I. Historical Research and the New Testament Preliminaries

I. Historical Research and the New Testament Preliminaries

1. PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY

A. Historical Investigation and Resurrection

1. General Comments

A) Craig: Craig utilizes C. B. McCullagh’s rules for historical explanation to the resurrection with good results.

B) Dunn: Dunn notes some important aspects of historical investigation (data versus facts) as it relates to historical Jesus research.

C) Evans: Craig Evans claims that the current scholarly trend has moved away from philosophical overtones in historiography (a priori rejection of miracles, geschichte and historie, laws of science, etc.) to a more straightforward historical approach.

D) Fiorenza: Without evidence, something may have taken place even though it cannot be considered historical.

E) Grant: Grant suggests that we treat the New Testament like any other ancient historical document.

F) Hartshorne: Holds that whatever we know about Jesus is empirical data.

G) Künneth: Maintains that resurrection and history, and the resurrected Jesus, are the center of historical meaning.

H) Ladd: Uses a normal historical application to the study of Jesus’s resurrection.

I) Lüdemann: Notes that historical research can and must disentangle various traditions.

J) O’Collins: O’Collins lists four historical rules: (1) normal physical observation, (2) empirical causality, (3) an intelligible object, and (4) analogy to other historical events.

K) Price: “Whether this or that item in the gospels is authentic must be settled case by case, and on the basis of appropriate historiographical criteria.”

L) Samuel: Holds that to say something is a fact means that it is true in this sense: “The historian has as immediate a relation with facts as has the scientist. If facts are true statements then they are no further removed from the historian than they are from the scientist.” To perceive that there is a cat on a mat “is not the fact, but the evidence that enables me to assert the fact. . . . But in examining the evidence I would not be viewing the fact. In each case [i.e., science, history, or personal acquaintance] I am doing precisely the same thing, examining the evidence for asserting a fact, i.e. for making a true statement. Facts, therefore, are no more inaccessible to the historian, philosophically or metaphysically speaking, than they are to anyone else for the sole reason that facts are not special kinds of objects in the external world but true statements.” Samuel adds that our senses yield one kind of evidence among a myriad of others that is not “more privileged.” Thus, historical facts can provide us with solid facts, and it is false to suggest that they are somehow unknown because we do not have access to the past.

M) Staudinger: Proposes three steps of historical method: (1) what, (2) how, and (3) consider the context. He also offers two kinds of untrustworthy material: (1) when the writer has proven himself untrustworthy and (2) when the data “completely contradict all other experience.”

N) Wright: States that historical events are “essentially public.”

2. Definitions

A) History

(1) Davis: Davis suggests history could be described as events that actually happened in the past that historians seek to discern.

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman contends that history is what can be demonstrated to have occurred by the evidence.

(3) Goergen: Goergen says that history can have two primary meanings: an event that “actually happened” or an event that is scientifically verifiable by the historian.

(4) Johnson: For Johnson, history is the conclusion of “critical analysis and creative imagination” and there is a construction of history, though the construction occurs within constraints (presumably of the evidence). There are at least two stages for Johnson, as noted above. The first is critical analysis of the available evidence from the past. The second is to create a narrative that properly explains the evidence.

(5) Tabor: Tabor argues that history is not simply the collection of facts or evidence but is also an imaginative explanation of how those facts can be explained. He adds, somewhat confusingly, that history should not just be an academic endeavor but should be moving to our hearts as well.

(6) Wright: Wright defines history in such a way as to avoid making it only a collection of facts or relativistic interpretations. Instead, it is a narrative of past events and the intentions of the actors within those events. This can, and should, be done with the historian’s point of view in mind (historians should not pretend to be neutral observers). History as event and record is also discussed by Wright.

B) Historians

(1) Dunn: Holds that historians should seek to explain what happened, why it happened, and “why it happened in the way it did.” Additionally, historians should avoid the temptation to treat history as a “science” or as “neutral.”

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that historians use the available evidence to determine and then state, the best that they can, what most likely occurred. He also notes that there will be occasions where the evidence is insufficient for historians to decide one way or another.

(3) Wright: Wright again notes that historians must do more than just state facts, because they also must bring them into coherent connection with one another. This is often done through narratives or stories.

C) Historiography

(1) Johnson: Johnson defines the “making of history” as historiography.

D) The Past

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman defines the past as simply every event that has happened before the present.

3. Limits

A) General Comments

(1) Barnett: Barnett warns against historians being too prideful and that such pride is not appropriate for historians.

(2) Dunn: Dunn points out that the limitations of history created something of an emergency for some in the faith because it “challenged the certainty of faith” (see “Fear of Uncertainty” later in this subsection). Dunn contends that some are tempted by the “lust of certainty,” which ultimately takes one to forms of fundamentalism. Moreover, most things in life are not certain, and we are perfectly okay with that. Elsewhere, Dunn makes mention of those who are cautious of history because it only yields probabilities rather than certainties.

(3) Johnson: Similar to Barnett, Johnson contends that historians should be humble.

(4) Tabor: Tabor recommends that historians should avoid absolutizing their conclusions. He adds that being humble is a necessary virtue for historians.

(5) Wright: Wright argues along the lines of Dunn and notes that there were several historical approaches that were created precisely to avoid history.

B) History Alone Is Limited

(1) Various Scholars: Various scholars recognize that one cannot approach the resurrection in a neutral or totally historical fashion. This is because it always involves interpretation. Or, because it involves faith of some sort. There must be something else in addition to the “abstract content” of the resurrection alone; other factors are involved.

(2) Carnley: States that history does have some value. But it is still inconclusive when it comes to the resurrection.

(3) Goergen: Claims history is probable, but we still cannot press it too far.

(4) Ladd: Holds that historical research on the resurrection is important and does have some value.

(5) O’Collins: States that history by itself doesn’t initiate grace or faith because of affects in the real world.

(6) Robinson: John A. T. Robinson says history is needed but not sufficient for Christian belief.

(7) Wilckens: Similar to Robinson, historical research is necessary but insufficient.

C) Worldviews, Subjectivity, and Historical Knowledge

(1) Various Scholars: Various scholars recognize that the subjective side is present but hold that investigation can proceed anyway. Various scholars have similarly recognized that total objectivity and facts without interpretation are impossible or nonexistent.

(2) Allison: Allison identifies that we interpret evidence by our own worldview. It seems, at times, that Allison understands worldviews in a somewhat deterministic sense.

(3) Beilby and Eddy: Beilby and Eddy suggest that worldview issues have the greatest impact when discussing Jesus historically, and even more so with miracles.

(4) Davis: Davis notes that there are no wholly uninterpreted events or evidence, and our worldviews play a role in the interpretation of the events and evidence. For apologetics, a hard miracle is one that directly challenges or confronts a worldview, specifically a naturalistic worldview.

(5) Dunn: Dunn suggests that within the Synoptics we cannot separate the disciples’ memories (and biases) from the events they describe to an “objective” (neutral?) truth. See also Dunn’s comments on event, data, and fact.

(6) Johnson: Johnson notes that history is limited by the available sources. Our sources are filled with the writers’ biases that need to be disentangled as well. Nevertheless, this is what we must work with when studying the past. He also notes that our knowledge of many past events only comes from one source, and that this is normal.

(7) Neill and Wright: They point out that historians hold philosophical views that can affect their work, occasionally negatively. Accordingly, historians should remain open to differing views and, when it comes to studying Jesus, they should especially remain open regarding definitions of natural and supernatural.

(8) Tabor: Like Davis, Tabor holds that data are never devoid of interpretation and there are no neutral positions. We need to be especially aware of worldviews and biases when studying Jesus.

(9) Wright: Wright notes that it is “impossible” to have an objective (presumably neutral) position to examine the data. He expresses a problem with not thoroughly answering naturalistic theories. Wright says he has responded to them but admits he has not thoroughly answered them. There appear to be, for Wright, historical limitations of explanation due to one’s worldview.

D) History Is Probable and Provisional, Not Certain

(1) General Comments

(a) Various Scholars: Various scholars have identified probability as the historian’s guide.

(b) Dunn: Dunn notes that scholars and historians use language along a spectrum (e.g., very probable, probable, not probable). Moreover, due to the fact that new evidence or information could be discovered at any moment, these conclusions are always held provisionally. Dunn provides some helpful extended discussion on this subject. He notes that the facts of the historian are ultimately “an interpretation of the data.” If there is more evidence, one can be more confident, but where there is less evidence, then the historian should be more restrained. We could say that the minimal facts are part of the historical conclusions where we can be more confident regarding these events. Dunn also provides the example of World War II as only being probable and provisional, despite ample and overwhelming evidence. Elsewhere, Dunn argues for historical probabilities that are dependent upon the available evidence. Dunn notes that this creates a challenge for those who wish or want there to be certainty when it comes to faith; faith is not merely intellectual assent to certain cold facts. This is especially the case for evangelicals according to Dunn. Dunn then goes on to point out that if God did reveal himself in the person of Jesus and this happened in space-time (i.e., history), then Christians should want to look closely into the history here. He notes that they should be critical in the sense of treating the data seriously and accurately. The same would seem to be the case for any honest inquirer.

(c) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that all the historian has is probabilities. Ehrman then goes on to give some examples of how this works with ordinary events today (e.g., a minor car crash).

(d) Johnson: Johnson notes some of the intrinsic epistemic limitations of history.

(e) Pannenberg: Pannenberg similarly notes that historical claims all come with the possibility of dispute.

(f) Tabor: Tabor reminds his readers that historians must resist absolutizing their conclusions and narratives.

(g) Wright: Wright provides some general comments on the fact that the nature of historical knowledge is always probable and never certain.

(2) Provisional

(a) Barnett: Barnett argues that history is always provisional because new evidence could be discovered.

(b) Dunn: Dunn similarly points out the provisional nature of history. He also provides the example of World War II as only being probable and provisional, despite ample and overwhelming evidence.

(c) Johnson: Johnson notes that historians revise their positions when new evidence is presented that forces the historian to change.

(d) Tabor: Tabor acknowledges that he, along with other good historians, is open to being corrected or revising his views in light of new evidence and arguments.

(3) Fear of Uncertainty

(a) Dunn: Dunn points out that the limitations of history created something of an emergency for some in the faith. The reason is that it “challenged the certainty of faith.” He contends that liberal Christians left history in favor of an area that could not be touched by probabilities and stayed in the realm of certainty. Dunn then notes that this move forgets to ask whether the faith had anything to do with certainty or whether we should expect it at all in things pertaining to the faith. This type of faith is open to questions and cannot be beyond questioning. Dunn indicates some are tempted by the “lust of certainty,” and this takes one to forms of fundamentalism. Moreover, most things in life are not certain, and we are perfectly okay with that. Dunn agrees with Thiselton and Galloway that probable knowledge is consistent with a trusting faith. Elsewhere, Dunn makes mention of those who are cautious of history because it only yields probabilities rather than certainties.

(b) Wright: Wright argues that several historical approaches were created by scholars to avoid history. This was possibly done in case a historical question arose that could lead to historical answers that would challenge their theology (e.g., making Jesus in their own image).

E) Adequate Historical Knowledge

(1) Barnett: Barnett notes how history, ancient or modern, is always incomplete (e.g., not exhaustive) to some degree.

(2) Pannenberg: States that Christianity must not be separated from the knowledge of past events.

(3) Wright: Wright notes the important relationship between history and faith, including how history can help faith.

F) Sources

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman discusses the various types of sources historians want.

(2) Johnson: Johnson notes that history is limited upon the available sources. Our sources are also filled with the writers’ biases that need to be disentangled as well. Nevertheless, this is what we have to work with when studying the past. He also notes that our knowledge of many events only comes from one source and that this is normal.

G) Selection

(1) Dunn: Dunn argues similar to Johnson (see below) that the data we have is selected by those who chose what to write about what they believed to have been valuable. Accordingly, they come from a specific context that affects how and why these events were written about.

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that Paul was obviously selective in his writings because they served his specific purpose and intentions.

(3) Johnson: Johnson points out those elements that are perceived to have societal significance are those that are recorded in our literary sources from the past. Few events rise to the level of being recorded for future historical investigation. Even in, for example, the multitudes of evidence we have for the American Revolution, not everything is recorded (e.g., soldiers shaving).

(4) Wright: Wright writes that it is clear upon a quick reflection that history requires selection. There are multitudes of events, but one cannot say everything, and even this selection process comes with an element of subjective interpretation.

H) Cannot Predict

(1) Johnson: Johnson points out that history is descriptive, not prescriptive. He thinks historians are “severely limited” as guides for decisions in the present.

I) Burden of Proof

(1) Sources Are Innocent until Proven Guilty

(a) Twelftree: Twelftree notes that some people approach historical issues from the viewpoint that a text is innocent until proven guilty. Twelftree, however, ultimately takes the heavier burden of proof position in his book (i.e., guilty until innocent) to be as convincing as possible to his readers.

(2) Guilty until Proven Innocent

(a) Akenson: Akenson contends that we should not accept an event as having occurred without positive evidence and that this presumption is the same in secular history as it is in religious history.

(b) Twelftree: As noted above, Twelftree takes this higher standard of proof to convince more readers. He adds some important nuances to this view. For example, just because an event cannot be shown to have occurred, it does not follow that the event did not occur. In short: it is unacceptable for one to move from “unproven” to “disproven.”

B. Criteria

1. General Comments

A) Dunn: Dunn notes that few are wholly satisfied with the various historical criteria.

B) Ehrman: Although Ehrman does not think the New Testament Gospels are particularly reliable and cannot be taken at face value, he does hold that historical criteria can help us know what parts are more likely to be historical.

C) Meier: Meier notes that some scholars dismiss issues of method and criteria but points out that every scholar—whether they acknowledge it or not—uses some historical methods. Historical criteria, ideally, help minimize distortions of our biases. Meier is concerned that without method, one can have predetermined conclusions; but at the same time, one’s method can just as easily stack the deck in favor of conclusions that the quester is seeking (e.g., no miracles a priori).

2. Criteria Must Be Appropriate

A) Purves: Purves notes that the criteria need to be appropriate to the subject matter.

B) Wright: Wright similarly notes that different disciplines have different tools and criteria that are proper to their object of study, and the same is true for history.

3. Summaries

A) Borg: Borg discusses multiple attestation, early coherence, and the possible additional development of traditions.

B) Craig: Craig considers McCullagh’s views regarding historical descriptions (which are criteria for historical explanations, not authenticity).

C) Dunn: Dunn cites several criteria that Perrin and others offer. These include Perrin (dissimilarity, coherence, multiple attestation), Jeremias (Aramaic forms), Meier (embarrassment), Theissen (plausibility), Strecker (development), Patterson (memorability), and Porter (Greek language and context, textual variance, and discourse).

D) Ehrman: He briefly highlights three criteria: context, multiple attestation, and discontinuity.

E) Evans: Defines seven criteria and applies them to Gospel miracle accounts.

F) Funk: Funk mentions a few criteria, but especially multiple attestation.

G) Goergen: Goergen mentions four criteria: multiple attestation, “cross purposes” (seems like embarrassment), “dissimilarity or distinctiveness,” and Aramaic sayings.

H) Meier: Meier uses five main criteria (embarrassment, multiple attestation, discontinuity, coherence, Jesus’s rejection and execution) and other minor and weaker criteria (Aramaic language, consistency with first-century Palestinian environment, vivid and concrete nature of a narrative).

I) O’Collins: He mentions multiple attestation, dissimilarity/discontinuity, and coherence.

J) Osborne: Osborne gives a list of nine criteria.

K) Stein: Stein discusses eight different criteria.

L) Twelftree: Twelftree looks at around eighteen criteria and provides his own nuances to some of them.

M) Wright: Wright defines and comments upon “double similarity and double dissimilarity.”

4. Early

A) General Comments

(1) Barnett: “It follows logically that the sources closest to the event or person in question, in particular eyewitness sources, are of special interest.”

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that historians prefer earlier sources. He points out that the reason for this is that early sources allow less time for the story to change.

B) Concerns and Limitations

(1) Crossley: Crossley briefly notes that early does not automatically mean accurate.

5. Eyewitness

A) General Comments

(1) Barnett: As noted above, Barnett stresses that eyewitness reports are of “special interest.”

B) Ancient

(1) Bauckham: Bauckham notes the importance of witnessing firsthand an event in ancient history rather than hearing secondhand about an event (although hearing is important too). The authors of the Gospels, like other Greco-Roman writers, were concerned to have eyewitness reports when possible or available.

C) Concerns and Limitations

(1) Callahan: Callahan curiously points out that two witnesses who give widely divergent testimonies “would have to be discounted.” Is this actually a good historical method?

(2) Martin: Martin points out that various experiments from psychology have shown eyewitnesses to be unreliable.

6. Multiple Independent Attestation

A) General Comments

(1) Craig: Craig utilizes multiple attestation when discussing Jesus’s resurrection.

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman stresses the importance of multiple attestation and explains its value as “corroborating evidence.” Elsewhere Ehrman notes that there are at least five sources in the Gospels (Q, Mk, M, L, and John) and then briefly assesses multiple independent attestation. Ehrman notes several examples where multiple attestation is particularly relevant.

(3) Jesus Seminar: The Jesus Seminar refers to multiple sources, contexts, and forms that make it possible to isolate material that is older than the written Gospels.

(4) Johnson: Johnson believes multiple attestation to have “greater significance” than the criterion of dissimilarity.

(5) Meier: Meier summarizes the criterion of multiple attestation.

B) Only Adds Probability

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that this criterion only shows what is “more likely” to be historical and cannot show what is likely to be unhistorical. It can only add probability.

C) Concerns and Limitations

(1) Dunn: Dunn wonders if multiple attestation is a factor in some instances between Mark and Q because they could go back to a single source.

(2) Johnson: Johnson notes that, for various reasons, it was normal in the ancient world to only have a single report, not the exception.

7. Prefer Disinterested Unbiased Sources

A) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that it is certainly preferable if a source is disinterested, but such sources are obviously not very interested in writing about things that do not interest them. Accordingly, we have to take the biases of our sources, which are normal and expected, into account. Biased sources are not automatically unreliable.

8. Embarrassment

A) General Comments

(1) Craig: Craig applies the criterion of embarrassment to the historical events surrounding Jesus’s resurrection.

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman connects embarrassment with dissimilarity by saying Christians would not have invented, for example, Jesus growing up in Nazareth or being baptized.

(3) Jesus Seminar: The Jesus Seminar notes that certain texts are softened due to being them being “hard” for early Christians.

(4) Meier: Meier summarizes and explains this criterion and how it reflects events that are unlikely to have been invented.

(5) Twelftree: Twelftree argues that some events have been “greatly enhanced” because of their embarrassing nature. Twelftree adds that this criterion only adds probability and that if a saying is embarrassing, then it is considered more likely.

B) Limitations

(1) Dunn: Dunn seems to note a limited use of embarrassing texts that face problems similar to dissimilarity.

9. Coherence

A) General Comments

(1) Craig: Craig applies the criterion of coherence to the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection.

(2) Meier: Meier summarizes this criterion and the nuances involved regarding its application. Notably he points out that this criterion can only be applied after a series of other historical events have been demonstrated so that an assessment can be made as to whether the event in question coheres or not with these other events.

B) Examples

(1) Dunn: Dunn notes the coherence of Gal 1:17 with Acts 9, 22, and 26.

C) Concerns and Limitations

(1) Dunn: Notes some limitations with coherence that revolve around various incoherencies in everyday life.

(2) Riches: In the context of analyzing Ben Meyer’s Aim of Jesus, Riches notes the limits of coherency: “If such data were part of a coherent yet erroneous picture that the early church had developed of Jesus’s life and ministry, they would also satisfy Meyer’s test of a good hypothesis.”

10. Context (Similar to Coherence)

A) General Comments

(1) Craig: Craig applies contextual consistency to the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection.

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman emphasizes that events reported must “conform” to the context of the times and places the events are said to have occurred. He writes that some of the later noncanonical Gospels clearly fail to place Jesus in a proper sociohistorical context.

B) Only Adds Improbability

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman points out that this criterion makes an event more improbable if it is not met.

11. Dissimilarity

A) General Comments

(1) Craig: Craig applies dissimilarity to the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection.

(2) Ehrman: Though dissimilarity is similar to embarrassment, Ehrman notes that this is the “most controversial criterion.” See 11.B(1), below.

(3) Meier: Meier briefly summarizes the criterion of discontinuity (also known as dissimilarity).

B) Example

(1) Ehrman: Bart Ehrman connects embarrassment with dissimilarity and argues that Christians would not have invented Jesus growing up in Nazareth or his baptism. Additionally, Ehrman notes Jesus’s prediction of his death as a counterexample or something Christians would want to make up. He provides other examples that pass this criterion, such as Jesus being baptized by John, Judas’s betrayal, and the crucifixion (although these appear to be more in line with embarrassment).

C) Historical Background

(1) Dunn: Dunn notes that this criterion first became popular when used by Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann, although it was Norman Perrin who effectively developed it, and that only the sayings that could be shown to fit this criterion would be considered historical.

D) Dealing with Bias

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman states that the point of this criterion is that it takes into account the biases of the source. Although not in the same context, Ehrman notes that it is best if a source is disinterested. He adds that bias is in most sources and therefore needs to be considered within our sources as well. He notes, of course, that just because a source is biased does not prevent it from providing historically accurate information. Stories that clearly do not serve the purposes of the person telling them are good indicators, for Ehrman, that the source is disinterested.

E) Only Adds Probability

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman argues that this criterion only adds probability.

F) Concerns and Limitations

(1) Dunn: Dunn notes that if this criterion were consistently applied, then the Jesus revealed in the sources would be a “strange creature” since he would not fit in the cultural context of the day. He also wonders whether we know enough about ancient Judaism and Christianity to properly utilize this criterion effectively. Dunn argues that it is “obvious” that Jesus’s teachings would have impacted the disciples, which makes this criterion unhelpful, as does the fact that it can only add historical probability to a very limited number of events.

(2) Ehrman: Like Dunn, Ehrman thinks it is clear that Jesus’s teachings would have impacted and influenced the disciples such that they would have accurately reported at least some of these teachings. He also, similar to Dunn, wonders if we know enough about early Christianity to be able to confidently contend what is dissimilar to it.

(3) Twelftree: Twelftree similarly notes the limitations of this criterion for assessing important characteristics of Jesus.

12. Double Similarity

A) Wright: Wright argues that the criterion of dissimilarity should be considered double similarity, which contends that if an event is consistent or credible within ancient Judaism and Christianity, then it is likely to be connected to the historical Jesus.

13. Principle of Analogy

A) General Comments

(1) Dunn: Dunn notes Ernst Troeltsch’s use of analogy and that he meant events that were similar to the present and consistent with “contemporary” science. Dunn adds that it was a common historical approach in “nineteenth-century Romantic historiography.”

B) Jesus’s Resurrection

(1) Dunn: Dunn notes the challenges of Jesus’s resurrection as it relates to fitting into an analogy. Rather, the event is “paradigmatic” and is defining for other events. He finds creation to be the closest category of event.

C) Concerns and Limitations

(1) Twelftree: Twelftree notes that one’s worldview is more tempted to impose itself with this principle because it limits potential historical events to those that are only considered possible by their own experiences.

14. Aramaisms

A) General Comments

(1) Meier: Meier notes that this is one of his “secondary” criteria, as Aramaisms seem to add to historicity when (or if) there are other criteria that are also met.

(2) Ehrman: Notes that the popularity of this criterion has varied over recent decades.

B) Concerns and Limitations

(1) Dunn: Dunn notes that a challenge with this criterion is that it cannot differentiate between Aramaisms from Jesus’s own speech or those of the Aramaic-speaking authors of the Gospels.

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman notes a similar concern regarding this criterion.

15. First-Century Palestinian Environment

A) Meier: Similar to his claims regarding context above, Meier summarizes this criterion and considers it to be among the “secondary criteria.”

16. Jesus’s Rejection and Execution

A) Meier: Holds that this is a unique criterion and exclusive to historical Jesus studies. This criterion states that an event (words or deeds) should fit into Jesus’s larger ministry that led to his eventual crucifixion. This criterion is somewhat similar to coherence. (It is also sort of a response to those who have made Jesus so acceptable to all that he never would have been crucified.)

17. Triple Greek Criteria

A) Dunn: Dunn briefly comments upon Stanley Porter’s triple Greek criteria (context, variance, and discourse). He adds that there are some limitations to this criteria and observes some seriously disputed components.

18. Simplicity

A) Wright: Wright puts forward the criterion of simplicity as it relates to problems of verification and when evidence is limited.

19. Ad Hoc

A) Craig: Maintains that this is not quite the same as the criteria for authenticity but has more to do with examining historical explanations in general (cf. C. B. McCullagh). Craig evaluates the resurrection and regards it as ad hoc with respect to God as well as other hypotheses and whether or not they are vulnerable to the charge.

20. Vivid Details

A) Meier: Meier considers this a “weaker” criterion (he notes that others consider it “useless”).

21. Contradiction or Consistency

A) Dunn: Dunn refers to Hermann Reimerus’s criterion, which is based upon various assumptions of his day (the criterion argued that texts that contradict each other and known natural laws are questionable).

22. Necessity

A) Dunn: States that a second criterion of Hermann Reimarus’s day was that of “necessity,” which means that an event must reveal knowledge that cannot be obtained by reason while being necessary to account for the data. Yet Reimarus notes that a there are instances of so-called revelation that contradict one another.

23. Correlation

A) Dunn: Dunn points out Troeltsch’s use of correlation and the interconnection of various events. Accordingly, no individual event can be understood apart from these other interrelationships. (Dunn also notes that included in this is the closed Newtonian system as commonly understood during the Enlightenment.)

24. Highly Theological Means Less Historical

A) Ehrman: Though more of a principle than a criterion for Ehrman, he holds that reports that contain highly theological descriptions should be considered less reliable. He says this because, generally, later texts are more theological than earlier sources. Thus, for Ehrman, the Gospels of John and Thomas are of less historical value.

25. Satire

A) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that the genre of satire, in theory, seeks to joke about something that is widely known or believed. Accordingly, beliefs that satire ridicules are likely to be held.

C. History as a Science

1. General Comments

A) Dunn: Dunn notes that a “scientific paradigm to history” has had a major effect on the quest for the historical Jesus. This meant that historians started to understand their role as analogous to those in the physical sciences (creating hypotheses, etc.). This scientific understanding began to be integrated into historical Jesus studies in and around the nineteenth century. Some scholars have been inappropriately overconfident in understanding history as a science by thinking that they have now become neutral or unbiased.

B) Johnson: Johnson curiously comments that history is a “descriptive science” but is simultaneously severely limited in making predictions.

2. Assumptions of Science

A) Dunn: For Dunn, the same assumptions that were common to nineteenth-century physical science are still present in scholarship today. He lists four assumptions made in historical research that were also made, according to Dunn, in the field of physical science. This has led to a naive overconfidence, especially as it relates to objectivity and neutrality.

B) Russell: Russell notes at least two assumptions accepted in science. The first is that “at its most fundamental level, the future will be just like the past (or what one can call ‘the argument from analogy’).” The second one is that the “same laws of nature that govern the past and present will govern the future as well (or what one can call ‘nomoloical universality’).”

D. Bias

1. General Comments

A) Barnett: Barnett briefly notes the benefits of being aware of our own biases as well as those of others. Nobody is immune from having various subjective elements in when assessing the past.

B) Beilby and Eddy: Beilby and Eddy state that most historical Jesus scholars are aware of the danger of our biases and that such biases can turn to distorting prejudice.

C) Davis: Davis does not think there are “uninterpreted” experiences and holds that our worldviews play a significant role in the interpretation process. In other words, our worldviews, to an extent, affect how we interpret evidence and data.

D) Dunn: Essentially, much of part 1 of Dunn’s work is used to show the positives of postmodernism and the negatives of modernism. For example, Dunn notes the illusion of objectivity. He does not think that the impact of one’s bias can be “exaggerated.” Indeed, there are very few that are unbiased or objective. Historians should not only be aware of their sources’ biases but their own as well. Recognizing this and taking it into account is one of the skills of good historians. Dunn notes that one’s thoughts, comments, and actions are best understood within a worldview, not despite a worldview. He adds, however, that our subjective qualities do not prevent us from having objectively true knowledge about the past. Dunn adds that neither Hermann Reimarus nor David Friedrich Strauss wrote an “objective history.” Rather, they each wrote their own “ideology” and are thus “cautionary reminders” that scholarship cannot simply be critical of its sources; it needs to be “self-critical” as well. Dunn helpfully reminds us that modern “historians, of course, are hardly less biased, tendentious and rhetorical (endeavoring to persuade) in their reconstructions and portrayals of characters and events than ancient historians.” Dunn notes that our subjective qualities do not prevent us from having objectively true knowledge about the past. Accordingly, that the Gospel writers also had perspectives from which they wrote should not be a surprise. Dunn makes this point elsewhere as well.

E) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that that one cannot live without having some sort of presuppositions (e.g., worldview).

F) Habermas: Habermas notes that it is an undeniable fact that everyone has a worldview that colors their understanding of reality.

G) Johnson: Johnson observes the different levels at which bias can not only affect historians, their sources, and their selection of sources or what is recorded. All sources are ultimately biased in some way (though not necessarily in a way that prevents us from knowing the past).

H) Neill and Wright: These two, like Ehrman and Habermas, note that it is impossible to live without presuppositions and that these should be properly taken into account.

I) Tabor: Although Tabor does not appear to suggest that one cannot know historical facts, he does say that all facts are interpreted by our historical-cultural and subjective backgrounds. He seems to conflate neutrality with objectivity as well. He rightly says historians need to be aware of their own biases and thinks it is impossible to avoid having our historical-cultural settings affect our historical assessments.

J) Twelftree: States that it is impossible for a human historian to be detached or neutral when writing history. It is precisely our experiences that enable us to properly write about the past. Twelftree notes that what we believe to be possible is guided, maybe even determined, by our cultures.

K) Wright: Wright notes that all history is biased, but he means this in a way that should be distinguished from being prejudiced. He uses the analogy of a photograph to illustrate how one could be biased and still give a truthful and objective description (even if it is limited). “The fact that a human mind has to organize and arrange the material does not ‘falsify’ the history. This is simply what ‘history’ is.” Wright stresses that “it must be asserted most strongly that to discover that a particular writer has a ‘bias’ tells us nothing whatever about the value of the information he or she presents. It merely bids us be aware of the bias (and of our own, for that matter).” Wright observes three aspects about our process of knowing: (1) nobody can see the world as God does (i.e., exhaustively), but only from a human viewpoint; (2) we interpret events through a variety of subjective factors; and (3) there are no neutral perspectives. Interestingly, he adds that the issues for historians start when they think they are writing from a neutral or detached point of view. Wright points out that ancient historians like Thucydides also had biases. However, his biases do not automatically invalidate his reports and did not prevent him from having knowledge of the past.

2. Assumptions and Presuppositions

A) Ehrman: Ehrman notes a number of assumptions that are made by historians, such as that past events did actually occur and events can be known to various degrees of probability, among others.

B) Dunn: Dunn argues that the historical-critical method dominated the quest for the historical Jesus for 150 years and notes four assumptions it makes that prove to be its undoing in recent years. These include (1) history is analogous to the natural sciences and equally objective; (2) the historian can be completely neutral; (3) human reason alone is the final arbiter of truth; and (4) Newton’s physics were assumed to have various implications for causes and effects.

3. Dogmatic Considerations

A) Dunn: Dunn notes the concern for some regarding the probabilistic nature of history. He believes that those who desire certainty will be “uncomfortable” with this, but Dunn’s point seems to apply to religious dogma as much as antireligious dogma.

B) Peterson: “Jesus did not use his resurrection to bully people into worship or discipleship.”

C) Purves: Purves notes that we should not be coerced by “imperialist philosophical aggression.” He also notes that “trust cannot be compelled, only invited.”

4. Deciding between Worldviews

A) Davis: Davis states that he is not a relativist when it comes to worldviews and that one worldview can be shown to be superior to another worldview, but he finds both theistic and naturalistic positions rational.

B) Wright: Wright points out that worldviews “can themselves in principle be dug out and inspected.” He notes that the issue of Jesus’s resurrection challenges people at the worldview level.

5. Ideal of Objectivity and Neutrality

A) General Comments

(1) Barnett: Barnett warns that “blatant prejudice evident in manipulation of evidence will meet fierce scorn from reviewers and likely loss of academic reputation.” One must seek to be objective, and if there is evidence contrary to one’s biases or worldviews, then it should not be suppressed or manipulated. To do so would be to move from having a bias to prejudice.

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman makes a comment similar to Barnett that historical inquiries should be done without prejudice and with an effort to be objective.

(3) Johnson: Johnson points out that historians must revise their views in light of the data. They cannot simply impose their views and should allow evidence that opposes their views to have its say.

B) Impossible Yet Sought

(1) Barnett: Barnett argues that we can be aware of our biases while still seeking the ideal of objectivity and that empathy and objectivity are not mutually exclusive.

C) Admission of Bias

(1) General Comments

(a) Barnett: See B) (1), just above.

(b) Wright: Wright acknowledges the importance of confessing one’s bias, and does so himself.

(2) Importance of Knowing an Author’s Bias

(a) Ehrman: Ehrman states that it is important to know an author’s bias and to assess his or her claims accordingly. Statements that support an author’s bias are not automatically wrong but should be considered carefully.

(b) Neill and Wright: They state how important it is to know our own presuppositions as well as the ones held by those whom we are reading so we can take into account their potentially “distorting influences.”

6. Philosophy of Historiography

A) Beilby and Eddy: These two state that many recent historical Jesus scholars have provided statements that illustrate they are trying to be self-critical and reflective regarding their historical method, but they leave out a deeper interaction with the philosophical underpinnings for their views.

B) Johnson: Johnson notes that some scholars too quickly discuss history while ignoring historiography and deeper questions.

E. Interpretation

1. General Comments

A) Davis: Davis stresses that interpretation is ubiquitous.

B) Dunn: Dunn stresses that what historians mean by “facts” is the interpretation of data. Historical questions quickly become interpretation questions. For Dunn, the issue of hermeneutics is far too often ignored or not acknowledged in these historical and worldview discussions. “Unless the interdependence of history and hermeneutics is acknowledged, there can be no progress.” Dunn alludes to these points and the importance of interpretation elsewhere.

C) Gundry: Gundry cautions William Lane Craig to be more cautious in his claims about the resurrection and suggests he should use language like it “is reported” that something happened rather than that it did happen. However, this raises another issue because reports involve interpretation, and thus Craig needs even more precision. Gundry later claims that Craig’s argument could be stronger if it didn’t claim so much.

D) Tabor: Like Davis above, Tabor thinks it is impossible to view events without an interpretation.

E) Wright: “All history involves interpretation.” Wright provides a very helpful summary on how meaning is found within a worldview. Throughout part 2 of The New Testament and the People of God, he also notes that an impartial or neutral observer is impossible.

2. Combination of Objective and Subjective

A) Bauckham: “All history . . . is an inextricable combination of fact and interpretation.”

B) Dunn: Dunn offers some comments on the relationship between the objective and subjective elements related to our knowledge of the past and historians (both modern and ancient). Dunn points out that critical realism was developed by Ben Meyer, who was influenced by Bernard Lonergan.

C) Wright: Wright is a critical realist who synthesizes elements of objectivity and subjectivity. For him, history cannot simply be uninterpreted data, but neither is it wholly subjective. There should be a dialogue of the objective data and the subjective position or perspective. Ultimately, he rejects (and thinks others should too) such clear-cut categories of objective and subjective. He contends that far more nuance is needed.

3. Critical Realism

A) Dunn: Dunn discusses the synthesis of objectivity and subjectivity in critical realism.

B) Twelftree: Twelftree notes his acceptance of the critical realist approach, which seeks to argue for the real past while also being critical of the historian’s biases (and sources). Thus, there is an interplay between real knowledge of past events that is filtered through one’s worldviews.

C) Wright: Wright uses critical realism heavily and unpacks the relationship between objective historical knowledge and the subjective inquirer. N. T. Wright comments on the process of critical realism and the ability to determine historical facts by “Hypothesis and Verification.” Wright comments on the importance of worldviews. But worldviews can be tested.

4. Interpretation, History, and Resurrection

A) Dunn: Dunn argues that the facts of resurrection, empty tomb, and appearances (death?) are actually “reports.” Accordingly, if “historical facts are interpretations of data, then the historical facts in this case, properly speaking, are at best the fact of the empty tomb, and the fact that disciples saw Jesus.” One does wonder how much “interpretation” occurs when seeing a tomb empty and how this relates to a fact. (Explanations as to why the tomb was empty would be a separate question.)

5. Historical Explanations

A) Summaries and Distinctions

(1) Craig: Craig considers McCullagh’s views regarding historical descriptions.

(2) Riches: Riches notes the difference, following Gilbert Ryle’s (1900–1976) distinction, between thin and thick descriptions. Thin descriptions say the facts of the matter (an eyelid twitching) while thick descriptions describe the significance of an action within a specific context (an eyelid twitching is significant when it occurs as a wink). Thin descriptions do not go far enough alone. Cf. E. D. Hirsch’s distinctions on meaning and significance in his Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967).

6. Selection

A) Wright: Wright notes and briefly discusses the subjective/interpretive element of selection.

F. History and Postmodernism

1. General Comments

A) Bauckham: He warns against embracing radical forms of postmodern skepticism (especially as it relates to memories). Bauckham is seemingly trying to find a balance between certainty and skepticism regarding one’s memory with Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s Is There a Meaning in This Text? and “adequate knowledge.” He seeks a balance between absolute textual knowledge (modernity) and the absence of any textual meaning aside from what is created by the reader (postmodernity).

B) Beilby and Eddy: These two argue against forms of strong postmodernism while also noting that it does raise some legitimate concerns regarding our biases. Nevertheless, studying the past to learn about Jesus is allowed and necessary for believers, but it should be done with the awareness of the potential postmodern pitfalls.

C) Davis: Davis discusses the nature of history: “realists” versus “constructionists.”

D) Dunn: Part 1 of Dunn’s work is used to show the positives of postmodernism, although he appears to try taking them too far, and the negatives of modernism, which he does not take too far. Dunn summarizes some of the issues of postmodernism as it relates to historical epistemology.

E) Samuel: Covers historical methodology, interpretation, and skeptical theorists like Croce, Collingwood, and Becker.

F) Twelftree: Twelftree provides a brief summary of the transition and explains that it affected historiography as well.

G) Wright: Wright notes the relationship between events and their meanings.

2. Despite Biases and Postmodern Objections, History Is Possible

A) Twelftree: Twelftree points out that it is rather obvious that we can write about true events of the past even though historians write from a perspective (or could have a distorting prejudice).

B) Wright: Wright is emphatic, among others, that we can know the past while also having biases.

G. Ancient and Modern

1. Barnett: Barnett comments on the overt prejudice in ancient and modern texts (especially Josephus). He points out that in ancient history we typically only learn about major figures in history (noting that it is something of a historical accident that we know as much as we do about Pilate). He asserts that historians today can afford to be more precise than ancient historians.

2. Dunn: Dunn writes about the fact that ancient and modern writers both have perspectives and biases.

3. Wright: Wright notes that the ancient historians knew what history was as well as we do, and sometimes better. He references Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, Josephus, Caesar, Tacitus, and, to some extent, Suetonius.

2. FAITH, REASON, AND DOUBT

A. Andrews: Susan Andrews explains that, in seminary, Thomas was her “soul mate.” Although other students kept “meeting” Jesus, she couldn’t understand the resurrection’s absurdities.

B. Brown: The disciples’ doubt is a recurring theme in the Gospels, but maybe there is an apologetic element to it.

C. Craig: After Crossan brought up Thomas, Craig says that Jesus is telling Thomas in the Gospel of John that he ought to have believed the testimony of the other eyewitnesses.

D. Crusemann: Crusemann notes that, according to Luke, resurrection faith comes through the medium of Scripture.

E. Davis: Davis sees Thomas as a good case study for faith.

F. Guenther: Explaining how the resurrected Jesus answered the disciples’ doubts, Guenther states: “He greets our fear and disbelief with loving acceptance, assuring us that he doesn’t mind our questions and our probing.”

G. Heil: States that within John 20 there is a sequence of individuals and groups seeing Jesus, and after the incident with Thomas, “the narrator invites the readers, who have not seen but have the testimony of the signs seen and recorded in the narrative, to believe in Jesus as the Christ and Son of God in order to enjoy eternal life (20:30–31).”

H. Ladd: Holds that history works with faith, not apart from it. But the resurrection apparently cannot be proven. However, history can help confirm faith, which would be affected if a critical thesis could be established. Unlike most ancient religions, biblical revelation is anchored in God’s acts in history, not in cycles of nature.

I. Miller: Makes the repeated point that apologetics is done for insiders only and rarely persuades outsiders. The “facts” that are used are accepted only by that particular group. (Miller appears to use an either/or fallacy in the process by not allowing for the possibility that worldviews and convictions are a factor.) So apologetics typically end in failure. Miller says it is essentially not possible to use arguments to convert people. He doesn’t consider that apologetics is for far more than conversion only.

J. Osborne: Osborne comments on the prominent and repeated “doubt motif” in Gospels like Matthew, Luke, and John.

K. Thielicke: Thielicke points out that, in the incident with doubting Thomas, Jesus “expressly rejects” an approach that “requires confirmation in experience.” However, one cannot say that faith alone suffices either, “for Jesus lets Thomas see and feel!”

L. Wink: “Thomas wants proof; he gets presence.”

3. INTERPRETIVE MODELS OF THE RESURRECTION

A. Aulén: Before looking at four resurrection studies, Aulén notes that many of the historical studies between 1960 and 1975 “have nothing to say” about the resurrection.

B. Badham: Addresses three approaches to the appearances (“traditional” view, spiritual body view, and spiritual/personality continuation).

C. Barton: Stephen Barton surveys “three recent approaches” to the resurrection—those by Elisabeth Fiorenza, Mark Stibbe, and Leslie Houlden.

D. Bibza: There is more agreement than commonly recognized between evangelical and nonevangelicals on aspects of the resurrection.

E. Frei: Frei contrasts four models on the resurrection: (1) like Bultmann’s position, the resurrection is all about the disciples’ faith, not Jesus; (2) the New Testament texts are totally trustworthy without contradiction on the resurrection; (3) the resurrection accounts shouldn’t be taken literally but as teaching a spiritual resurrection; and (4) a basically Barthian position, which Frei apparently takes himself.

F. Goergen: Goergen lists three models: (1) the resurrection isn’t historical; (2) the resurrection is historical; and (3) the resurrection really happened but can’t be proven by historical methods.

G. Loewe: Surveys “a sample of representative positions” on 1970s Christologies and the positions they take on resurrection. Loewe surveys the views of Vawter, O’Collins, Kasper, Sobrino, Kung, and Fuller. Though they differ elsewhere, these scholars agree that the resurrection appearances are “eschatological disclosures.” Loewe raises an additional issue concerning psychological explanations. Then he makes the “tentative suggestion” that “vision” is a historically and psychologically appropriate term, seemingly in terms of its subjective dimensions. (Response: this is a strange, seemingly nonobjective twist at the end, especially given that the surveyed authors don’t even answer the question, as Loewe notes, and the survey was the theme of the article.)

H. Lorenzen: In part 1, Lorenzen contrasts four models: the traditional, liberal, evangelical, and liberation approaches.

I. O’Collins: O’Collins considers six models in his work.

J. Price: Robert Price surveys three approaches to resurrection: the conservative J. W. Montgomery (including his six steps), the liberal Gordon Kaufman, and the moderate Walter Künneth. Price concludes that Künneth is “a happy alternative” and “a refreshing change.” “Künneth makes the resurrection of Christ materially central to theology, and not only formally central as Montgomery does.”

K. Scholla: Scholla considers the resurrection publications of four prominent Anglican scholars: Ramsey, Evans, Fuller, and Carnley.

L. Swenson: Swenson surveys the use of resurrection symbols by twenty-eight pastors and parishioners in the United Church of Christ, with two-thirds of them using “resurrection literally, to denote an afterlife they take to be real.”

M. Ware: Robert Ware surveys a number of contemporary approaches to Jesus’s resurrection: Marxsen, Gogarten, Pannenberg, Kummel, Bultmann, and Weber. Klappert says a more comprehensive approach is needed that moves to other theological aspects. Others viewed include Barth, Moltmann, and Käsemann, who “produced conclusive results.” In part 2, Ware also surveys C. F. Evans, Fuller, Kegel, Léon-Dufour, Rigaux, and Brown.

4. TEXTUAL AND CRITICAL CRITERIA FOR TEXTS

A. Barnett: Barnett mentions that Paul’s writings have a broad textual tradition.

B. Neill and Wright: Regarding the charge that the New Testament texts contain variations, they comment that “there is no need for any alarm” and it is widely agreed that the New Testament text as we have it is what was originally written.

5. FIRST-CENTURY GULLIBILITY

A. Evans: States that one of the main changes in historical Jesus research has been the emergence of considerations regarding the “naive distinctions” between ancient and modern worldviews.

B. Peterson: Peterson holds that some in the ancient world were gullible and some doubted.

C. Sanders: “Sophisticated ancients, like their modern counterparts, dismissed ghosts.” Others were more credulous.

D. Stuhlmacher: Stuhlmacher points out that those in the ancient world are similar to people today: they also were surrounded by friends and opponents. The problem of the resurrected Jesus for those in the ancient world is likewise similar for those today.

6. EXTRABIBLICAL SOURCES FOR JESUS

A. General Comments

1. Ehrman: Ehrman presents at several places the independent sources for the historical Jesus, including extrabiblical sources.

2. Evans: States that the extrabiblical sources hold rather minimal significance but are not unimportant. Some of the extrabiblical sources we have are still helpful. In particular, Tacitus and especially Josephus (the latter because “he is an early and geographically proximate witness”) are the most beneficial in establishing a few clear details about “Jesus’ existence and of the principal features of his life and death.”

3. Funk: Funk thinks there is plentiful evidence for Jesus’s existence. Tacitus and Josephus are important, with the latter confirming the primary aspects of Jesus discussed in historical reconstructions.

4. Hengel: States that Suetonius (and probably Tacitus also) was confused concerning his mention of Chrestus (Claud. 25), but he was evidently still speaking about Jesus.

5. Jesus Seminar: Provides a list of various external sources and their development.

6. Kee: Howard Clark Kee states that many items can be learned about Jesus from extrabiblical sources.

7. Stein: Stein provides a list of both non-Christian and Christian sources outside the New Testament. However, Stein thinks we don’t learn much from them.

B. Non-Christian Extrabiblical Sources

1. General Comments

A) Blomberg: Similar to Funk above, Blomberg holds that if one only used ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, they would have the “broad contours” of Jesus’s life found in works like that of Norman Perrin’s description of the historical Jesus described during the Second Quest.

B) Callahan: Callahan references Suetonius, Tacitus, and Josephus while not considering them very significant.

C) Crossan: Crossan notes the “convergence” between Tacitus and Josephus regarding the start of the Jesus movement, Pilate’s execution of Jesus, and the continuation of the movement all the way to the present.

D) Dunn: Dunn notes some of the fundamental features described by non-Christian sources.

E) Johnson: Johnson also notes the “converging lines of outsider and insider sources.”

2. Pliny Letters 10.96

A) Ehrman: Ehrman notes Pliny’s letter to Trajan (112 CE) as a source for information regarding the historical Jesus, but sees it as one that provides only minimal information. Elsewhere he suggests this is the first pagan reference to Jesus.

3. Tacitus Annals 15.44

A) General Comments

(1) Dunn: In a summary, Dunn accepts Tacitus’s reference to Jesus.

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that Tacitus corroborates what we know about Jesus from other sources. Ehrman seems to like Tacitus as a source, referring to him as the “most useful of all.”

B) Tacitus’s Source

(1) Crossan: Notes that Tacitus did not uncritically copy from Christian sources but drew from common knowledge about Christians.

(2) Dunn: Dunn observes that Tacitus’s description is not overtly Christian, and if it were based on Christian sources, it would reflect this or have some disclaimer (e.g., referring to execution instead of a crucifixion).

(3) Ehrman: Although Tacitus is likely using hearsay rather than historical research, Ehrman discusses Tacitus’s use of the word “procurator” as opposed to “prefect.” This language is one reason why Ehrman doesn’t think Tacitus was utilizing the historical record. He also notes there is no indication that Tacitus read the Gospels.

(4) Johnson: Johnson does not think Tacitus was using the New Testament but holds that he used other sources instead.

C) Not an Interpolation

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman isn’t aware of trained professionals who think this portion of Tacitus is an interpolation, and he also seems to think this is unlikely.

4. Suetonius Claudius 25

A) Dunn: Dunn notes Suetonius’s confusing reference to Chrestus, but scholars tend to think that Suetonius is referring to Christus because it sounds and is spelled very similar. Suetonius provides little information beyond that.

B) Ehrman: Ehrman makes comments similar to Dunn above, including that the reference to Christ (i.e., Chrestus) is a misspelling and Suetonius does not give much information beyond that.

5. Josephus

A) General Comments

(1) Blomberg: Blomberg notes the various points of corroboration from Josephus with the New Testament.

(2) Dunn: Dunn comments on Josephus’s two references to Jesus (Ant. 18.3.3; 20.9.1).

(3) Meier: States that Josephus definitely wrote of Jesus in the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.3.3). On this long portion, Meier points out three clauses that interrupt the flow and are Christian in origin.

(4) Evans: Evans briefly highlights some of the value of Josephus as a source.

(5) Yamauchi: Yamauchi notes that Josephus is our “most important” non-Christian source for Jesus. He then discusses Josephus as a source. Elsewhere, he overviews the issues both with references to Jesus in Josephus and current scholarly opinion on the subject. Yamauchi states that most scholars think there is some interpolation in the long passage (Ant. 18.3.3). He notes the possibility of listing the known facts. He also states that there are few doubts about the James text (Ant. 20.9.1).

B) Josephus’s Biography

(1) Yamauchi: Notes that Josephus fought against the Romans before becoming an “apologist” for them.

C) Josephus Antiquities 18.3 (Josephus concerning Jesus)

(1) Authentic and Inauthentic Portions

(a) Blomberg: Blomberg does not provide a sample quote of what he thinks an authentic version of this text may have looked like. However, he does discuss the elements that cause some to think that portions of it are inauthentic.

(b) Charlesworth: Charlesworth notes that the majority of scholars think this passage in Josephus has been altered, but he states that we can be certain that Josephus referred to Jesus. He also makes some comments regarding the Arabic version.

(c) Dunn: Dunn also believes that there are authentic and inauthentic portions of this text.

(d) Ehrman: Ehrman believes that this text is a mixture of authentic and inauthentic portions. He accepts Meier’s rendering of the passage as the most convincing of recent studies. Elsewhere, Ehrman provides another overview and argues for the usefulness of Josephus as a source and thinks this text has an authentic core.

(e) Evans: Evans notes that most scholars agree there are both authentic and inauthentic portions of this text. He provides an example with italicized sections that could be considered inauthentic. Nevertheless, the main reason for thinking this passage contains authentic material is that it contains a second reference to Jesus.

(f) Yamauchi: Yamauchi notes that the majority of scholars think there is an authentic foundation for this passage.

(2) Josephus on Jesus’s Resurrection

(a) Blomberg: Blomberg notes that Josephus informs us in this text that Jesus was believed to have been resurrected.

(b) Evans: Evans, on the other hand, suggests that Josephus does not mention Jesus’s resurrection.

D) Josephus Antiquities 20.9.1 (Josephus concerning James)

(1) Dunn: States that this passage has rarely been doubted and appears to allude to a prior reference to Jesus.

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman notes the relevance of this passage for historical Jesus studies. Namely, that Jesus had a brother named James, which is also mentioned in the New Testament. This passage also indicates that some people thought Jesus was the Christ.

(3) Evans: Evans notes that there are no strong reasons to reject this passage, as it is not Christian and does not advocate Christian themes. It also reports why Ananus was not the high priest.

(4) Yamauchi: Yamauchi notes that this section has rarely been questioned by scholars.

E) Josephus Antiquities 18.5.2 (Josephus concerning John the Baptist)

(1) Yamauchi: Yamauchi states that this passage has not been questioned and that there are some minor and explainable differences between Josephus’s reporting and the Gospel reports.

F) Josephus’s Source

(1) Crossan: He notes that Josephus did not uncritically copy from Christian sources but drew from common knowledge about Christians.

(2) Johnson: Johnson similarly does not think Josephus was using the New Testament but relied on other sources instead.

6. Rabbinic Tradition

A) Blomberg: Blomberg notes that centuries after Jesus’s death, the Talmud references Jesus in ways that are largely negative (magician, blasphemer, etc.).

B) Dunn: Dunn notes that the “most plausible” reference to Jesus is found in b. Sanhedrin 43a. There are, however, serious difficulties with this text that make it difficult to put much stock in it as a source.

C) Ehrman: Ehrman notes the existence of references to Jesus in rabbinic literature and that scholars find it difficult to use these accounts as historically worthwhile. Elsewhere he also discusses these references to Jesus.

7. Lucian

A) Johnson: Johnson adds Lucian’s Death of Peregrinus 11–13 as a source referring to Jesus.

8. Papyri Graecae Magicae (PGM)

A) Dunn: Dunn references PGM 4.1233 when discussing the use of Jesus’s name.

9. Galen

A) Wright: Wright references Galen, who writes about the obvious fact that Christians lack a fear of death.

C. Christian Extrabiblical Sources

1. Ehrman: Ehrman notes Clement of Rome as a reliable and in-dependent source. He discusses the reliability of Papias and his importance as a source. Ignatius is also a helpful and independent source. Ehrman dates Gos. Thom. to AD 110–120 and believes that some independent information may be in it. He also writes about the possibility that Gos. Pet. contains an independent narrative. Ehrman believes there are four episodes in the Egerton 2 fragment not in the Gospels or other sources. Although he doesn’t necessarily say Barn. is an independent source, Ehrman dates it around AD 135 and notes that it says about as much concerning Jesus as Paul does.

2. Jesus Seminar: The Seminar claims Gos. Thom. reflects an incipient Gnosticism quite comparable to Paul and John. Note their point on the “living Jesus” in Gos. Thom., which may mean the risen Jesus. The Seminar understands the Egerton fragment as an independent tradition and dates the fragment to the first half of the second century. They provide part of the fragment where questioners ask Jesus about paying taxes.

7. THE NEW TESTAMENT AS AN IMPORTANT HISTORICAL SOURCE FOR JESUS

A. Akenson: He ultimately concludes “that the most likely way to gain access to the historical Yeshua—to the limited extent this is possible—is through the canonical New Testament.” Akenson is critical of the Gospel of Peter as well as the hypothetical Cross Gospel and Signs Gospel as historical sources.

B. Ehrman: Ehrman writes that the New Testament sources should be used for studying the historical Jesus.

8. PAUL OFTEN PREFERRED OVER GOSPELS AS A HISTORICAL SOURCE

A. Akenson: Akenson thinks it is “obvious” that one should begin with Paul, who is not only early but provides a good standard for subsequent comparisons. Akenson states that he is surprised to find Paul so often overlooked in historical Jesus studies. Akenson makes some guesses as to why this is the case (e.g., liberals don’t like Paul because he is earlier than Q, or at least could be).

B. Barnett: Barnett lists several reasons for starting with Paul: his writings are early, they are well attested in manuscripts, and they are internal letters. He notes that Paul is also important because he used to be a persecutor of the church. His letters also provide a continuity between the first apostles and the early church.

C. Blackburn: Blackburn, responding to Lauren King, laments the fact that King “marshaled his evidence almost entirely from the accounts recorded in the Gospels” rather than from Paul in 1 Corinthians, “the earliest written testimony to the fact of the resurrection.”

D. Collins: Adela Yarbro Collins points out that in contrast to the problems in Mark (the focus of chapter 5 in her book), “First Corinthians is an important historical source not only because it is early but also because it is written by a participant in the phenomenon under discussion.”

E. Dunn: Paul’s conversion and relationship to the early church should serve as an important “reminder that we should neither ignore these earliest of NT writings, nor start from the assumption that a great gulf is fixed between the Jesus of tradition and Paul.”

F. Eddy: G. T. Eddy writes that Paul “takes us nearer to the original experience than do the more colourful . . . gospels.”

G. Fuller: States that Paul was an eyewitness and personally met with Peter and James. Fuller notes that Paul is our only firsthand witness and report.

H. Goergen: Goergen says that Paul is the “most reliable guide.”

I. Hoover: States the proper place to begin is with Paul because he is the earliest writer and the “most historically reliable.”

J. Lüdemann: Holds that citations of Paul and the Gospels can’t just be mixed and combined; we need to “start with the Pauline witness.” We need to use Paul since he was an eyewitness.

K. Tabor: Stresses the importance of Galatians as providing testimony from an eyewitness of events that go back to the 30s.

L. Wright: Wright points out that we can be confident that Paul’s Letters were written within thirty years of the cross.

9. GENUINE PAULINE WORKS

A. Akenson: Akenson cites the traditional seven undoubtedly Pauline works—Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon—as authentic letters.

B. Barnett: Since he questions none of the traditional seven letters of Paul, it is unclear in the context whether Barnett believes that these are the only genuine Pauline works or just the ones he uses in this specific book. It is probably the latter but, nonetheless, he uses Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and 1 Thessalonian.

C. Callahan: Callahan cites Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. He finds that these writings are “credible.” Earlier in the same work, he adds Ephesians and Colossians to the list: “There is one last historical record to consider. With the exception of the so called Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), the Pauline epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon) are generally seen to be the works of one writer. These letters are dated before the Jewish revolt of 66–70 CE.”

D. Dunn: Dunn notes that the “large” consensus in the “last century” is that there are seven undisputed letters: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Dunn writes that these “can certainly be attributed to Paul himself.” Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are uncertain, but Dunn leans toward Pauline authorship.

E. Ehrman: Ehrman refers to the seven “undisputed” Pauline writings that are widely accepted by scholars: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. He notes that Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians are still debated, while 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are unlikely to be Pauline.

F. Funk: Funk discusses the seven “authentic letters” of Paul: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians (with 1 Corinthians dated “around 54 C.E.”), Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon. Some scholars add two more: 2 Thessalonians and Colossians.

G. Hurtado: He writes about the common seven undisputed Pauline works.

H. Johnson: Johnson writes that many accept seven Pauline Letters: Romans,1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philemon, and Philippians. Debates about Pauline authorship began around the eighteenth century. Since then, there has been wide acceptance of the seven Pauline Letters just mentioned. He notes, conversely, that many reject the Pastoral Epistles. Nevertheless, Johnson views all of Paul’s Letters positively.

I. Martin: Martin contends that four of Paul’s works are “admitted to be genuine by most scholars,” and they are: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. There are others that are “probably or possibly authentic,” and they are Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Colossians.

J. Meyer: Ben Meyer notes “six of the great undisputed letters” and cites 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans. It is unclear whether Meyer includes Philemon as the seventh writing or not.

K. Neill and Wright: They note the traditional books as undisputedly Pauline: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, and Philemon. They argue that Baur’s acceptance of only four of these writings is due to his view of the hostility between the Jewish and gentile (Peter versus Paul) communities.

L. Wells: Notes eight total undisputed Pauline writings, with four “universally accepted as genuinely Pauline” (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians) and three “very probably” (Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon), with one likely (Colossians).

M. Wenham: Wenham observes that six of Paul’s writings are disputed as being his (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus). Wenham adds, on the other hand, that “the case for also regarding 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and even (though more hesitantly) Ephesians as Pauline is quite widely accepted in the scholarly community.”

10. Q SOURCE

A. General Comments

1. Dunn: Dunn believes there is a strong case for Q because of the amount of agreement between the Synoptics. Though he accepts Markan priority, Dunn says he is fine with some version of Q as a document.

2. Meier: States that “Q is only a hypothesis” although it is “reasonable.” Though there are good arguments in favor of Q, Meier remains skeptical. There are a number of “misgivings” and “problems” with a Q community, stages, and other factors.

3. Neill and Wright: They observe that there have been recent challenges to various questions about Q.

4. Perkins: For Perkins, Q’s focus is Jesus’s wisdom.

5. Robinson: James Robinson seems to be raising the possibility that, like Gos. Thom., the entire perspective of Q may be the living Jesus.

6. Wright: Wright is skeptical about what or how much we can know about Q and if it is even a real source. He holds as unwarranted the assumption that Q is a Gospel.

B. Is Jesus’s Resurrection in Q?

1. Dunn: Dunn notes that it is widely accepted that there is no passion narrative in Q. To account for this fact, Dunn suggests that Q took its form before Jesus died.

2. Ehrman: Ehrman notes that most scholars do not believe that Q included an account of Jesus’s death and resurrection, but he thinks it is difficult to know whether it did or not.

3. Funk: States that Gos. Thom. 55 might allude to Jesus’s death.

4. Mack: Holds that there is no mention of any minimal facts in Q.

5. Meier: States there is no passion narrative in Q, but it does not follow that it was therefore unknown or of no concern. However, Meier states that we cannot confirm that Q had knowledge of Jesus’s death and resurrection.

6. Perkins: Perkins notes the absence of death and resurrection in Q. But Q’s discipleship appears to depend upon the empty tomb.

7. Wright: Wright argues that the resurrection is in Q and presents five prooftexts (Matthew 8 // Luke 13; Matthew 19 // Luke 22; Matthew 10 // Luke 12; Matthew 11 // Luke 7; Matthew 12 // Luke 11), but he also notes that there does not appear to be a resurrection narrative. This should not surprise us because Q is considered to be a sayings document. Wright also refers to the idea of resurrection and Jesus’s resurrection.

11. THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS and THE GOSPEL OF PETER

A. General Comments

1. Borg: Borg recognizes that Gos. Thom. begins by speaking about the living Jesus, which may be an indication of Jesus’s resurrection.

2. Crossan: Says he agrees with Raymond Brown that Gos. Pet. is a later document. However, Crossan also thinks that about half of Gos. Pet. is independent of the canonical writings.

3. Funk: Funk contends that Q, Gos. Thom., and the “Pauline gospel” all originated at around the same time. But then he says that Q and Gos. Thom. are actually better than Paul because they tell us about “the religion of Jesus” while Paul and others simply give us “the religion about Jesus.”

4. Mack: States that early Christianity was characterized by “plural movements” and “diversity” of which Jesus’s resurrection belonged to only one of several groups.

5. Pagels: Pagels says everyone dates the Nag Hammadi manuscripts to AD 350–400. The originals date probably around AD 120–150. Gospel of Thomas was perhaps compiled about 140. (Note: Pagels’s thoughts here seem to reflect an earlier time in scholarship, before critics realized that an earlier date for Gos. Thom. was needed!) There were variations in early Christian orthodoxy. These forms of Christian orthodoxy ultimately were victors over the gnostics and wrote Christian history.

6. Price: States that there were multiple expressions of early Christian belief, such as the resurrection being the interest of some but not others and that there were multiple variations of Christianity.

B. Critiques

1. General Comments

A) Akenson: Akenson is critical of the Gospel of Peter as well as the hypothetical Cross Gospel and Signs Gospel. He ultimately concludes that the New Testament is the best collection of sources to learn about Jesus and “that the most likely way to gain access to the historical Yeshua—to the limited extent this is possible—is through the canonical New Testament.”

B) Alsup: Alsup grants that Gos. Pet. was “written in all probability at the end of the first century A.D. or the beginning of the second in Syria.” But he still says there are some apologetic elements. Although the account breaks off without any appearances, Alsup thinks it is “likely” that appearances were included in the text.

C) Brown: On Gos. Pet., Brown says its “ethos” is similar to that of Matthew (in the 80s or 90s). The author had heard of the Matthean guard story and added “many imaginative elements.” However, Mark’s passion narrative is a greater historical source. Concerning Gos. Pet., Brown does not find it to be the oldest passion narrative. Brown ultimately dates it to the second century AD.

D) Dunn: Dunn provides an overview of Gos. Thom. but also leans toward the view that the Synoptics are more accurate where the two differ.

E) Funk: On Crossan’s hypothetical “cross gospel” (which Crossan dates about the same time as Q and Gos. Thom.), Funk says that it is not widely accepted and is a “minority opinion.”

F) Küng: Küng says Gos. Pet. was “written presumably about A.D. 150.”

G) Meier: Meier comments on various sources. On Gos. Thom., Meier says it has parallels with Q, M, L, and maybe even Mark and John. This seems odd if one thinks of Gos. Thom. as an independent or early source. In Meier’s opinion, this Gospel does not give any new historical information about Jesus. Meier also argues that Crossan’s claim that Gos. Pet. should be accepted as the chief passion source is rejected even by many of the Jesus Seminar members. Crossan’s “theory fails” as it seeks to connect Gos. Pet. and his hypothesis of the Cross Gospel. As some studies have shown, Gos. Pet. and the hypothetical Cross Gospel are both dependent on the canonical Gospels. Meier goes after Koester on a similar issue.

H) Moule: Moule says that, when compared to the New Testament Gospels, the Gos. Thom. appears unhistorical, preferring “unitive mysticism.”

I) Nash: Nash argues against Bultmann’s gnostic thesis. He also argues against pre-Christian Gnosticism.

J) O’Collins: Notes that James Robinson’s gnostic trajectory “looks more like scholarly retrojection, or reading later documents too far back into earlier history.” All of Robinson’s data comes from gnostic sources (and so his argument begs the question) when the opposite could actually be the case—the gnostic sources could have reacted to the Gospels. Elsewhere, O’Collins and Kendall provide four critiques of Crossan’s interpretation of the burial story in Mark (but which are often applicable to Crossan as a whole): (1) mentioning Brown and Hengel and several reasons such as dependence of Gos. Pet. on the Gospels, they conclude that scholars remain “unconvinced” of Crossan’s use of Gos. Pet.; (2) Crossan’s thesis of prophecy rather than history goes against recent studies, which show that, even in apocalyptic writings, there is a move from events to the text; (3) Crossan overdoes his charges against Markan creativity; and (4) his critiques of Joseph of Arimathea are unconvincing.

K) Osiek: Osiek dates the redaction of Gos. Pet. to the second century.

L) Robinson: James Robinson mentions the gnostic issue vis-a-vis the Gospels.

M) Wright: Wright notes that most New Testament scholars don’t agree on various reliability issues related to Gos. Thom.

2. As a Source for the Historical Jesus

A) Blomberg: Blomberg does not think Gos. Thom. should be used in “anybody’s quest” except for the occasional saying.

B) Meier: As noted above, Meier does not think the Nag Hammadi discoveries provide any new historical information about Jesus. Temptations for headlines and notoriety encourage others to try to find something in texts like this.

3. Dating of the Gospel of Thomas

A) Blomberg: Blomberg thinks Gos. Thom. could have been written around AD 150.

B) Ehrman: Ehrman dates Gos. Thom. to around 120.

4. Critique of Mack’s Position by Johnson

A) Johnson: Luke Timothy Johnson offers several critiques of Burton Mack’s position. “It is important to remember that Mack wants his readers to perceive him as the soberest of hardheaded historians—no flight to faith, here, no fantasies of theology.” But Mack fails to consider all of the following in his Q hypothesis: (1) whether the Q statements all came from the same source; (2) whether what we have is all Q ever contained; (3) whether the original form of Q can be reconstructed the way scholars do it today; (4) whether Q was the only literature read by that group; (5) whether delineating Q stages is possible; (6) whether these stages of composition, then, “correspond exactly” to the development stages of the hypothetical community; (7) whether this group was “untouched” or unaffected by the Jerusalem church; (8) whether this “Christ Cult” was one that considered Jesus’s death and resurrection mythologically; and (9) whether “Mark’s Gospel combined these streams with the Christian ‘Myth of Innocence.’” Johnson considers all of this to be the “purest flimflam” because there is “no positive evidence” for Mack’s view, which he states is based on speculation and does not engage evidence that opposes his theory. Mack is using more imagination and myth than his sources, according to Johnson. Johnson concludes: “Meager history reveals itself as thin theology.” At the end of his article, Johnson makes a last slam: “In sum, Mack shows how bad biblical scholarship can get and yet be published by a major press with enthusiastic blurbs.” The books in the New Testament canon allow for an amazing amount of diversity while always accepting a common core of doctrine. The church was flexible where it could be considering different interpretations of Jesus, but the canon ultimately accepted what were thought to be the “best witnesses to Jesus.” Also concerning Gos. Thom., Johnson thinks it should be dated to the second century.

12. SHROUD OF TURIN

A. Craig: After 1988, Craig says the Shroud can’t be ruled out a priori.

B. Funk: Notes that the Gos. Heb. refers to the linen shroud that Jesus gives to a slave before appearing to James.

C. Jansen: Sees it as related to the burial and grave.

D. O’Collins: Very positive treatment of the Shroud (before the 1988 testing) including its significance for Christianity. Roman coins from Jesus’s time show Jews with long hair. Citing John A. T. Robinson to explain plural graveclothes and face cloth. He comments on the apostle John’s description of the side wound. He also examines some information about Jesus’s physical appearance. O’Collins identifies the Shroud as a sign for modern people. And on the resurrection, he writes, “It decisively checks the temptation to take a falsely ‘spiritual’ view of the resurrection.” The special contribution of the Shroud is to remind us “of the suffering and death of Jesus” even if the cloth belonged to someone else. O’Collins also makes positive comments on the Shroud as a refutation of Derrett.

E. Packer: The Shroud doesn’t help the case for the resurrection.

F. Robinson: John A. T. Robinson states that the Shroud is “by no means to be dismissed out of hand.”

G. Staudinger: If the Shroud “can finally be regarded as authentic” and its “negative image . . . speaks for its genuineness. A deliberate forgery is thereby ruled out.” The Shroud also reflects close correspondence to the Gospel reports and “that a chance coincidence is improbable.” It is an “indirect pointer to the resurrection, since the shroud would otherwise have remained with the body in the tomb.”

H. Zias and Charlesworth: Zias and Charlesworth are quite critical of Shroud studies of Jesus’s death.

13. THE USE OF “THE THIRD DAY”

A. Alsup: Alsup notes a wide range of views and concludes that a “combination” between the extreme positions (it is an historical reference; it is a legendary motif) “is more likely.”

B. Blomberg: Blomberg says we can’t be as sure as Craig is that the third day must be Sunday.

C. Conzelmann: Holds that it is difficult to tell the origin of this tradition. But Conzelmann seems to think the third day was either the date of Jesus’s first appearance or it was derived from Old Testament references. The similarities in history of religions “are vague.”

D. Craig: Says there are many ways to interpret “third day,” which include (1) the date of Jesus’s first appearance; (2) Christians worship on this day, so the resurrection was placed there; (3) it was derived from parallels in history of religions; (4) it was taken from Old Testament texts, especially Hos 6:2; and (5) it derives from theological interpretation for God’s salvation and deliverance. Craig assesses these positions and says: (1) this view is favored by its close proximity to the appearances in 1 Corinthians 15; (2) this view has been “abandoned”; (3) critics are skeptical about these types of parallels; three-day motifs are only found in myths regarding Osiris (and maybe Adonis), but Hans Grass thinks that this would have been “completely unthinkable” by early Christians and that there is little evidence for this anyway; (4) there are problems with the third day coming from Hos 6:2; and (5) this view is “the only serious alternative” and is held by Lehmann and Bode. Craig notes that “Lehmann’s case is well-documented and very persuasive,” but a crucial problem concerns the dates for his Talmud and Midrash texts, especially when these ideas do not appear in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings from New Testament times. Further, New Testament writers do not seem to be “aware of such exegesis.” Also, the empty tomb and appearances material “must be false.” Craig’s conclusion is that the third-day language is due to both the day of Jesus’s appearances and because this day in the LXX is “a day of climax and of God’s deliverance.” So, citing Lichtenstein, Craig calls it “a fusion of historical facts plus theological tradition.” He argues elsewhere for very similar arguments and conclusions. Craig makes various comments regarding the early nature of the empty tomb reports because they predate the third-day motif.

E. Crossan: Crossan thinks that the phrase “on the third day” referred to “prophetic and/or eschatological symbolism.”

F. Elliott: Holds that the mention of the third day simply referred to a short period of time and that Christians searched the Old Testament for texts to explain it.

G. Evans: Evans says he “concurs” with Crossan that the third day is not about historical chronology but about Old Testament prophetic references and eschatological symbols.

H. Fuller: Possible positions for understanding the third-day motif: (1) it refers to an historical event like the empty tomb or the appearances; (2) it derives from Old Testament teachings or references; (3) it comes from Christians meeting on Sunday; (4) it dervies from parallels in the history of religions; and (5) it comes from Jewish or talmudic teaching. Fuller’s conclusion is that the third day probably derived from Jewish texts like Hos 6:2 as “a long standing apocalyptic expectation.” He concludes that if this is correct, then it is a “dogmatic assertion” rather than a chronological reference.

I. Jansen: Jansen says that preferences are for a literal date of appearances.

J. Küng: Küng says the third day is theological, symbolic, and taken from Old Testament texts.

K. Lindars: Lindars thinks the third day is taken from Old Testament texts like Hos 6:2 and Jonah 1:17, and this does not require the resurrection to have occurred on the third day.

L. Moltmann: Moltmann takes the view that this motif is symbolic.

M. O’Collins: After a brief discussion, O’Collins concludes that the Old Testament was used but the third day is connected historically to the finding of the empty tomb.

N. Oden: Oden says the third day is a datable event but still anticipated in Old Testament texts like Hos 6:2 and Jonah.

O. Perkins: Perkins says there is no clear winner on this issue, although she does cite Jeremias’s argument that the most likely origin of the third day is the initial resurrection appearances.

14. other scholarly MINIMAL FACTS APPROACHES

A. Various Scholars: Various scholars have used or appreciated a common ground or minimal fact style of approach.

B. Beckwith: Beckwith uses and cites Habermas’s four “core facts.”

C. Blomberg: Blomberg notes that in the Third Quest for the historical Jesus, “none” of its primary researchers are evangelical (but some evangelicals have recently started to contribute). Accordingly, the findings of the Third Quest cannot simply be dismissed as allowing conservative distorting biases to drive their conclusions.

D. Carrier: “On the other hand, Gary Habermas lists twelve ‘facts’ that are widely accepted by contemporary scholars. Yet my theory is consistent with all but one of them: the discovery of an empty tomb.” According to his argument, he believes the empty tomb to be later legendary development, starting sometime after Paul apparently.

E. Davis: At multiple points Davis refers several facts that have achieved a virtual consensus of scholarship.

F. Ehrman: Ehrman provides a list that virtually all scholars, except mythicists, agree upon: Jesus was Jewish; from Nazareth; followed John the Baptist; preached in Galilee; preached on the “kingdom of God” and used parables; had disciples and had a reputation as a miracle worker; probably died around AD 30 after traveling to Jerusalem during Passover after arousing opposition among the local leaders, who sought to put him to death by appealing to Pilate.

G. Elliott: Elliott lists some “elements in common” in the Gospels, but not because he agrees with them.

H. Evans: Evans comments upon the “remarkable amount of consensus scholarship.”

I. Goulder: Goulder says that even on the facts he and Craig agree upon, he thinks they “are not quite how Bill puts them.”

J. Gundry: Regarding these facts, Gundry offers a thoughtful, appreciative caution about the reports and the facts that underlie them.

K. Hoover: Hoover challenges whether Craig’s facts are as established as he contends.

L. Johnson: Johnson considers the following as having the most probability historically: Jesus existed, was Jewish, lived in the first century, and died on the cross in Palestine as allowed by the Romans, and the church started and preached Jesus as raised from the dead shortly after the crucifixion. He adds to this that Jesus taught that his words and actions reflected those of God, performed miracles (healings), used parables and taught the Torah, talked with those on the outside or fringe of society, and selected twelve disciples. Johnson continues regarding other events, such as Jesus being baptized by John, his prophecy about the temple in Jerusalem, and his recognition during the Last Supper that he would soon die. For Johnson, this is not an “insignificant yield of historical information.”

M. Mack: Mack disputes such enumerations of facts, including all of Habermas’s minimal facts (except for Jesus’s crucifixion), which “is simply not a statement any careful, critical historian would make.”

N. Meier: John Meier calls his approach a “minimalist method.”

O. O’Collins: O’Collins also cites a consensus of scholars, arguing that there are appropriate occasions for establishing and using such consensus.

P. Padgett: Padgett details objections and concerns about appealing to a “consensus Jesus.”

Q. Pannenberg: Pannenberg states that he agrees with Habermas’s list of twelve facts. Importantly, he adds that the discrepancies in the accounts don’t refute the case since those facts are widely accepted with these issues and historians are aware of those discrepancies too.

R. Vermes: Vermes begins “by selecting a few non-controversial facts concerning Jesus’ life and activity, and endeavor[s] to build on these foundations.”

Notes

William Lane Craig, “Opening Statements,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 36–37.

James D. G. Dunn’s response to Darrell L. Bock, in James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 298–300 (Dunn’s response to Darrell L. Bock).

Craig A. Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology,” Theological Studies 54, no. 1 (1993): 15–16, 35. See also Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 201–4.

Francis Schüssler F iorenza, “The Resurrection of Jesus and Roman Catholic Fundamental Theology,” in The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 245–47.

Grant, Jesus, 176, 199–201; Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 258; N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 90–92, 95.

Charles Hartshorne, “Response to the Debate,” in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, ed. Terry L. Miethe (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987), 138.

Walter Künneth, Theologie der Auferstehung, 6th ed. (Giessen: Brunnen, 1982), 253–58.

George Eldon Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 22–23.

Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 4.

Gerald O’Collins, The Easter Jesus, 2nd ed. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1980), 57–58.

Robert M. Price, “Is There a Place for Historical Criticism?,” Religious Studies 27, no. 3 (1991): 379.

David Samuel, “Making Room in History for the Miraculous (Part 2),” Churchman 100, no. 2 (1986): 103.

Samuel, 103–4.

Hugo Staudinger, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Saving Event and as ‘Object’ of Historical Research,” Scottish Journal of Theology 36, no. 3 (1983): 309.

Staudinger, 313.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 117.

Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 24.

Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperOne, 2014), 150.

Donald Goergen, The Death and Resurrection of Jesus, vol. 2 of A Theology of Jesus (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988), 156.

Luke Timothy Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus: Historical Criticism and Literary Criticism,” in The Historical Jesus: Five Views, ed. James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 161.

Johnson, 161.

James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 305.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 82.

N. T. Wright, “In Grateful Dialogue: A Response,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 246; Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 81–82.

James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 101.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 174.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 113.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 161.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 150.

Paul Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 13.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 104.

Dunn, 105.

Dunn’s response to Bock, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 299–300 (response by Dunn to Bock).

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 163.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 316.

Tabor, 317.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 93.

Pheme Perkins, “The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 442; Gerald O’Collins, Interpreting the Resurrection: Examining the Major Problems in the Stories of Jesus’ Resurrection (New York: Paulist, 1988), 16–17, 62; Samuel, “Making Room in History (Part 2),” 112.

Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 216–17; Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life, vol. 2 of Systematic Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 457; Ben Witherington III, “Resurrection Redux,” in Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, ed. Paul Copan (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 129, 138.

Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 18–19, 22; John A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 120; Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” 425; Clark H. Pinnock, “Salvation by Resurrection,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 10; Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 261 (both “objective scientific knowledge and a personal experiential faith are necessary”). Cf. Grant R. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 294.

John P. Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu: The Foundational Christology of Rudolf Pesch,” Theological Studies 38, no. 3 (1977): 522; Davis, Risen Indeed, 28.

Peter Carnley, The Structure of Resurrection Belief (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 95, 225–26.

Carnley, 264, cf. 72. See also J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 120–21 (stating it is “not decisive”), 127.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 158.

Ladd, Resurrection of Jesus, 19–20.

Gerald O’Collins, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Some Contemporary Issues (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993), 32–33; O’Collins, What Are They Saying about the Resurrection? (New York: Paulist, 1978), 9–14.

J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 120–21, 127–29.

Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation, trans. A. M. Steward (Edinburgh: St. Andrew’s Press, 1977), 117–25.

Grant, Jesus, 200; Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 5–6; A. J. M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 170–71; Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 36–37, 44, 82–90, 95; Samuel, “Making Room in History (Part 2),” 106–7; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 180–81; G. T. Eddy, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A Consideration of Professor Cranfield’s Argument,” Expository Times 101, no. 11 (1990): 328 (stating that it is “always an element of interpretation, and . . . selection”).

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 73; Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 36, 82–88, 137, 398; Luke Timothy Johnson, Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), 31, 122; Davis, Risen Indeed, 172; Alan G. Padgett, “Advice for Religious Historians: On the Myth of a Purely Historical Jesus,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 293–94; Samuel, “Making Room in History (Part 2),” 106; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 61; Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 129.

Dale C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 340.

Paul Rhodes Eddy and James K. Beilby, “The Quest for the Historical Jesus: An Introduction,” in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 38.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 172.

Davis, 12.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 131.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 162–63.

Johnson, 163.

Stephen Neill and N. T. Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1986, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 301. See also 302.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 316.

Tabor, 316–17.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 47.

N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 27–28, 718.

Grant, Jesus, 201; Pannenberg, Jesus, 99; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 2:361; Jürgen Moltmann, “The Resurrection of Christ: Hope for the World,” in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 78; Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 6; Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 97; E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1993), 280–81; N. T. Wright, “Early Traditions and the Origin of Christianity,” Sewanee Theological Review 41, no. 2 (1998): 138; Gerald O’Collins, “The Resurrection Revisited,” Gregorianum 79, no. 1 (1998): 172. O’Collins here lists a range of probabilities: “utterly certain,” “highly probably [sic],” “solidly probable,” “probable,” “various shades of possibilities,” and “genuinely indeterminate.” See also Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” 25, 28, 30; J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 129; Paul L. Maier, “The Empty Tomb as History,” Christianity Today 29, no. 13 (1975): 4; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 294.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 103.

Dunn, 103.

Dunn, 103n8.

Dunn’s response to Bock, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 299.

Dunn, 300.

Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 207. See also 210.

Ehrman, 210.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 162.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:361.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 316.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 706.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 13.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 103.

Dunn, 103n8.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 161.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 317.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 104.

Dunn, 105.

Dunn, 105n19.

Dunn’s response to Bock, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 299. See also 300.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 93.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 13.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Die Auferstehung Jesu—Historie und Theologie,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 91, no. 3 (1994): 318.

Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 26. Somewhat similarly, Pinnock, “Salvation by Resurrection,” 10.

Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 39–42.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 162–63.

Johnson, 163.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 111.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 136–39.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 162.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 83.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 163–64.

Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 249–50.

Donald Harman Akenson, Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 297n3.

Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 249–50.

Twelftree, 250.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 82–83.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 93–94.

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 5 vols., Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1991–2016), 3:12.

Andrew Purves, The Resurrection of Ministry: Serving in the Hope of the Risen Lord (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2010), 80.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 99.

Borg and Wright, Meaning of Jesus, 12–13.

William Lane Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 143–46.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 82–83.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 288–96. See also 271.

Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” 21–33.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 223–24.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 207–10.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:11–12.

Gerald O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus (London: Chapman, 1983), 45–47.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 39.

Robert H. Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” Themelios 5 (1979): 46–49.

Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 248–53.

N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 132, 226, 450, 489.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 10.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 41. See also Ehrman, New Testament, 201, 229.

Ehrman, New Testament, 201.

Michael F. Bird and James G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin? A Believer and Non-Believer Examine the Evidence (London: SPCK, 2008), 55.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 10.

Richard Bauckham, “The Eyewitnesses and the Gospel Traditions,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1, no. 1 (2003): 51–52.

Bauckham, 59.

Tim Callahan, Secret Origins of the Bible (Altadena, CA: Millennium, 2002), 357. Cf. 427.

Michael Martin, “Swinburne on the Resurrection,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 462.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 162.

Ehrman, New Testament, 202, see also 231–32. See also Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 290–91.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 95.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 50–68, 71, 77, 81–83, 92, 97, 140–41, 163, 251, 262, 290–91.

Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York : Scribner, 1993), 26.

Luke Timothy Johnson’s response to Robert M. Price, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 90.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:11.

Ehrman, New Testament, 204. See also Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 290. It is also noted in Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 96.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 83.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 163.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 41, 74.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 162.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 97.

Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 23–24, cf. 33 where Matthew apparently does the opposite with Mark.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:11.

Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 252.

Twelftree, 252.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 83.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 163.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:11.

James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, vol. 2 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 346.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 83.

John K. Riches, A Century of New Testament Study (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1993), 98.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 162.

Ehrman, New Testament, 206. See also 230.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 98.

Ehrman, New Testament, 206–7. See also Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 290.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 162.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 291. See also Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 96; and Ehrman, New Testament, 204.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:11.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 97. See also 106–9, 127.

Ehrman, New Testament, 204.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 81–82.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 291, see also 41, 74.

Ehrman, 293. See also Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 97–98; Ehrman, New Testament, 205.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 82.

Dunn, 82–83.

James D. G. Dunn’s response to Robert M. Price, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 95. See also Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 81–82.

Ehrman, New Testament, 205.

Ehrman, 206.

Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 251.

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 132. See also 131–33, 226, 450, 489.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 69. Cf. 28.

Dunn, 70.

Dunn, 877.

Dunn, 878.

Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 253.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:12.

Ehrman, New Testament, 203.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 83.

Ehrman, New Testament, 203.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:12.

Meier, 3:11–12.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 82.

Dunn, 83.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 105–9.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 163–65.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:12.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 30.

Dunn, 30.

Dunn, 69. Cf. 28.

Ehrman, New Testament, 201.

Ehrman, 201–2.

Ehrman, 202.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 35.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 26–27. Cf. 109.

Dunn, 27.

Dunn, 101. See also 27–28.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 163. See also 164.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 28. Cf. 30.

Dunn, 27–28.

Dunn, 101. See also 27–28.

Robert John Russell, “Bodily Resurrection, Eschatology, and Scientific Cosmology,” in Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, ed. Ted Peters, Robert J. Russell, and Michael Welker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 19.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 10.

Eddy and Beilby, “Introduction,” 34. See also 34nn94–95.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 172.

See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, chaps. 1–6.

Dunn, 107–9.

James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 4.

Dunn, 6.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 109.

Dunn, 34.

Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 71–72.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 109.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 4.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 144.

Gary R. Habermas, “Did Jesus Perform Miracles?,” in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 126.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 162–63.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 29.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 316.

Tabor, 316–17.

Tabor, 316.

Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 253.

Twelftree, 305.

N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 61.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 85.

Wright, 89.

Wright, 36. See also 45–46.

Wright, 82.

Wright, 84–85.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 144–45.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 27–28.

Dunn’s response to Bock, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 299.

Eugene H. Peterson, Living the Resurrection: The Risen Christ in Everyday Life (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2006), 75.

Purves, Resurrection of Ministry, 80.

Purves, 102.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 172.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 117.

Wright, Surprised by Hope, 69. See also 67.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 12.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 146.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 161.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 10–11.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 97–98.

Ehrman, New Testament, 202.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 29.

Eddy and Beilby, “Introduction,” 37–38. See also 37–38nn107–8.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 161.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 172.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 102.

Dunn, 111–12.

Dunn, 99.

Dunn’s response to Bock, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 299.

Robert H. Gundry, “Trimming the Debate,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 104.

Gundry, 105.

Gundry, 107.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 316.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 95.

See esp. Wright, 115–18.

Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 3.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 108–9. See also Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 71–72.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 110.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 82.

Wright, 86.

Wright, 44.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 110.

Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 243. See also 244.

For detailed discussions, see Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 32–37, 44–46. See also 82–86.

Wright, 35–37, 98–103.

Wright, “In Grateful Dialogue,” 248; Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 123.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 117.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 876–77.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 143–46.

Riches, Century of New Testament Study, 117.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 83.

Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 337.

Eddy and Beilby, “Introduction,” 34. See also 34nn94–95.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 24–26.

See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, chaps. 1–6.

Dunn, 92–97.

David Samuel, “Making Room in History for the Miraculous,” Churchman 100, no. 1 (1986): 46–52; Samuel, “Making Room in History (Part 2),” 101–3.

Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 244–45.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 109–18.

Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 245.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 1:81.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 12–13.

Barnett, 12.

Barnett, 11.

Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 71–72.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 84–85.

Susan Ruth Andrews, “Jesus Appears,” The Christian Century 116, no. 10 (1999): 341.

Raymond Edward Brown, A Risen Christ in Eastertime: Essays on the Gospel Narratives of the Resurrection (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991), 34.

Craig, in Copan, Real Jesus, 59.

Frank Crusemann, “Scripture and Resurrection,” in Peters, Russell, and Welker, Resurrection, 93–95, 98, 101.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 174–75.

Margaret Guenther, “Mediated through Flesh (John 20:19–31),” The Christian Century 112, no. 12 (1995): 388.

John Paul Heil, Blood and Water: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus in John 18–21 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1995), 148. See also 150 and summary on 170.

Ladd, Resurrection of Jesus, 27.

Ladd, 140.

Ladd, 26–27.

Ladd, 144, 150–51.

Robert J. Miller, “What Do Stories about Resurrection(s) Prove?,” in Copan, Real Jesus, 86.

Miller, 87.

Miller, 87.

Miller, 88.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 88 (Matthew); 113, 146, cf. 252 (Luke); 171–72, 251–54, 352 (John).

Helmut Thielicke, “How Can I Be Sure of the Risen Christ?,” Christianity Today 27 (1983): 15.

Walter Wink, “Resonating with God’s Song (John 20:19–31),” The Christian Century 111, no. 10 (1994): 309.

Gustaf Aulén, Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research, trans. Ingalill G. Hjelm (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), viii–1, quote on 121.

Paul Badham, “The Meaning of the Resurrection of Jesus,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1993), 23–30.

Stephen Barton, “The Hermeneutics of the Gospel Resurrection Narratives,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 47.

Barton, 45–55.

James Bibza, “A Critical Analysis of the Publications of D. P. Fuller, G. E. Ladd, I. H. Marshall and M. C. Tenney on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ with Special Attention to the Problem of the Locale of the Post-Resurrection Appearances (Conservative, Evangelicals)” (PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1985).

Hans W. Frei, “Of the Resurrection of Christ,” in Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays, ed. George Hunsinger and William C. Placher (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 201–3.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 156–57.

William P. Loewe, “The Appearances of the Risen Lord: Faith, Fact, and Objectivity,” Horizons 6, no. 2 (1979): 177.

Loewe, 179.

Loewe, 189. See also 190–91.

Loewe, 191.

Loewe, 192.

Loewe, 179, 191.

Thorwald Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship: Interpretive Models, Biblical Reflections, Theological Consequences (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995), 9–111.

O’Collins, What Are They Saying, 7–40.

Robert M. Price, “Risen Indeed: Three Views of the Resurrection,” The Drew Gateway 53, no. 1 (1982): 48, 52.

Price, 52.

Robert E. Scholla, “Recent Anglican Contributions on the Resurrection of Jesus (1945–1987)” (ThD diss., Pontifical Gregorian University, 1993).

Joanne Marilyn Swenson, “Living within the Language of Resurrection: A Theological Critique of Modern Resurrection Meanings” (ThD diss., Harvard University, 1993).

Robert C. Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus, 1: Theological Orientations,” Heythrop Journal 16, no. 1 (1975): 22–35.

Ware, 27.

Ware, 29.

Robert C. Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus, 2: Historical-Critical Studies,” Heythrop Journal 16, no. 2 (1975): 174–82.

Paul W. Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 41–42.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 361. See also 84, 104; cf. 121–22.

Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” 35.

Paul Barnett, Peter Jensen, and David Peterson, Resurrection: Truth and Reality (Sydney: Aquila, 1994), 6.

Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 278.

Peter Stuhlmacher, “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Dead,” trans. Jonathan M. Whitlock, Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 55.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 50–68, 71, 77, 81–83, 92, 97, 140–41, 163, 251, 262, 290–91. Outside the New Testament, Ehrman mentions Tacitus and Josephus (97); Papias (98–101); Ignatius (101–3); and Clement (104–5).

Craig A. Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot Mcknight (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 477–78.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 33.

Funk, 222–23.

Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 37.

Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 16–18, 129.

Howard Clark Kee, What Can We Know about Jesus? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 113–14 and chap. 1.

Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” 34–46.

Stein, 49.

Craig L. Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 40. Cf. 26.

Callahan, Secret Origins, 366–70.

John Dominic Crossan’s response to Robert M. Price, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 86.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 4.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 159.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 51–52, 56.

Ehrman, New Testament, 196.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 3.

Ehrman, New Testament, 197.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 54–56.

Crossan’s response to Price, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 86.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 141–42.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 56, 97.

Ehrman, 97.

Johnson’s response to Price, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 92. See also Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 159, which notes the “converging lines” between insider and outsider sources.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 55.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 3. See also Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 142; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 59.

Ehrman, New Testament, 196. See also Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 53–54, 56.

Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 40.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 141. See also Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 3.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:62.

Meier, 1:60–63, 68.

Craig A. Evans, “What Did Jesus Do?,” in Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, 107.

Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament: What Is the Evidence?,” in Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, 212.

Yamauchi, 213–14.

Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Josephus and the Scriptures,” Fides et Historia 13, no. 1 (1980): 58.

Yamauchi, 54–55.

Yamauchi, 53.

Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament,” 212.

Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 49n90.

James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 96.

Charlesworth, 97.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 141.

Ehrman, New Testament, 198.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 57–66, esp. 45, 60, 97, 351n23.

Evans, “What Did Jesus Do?,” 106.

Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament,” 212.

Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 40.

Evans, “What Did Jesus Do?,” 107.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 141.

Ehrman, New Testament, 197.

Evans, “What Did Jesus Do?,” 106.

Yamauchi, “Jesus Outside the New Testament,” 212.

Yamauchi, 212.

Crossan’s response to Price, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 86.

Johnson’s response to Price, in Beilby and Eddy, 92. See also Johnson, “Learning the Human,” 159, noting the “converging lines” between insider and outsider sources.

Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 40.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 142. See also Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 3–4.

Ehrman, New Testament, 197.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 66–68.

Johnson’s response to Price, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 92.

Dunn’s response to Bock, in Beilby and Eddy, 222.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 551.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 104–5.

Ehrman, 98–101, esp. 100–101.

Ehrman, 101–4.

Ehrman, 76–77.

Ehrman, 77.

Ehrman, 138.

Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 500–501.

Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, 398.

Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, 103.

Akenson, Saint Saul, 116.

Akenson, 95–98.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 74. See also 259–63.

Akenson, Saint Saul, 122. See also 125.

Akenson, 122. See also 123–24.

Barnett, Logic of History, 41–42.

Barnett, 55. See also 55–56, where Barnett presents several arguments: earliest documents, close in time to the readers’ own hearing and conversion, not evangelistic tracts.

Barnett, 91, 95, 133, 164.

Ronald Blackburn, “Dialogue on the Resurrection,” Quaker Religious Thought 27, no. 4 (1995): 45.

Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 124.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 143.

Eddy, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 328.

Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 43–44.

Fuller, 170.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 128.

Roy W. Hoover, “A Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 129.

Gerd Lüdemann, “First Rebuttal,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 54.

Gerd Lüdemann, “Second Rebuttal,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 60–61.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 251.

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 43.

Akenson, Saint Saul, 125, 134, 145. He also discusses the textual evidence for the Pauline works (125–34).

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 15.

Callahan, Secret Origins, 373n4.

Callahan, 369.

Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 99–100. Cf. 509.

Ehrman, New Testament, 162. See also Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 136, 215, 376n3.

Ehrman, New Testament, 261–62.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 264.

Funk, 37–38. Cf. 36, 264.

Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 33.

Johnson, Living Jesus, 99.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 255.

Johnson, 257.

Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 52–53.

Ben F. Meyer, “Resurrection as Humanly Intelligible Destiny,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 23.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 362.

Neill and Wright, 24–25, 63. Cf. 362.

G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988), 21–22.

David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 14.

Wenham, 24.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 27–28.

Dunn, 28.

John P. Meier, “Dividing Lines in Jesus Research Today: Through Dialectical Negation to a Positive Sketch,” Interpretation 50, no. 4 (1996): 357.

Meier, 358.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 362, 402.

Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” 426.

James M. Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus (or to the Apostles’ Creed),” Journal of Biblical Literature 101, no. 1 (1982): 23–24.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 403.

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 43.

James D. G. Dunn, “Remembering Jesus: How the Quest of the Historical Jesus Lost Its Way,” in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 205.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 80.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 238.

Burton L. Mack, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, History and Theory 28, no. 2 (1989): 218.

Meier, “Dividing Lines,” 359.

Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” 426.

Perkins, 442.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 429–34. See also 434n104.

Wright, 429.

Marcus J. Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” Bible Review 10, no. 2 (1994): 49.

John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), 482.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 38. Cf. 42.

Funk, 41. See charts in Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 18, 128.

Mack, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (by Habermas and Flew), 219–20.

Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), xv–xvi.

Pagels, xxii–xxiii, 3–7.

Pagels, 29, 32, 56, 170–71, 179–81.

Robert M. Price, Deconstructing Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2000), 56.

Akenson, Saint Saul, 95–98.

Akenson, 116.

John E. Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition: A History-of-Tradition Analysis with Text-Synopsis, Calwer Theologische Monographien 5 (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975), 125.

Alsup, 126.

Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols., Anchor Bible Reference Library (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1994), 2:1317–49, quote on 2:1345.

Brown, 2:1346.

Brown, 2:1347.

Brown, Risen Christ in Eastertime, 28–29.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 161–65.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 239, 259.

Hans Küng, Eternal Life? Life after Death as a Medical, Philosophical and Theological Problem, trans. Edward Quinn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 98–99.

Meier, “Dividing Lines,” 357.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:199. See also 3:204–5.

Meier, “Dividing Lines,” 356.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:116.

Meier, 1:117.

Meier, 1:146n27.

C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 3rd rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982), 233–34.

Ronald H. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 225–39.

Nash, 251–61.

Gerald O’Collins, “Luminous Appearances of the Risen Christ,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46, no. 2 (April 1984): 248.

O’Collins, 254.

Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall, “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?,” Biblica 75, no. 2 (1994): 236–39.

Carolyn Osiek, “The Women at the Tomb: What Are They Doing There?,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 101.

J. M. Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus,” 23.

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 12. See also 104n11.

Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 25.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:199. See also 204–5.

Meier, 3:199.

Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 23. See 23–24 on why he thinks this date is reasonable.

Ehrman, New Testament, 44.

Luke Timothy Johnson, “The Crisis in Biblical Scholarship,” Commonweal 120, no. 21 (1993): 20. All remaining references are from 20.

Johnson, 21.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 91, 100, 130–32.

Johnson, 30–31.

Johnson, 22.

Craig, in Copan, Real Jesus, 56.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 263–64.

John Frederick Jansen, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in New Testament Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980), 44.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 101.

O’Collins, 102–3.

O’Collins, 103.

O’Collins, 103–4.

O’Collins, 104.

O’Collins, 104–5.

Gerald O’Collins, review of The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Fact, by J. Duncan M. Derrett, Heythrop Journal 26, no. 1 (1985): 59.

James I. Packer, “Response to the Debate,” in Miethe, Resurrection Debate, 149–50.

J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 127.

Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 325–26.

Joseph Zias and James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 281–82.

Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 58–59.

Craig L. Blomberg, “The Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith: Harmony or Conflict?,” in Copan, Real Jesus, 101.

Hans Conzelmann, First Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 256.

William Lane Craig, “The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus,” New Testament Studies 31, no. 1 (1985): 42.

Craig, 43.

Craig, 43.

Craig, 44.

Craig, 44–45.

Craig, 45.

Craig, 46–48.

Craig, 48.

Craig, 48.

Craig, 49.

William Lane Craig, “The Empty Tomb of Jesus,” in Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, vol. 2 of Gospel Perspectives, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 176–81.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 150.

John Dominic Crossan, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1–8),” in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16, ed. Werner H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 137.

J. K. Elliott, “The First Easter,” History Today 29, no. 4 (1979): 210.

Craig A. Evans, “Mark’s Use of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 8, no. 2 (1978): 51–52.

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

Fuller, 24.

Fuller, 25.

Fuller, 25.

Fuller, 25–26.

Fuller, 26.

Fuller, 27.

Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 35–40.

Küng, Eternal Life?, 105.

Barnabas Lindars, “The Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1993), 125–26.

Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 218.

O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 10–15.

O’Collins, 15.

Oden, Word of Life, 464–65.

Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 89.

Perkins, 86.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 33, who writes, “These are data that a disinterested, neutral observer could have attested”; see also 32–34, 40, 237–39. See also Moltmann, “Resurrection of Christ,” 74–75; E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 10–11, 321–22, 326–27; Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 10–14; Johnson, Real Jesus, 3–6, 19–20, 119–22, 151–52. Cf. Johnson, Living Jesus, 10, 130–32; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 184–85; Ladd, Resurrection of Jesus, 26, 93–94, 132–33.

Francis Beckwith, David Hume’s Argument against Miracles: A Critical Analysis (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989), 99–100.

Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 27.

Richard C. Carrier, “The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 197.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 180–81, see also 15–16, cf. 171; Stephen T. Davis, “The Question of Miracles, Ascension and Anti-Semitism,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 76.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 269.

Elliott, “First Easter,” 215.

Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” 17–19, 22, 29, 34.

Michael Goulder, “The Explanatory Power of Conversion-Visions,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 98.

Gundry, “Trimming the Debate,” 105.

Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 129.

Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus, 159.

Mack, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (by Habermas and Flew), 218.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:641. Cf. 3:9–10, 625, 646.

O’Collins, “Resurrection Revisited,” 171.

Padgett, “Advice for Religious Historians,” 296–98.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” in Miethe, Resurrection Debate, 129.

Pannenberg, 130.

Geza Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism (London: SCM, 1983), 3–6, 19–20.

↑ Back to top