dispositions that tend in more empirical directions would appear to have much less assurance.

Especially taken together, these six considerations favor bodily manifestations of the risen Jesus, making it far more likely than not that this comprised the original nature of the sightings. Given especially considerations such as the empty tomb without evidence to the contrary, the New Testament teaching of bodily appearances, the clear distinctions between visions and appearances, and personality differences, these appear to be a difficult case to overcome by the supposition of PDVs. Overall, it seems strong that Jesus’s appearances and the ADCs above are not the same phenomena, though the best cases of the latter also evidence the afterlife.

A few additional considerations are likewise applicable to the differences between Jesus’s appearances and PDVs that are not so crucial with objective visions. These will signify further distance between these experiences.

(7) Another indication that points away from comparisons between Jesus’s resurrection and PDVs or ADCs being the same phenomena are the multiply attested data that Jesus regularly predicted a number of important details regarding both his death and resurrection appearances on several occasions before his demise. An initial glance might make it appear as if this simply specifies yet another odd characteristic of these events concerning Jesus. But it is actually far more momentous than this alone.

Jesus’s predictions combine a number of important historical criteria that indicate the likelihood that these comments were indeed made by Jesus himself. For just a few examples of such details, these remarks are present in at least one early pre-Pauline creedal source and are multiply attested in a total of up to six independent sources. These predictions appear in multiple literary forms, which include the presence of Semitic elements and more than one example of embarrassing or surprise elements. Some of these predictions are also embedded in Son of Man passages, which are themselves multiply attested.

These evidential elements help specify Jesus as occupying quite a different place among the claimed ADC cases where a comparison is being made. If Jesus indeed knew beforehand both the facts along with some details of these events at the end of his life, including the unlikely additional comment that he would rise from the dead afterward, this would be highly significant. Such knowledge would indicate that Jesus was privy to wisdom and insight that others who may have seen their loved ones in a post-death manner presumably would not have understood in their own cases. But to know ahead of time such realities that actually did obtain later would seem to contribute additional reasons to think that Jesus was also a rather unique person, in keeping with other singular claims regarding his person and nature. These factors taken together would once again signal a combination of indications that these rare events surrounding Jesus’s life, death, and especially his appearances exceeded the cases in the PDV category. The results point further to Jesus’s uniqueness. Indeed, no known individual has walked these paths previously, challenging even further the comparisons of sameness in these cases.

(8) Even when compared to the vast amount of PDV and ADC literature, there do not appear to be any rivals to these combined resurrection reports of the risen Jesus. Consulting the myriads of modern PDV accounts does not seem to produce a parallel set of separate reports that is at all similar to these examples from Jesus. Further, modern similarities must be produced from among thousands of many diverse, cross-cultural accounts. While a distinct minority of PDV cases are both well documented and evidenced to certain extents, the vast majority are not only unevidenced but are very popularly obtained. Even with such a large body of PDV material, nothing is available that rivals even the known data that are critically derived concerning Jesus.

In fact, surprisingly, the ever-skeptical Dale Allison attests straightforwardly, “Nonetheless, I know of no close phenomenological parallel to the series of likely events as a whole. . . . Taken as a whole, this is, on any account, a remarkable, even extraordinary confluence of events and claims. If there is a good, substantial parallel to the entire series, I have yet to run across it.” Michael Perry, the former Cambridge University professor who both knew the nature of good research and strongly accepted the ADC thesis in cases beyond Jesus’s resurrection appearances, still stated the matter similarly to Allison. In spite of “some striking similarities” to Jesus’s appearances in the ADC literature, he still acknowledged, “All the same, it remains true that the overall scale of the Resurrection appearances is far greater than that of modern cases. . . . To find parallels for all the aspects of the Resurrection appearances, we have to ransack the literature of parapsychology and build up a composite picture from the most striking aspects of a number of cases.” Having stated this, Perry went on to assert, “There is no one modern case” like this, after which he listed elements concerning the appearances of Jesus that are very similar to those that we have mentioned above, including that Jesus “on several occasions” was “seen by a group of his friends,” talked, ate, stayed for a length of time, and disappeared. Even the “amount of conversation recorded . . . cannot be paralleled in a modern case.” This is an amazing concession that virtually spells the term “uniqueness” at every turn with regard to Jesus’s appearances.

As mentioned often, this is far from questioning the reality of PDVs. It is clear that these data deal with afterlife issues and sometimes do present some good evidence. Rather, the point evaluated here was to critically analyze the hypothesis that Jesus’s postresurrection appearances and PDVs are the same phenomena or very nearly so. The assessment drawn from this comparison certainly moves more and more strongly away from any such scenario.

(9) One last line of reasoning moves totally away from historical and other empirical data to the field of logic and critical thinking. Central to the argument here is that there could be any number of exceedingly close similarities between Jesus’s resurrection appearances and PDVs or other ADCs. But does such a list of similarities require that these occurrences be members of the exact same (or a very similar) class of events? Or may they more simply be related data—as in being varieties or indicators of an afterlife without sharing sameness?

Militating heavily against Jesus’s appearances and PDVs being the same experiences is that even very close similarities do not prove sameness. The latter may be shown to be the case by normal comparisons that identify members of the same family, ethnic group, football team, student body, and so on. There are ways to indicate sameness, but mounting a number of close similarities can be quite superficial when not being done by more recognized means such as DNA and other chemical analyses, scientific testing, or legal records. Claiming sameness via tendencies, actions, or lining up events in a very similar manner does not necessarily indicate that these events, persons, or ideas are precisely the same.

For example, falling short of more minute means of testing or other types of inspection is one sort of comparison. However, an absolutely crucial question pertains to how many differences are also involved between these same reports, and how significant are these factors. Many differences can militate against the sameness thesis, and we have already noted a number of these vital distinctions between Jesus and the large body of ADC and PDV cases.

There are many examples in this last category. The American and French Revolutions may share some startling similarities without being the same events, let alone even from the same continent. Two historical tyrants that are amazingly alike in different parts of the world or even in different centuries are not the same and are scarcely related, though they may be quite similar. Two animals, insects, stars, or events may manifest amazingly similar traits without ranking anywhere near the same family lines. Doctoral dissertations may reveal ideas where collusion or plagiarism may be suspected, while still being proven later that nothing of the sort occurred.

So it is with our thesis. As has been maintained from the beginning, the resurrection appearances, PDVs, ADCs, and other afterlife categories, such as NDEs, can be quite amazingly similar at points without bearing the same DNA. The overall logical point is that a lineup of similarities does not prove that they are the same phenomena. Similarities, even close ones, are easy to show; sameness is not shown to be the case without more specific tests and rules. And again, how many differences are there and how significant are they?

Along with the many similarities, it has also been argued that there are many significant differences between Jesus’s resurrection appearances and PDVs/ADCs. Further, a number of these distinctions involve various categories that indicate substantial areas that fail to line up, as mentioned in this chapter. Neither are the similarities as close as often imagined.

These nine critiques plus a few possible secondary applications involve unique aspects that are also relevant to the questions here. Numerous strong indications were also mentioned that while Jesus’s appearances to some extent would comprise PDVs to his disciples, they must be categorized differently than the other ADC accounts. Again, neither PDVs nor ADCs need be denied, and some are strongly confirmed. None of these categories or other similar possibilities should be denied in this discussion. Rather, the question concerns whether Jesus’s appearances indicate a difference in kind, and this appears strongly to be the case, and from several angles.

What follows from a brief summary of these previous arguments? The initial consideration asserted that if bodily resurrection appearances of Jesus occurred, especially when accompanied by other relevant data, the objective vision theory most obviously would be mistaken. Six arguments were presented to evidence these claims. The embodied scenario would also go a long way toward arguing that Jesus’s appearances were not just different, but they were part of a unique pattern of an overall exceptional life of ideas and events confirmed by a significant amount of data. The sources claim that Jesus’s life contained a number of exceptional wonders—­forgiving sin, healing the sick, exorcisms, natural miracles, some of the greatest ethical and theological teachings ever, proclamations of his own deity, and many other phenomena of various sorts often agreed to by critical scholars. These were capped off by arguably the greatest event of all time: Jesus’s resurrection, which Jesus himself had predicted in detail and later confirmed with his many bodily post-resurrection appearances.

Attention was then directed to the ADCs, with nine arguments pointing out the significant distance between Jesus’s resurrection appearances and especially the PDVs in particular. Other aspects of Jesus’s uniqueness and worldview could also be pursued, as just mentioned, further separating Jesus from the recipients of PDVs and ADCs, but that remains for the final volume in this study.

In addressing the uniqueness of Jesus’s life including his appearances, comparisons have been made here between Jesus’s appearances and various examples of the PDV and ADC material. However, the New Testament scenario presents stronger evidential aspects than the PDV material as well. Other critical researchers argue that the appearance to Paul was not bodily like the appearances that occurred to the disciples, the women, or others during what Acts states was a period of forty days.

However one takes Paul’s appearance, many unique aspects vis-à-vis the combined PDV and ADC reports still emerge. The three secondary accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9:1–9; 22:6–16; and 26:12–18 present some out of the ordinary details that are rather uncommon in the PDV material. For examples, the extreme brightness of the sun (9:3; 22:6; 26:13), Paul’s being blinded by the light for three days (9:8–9; 22:11), along with Paul and the other men with him falling to the ground (26:14a). Though not entirely unique, that Paul’s companions witnessed many but not all of the items is rare in the literature (9:7; 22:9; 26:13).

So even for those who might question this or that aspect of the Gospel appearance narratives, the various New Testament texts present more than one example of each of the following scenarios: group appearances reported to both smaller and larger groups, instances of touching Jesus including his own offer to do so, eating together, Jesus communicating in spoken words, being seen by men and women alike both at different times of the day and the evening, appearing to unbelievers who converted to the faith when they saw the risen Jesus, and so on. The consensus even among critical scholars is that the exceptionally early creedal accounts of these details were proclaimed within the brief time span of a few months to a year or so after Jesus’s crucifixion, and then were written down beginning just a couple of decades later in Paul’s Epistles, with likely earlier sources behind each of the Gospels.

Conclusion

This chapter considered two alternative views to what might be called the classical, orthodox understanding of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Both theses generally hold that Jesus actually did rise from the dead, though in less than a full bodily sense. Hence, when considered in this manner, neither of these options is a ­naturalistic hypothesis.

The two positions support notions that can be fairly close in some of their ideas. The initial stance, that Jesus actually appeared as a more or less disembodied presence of some sort to reassure and commission his followers in ministry has a long prior history and is often termed the objective vision theory. These concepts can be found especially in the writings of a number of the nineteenth-century German liberal scholars, the best known of whom was Theodor Keim. The view has even postulated or at least allowed the possibility of what might be termed partially embodied appearances. As a rival to theses involving hallucinations, Keim and others offered some of the best rejoinders to this naturalistic option while acknowledging that their position required supernatural action.

Responding to this initial approach involves evaluating which thesis best fits the known circumstances. Approaching the question from more than one angle, six critiques were aimed at this initial scenario, beginning with the thesis that the objective vision theory was also supernatural in nature and could potentially involve the truth of the entire Christian worldview. The historical case favoring Jesus’s empty tomb is a powerful corrective. The first-century Jewish majority view of bodily resurrection of the dead plus the New Testament Christian teachings of Jesus’s bodily appearances also argued against the stance of objective visions. The New Testament distinction between Jesus’s resurrection appearances and religious visions from God argues for something more substantial than Jesus making himself known as a disembodied presence alone. Moreover, the strong human desire in many personalities to determine these sorts of questions in empirical terms, as the Gospel narratives indicate, points in the same direction of at least some of the disciples confirming Jesus’s actual presence. Such outlooks often require more palpable signs than are available in order to account for the radical changes in Jesus’s followers. For these several reasons, then, a disembodied presence as presented in the objective vision thesis does not come close to being the best fit here.

The second hypothesis considered in this chapter concerns reports sometimes known as post-death visions or after-death communications. Here persons claim to have seen their recently deceased loved ones in what are most often very brief visits. Occasionally, it is thought that these scenarios best explain the nature of Jesus’s resurrection appearances, either more rarely as the same events or as similar ones in the afterlife category. Scientific studies have argued that these experiences seem to occur more often than may be thought and are occasionally even reported as having been veridical in nature, such as by being seen by multiple persons at a time. Whereas the emphasis in the previous discussion was on the empirical fit of the views, the heart of this second discussion may be chiefly concerned with whether Jesus’s appearances were a unique set of events or a specific species within the ADC and PDV family.

Refining the six critiques just raised above regarding the objective vision view allowed further honing of this response with regard to the ADC and PDV scenarios. These more recent theses still require an afterlife, though usually bodiless. The empty tomb is especially difficult for these scenarios, since it points more strongly to bodily appearances, given that natural alternatives are rarely thought to apply. This makes bodily appearances of Jesus far more likely to have occurred than spiritual visions of either of these varieties, given that there would be no necessary connection between an empty gravesite and more ethereal appearances. But since the bodies of loved ones are still buried when their disembodied PDVs were reported, this points out the serious point of separation between Jesus’s appearances and PDVs or ADCs. Further, that the New Testament clearly separates Jesus’s appearances from later visions (which sound much like PDVs!) plus the frequent human desire to affirm these things empirically for longer-lasting conviction is also quite difficult to explain in the ADC scenarios.

Additionally, the PDV and ADC suppositions are beset by still additional and serious issues beyond these initial six. Three more weaknesses were mentioned here for a total of nine critiques. Especially given the evidential considerations mentioned earlier—that Jesus predicted his death, resurrection, and exaltation ahead of time—is another unique indicator, this time in terms of his having exceptional prior knowledge concerning his worldview, which placed him in a singular position unoccupied by any other potential PDV “visitor.”

Moreover, the New Testament accounts of Jesus’s appearances, including the evidentially supported ones in particular, involved far more episodes with Jesus characterized by longer visits with far lengthier discussions than the entire field of PDVs can assemble together. As Perry (supporting a PDV thesis) was cited above, “The overall scale of the Resurrection appearances is far greater than that of modern cases.” This amazing concession states powerfully the uniqueness of Jesus’s appearances. Allison offers a very similar comment to Perry’s with regard to the uniqueness of the entire field of resurrection data.

Moreover, in spite of the similarities between Jesus’s resurrection appearances and the ADC and PDV literature, parallels and resemblances certainly cannot determine that these events are the same, or even that they are necessarily of the same general family, though they would involve the category of the afterlife. A myriad of living creatures, circumstances, and events in the world can be quite incredibly similar on a number of levels while having been literally centuries or continents apart! Besides, the many incredible differences between Jesus’s appearances and the PDVs and ADCs indicate that they are distinct occurrences.

One further matter should be mentioned at this point. It has been mentioned several times that both objective vision theories and PDV and ADC hypotheses would involve actual afterlife cases. However, if either view considered in this chapter (or Jesus’s resurrection appearances as well) were proposed as a natural hypothesis apart from an afterlife, it would simply push that thesis into the category of hallucinations or similar subjective views. Hallucinations and their kin are treated at length in this volume, so they are not treated in this chapter. Leaving this natural matter aside, then, and as strange as this may seem, even if the objective vision thesis or PDVs and ADCs were true, virtually all of the chief Christian message could potentially follow, except of course for the bodily nature of Jesus’s appearances. For example, the gospel message of Jesus’s deity, death, resurrection, the truth of eternity, and so on could all be just as true, emanating from a less than physical body. Thus, while the effort here has been a defense of Jesus’s unique bodily appearances, this last conclusion ought not be missed in the exchange of ideas.

In sum, numerous predominant features favor the New Testament proclamation that Jesus’s appearances were both bodily events as well as being unique manifestations on a much larger scale as well. This is the case even though other phenomena could also indicate the truth of an afterlife.

Notes

Hence the term “objective” here was not a reference to Jesus appearing in a regular body where he could be touched or eat food with his disciples, as in Luke 24 and John 20–21. The scholars who espoused this view, such as Theodor Keim, still generally rejected the possibility of these more physical Gospel accounts, including the empty tomb. However, Jesus still at least could have appeared to groups of people in this manner, such as the appearances to “the Twelve,” the large gathering of 500 persons, plus to the additional group called “all the apostles” as in the famous early creedal statement that Paul cited in 1 Cor 15:3–7. Rather, the word “objective” indicated that Jesus nonetheless truly did appear to people and was clearly seen by them, in contrast to the subjective vision theories of David Strauss and other scholars, where the disciples only thought (and probably hallucinated) that Jesus had appeared to them.

Theodor Keim, Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, in ihrer Verhaltung mit dem Gesamtleben seines Volkes frei untersucht und ausführlich erzählt, 3 vols. (Zurich: Orell and Füssli, 1867–1872), 3:506–621 treating the burial and resurrection of Jesus. These specific comparisons above were made in 3:602–3. The English translation is Keim, The History of Jesus of Nazara, Freely Investigated in Its Connection with the National Life of Israel, and Related Detail, trans. Arthur Ransom, 6 vols. (London: Williams & Norgate, 1883).

Keim, Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 3:596, 602–3; Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, 6:323–24, 353–58, 361–64.

Kirsopp Lake, The Historical Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (London: Williams & Norgate, 2012), 269. Further details are found on 267–77.

Lake, 272.

Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 2nd edition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 93. It is difficult not to wonder concerning those who take the objective vision theory if denying the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s bodily appearances and the empty tomb are somehow necessary moves that are simply required in order to allow for their preference for nonbodily appearances.

Grass, 96.

Grass, 102.

Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1980), 49, 69–70, 170–72.

Fuller, 46–49, 170–72, 181.

Besides the scholars listed above, others who employ this language include Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology, trans. J. W. Leitch (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 172, 181, 188, 190, 197–98, 202; Moltmann, Religion, Revolution and the Future, trans. M. D. Meeks (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1969), 49–55; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 92–93; Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection, Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation, trans. A. M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977), esp. 116–25; Joachim Jeremias, “Easter: The Earliest Tradition and the Earliest Interpretation,” in New Testament Theology, trans. John Bowden (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1971), 308–9; Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983), 92, 95–99, 118, 125, 127–28; Gerald O’Collins, What Are They Saying about the Resurrection? (New York: Paulist, 1978), 54–55, 76–81; Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 30, 48. James M. Robinson argues that this is probably the earliest view of the resurrection appearances followed later by the more physical, bodily elements. Still, unlike many of the commentators above, Robinson asserts that the position should not be espoused literally today. However, in this critique Robinson follows the holdover Bultmannian scholars and later exegetes who rejected objective resurrection appearances altogether. These views are set forth in Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus (or to the Apostles’ Creed),” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 37. For a thorough and detailed critique of Robinson’s position, see William Lane Craig, “From Easter to Valentinus and the Apostles’ Creed Once More: A Critical Examination of James Robinson’s Proposed Resurrection Appearance Trajectories,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 52 (1993): 19–39.

The word adelphois raises the possibility that the count consists of men only (as with the feeding of the 5,000 men in Mark 6:44) and easily could have involved a much larger group of onlookers who witnessed this appearance of the risen Jesus.

For example, Bultmann’s famous 1941 essay asks the question without any further deliberation, “But what about the resurrection? Is it not a mythical event pure and simple? Obviously it is not an event of past history.” See Rudolf Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” in Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), 38.

Interestingly, against this comparison, the Hurtado volume above almost looks like an outlier among the other publications, though there are some other more recent works like it as well.

In one intriguing collection of essays, though endorsing more than one subposition, all eighteen authors agreed on the notion of Jesus’s bodily resurrection as well as on that of Christian believers. See Ted Peters, Robert John Russell, and Michael Welker, eds., Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Another evaluation of non-Christian Jewish authors also notes many who agreed that the predominant Jewish position was that of the resurrection of the dead. See David Mishkin, Jewish Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2017). On the Jewish view, see also Dale C. Allison Jr., The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History (London: T&T Clark, 2021), 131–36; on Paul’s view, note 224–25; John P. Meier includes some worthwhile discussions on this point in his volume A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 3:322–23, 432–44, 642. For the contrasting positions in Judaism, few studies are more valuable than Alan F. Segal’s Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Tradition (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 368, 379–83, 404–77, 757n27. Without much question, two of the most authoritative studies on the various meanings of the relevant terms in both Judaism and the New Testament are N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), chiefly 32–552; and John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), esp. the introduction along with chaps. 6–7. Two other major studies endorsing this position are Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2010), 400–440; and Robert H. Gundry, “The Sōma in Death and Resurrection,” in Sōma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 159–83.

Such skeptical testimony includes John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom. A New Vision of Paul’s Words and World (New York: HarperCollins, 2004), 6–10, 133–35, 173–74, 296, 341–45; Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 34–35, 177; Geza Vermes, The Resurrection (London: Penguin, 2008), 6; Dale C. Allison Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 317, 324–25; Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperCollins, 2012), 257–58; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperCollins, 2014), 132–33, 137, 176–78, 181.

Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 399–437, 461–63; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, particularly 375–98, 683–718; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2003), 825–79; Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Louisville: Westminster, 1985), 53–78; E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), 11, 13, 278–80; Raymond E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1973), 69–113; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, esp. 346, also 317, 343; Gerald O’Collins, Jesus Risen (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1988), 99–127.

On the historicity of the empty tomb, see Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 828–41; Brown, Virginal Conception, 113–29; Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 13, 276; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 311–34, 346; O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 121–27; Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 175–76; cf. also Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 135.

Gary R. Habermas, “Mapping the Recent Trend toward the Bodily Resurrection Appearances of Jesus in Light of Other Prominent Critical Positions,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 78–92.

Keim, Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 3:602–3.

Keim, 3:603.

It may be recalled that Reginald Fuller was one of the exceptions here.

Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 100–101, 105. See especially the later concession in Wolfhart Pannenberg, “The Historicity of the Resurrection and the Identity of Christ,” in The Intellectuals Speak Out about God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984), 260–62.

See the relevant notes directly above, and compare Josephus, Ant. 18.1.3; J.W. 9.14; John Dominic Crossan, “The Resurrection of Jesus in Its Jewish Context,” Neotestamentica 37 (2003): 29, 34–56; Crossan, “The Resurrection, Historical Event or Theological Explanation? A Dialogue,” in Stewart, Resurrection of Jesus, 24–25; Crossan, “Bodily-Resurrection Faith,” in Stewart, Resurrection of Jesus, 175–76; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, particularly 85–128; Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 547–48; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 335–36; Segal, Life after Death, 411–12, 415, 417, 429–31, 433, 441–42, 447, 456–57, 459; Vermes, Resurrection, 6; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 44–65; Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology, 169, 175–77, 182. Interestingly, since he favored the bodily resurrection of both Jesus as well as believers, Paul is depicted in Acts 23:6–9 as pitting the Pharisees against the Sadducees, thereby earning the favor of the Pharisees. Lapide takes this passage very favorably (Resurrection of Jesus, 62).

Of course, there are still differences between the resurrection appearance details as described in the Gospel narratives and the brief statements in Paul’s Epistles. Hence, while Paul likewise accepts the notion of bodily resurrection appearances, the descriptive approaches vary. Many of the differences may be due to the Gospel authors narrating their stories, while the epistolary genre is entirely different, given brief statements of the reported earliest beliefs instead of detailed accounts. For example, Paul never describes (or even mentions directly) an empty tomb. Nor does Paul state that Jesus’s female followers held him by the ankles after his resurrection (Matt 28:9; John 20:17), that Jesus otherwise offered to be touched (cf. Luke 24:39–40; John 20:17, 27), or that he ate food in the presence of his followers (Luke 24:41–43; Acts 10:41, or as implied in John 21:9, 12). Consider this, though: these situations may have been described much differently if Paul had written a Gospel. But whereas the Gospel narratives in Matthew, Luke, and John make it clear throughout in their descriptions that Jesus’s appearances were bodily in nature, Paul also develops his views in other more theoretical ways in his teaching that he also thought that Jesus appeared bodily. Paul communicated his ideas in a variety of ways, such as by elaborating on his Pharisaic background views of both corporate and bodily resurrection, plus his teachings that the righteous would inherit a refurbished earthly creation (which would seem rather irrelevant or even just plain metaphysical nonsense for Platonic disembodied spirits!). Most of all, Paul’s notion of the resurrection body is further indicated by his usage and interaction between crucial terms such as sōma, anastasis, egeirō, and especially exanastasin in Phil 3:11, or similar phrases where the concept of anastasis was combined with ek nekron (as in Phil 3:11b; 1 Cor 15:12; or Rom. 8:11). In these instances, especially for the Pharisees and in the majority Jewish parlance, this would most likely indicate that for Paul, the sōma that went down into the ground in burial was essentially the same sōma that emerged in the resurrection appearances (as in the creedal statement in 1 Cor 15:3–5). Of course, there were significant changes in resurrection bodies too, as Paul argues rather pointedly, especially in 1 Cor 15:35–45. It is even obvious in the Gospels that there were differences in Jesus’s resurrection body, such as when Jesus appeared and disappeared, or when he was already gone when the tomb was opened. Moreover, Jesus’s wounds were already healed, and he no longer suffered any pain, and so on. But Jesus’s physical body had died, was buried, was raised, and appeared afterward—that is, what “went down” in death and burial returned in the resurrection and appearances. Though there were marked differences, Jesus had not ceased having (or being) a body—his own body. This is why many scholars have added that an empty tomb is implied in the pre-Pauline creedal statement in 1 Cor 15:4 as well as in Paul’s other teachings on these matters. (See the crucial works listed above by Wright, Cook, Licona, and Gundry.) As Cook declares succinctly on the opening page of his treatise, his primary hypothesis is that “there is no fundamental difference between Paul’s conception of the resurrection body and that of the Gospels” (Empty Tomb, 1). To be sure, the notions were expressed differently in the Gospels and in Paul, but the shared concept is that of the same raised body instead of a raised and glorified spirit.

The authors and sources above are also relevant here. Carefully researched works such as those by Wright, Cook, Licona, and Gundry, among others, have been especially worthwhile studies that have done much to “move the needle” in this direction.

Again, see note 16 above and, once again, compare Habermas, “Mapping the Recent Trend,” 78–92.

Keim, Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 3:596.

Regarding the question of whether Jesus’s transfiguration could have been a misplaced resurrection appearance, this effort has largely failed in the context, not to mention has possibly been suggested in the first place to provide some support to those who favor either the objective vision approach itself or a suggestion like James Robinson’s that this was the earliest conception of the resurrection appearances, as mentioned above. But as R. T. France points out concerning the transfiguration passage in Mark, “The frequently repeated assertion of Bultmann that, ‘It has long since been recognized that this legend was originally a resurrection story’ (History, 259) is now widely discounted. At almost every point it differs in form from the resurrection appearances.” See France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 349. Even Fuller, who supports an objective visionary scenario as we have seen above, rejects this suggestion as a weak argument (Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 165–66). However, this view of the transfiguration as a resurrection appearance might appear to constitute a strange twist to those who ask the question of whether Mark actually reported one of Jesus’s resurrection appearances, whether or not he knew that he did so! In such a case, in addition to Mark’s several repetitions of Jesus’s predictions to his disciples that he would both rise from the dead and appear to them (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34; and esp. 14:27–28), a conclusion such as Bultmann’s above might actually backfire to a certain extent! The descriptions in the cases of Stephen (Acts 7:55–56) and Paul (2 Cor 12:1–4) appear to be much closer to near-death or similarly reported phenomena.

Holding that Jesus’s tomb was empty, as did Fuller (Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 49, 69–70, 170–72) or Pannenberg ( Jesus: God and Man, 100–101, 105), gave them at least a bit of an advantage here over the likes of Keim, Lake, and Grass, who argued that the empty tomb was simply a later legend. For instance, Fuller and Pannenberg could always argue that an empty tomb provided at least one line of demarcation that contributed to the uniqueness of the resurrection appearances. For Pannenberg’s views here, see also “Historicity of the Resurrection,” 260–62. See especially Wolfhart Pannenberg’s insightful comments in “Response to the Debate,” in Gary R. Habermas and Antony G. N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, ed. Terry L. Miethe (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 125–35, esp. 129–31. Pannenberg even quite intriguingly commented: “If one accepts the empty-tomb tradition, one is pushed to a literal conception of Resurrection, so in liberal theology that particular tradition was not very popular” (131). This is surely a thoughtful insight, illustrating the influence of our presuppositions.

On the point of Jesus’s disciples recanting, see Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (Surrey: Ashgate, 2015), esp. 259–65, see also 6, 8, 243.

The term “spontaneous” here generally indicates that these occasions just “happened,” seemingly out of nowhere, usually after the individual’s recent death, when the surviving and grieving loved one was simply going about their daily life routines, such as being at home, work, or wherever they were at the time. These accounts do not pertain to, and should not be confused with, seances or other efforts on the part of living individuals who purposely seek out contact with the dead.

A number of these evidential examples are found in the researched literature. Some of the best research here are the volumes from J. Steve Miller, including Deathbed Experiences as Evidence for the Afterlife (Acworth, GA: Wisdom Creek, 2021), particularly 113–18, 139–42; and Is Christianity Compatible with Deathbed and Near-Death Experiences? (Acworth, GA: Wisdom Creek, 2023), esp. chaps. 2–3, 6–10. A third volume in this set is forthcoming. Former Cambridge University Fellow Michael C. Perry includes several discussions of the relevant data, including evidential accounts, agreeing with others in this volume that Jesus’s resurrection both answers successfully the naturalistic hypotheses (17, 102, 157, 162–171, 192, 218) as well as presenting better evidence than that on behalf of modern cases (31–32, 181–83, 194–95, 218, 228, 239–43). See Perry, The Easter Enigma: An Essay on the Resurrection with Special Reference to the Data of Psychical Research (London: Faber & Faber, 1959). Another popular collection of PDVs and ADCs presented numerous testimonies of “firsthand accounts” involving a wide variety of stories, perhaps even dozens of which included reports of corroboration, though apparently without much careful backup research on these accounts. Readers are invited to make their own decisions. These examples were collected and reported by Bill and Judy Guggenheim, Hello from Heaven! (New York: Bantam, 1995). Evidential reports, often including numerous examples in each of these categories, included PDVs that occurred before or at the same time as the information was received of the individual’s death, including the exact time of the occurrences (243–58). In some cases the deceased person in the PDV spoke (231, 233, 246, 260–61). Multiple witnesses have sometimes been present (205, 207–8). One PDVer appeared along with a long-deceased individual (257–58). Objects have sometimes moved (206–8) and hellish, scary, or negative situations have been reported (229–35, 239–42). Other odd circumstances have also been involved (202–4, 206, 208–9, 248). These phenomena also included seemingly quite out of the ordinary or spontaneous music, lights, sounds, or other surprising incidents (201–4, 206, 209, 260), or impressions of impending disaster or death before anything occurred involving the precise times of later deaths (243–58). Often, comforting words have been spoken with the deceased person (231, 233, 235). Many popular Christian works also include very similar testimonies, such as John Myers, ed., Voices from the Edge of Eternity (Old Tappan, NJ: Spire, 1968). Myers includes complicated, intertwining testimony with some confirmation (39–42, 55–56, 97–99), including a person who did not die but who witnessed the NDE of one who did die even though the family of the individual who died had not yet learned of their death (56), knowing the correct time of one’s death (63–66), hell visions (59, 239–241), and a shared case resulting in religious conversion (231–32). Similar Christian collections of these sorts of stories have also appeared, often from professionals trained in the relevant areas. These include Pete Deison, Visits from Heaven (Nashville: Nelson, 2016), particularly 51–56, 66–70, 78–81, 105–8; Trudy Harris, Glimpses of Heaven: True Stories of Hope and Peace at the End of Life’s Journey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), esp. 19, 24, 36–39, 51, 69, 112, 116–17, 152–53, 182–83, 186–87; Robert L. Wise, Crossing the Threshold of Eternity: What the Dying Can Teach the Living (Ventura, CA: Gospel Light, 2007), see 17–19, 22–23, 49–53, 75–77, 100–103, 158–59, 213–16; John Burke, Imagine Heaven (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), chiefly on the subject of NDEs. Some of these latter testimonies were gathered from hospice workers, nurses, chaplains, and pastors. Two important points need to be repeated: many of the above accounts consist of uncorroborated testimonies and, as far as is known, the stories were unconnected with seances or occultic practices. Throughout, there is a need for personal evaluation and conclusions.

We are not including here the various quite common existential senses in which the deceased individual is thought or felt by their loved one to be present nearby, though apart from any claimed manifestations. These sorts of convictions often take the form of living persons being convinced that the deceased individual is invisibly present in the room, or watching them from somewhere close by, and so on.

A major and well-publicized pioneering report was provided by physician W. Dewi Rees in his essay “The Hallucinations of Widowhood,” British Medical Journal 4 (1971): 37–41. In a much more recent study, Rees concluded that these bereavement experiences can produce both emotional and religious significance, such as comfort and assurance of faith, including affirming the reality of an afterlife in general and, for some, even increasing belief in Jesus’s resurrection. See Dewi Rees, Pointers to Eternity (Talybont: Y Lolfa, 2010), 193–95, 198, 205. Crossan has also provided some updated statistics on the prevalence of these experiences among recently bereaved individuals (“Resurrection of Jesus,” 46–47). For an evaluation of the reports by Rees and others, including both the subjective and other potential manifestations, see Joseph W. Bergeron and Gary R. Habermas, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A Clinical Review of Psychiatric Hypotheses for the Biblical Story of Easter,” Irish Theological Quarterly 80 (2015): 157–72, esp. 167–71, cf. 158–62.

The former as argued by Ken R. Vincent, “Resurrection Appearances of Jesus as After-Death Communication,” Journal of Near-Death Studies 30 (2012): 137–48, especially as indicated in the title of the article and the abstract (137, plus 146–47). Vincent and I dialogued in this same journal issue as to the form and uniqueness of Jesus’s resurrection appearances, where Vincent again reiterated his position “that Jesus was raised from the dead” and that the available data from this event plus ADCs indicate the essential relatedness of these events and the reality of the afterlife. See Vincent, “Resurrection Appearances of Jesus as After-Death Communications: Rejoinder to Gary Habermas,” Journal of Near-Death Studies 30 (2012): particularly 159, 165. Crossan appears to hold a view somewhat similar to that of Vincent, though his wording in this regard is a bit unclear at points (“Resurrection of Jesus,” particularly 46–47).

The majority position appears to be that the various phenomena are related or similar while not being the same. To a large extent the difference between these positions could represent a matter of where the accent is placed in these discussions. Very notably on the more carefully nuanced side of the ledger is Dale Allison’s 2005 work, Resurrecting Jesus. Allison notes quite carefully a list of highly evidenced characteristics of these apparition cases (294–95, also 279), and that many of these occurrences are “reminiscent” of New Testament appearances of Jesus (278–82, 285). Yet, Allison is also very careful to delineate the different characteristics between these two categories (283), holding that while the similarities between the modern apparitions and Jesus’s appearances are very important, the former appear not to be the “Rosetta Stone” that links or interprets all of these experiences (285). Actually, it might be argued that “very little” follows from all the parallels and similarities that could be adduced (283). As the bottom line, Allison seems to say that Jesus’s appearances are not the same as the apparitions, ADCs, or otherwise (283–85). In his later volume on the subject (Resurrection of Jesus, 210–26), Allison concludes similarly (esp. 222). What makes Allison’s testimony more important, even strikingly so, is that he (along with several family members) has actually experienced several clear phenomena such as these described here (including specific PDVs), which he describes (Resurrecting Jesus, 275–77; Resurrection of Jesus, 215–16). Perry’s view seems to fit well alongside the theses of Vincent and Allison in that Jesus’s resurrection is quite closely related to “spontaneous apparitions of the dead” (Easter Enigma, 157, 171). However, Perry very carefully notes the many major, disanalogous distinctions between Jesus’s appearances and the recent phenomena, ultimately seeming to arrive at a thesis that is very close to Keim’s view or to the other objective vision theses pursued above regarding Jesus’s unique appearances (125, 187–96), further illustrating the earlier point regarding the role of careful nuance.

In spite of Allison’s number of citations regarding the bodily element of these apparitions (such as Resurrecting Jesus, 281nn327, 347), this is not the testimony of most researchers into this phenomenon.

Further evaluations of both hallucination scenarios with regard to Jesus’s resurrection appearances as well as an examination of Dewi Rees’s studies on grief visions, including the relevant medical factors, can also be found in Bergeron and Habermas, “Resurrection of Jesus,” esp. 158–64, 167–71. See also Gary R. Habermas, “Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories,” The Christian Research Journal 23 (2001): 26–31, 47–49.

Some similarities as well as critiques in these matters may also be found the appendix in volume 1 on NDE evidence.

A few of the relevant New Testament texts include John 14:19; Acts 4:2; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:20–55; 2 Cor 4:14–18; 1 Pet 1:3–5; 1 John 3:2.

William Strawson’s remarkable volume Jesus and the Future Life (London: Epworth, 1970) pursues many of these inquiries throughout, such as chaps. 4–7.

This is the initial sentence in the abstract of my response to Vincent in Gary R. Habermas, “Resurrection Appearances of Jesus as After-Death Communication: Response to Ken Vincent,” Journal of Near-Death Studies 30 (2012): 149, see also 157.

See some of the additional ideas, such as the applicable background of Jesus’s appearances, in Stephen Neill, Christian Faith and Other Faiths (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 27–29; Strawson, Jesus and the Future Life, 177–78, 196–97, 209–10, 225–30; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 476–79.

Of course, on the view that Jesus’s appearances were PDVs of some sort, the widespread similarity of PDVs could still diminish some of this uniqueness.

While the number and quality of positive arguments favoring the historicity of the empty tomb were high enough to reach the most crucial standard for the minimal facts argument, this event was never placed in that list due to the much less important but still required secondary rule that a very high percentage of critical scholars needed to agree. Though that positive percentage of critical scholars who accept the historicity of this event has increased in recent years to 80 percent, as mentioned in volume 1, this was not deemed to be quite high enough.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 334.

Allison expressed elsewhere there is “not a sliver of evidence” for other theses like these either (Resurrecting Jesus, 340).

Vincent, “Rejoinder to Gary Habermas,” 162.

It has already been mentioned that bodily appearances are sometimes reported in the regular PDV literature as well; see Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 281; Vincent, “Resurrection Appearances,” 143; Perry, Easter Enigma, 182; though across the board, bodily PDVs appear to be much more uncommon. This will be addressed further in the critique below.

Whatever is made of the gospel testimony, the sort of Jewish views and personalities involved in these circumstances would favor strong desires in at least some to touch Jesus, as actually observed in Matt 28:9; Luke 24:37–43; John 20:17, 24–28.

Examples include Mark 8:31–32; 9:31–32; 10:33–34; Matt 12:38–40; 16:1–4; John 2:18–22; cf. Mark 12:1–12; Luke 22:14–23; 1 Cor 11:23–26.

For an impressive list of six affirmative reasons for Jesus’s predictions, including a discussion of the attesting criteria, see Michael Licona, “Did Jesus Predict His Death and Vindication/Resurrection?,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 8 (2010): 47–66. Cf. also the even more detailed accounts in Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 284–302, 468–69. Licona also produces three arguments against Jesus having made these predictions (295–99), though he judges that the former half dozen positive reasons are much stronger as a cumulative case (300–302). These historical criteria are also discussed at length in volume 1 of this study.

For example, many scholars have commented that Jesus could well have surmised that, like so many of the Old Testament prophets before him, he would probably sooner or later push the leaders too far, likely resulting in his own death. But to claim repeatedly and with such assurance that he alone would rise from the dead and be vindicated by God places him in an utterly unique category that had not been experienced by any of the former prophets, nor by anyone else for that matter.

The hypotheses of those who have challenged these ideas are considered throughout this volume.

Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 346, cf. 344 for some similar thoughts.

Perry, Easter Enigma, 188 (emphasis added).

Perry, 188–89.

Cf. Neill’s stunning comment regarding Jesus’s uniqueness as compared to the other major world religious founders (Christian Faith and Other Faiths, 286, see also 23, 125, 284).

Examples of relevant or similar informal logical fallacies can include hasty generali­zation and its subcategory of biased statistics or false cause. See Charles W. Kegley and Jacquelyn Ann Kegley, Introduction to Logic (Columbus, OH: Merrill, 1978), 156–58.

Both Richard Swinburne in The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford: Clarendon, 2003), esp. part 2; and Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew, “The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), particularly 620–42, argue carefully how the technical importance of factors such as those listed above, along with still others, indicate how Jesus’s life was unique in terms of other cases.

For a few examples, see Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), chaps. 2–10; Norman Anderson, Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), chaps. 2–4; Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths that Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), chaps. 1–10, 13–14; Stephen Neill, The Supremacy of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), chaps. 3–4, 6.

Some will object that the Gospels are overly physical in their representations and portrayals of Jesus’s resurrection appearances, perhaps in order to combat less than physical views. However, first, we have argued in volume 1 of this study as well as elsewhere that there are strong grounds for rejecting these concerns and for accepting the general Gospel depictions, citing many reasons that are opposed to such a doubtful stance. Many very influential scholarly commentators, including among them the likes of Martin Hengel, James D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, Robert Gundry, Michael Licona, Darrell Bock, Ben Witherington, Craig Keener, Craig Blomberg, and many others, have noted one or more of the reasons for accepting the New Testament teachings here. Many details and sources are also cited throughout this study and elsewhere regarding these scholars and others who have argued, often in much detail, in favor of various portions of this argument. Second, a number of major arguments of a comparative nature put forth in this chapter do not even rely on the Gospel appearance narratives. Third, much of the ADC and PDV literature is very popular in nature, often citing personal testimonies and other stories as straightforward reports without any attending evidence, clear citation of data, or confirming testimony. Given that much of this recent material has been stated rather than having been argued carefully, it is hardly appropriate to reject evidenced Gospel testimony while not requiring appropriate backup arguments from those other sources to which the Gospels are being compared.

See the various discussions in this study regarding the nature of Paul’s resurrection appearance, especially the detailed defense of his appearance in volume 1.

See especially note 24 and the surrounding material above. Compare the thoughts mentioned above by Crossan and Reed, among other critical scholars, on the primary New Testament evidence favoring bodily appearances, including that to Paul himself (In Search of Paul, 6–10, 133–35, 173–74, 296, 341–45). These researchers argue that the three narratives of Paul’s appearance in Acts are secondary, while the firsthand accounts in Paul’s writings do not give this impression. Moreover, the likelihood that Paul’s writings also hold to bodily notions of Jesus’s appearances changes the entire picture. As noted above, Crossan has even pointed out that his position on these matters is not much different from N. T. Wright’s arguments (Crossan, “Resurrection of Jesus in Its Jewish Context,” 29, 34–56; Crossan, “Historical Event or Theological Explanation,” 24–25; Crossan, “Bodily-Resurrection Faith,” in Stewart, Resurrection of Jesus, 175–76).

In doing a synoptic comparison of these three accounts, atheist New Testament professor Gerd Lüdemann finds several historical and accurate reminiscences in these three reports. These include that the event occurred near the city of Damascus, which he describes as being “historically accurate,” that it involved Paul the church persecutor, that the appearance of the bright light is described as being brighter than the sun, and that Paul was blinded. Moreover, Paul’s traveling companions also observed some of the relevant details, with the supposition that Paul is the one who saw the glorified Jesus, along with the existence and role of the prophet Ananias. The accounts agree closely enough with Paul’s own statements in his epistles and are multiply attested by the relevant texts, with the result being Paul’s call by God to missionary service as the apostle to the gentiles. Lüdemann does not think that differences in the texts are due to Luke’s carelessness or to any invention, though he thinks there is a legendary backstory that those who despise God are punished. See Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987), 106–10, 239–40, 255–56. Lüdemann also comments that studies that “defend the historical reliability of Acts” have increased. As such, “Acts remains an important source for the history of early Christianity” because “many of the traditions which it uses are historically reliable and enrich our knowledge of the earliest Christianity in addition to the letters of Paul.” All the issues have not been solved, by any means; there remain issues to be worked out, especially in places where there are no backup data (17). For further comparison here, see especially Craig S. Keener’s excellent four-volume commentary, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015), esp. the portions on Paul’s conversion in 9:1–9; 22:6–11; and 26:12–18.

See the multiple chapters in volume 1 especially on this subject plus some recent trends in the study of the Gospels.

Perry, Easter Enigma, 188.

↑ Back to top