III. Minimal Historical Facts

III. Minimal Historical Facts

1. DEATH OF JESUS

A. Details

1. Jesus’s Death Is Historical

A) Allison: Allison indicates the historicity of Jesus’s crucifixion at various points.

B) Borg: “The most certain fact about the historical Jesus is his execution as a political rebel.”

C) Borg and Crossan: They suggest Jesus was soon executed by the Romans, likely in AD 30.

D) Callahan: “I have no doubt that Jesus, having claimed to be the Son of man, was put to death by crucifixion.” Callahan thinks one should accept as probable that Jesus existed and was killed by the Romans and was associated with messianic claims.

E) Carroll and Green: They mention the “certainty of the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in human history.” They then add that, “on the continuum of historical probability, Jesus’ crucifixion ‘under Pontius Pilate’ is the most certain of all claims related to Jesus.”

F) Casey: It is “entirely probable that Jesus died on the cross unusually quickly, in six hours.”

G) Crossan: “That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” Crossan elsewhere writes, “I take it absolutely for granted that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Security about the fact of the crucifixion derives” from the unlikelihood of invention and the accounts of Josephus and Tacitus. Crossan holds that Jesus died and was buried in a shallow grave.

H) Davis: Davis points to the fact that virtually all who write about Jesus agree that Jesus died (and was buried).

I) Dunn: “That Jesus was crucified on the direct authority of Pilate himself need not be doubted for a minute.”

J) Ehrman: Ehrman argues the “most certain element” of the Jesus tradition is that Jesus was crucified under Pilate, since it is widely attested as well as the fact that it is not something the disciples would make up. Ehrman points out that ancient Jews were not anticipating a dying and rising Messiah, let alone one who died such a humiliating death.

K) Evans: “Perhaps one of the most significant areas of consensus” today is Jesus’s crucifixion, to which “virtually all agree.”

L) Funk: “Most scholars agree that Jesus was executed by crucifixion on the authority of Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem . . . the bare facts that Jesus was executed in Jerusalem on the authority of Pontius Pilate have stood up under close and repeated examination.” The crucifixion was a difficult fact for early Christians. Funk believes this despite thinking there are fictions in the accounts.

M) Gibson: Gibson argues that it “seems certain” that the crucifixion of Jesus occurred around AD 26–36 under Pilate (with Caiaphas as the high priest).

N) Holtz: Holtz argues that all we can really be sure about is the place and type of death Jesus suffered. Interestingly, Holtz does this in a discussion where he expresses skepticism at our ability to write a biography of Jesus and states that we can only have an existential understanding of Jesus.

O) Johnson: Johnson states that we can know that Jesus was executed by the Romans with “the highest degree of probability.”

P) Kasper: “The execution of Jesus of Nazareth on a cross is among the most securely established facts of his life.”

Q) Koester: “All that is certain is Jesus’ death on the cross.”

R) Ladd: Says that Jesus’s death is one of the certain historical facts about him.

S) Lewis: Notes regarding Jesus’s death the principle of embarrassment as well as the suffering involved.

T) Lüdemann: “The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” despite other hypotheses.

U) Meier: Meier points out that just about any inquirer into Jesus will agree that Jesus died by crucifixion.

V) Moltmann: The fact that “Jesus was crucified publicly and died publicly . . . are the relatively well-attested historical facts.”

W) Pagels: “There is only one fact on which nearly all accounts about Jesus of Nazareth, whether written by persons hostile or devoted to him, agree: that, by order of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, he was condemned and crucified (c. 30).”

X) Perry: Perry notes that “even most skeptics” accept Jesus’s crucifixion as a fact.

Y) Robinson: John A. T. Robinson describes the trial and death of Jesus (as well as providing some helpful comments on the empty tomb and appearances) and notes the facticity of the crucifixion.

Z) Sanders: That Jesus was executed by Pilate is a fact that is “almost beyond dispute.” Sanders adds other details as well: Jesus was crucified “as an insurgent” with two others on a Friday and “died after a relatively brief period of suffering.”

AA) Sloyan: “There seems to be little reason to doubt” concerning the fact of Jesus’s death by crucifixion.

AB) Tabor: “I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead.” Tabor later notes this as an indisputable fact, along with Jesus’s burial and the beginning of the Jesus movement.

AC) Wedderburn: States that Jesus’s death is quite probable.

AD) Wolterstorff: Concludes that Jesus was executed.

2. Comments about Crucifixions in General

A) Fitzmyer: He examines a couple of Qumran texts (especially Pesher Nahum from Cave 4) and concludes that we have “pre-Christian evidence that Jews did regard crucifixion practiced in that period as a form of the ‘hanging’ to which Deut. 21:22–23 could be referred.”

B) Hengel: There were some “norms” in Roman hangings: flogging, the victim often carrying the beam, a small wooden seat attached to the cross. There are also references to “hanging.” A crucifixion could go on for days “in an unspeakable way.” “Quite often its victims were never buried.” Quintilian’s comments are also mentioned by Hengel.

C) Küng: On crucifixion in general: “Terrible flogging with leather whips into which pieces of lead were inserted was customary before a crucifixion.” Küng also discusses how arms were nailed and feet were tied. He adds (without further explanation) that Jesus died for his words and deeds and that Jesus’s death can be historically verified.

D) Sloyan: Slaves and others in low social standing were usually the ones who were crucified. Cicero, Josephus, and Demosthenes all said it was the worst death to suffer, and they include other details. In Jesus’s case, his death was probably not caused by blasphemy, since Jesus never committed it. One reason for Jesus’s death might be the Roman fear that he could pose a political threat. Another possibility is Jesus speaking against the temple. The bottom line is that, from either the Gospels or Rome, we don’t know exactly why Jesus died. The fact of Jesus’s crucifixion was “mythicized within 50 years,” and, by vilifying the Jews, the Gospels wronged them.

E) Tabor: Tabor notes crucifixion was a long process that could take days. “The victims were stripped naked [and] exposed to the scorching Mediterranean sun,” and depending on how arms and legs were positioned, “death could be brought on more quickly, or extended.”

3. Nails

A) General Comments

(1) Carroll and Green: They note one could be bounded or nailed.

(2) Gibson: In the archaeological context of Jehohanan, a first-century AD crucifixion victim whose remains were discovered in 1968 near Jerusalem, Gibson notes that the “common practice at the time was to reuse nails for further executions.”

(3) Evans: Evans highlights, among other things, that several nails with calcium on them have been found in ossuaries.

(4) Hengel: Hengel points out that during “Roman times not only was it the rule to nail the victim by both hands and feet. . . . Binding the victim to the cross only with bonds remained the exception.”

(5) Sloyan: States that nails were the most common way to attach victims.

(6) Zias and Charlesworth: They respond to N. Haas’s original work on Jehohanan, which they argue is severely flawed. Some new conclusions they make include: the nail was too short to have pierced both of Jehohanan’s feet at once; “no evidence of nails penetrating the wrist or forearm”; the wooden plaque wasn’t acacia but olive wood; “postmortem amputation of the feet as Haas asserted was not evident”; the “numerous breaks in the lower limb” were due to time, so it is “inconclusive” whether or not there was a coup de grâce; and no radiological evidence of a palatal cleft. Jehohanan was probably crucified in the first half of the century and not at Jerusalem’s fall in AD 70.

(7) Zias and Sekeles: Their article corrects N. Haas’s work on Jehohanan in light of the outcry from a number of other researchers. Against Haas they argue: two nails were used instead of one; no nails were used in the forearms, especially since there are other normal scars like the one on the arm; the wood is olive, not olive and acacia; no evidence of feet amputations; and no cleft palate.

B) Location

(1) Arms

(a) Tabor: “We know that the nails were put through the forearms and not the hands” and that the Greek word in the Gospels for this aspect “can be understood as including forearms.” Tabor notes that physiology informs us that nails through the hands would not have supported the weight of an individual.

(2) Legs

(a) Tabor: Tabor notes that nails would have likely gone through the heel bone, which would not have caused extensive bleeding. This is similar to what is found in archaeological evidence.

4. Asphyxiation

A) Brown: He presents some details on the medical work of those who accept asphyxiation as chief cause of Jesus’s death, including Zugibe’s objections to asphyxiation. Brown argues that doctors tend to leave their trade.

B) Carroll and Green: Carroll and Green note that death could be slow and “sometimes over several days, as the body surrendered to shock or to the painful process of asphyxiation as the muscles used in breathing experienced paralysis brought on by fatigue.”

C) Crossan: Mentions leg breaking as a means of mercy, perhaps inducing asphyxiation or shock.

D) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that Jesus probably died by suffocation and experienced a long and painful death. Ehrman notes elsewhere that Jesus probably died by suffocation and includes other details.

E) Gibson: Gibson notes that death could come in hours since the person had no way to support his body, which would lead to asphyxiation.

F) Goergen: States flogging and scourging were frequently carried out beforehand and victims would often carry the crossbeam. He also says the legs of crucifixion victims sometimes dangled in the air. As Jesus’s body was weakened, he was unable to rise and eventually died by suffocation.

G) Sloyan: Notes that the evidence for the seat attached to the stake is “elusive” and that breaking legs caused asphyxiation.

H) Stein: States that Jesus’s death is usually said to be due to asphyxiation but that “cannot be proven.”

I) Tabor: Tabor notes that death typically culminated in asphyxiation or heart failure and that the speed of death could depend on the angles at which the arms were fastened. Additionally, if death needed to occur quickly, the legs could be broken to expedite suffocation.

J) Weber: There is “extensive medical literature” on crucifixion, and while not unanimous, there is still some good data: “Christ’s remarkably quick death” was “probably due to traumatic shock . . . gradual asphyxiation . . . unable to keep upright. . . . Breathing would become more and more difficult . . . would lead to asphyxiation. . . . According to ancient accounts, . . . the victim’s lower thighs were shattered (crurifragium).”

K) Wright: Notes that people would die quickly from asphyxiation if their legs were broken.

L) Zias and Charlesworth: On the cause of Jesus’s death, they say much work must be viewed skeptically because it is too closely connected with the Shroud. They note that asphyxiation was discussed by Le Bec (1925) and Barbet (1953) but disputed by Frederick Zugibe. Zugibe is probably correct, but he had two biases: he assumed too much tradition on the death of Jesus and his belief in the authenticity of the Shroud. They state that it is difficult to specify details about Jesus’s crucifixion since there were so many procedural differences in how crucifixions could be administered.

M) Zias and Sekeles: State that death by crucifixion was painful and was caused by asphyxiation from hanging on the intercostal and diaphragm muscles.

5. Death Blow

A) General Comments

(1) Hengel: Notes a coup de grâce could be threatened with an arrow or having one’s skull crushed.

B) Breaking Legs

(1) Dunn: Dunn notes that the breaking of legs and spear thrusts are attested around the time period (citing Le-gasse’s Trial of Jesus).

(2) Perkins: “It was customary to hasten death (by suffocation) of a crucified person by breaking his legs.” Perkins then goes on to mention the spear wound according to John.

(3) Tabor: Tabor points out that if it were so desired, the legs of a victim could be broken, which would prevent them from pushing up and breathing. He also notes that Jehohanan’s legs were likely broken to hasten death.

(4) Wright: Notes that people would die quickly from asphyxiation if their legs were broken.

C) Spear Thrust

(1) Derrett: Even though he holds to the swoon theory, and so the spear wound hurts his thesis, Derrett still accepts John’s general account, although he thinks the wound was not deep—more like a poke to see if Jesus flinched. Nevertheless, Derrett states that “jabbing was indeed a Roman practice.”

(2) Dunn: Dunn notes that the breaking of legs and spear thrusts are attested around the time period (citing Legasse’s Trial of Jesus).

(3) Gibson: Gibson notes the lance being plunged into Jesus’s side.

(4) Wilkinson: Says the soldier who stabbed Jesus “may not have known much about the detail of the thoracic anatomy but he had been trained how to inflict lethal wounds on the human body.” That this incident can be well explained medically adds weight to the historical account. Wilkinson looks at a number of models to explain the origin of both the water and the blood, concluding that the heart was the most likely place for the blood. The water most likely came from the pericardium, with his own experience agreeing with Barbet’s studies. But Wilkinson also concludes that it is slightly more likely that the spear penetrated the lung and then entered the pericardium.

6. Survivors of Crucifixion (Josephus)

A) Derrett: Derrett notes that crucifixion victims may be taken down alive. Citing Herodotus 7.194; Josephus, Life 420–421; m. Yevamot 16:3; t. Yevamot 14:4c and 16:3; y. Yevamot 5; Bab. 2 and 21.

B) Tabor: Tabor references Josephus’s account of three victims who were removed from their crosses and points out that, despite having medical treatment and being removed, two of them still died.

7. No Standardized Method

A) Gibson: Gibson makes a similar observation as Hengel above.

B) Hengel: There was variance on actual method depending on “the caprice and sadism of the executioners,” who “were given full rein.” Crucifixion was also preceded by other forms of torture.

B. Date of the Crucifixion

1. AD 30 or 33

A) Brown: Brown concludes his lengthy discussion of the date of the crucifixion by postulating either April 7, AD 30 or April 3, AD 33. He does not really see a way to decide between the two.

B) Grant: Jesus was crucified in either AD 30 or 33.

2. AD 30

A) Borg and Crossan: Jesus was crucified “most likely in the year 30 C.E.”

B) Blomberg: Blomberg notes in passing that Jesus probably died around AD 30.

C) Dunn: Dunn notes that Jesus’s death was probably in 30 but possibly in 33.

D) Ehrman: States that though it is uncertain, scholars seem to agree that it was around AD 30.

E) Funk: Holds that Jesus died about AD 30.

F) Goergen: Says the crucifixion of Jesus probably occurred in April of AD 30.

G) Jesus Seminar: They state that Jesus died about AD 30.

H) Lapide: Lapide believes Jesus was crucified about AD 29 or 30.

I) Meier: For Meier, Jesus died before sundown on a Friday in AD 30.

J) Sheehan: Sheehan discusses the fact of Jesus’s death probably occurring on April 7, AD 30.

K) Sloyan: Says Jesus’s death was probably AD 30.

L) Wright: He appears to lean toward AD 30.

M) Tabor: States that Jesus was crucified in AD 30.

3. AD 33

A) General Comments

(1) Barnett: In a footnote, Barnett argues that AD 33 is to be preferred over AD 30 for the death of Jesus. Barnett acknowledges that his view is the minority view and that most opt for 30.

(2) Hoehner: After an extensive examination of the New Testament, history, astronomy, and archaeology regarding the possible dates for Jesus’s crucifixion, Hoehner concludes that AD 30 or 33 are the only viable candidates. He chooses AD 33.

B) Arguments for AD 33

(1) Barnett: Barnett argues that according to Luke we can date the ministry of John the Baptist to have started at AD 29.

C. Arguments for Jesus’s Death

1. Centrality

A) Barnett: “Yet the dominant place of the death of Jesus, a death by the unmentionably vile mode of crucifixion, makes the bios or ‘life’ of Jesus distinct from any other bios of that era.”

2. Criteria

A) Embarrassing or Offensive

(1) General Comments

(a) Allison: Allison notes that Jesus’s resurrection, which created such joy, was unable to “obliterate the memory that Jesus had been publicly humiliated and tortured to death.”

(b) Barnett: Barnett discusses the way crucifixion was seriously looked down upon as well as the uniqueness of the Christian message that their Savior was crucified. See Barnett’s comment above about the “unmentionably vile mode of crucifixion.”

(c) Carroll and Green: They note that it is clear from first-century sources, both inside and outside the New Testament, that Jesus’s crucifixion was offensive because “of the abhorrent death of Jesus that opponents of the Christian message seized upon to discredit the claims made by Christians and that Christians had to overcome in order to render their faith intelligible within the wider world.”

(d) Dunn: “As a crucified criminal, Jesus was under God’s curse (Gal 3.13). A crucified Messiah made no sense, a ‘stumbling block’ indeed to Jews generally. (1 Cor. 1.23).” “Crucifixion . . . was a Roman form of punishment for recalcitrant slaves and political rebels.” Dunn notes that the descriptions we have cannot adequately convey the pain involved.

(e) Ehrman: Ehrman emphasizes that Jesus’s crucifixion is not what earlier believers would want to make up. Ehrman stresses how embarrassing and blasphemous it was for the early Christians to claim that a crucified criminal was Lord. He gives a modern example by pretending to argue for David Koresh, who was killed by the government, as a messiah.

(f) Gibson: Gibson argues that Jesus’s death by crucifixion was “difficult [for believers] to explain” and “the idea of a crucified messiah was somewhat anathema to all those around them,” which included Jews and gentiles. Gibson also notes the difficulty raised by pagans regarding how the Son of God could be crucified.

(g) Johnson: “Ultimately . . . [it was] the confession of a crucified sinner as resurrected Lord that was divisive.” He adds that this also signifies the crucifixion’s centrality.

(h) Lewis: Lewis notes the principle of embarrassment as well as the suffering involved in crucifixion.

(i) Segal: Segal recognizes that Paul identified Jesus’s death as scandalous.

(2) Embraced the Shame

(a) Bird: Bird argues that in our earliest reports of Jesus’s crucifixion, “need or desire to cover up the dishonor and indignity of Jesus’ death through an imaginative fiction is entirely absent from early interpreters.”

(3) Curse: See “Curse” below (section 1.D.3).

B) Multiple Attestation

(1) Bird: For Bird, one of the arguments for Jesus’s crucifixion is that it is widely attested in sources like the Gospels, early sermons (such as those in Acts), the writings of Paul, and the accounts of non-Christian authors like Josephus and Tacitus.

(2) Callahan: Refers to Roman references, of which he cites Tacitus, Josephus, and Suetonius (and Paul).

(3) Carroll and Green: Similar to Bird above, they note that Jesus’s crucifixion is mentioned in both biblical and extrabiblical sources.

(4) Ehrman: “That Jesus died by crucifixion is almost universally attested in our sources, early and late.” Ehrman lists thirteen sources that attest this: (1) Mark, (2) M, (3) L, (4) John, (5) Gos. Pet., (6) Hebrews, (7) 1 Peter, (8) Revelation (not the same John?), (9) Paul, (10) speeches in Acts (not Luke), (11) Josephus, (12) Tacitus, (13) alluded in 1 Timothy.

C) Early

(1) Borg: Borg notes that Jesus’s death was “probably” the earliest historical portion put into narrative form.

(2) Carrier: Carrier notes that Jesus “was clearly believed from the earliest time to have been condemned to death for blasphemy by the Jewish high council.”

(3) Carroll and Green: Note that we have sources from the first century attesting to Jesus’s death.

(4) Ehrman: Ehrman argues that Paul and others (Peter, James, and other early Christians) knew that Jesus was crucified and were proclaiming that message in the early 30s.

(5) Holleman: Since death and surrender formulas in the New Testament predate Paul’s material, “the idea of Jesus’ reconciliatory death is a very early Christian tenet.”

(6) Johnson: Claims Jesus crucifixion was “concrete and stable . . . early on.”

(7) Moltmann: Says the view of vicarious atonement comes from “very early” in Christianity.

(8) Pannenberg: Pannenberg writes that “most exegetes” say the passion story is an old tradition that came from Jerusalem and predates the Gospels, as indicated by the use of names and events in that area.

D) Consistency

(1) Ehrman: He says that Jesus’s crucifixion is “contextually credible.”

(2) Evans: Evans argues that the trial of Jesus is consistent with another trial recorded by Josephus of Jesus ben Ananias (J.W. 6.5.3).

E) Eyewitness

(1) General Comments

(a) Dunn: “The tradition of Jesus’ crucifixion and death, as attested by those who witnessed it, is firm enough in outline.”

(2) Women

(a) Bauckham: “In the Synoptic Gospels the role of the women as eyewitnesses is crucial: they see Jesus die, they see his body being laid in the tomb, they find the tomb empty. The fact that some of the women were at all three events means that they can testify that Jesus was dead when laid in the tomb and that it was the tomb in which he was buried that they subsequently found empty.” He mentions Keener, who also notes that the repeated mention of the women seeing indicates that the authors are doing so because of their status as eyewitnesses. He adds further that these women were well known as authoritative sources for these reports during their lifetimes. This includes the fact that the writers emphasized the names of those women.

F) Dissimilarity

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that Paul knew of Jesus’s crucifixion before his own conversion, both of which occurred in the early 30s. Jesus’s death “clearly passes the criterion of dissimilarity.” Note the centrality with which Ehrman places the cross in early Christian writings.

3. Crucifixions Were Purposefully Public Events

A) Allison: “Crucifixions were public events. . . . It is hard to imagine that there was no cloud of witnesses.” Allison stresses that as public events, crucifixions were designed to remind people of potential consequences. He argues that all sorts of people, friend and foe alike, would have seen both the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, whether they were interested or not.

4. Roman Soldiers Qualified to Determine Death

A) Wright: “Roman soldiers, after all, were rather good at killing people, and . . . had several motives for making sure the job was done properly.”

5. Archaeological Evidence

A) General Comments

(1) Stuhlmacher: Stuhlmacher comments on how archaeology reveals the “accuracy” of the Gospel accounts regarding the possibility of retracing Jesus’s passion, especially in details like Caiaphas, the scourging, the nailing of Jesus to the cross along with two others, “the (relatively) quick death of Jesus,” and Joseph of Arimathea’s role in the burial. “We have . . . historical reports which are dependable.”

B) Jehohanan (First-Century Crucifixion Victim)

(1) General Comments

(a) Gibson: Gibson makes some general comments on this archaeological finding with some photos.

(b) Tabor: Tabor discusses Jehohanan and the significance of this discovery for our understanding of Roman crucifixion. “His remains have given us an amazing glimpse into the details involved in Roman crucifixion.”

(2) Broken Legs

(a) Tabor: “Since Jehohanan’s legs were broken, his death was likely hastened to allow for burial the same day as his crucifixion.”

6. Quick Death

A) Gibson: Gibson notes that there are multiple contributing factors to Jesus’s death: “The earlier scourging would undoubtedly have led to a massive loss of blood and the effect of carrying the heavy crossbeam on his shoulders to Golgotha would have brought about substantial dehydration and exhaustion. Hence it is not surprising that Jesus did not last very long on the cross, perhaps three to six hours at the most.”

7. Historical Cause for Crucifixion

A) Borg: Says Jesus’s death due to crucifixion was because he was “a political threat to Roman order” and the Romans were responsible.

B) Callahan: Callahan notes that Jesus died under a “messianic pretense.”

C) Funk: States that Jesus was “probably executed” because he was seen essentially as a “threat to public order.”

D) Grant: Claims Jesus died because of the triumphal entry and temple cleansing.

E) Horsley: Horsley suggests that Jesus died because the Romans, rightly or wrongly, found him problematic and disruptive.

F) Wright: N. T. Wright provides five reasons why Jesus died.

(1) Pharisees and chief priests saw him as a false prophet;(2) his actions in cleansing the temple were misconstrued; (3) he saw himself in some sense as the Messiah; (4) he was perceived as a political nuisance; and (5) Jesus pleaded guilty in such a way that was also perceived as blasphemous.

D. Significance

1. Centrality and Atonement

A) Barnett: “Yet the dominant place of the death of Jesus, a death by the unmentionably vile mode of crucifixion, makes the bios or ‘life’ of Jesus distinct from any other bios of that era.” Barnett argues that Jesus’s death was central to the New Testament writers and was something that sets him uniquely apart from other ancient figures. Barnett notes four ways Jesus’s death is distinctive from other deaths of that era.

B) Borg: This “central emphasis on the unique achievement of Jesus’ death as the sin-offering, once-for-all liberating act of Israel’s God remained at the center of early Christian thought.” But for Borg this wasn’t Jesus’s own teaching. He rejects Wright’s idea that Jesus thought his death was central. Borg notes five related meanings given to Jesus’s death and resurrection throughout the New Testament, which are “rejection/vindication; defeat of the powers; revelation of the way; revelation of the love of God; sacrifice for sin.”

C) Caird: Says that although for moderns sacrifice is a foreign notion, it was central for Jesus. When talking about Jesus’s notion of his own death, Caird deals with two main topics: servant and sacrifice. While it would be difficult to find the notion of “vicarious sacrifice” in Old Testament texts, “yet the seeds for such a belief are there.”

D) Fitzmyer: States the “cross and the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth are at the heart of Christian faith.”

E) Fuller: Notes that for John, “the cross is the goal to which the Gospel steadily moves.”

F) Green: Michael Green notes that Jesus was a substitute.

G) Hengel: Says the “Christian message fundamentally broke apart the customary conceptions of atonement in the ancient world.” Hengel then gives several examples. “Methodologically, then, we are justified, indeed compelled, to push our enquiry back to Jesus himself.” Ultimately, “Jesus wanted to prepare the way for the coming of the kingdom of God through his sacrificial death.” Mark 10:45 and 14:24 (the Last Supper) are two examples of important formulas.

H) Hopkins: “At the core of each [Gospel], however, lies the passion and death of Jesus.”

I) Johnson: States that, at least for the New Testament authors, Jesus died as a sacrifice for others, shedding his blood for us.

J) Meyer: Meyer notes that Jesus gave insights into the human condition and that the “expiatory motif” and “eucharistic words” imply that human sin and death are the problem.

K) Moltmann: Says Christ’s passion and death are the center of Christianity. According to the New Testament, “He also became the one who atones for the guilty.”

L) O’Collins: During a detailed discussion, O’Collins says Jesus thought his death was “a saving event.” Pre-Pauline traditions clearly indicate “that Jesus’ crucifixion was a death ‘for us’” and the best indication of the teaching of atonement in the early church is that the teaching goes back to Jesus. He also notes different levels of meaning of Jesus’s dying for others:(1) It was an event that had “a saving, beneficial value for others.” (2) It also saved sinners. Finally, (3) Jesus died for our sins as “the Messiah himself.”

M) Senior: Chiefly commenting on Mark, Senior concludes that central to Jesus’s teaching was sacrificing for others, including his death. Jesus’s death is prefigured in the Passover meal and demonstrated on the cross.

N) Sloyan: Says Paul provides us with the earliest reports that view Jesus’s death “as expiating human sin and sinfulness.” We don’t know what other early Christians or Jesus thought on the subject.

O) Weber: The “early Church began to recognize in the first decade after Jesus’ death that Christ had ‘died for us,’ ‘for our sins.’” Weber notes possible echoes of Isaiah 53.

2. Meaning or Relationship to Resurrection

A) Borg and Crossan: These two note the interrelatedness of the cross and resurrection, especially for Paul.

3. Curse

A) Dunn: “As a crucified criminal, Jesus was under God’s curse (Gal. 3.13). A crucified Messiah made no sense, a ‘stumbling block’ indeed to Jews generally.”

B) Gibson: Gibson notes that the curse was associated with anyone hung on a tree and “the notion of a crucified messiah was particularly offensive” to Jews in later centuries.

4. Life of Significance

A) Blomberg: “There is no convincing reason left in the Seminar’s Jesus for his death—death as a criminal by crucifixion.” Blomberg’s point is that the Jesus Seminar made Jesus’s life less threatening and one that was unlikely to face execution.

B) Dunn: Dunn comments regarding Crossan’s depiction of Jesus, “That’s a much easier message to translate into the twenty-first century—much less offensive, much less challenging—but it leaves us back with the modernizers of the nineteenth-century quest, with a Jesus who is far too nice to be worth crucifying.”

5. Crucifixion and Eschatology

A) Allison: Allison argues that the crucifixion was unable to effectively challenge eschatology.

6. Unimportant

A) Drange: Drange finds Jesus’s death strange and a bit of a weakness in light of Jesus’s resurrection. He states that there would have been greater impact if Jesus stayed dead!

2. DISCIPLES’ EXPERIENCES

A. See also: “Appearances as Cause for Faith” (section 20) in chapter 5.

B. General Comments

1. Allison: “I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death.” Although the disciples saw Jesus, Allison notes that it was not necessarily the way traditionally understood. Nevertheless, Jesus must—at least as far as the disciples believed—have been raised from the dead if we are to have any hope of accounting for the existence of the church. Allison also observes how Paul confirms two facts:(1) several people reported seeing Jesus, and (2) Jesus appeared at multiple events. These are facts that need to be explained by the historian.

2. Alsup: Alsup argues that he affirms the historicity of the disciples’ experience, as it is both an “exegetical conclusion and a statement of faith.”

3. Borg: “For the early Christians, the living Christ was not just an object of belief, but an element of experience. Some ‘saw’ him.” Responding to Wright, Borg says he has no problem saying that the disciples “had experiences of Jesus in bodily form . . . I take seriously that Christians from the earliest days to the present sometimes have experiences of Jesus appearing in visual form. This is what visions are.”

4. Bartsch: Says the reason for the belief of the earliest Christians was “because [Jesus] had appeared to them as such, and not because of an authority that the pre-Easter Jesus of Nazareth had acquired and that was kept alive after his death.” This conclusion is “worked out by form-critical research.” Bartsch concludes similarly that Easter faith is not the result of an empty grave but rose later from the appearances.

5. Brown: States that in having the apostles experience more than one appearance of Jesus in Luke 24 and Acts 1:3, Luke might be utilizing an earlier tradition along the lines of that in 1 Corinthians 15. John 21 may reflect the tradition of Jesus’s first appearance to Peter, as represented in Luke 24:34 and 1 Cor 15:5.

6. Carnley: “It seems clear enough that, on the basis of these alleged experiences, the disciples were convinced that they had seen the raised Christ.” “Meanwhile, there is no doubt that the first disciples interpreted the Easter visions or appearances as signs of the heavenly presence of Christ.”

7. Casey: Says one ought not to doubt, “even on the most rigorous of historical criteria, that some of the first followers of Jesus had genuine visions of him after his death, and that they interpreted these as appearances of the risen Lord.” Casey adds that the historian’s data is not inconsistent with the belief of the earliest Christians. Casey similarly points out that one ought not to doubt the appearances of 1 Cor 15:5–7 or the four Gospels.

8. Cavin: Cavin appears to grant the “core” New Testament tradition and appearances (although it is somewhat difficult to see if he is doing it just for the sake of the argument or whether he really sees them as legitimate evidence—it appears to be the latter), but qualifies what he means by “resurrection” as essentially an inability to die. (Interestingly, we never see him attempt to explain why the term resurrection was used to describe what happened to Jesus.)

9. Craig: A number of resurrection appearance are historically credible. These include the appearances to the women, Peter, the Twelve, the 500, and James. Craig provides data for appearances and disciples’ belief in a critique of Crossan.

10. Crossan: “I am convinced as a fact they had apparitions.” “Of course there may have been trances and visions.” Crossan states that in 1 Cor 15:1–11, Paul summarized “resurrectional apparition[s].”

11. Crossley: Referring to 1 Corinthians 15 (but presumably other accounts as well), Crossley says people thought they had seen Jesus, but this is different from them actually having seen Jesus alive from the dead. Early believers interpreted their experiences as Jesus raised in bodily form. Paul also believed in a bodily resurrection, and bodily resurrection is implied by the resurrection language.

12. Davis: Davis states that “virtually all scholars” agree the disciples had some sort of experiences that they believed to be of the risen Jesus. The evidence in this matter is decisive. This is why virtually all accept this fact.

13. Doré: Doré seems to refer to the appearances as objective experiences of Jesus’s presence after his death.

14. Drane: “We can say with absolute certainty that the earliest church believed that Jesus had come back to life again.” Drane holds that the texts say Jesus appeared on many occasions. It must be recognized that something had to create this belief.

15. Dunn: “What we should recognize as beyond reasonable doubt is that the first believers experienced ‘resurrection appearances’ and that those experiences are enshrined, as with the earlier impact made by Jesus’ teaching and action.” Dunn says there is a core to the different traditions. Dunn also summarizes the appearances in Jesus Remembered. He says one cannot dispute that at the core of Christianity are the experiences of the first believers. Dunn notes that there is an “astonishing” silence regarding the experiences of Peter and James since these experiences would have been the “most significant.” For Dunn, one of the reasons for these appearance reports was that they were not like tradition but were more like “personal testimony.” Why aren’t these accounts in the early reports? Dunn notes that it is an intriguing possibility that they were too private and personal, but this is just a possibility. Dunn’s conclusion appears to be that such accounts, including those like that of the 500, “could be told only by the witnesses themselves.”

16. Ehrman: “Historians, of course, have no difficulty speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death.” “That belief [that the followers of Jesus believed Jesus was physically raised] is a historical fact.” “We can say with complete certainty that some of [Jesus’s] disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead.”

17. Elliott: Says the reality of the disciples’ belief is “undeniable.” That the earliest believers had these experiences is a clear reality for the New Testament writers.

18. Fuller: Notes that it is an “undoubted fact that the first disciples experienced Jesus after Good Friday as resurrected from the dead” and that accounts of this experience, like those in Luke 24 and John 20, have their “historical nucleus” in either the appearance to the Twelve or to all the apostles listed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (or a combination of the two appearances).

19. Fiorenza: “The early Christians . . . had experiences after Jesus’s death that led them to the affirmation that God had raised Jesus from the dead.” Literary analyses oppose taking the appearances as “later theological embellishments” but rather see them as early reports of the appearances. This doesn’t prove the resurrection, but it “does provide some warrants for that conviction.”

20. Funk: Says the belief that Jesus was risen from the dead “began as a series of visions, initiated, according to the records, by Peter. Paul claimed to have had a similar vision on the road to Damascus.” Funk makes a list of thirteen appearances to “individuals,” “groups,” and “others.”

21. Galvin: Galvin notes that experiences of the disciples as the central point for the beginning of the church is the consensus view among scholars.

22. Goergen: Says that there is an important “historical dimension underlying the appearances of Jesus” and that the “disciples came to believe in Jesus as raised.” Additionally, the “documents themselves attribute the source or cause of this conversion of faith to the appearances of Jesus, to personal encounters with the risen Lord.” Jesus was experienced as living.

23. Goulder: Responding to Craig, Goulder says he “roughly agreed” to two of Craig’s four facts: “single disciples and groups of disciples had visions of Jesus after his death; and they interpreted these visions as his resurrection.” Even though these “are not quite how Bill puts them . . . they are common ground.” The reason for this is because they are reported early and widely. Namely, we have this material on Paul’s authority “perhaps two years after Jesus’ death.”

24. Grant: “These accounts do prove that certain people were utterly convinced” that Jesus had risen from the dead.

25. Hick: Hick’s apparent view is that the “conviction . . . that Jesus lives as exalted Lord” has “as its simplest and perhaps most likely basis a vision or visions, perhaps only momentary, of Jesus as a majestic figure shining in supernatural light” like the transfiguration accounts. “Less than this could hardly have launched the movement.” He sets up the two major possibilities: we do not know if Jesus appeared bodily or as “a series of visions (and perhaps auditions) of Jesus as a glorified figure of exalted majesty.” The bodily option is something that could be photographed or tape recorded, while the latter vision or voice option, “which [was] utterly real,” could not be captured on camera or tape recorded but was “a supernaturally shining presence.” Hick says any view that holds “a real interaction after his death between Jesus and the disciples should be acceptable in principle to christian [sic] faith today.”

26. Holtz: While the resurrection is not an event in the life of Jesus, the experience of the resurrection “is in fact an indisputable historical event” in the lives of the disciples. The New Testament is unanimous in holding that the resurrection is part of Jesus’s story.

27. Hoover: Hoover thinks Lüdemann is correct for inferring that it was experiences of the risen Jesus that led the disciples to claim that God had raised Jesus.

28. Hurtado: Hurtado states that whatever cause one attributes to these experiences, they are the starting point for the Christology connected to them.

29. Jenkins: “We have overwhelming evidence for a very early belief in Jesus’ resurrection.” Jenkins then points out that this is not the same as saying that the resurrection actually occurred.

30. Johnson: “I hold that some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”

31. Kasper: Kasper states that the universal message of the New Testament is that the disciples had experiences of the risen Jesus.

32. Kee: Alistair Kee states, “There is no longer any point to denying that such appearances occurred. We must rather enquire into their nature and significance.”

33. Keller: Keller concludes, “I agree that some early Christians must have had an experience which the church called ‘seeing the risen Jesus.’ But this admission does not imply that we have an eyewitness account of what that seeing involved or an accurate later account of it.”

34. Kent: Kent’s theory seeks to account for the disciples’ experiences as having been hallucinations.

35. Koester: Comparing Jesus’s death to the appearances, Koester writes: “We are on much firmer ground with respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus and their effect.” After speaking about the reported appearance to Paul, whom he calls “our most immediate testimony,” Koester notes, “However, that Jesus also appeared to others (Peter, Mary Magdalene, James) cannot very well be questioned.”

36. Kremer: Kremer discusses the truth of and the evidence for the appearances. He considers the Gospel appearances on the mountain in Matthew, on the road to Emmaus, to the Twelve in Luke, to the Twelve in John, and on the Sea of Galilee.

37. Ladd: Ladd argues that something happened to create the belief that Jesus was raised; this something was the appearance experiences.

38. Lapide: “Something must have happened which we can designate as a historical event since its results were historical. . . . I can believe in such a real Something.” “Despite all the legendary embellishments, in the oldest records there remains a recognizable historical kernel which cannot simply be demythologized.”

39. Lindars: “There can be no doubt that the present reality of Jesus as risen from the dead . . . was vividly experienced in some way at these gatherings of Apostles and disciples.”

40. Lüdemann: “There were in fact appearances of the heavenly Jesus in Jerusalem (after those in Galilee). That can be said with certainty of the vision of James (1 Cor. 15.7), since the Lord’s brother only joined the primitive community at a later date. Cf. also the appearances to 500 brethren (1 Cor. 15.6), the Emmaus story (Luke 24) and John 20 as evidence for a tradition of Jerusalem appearances.”

41. Loewe: After a survey of the representative positions of Vawter, O’Collins, Kasper, Sobrino, Küng, and Fuller, Loewe concludes that “all of the authors surveyed agree” that the resurrection appearances are “eschatological disclosures. Beyond this agreement, however, the authors differ significantly.” “All of the authors wish to safeguard the objectivity of the fundamental biblical assertion that the disciples really encountered the risen Lord. Where they differ is in how they conceive the nature of that objectivity.” There is a “consensus . . . that Christian faith originated in an event or events subsequent to the execution of Jesus which form the basis for the New Testament appearance tradition.”

42. Lorenzen: “Historically we can say with reasonable certainty” that several persons “experienced an appearance in which they recognized Jesus as the Christ.” “There is a widespread agreement that the New Testament sources speak of a real encounter of the risen Christ with the disciples.” Lorenzen is clear that these experiences were because of God’s actions, not because of the psychological makeup of the disciples. Something happened outside the disciples that caused them to have those experiences, and that this external factor was God. Indeed, it was something that happened to Jesus.

43. Martin: “Habermas is correct that the Resurrection was proclaimed by the early Christians.” “Paul reports many eyewitnesses to Jesus’ postresurrection appearances.” Martin notes that Paul is the only eyewitness.

44. Maier: Paul Maier addresses many appearance accounts.

45. Meier: John Meier points out that the early church arose because of the experiences of the disciples of a risen Jesus (and of the Holy Spirit) which, for Meier, are “faith claims as well as empirically verifiable historical claims.”

46. Meyer: For Ben Meyer, that it was experiences of the risen Jesus that transformed the disciples is “beyond reasonable doubt.”

47. Moltmann: “The effects of Christ’s appearances on . . . the disciples . . . are historically ascertainable.” The early reports of those who saw Jesus go back to the experiences they had of Jesus. We have accounts, and they agree that the disciples claimed to see Jesus. For Moltmann, however, it was probably “an inner experience” like Paul’s. Using Old Testament texts with similar language, he says the appearances were like God’s appearances to the patriarchs.

48. Moule: Says there is “historical evidence for something, viz. the coming into existence of the Easter-belief,” having characteristics such as “a large number of people all sharing the same conviction,” and this belief was not derived from either the Old Testament or Pharisaism. “Here are historically well-attested beliefs, to account for which I have to invoke something beyond history, something transcendent. The New Testament calls it the resurrection of Jesus . . . I submit that it makes better sense to say that the Easter belief was generated by Jesus’ aliveness, with an absolute, transcendent life.” The Easter experiences were “a revelation in terms of various sense-perceptions.” The earliest reports all attest that Jesus was perceived through the senses as alive. These experiences were had by groups, are not consistent with private visions, and led believers to understand the past in light of these experiences.

49. Muddiman: Says the earliest Christians must “have started from some experience, whether objective or subjective,” and they would have interpreted these experiences according to Jewish apocalypticism and, possibly, Jesus’s teachings about the resurrection. The comments come after just arguing that at least some subjective views are weak.

50. O’Collins: Regarding the earliest witnesses, O’Collins writes, “The visionary elements were of primary significance in establishing for them the reality of the resurrection.”

51. Osborne: Osborne concludes that Jesus did appear the way the New Testament indicates. He notes that the accounts of Paul and those in the Gospels circulated independently. Osborne looks at Paul’s description of the appearance traditions to the Twelve, the 500, James and the apostles, and Paul himself. He also examines each of the Gospels.

52. Pagels: “We have only secondhand testimony from believers who affirm it, and skeptics who deny it. But what we do know as historical fact is that certain disciples—notably, Peter—claimed that the resurrection had happened.” She then mentions some appearances.

53. Pannenberg: He concludes that the appearances have a strong historical foundation. Pannenberg defines their content as a spiritual body (i.e., “not . . . an earthly body”), appearing from heaven, probably “as light phenomenon” and “certainly connected with an audition.”

54. Pesch (via Galvin): According to John Galvin, Pesch identified the resurrection experiences as the “chief source” for the start of Christianity and was among the “widespread consensus.” Pesch changed his earlier position, now explicitly granting the appearances. As summarized by Galvin, for Pesch the “appearances of the risen Christ [are] adequately established by biblical research.” Pesch’s position is that “the Easter appearances, in which the Risen One was seen in his heavenly glory, were exclusive experiences of vocation.” The appearances “were visions in which Jesus appeared to the witnesses as the Son of man” where the promise of his resurrection “was revealed to his disciples as fulfilled.” They were, however, “perceptible only in faith, they were at once fully the work of God and fully the work of their human recipients.”

55. Perrin: Writes that as study into the appearances increased, “the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.” “It is clear from the evidence that the appearance stories are the heart of the matter so far as the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is concerned.” The 1 Corinthians 15 creed is important here since it lists appearances to individuals and groups. Perrin notes that they were somehow “granted a vision of Jesus which convinced them,” although Perrin is unclear how the vision was granted.

56. Perry: “Even the most skeptical historians would agree that something happened in the first century of our era sufficient to” transform Jesus’s followers.

57. Pilch: Pilch concludes, “His contemporaries truly experienced the risen Jesus in an ASC [altered state of consciousness] . . . his present location in God’s ordered creation,” and it helped them with their grief. From the combined perspectives of psychology and Mediterranean anthropology, these are “experiences of [Jesus] in alternate reality by his contemporaries.”

58. Price: Charles Price writes, “I am sure the resurrection appearances were not invented by the disciples. They were ‘God-caused,’ not ‘disciple-caused.’ They involved experiences which are recorded as accurately as such a mind-blowing event as the resurrection permits.”

59. Price: According to Robert Price, people began to glorify Jesus “precisely because of experiences.”

60. Rahner: Typical of the older existentialist literature, all Rahner says is, “The peculiar nature of the Easter experience: it is given from ‘without,’ not produced by oneself, and is different from the visionary experiences which were quite familiar. It is related very closely to the crucified Jesus with his quite definite individuality and fate.” He curiously says his focus is on the presuppositions of those core experiences of the risen Jesus rather than the original experience.

61. Robinson: James M. Robinson notes apparent progression from “the visualization of the resurrected Christ as a luminous heavenly body to envisioning him as a gloriously disembodied spirit—against which the resurrection of the same fleshly body emerged as an orthodox apologetic.”

62. Robinson: John A. T. Robinson writes, “It is indeed very difficult to dismiss [the appearances] and still find a credible explanation.” At least three times he says “something happened.” He also says that the appearances include “a large element of subjectivity and at best add up to a reasonably well-attested case of temporary survival: they certainly do not of themselves spell resurrection.”

63. Sanders: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.” Sanders writes that “the disciples . . . saw [Jesus] (in what sense is not certain) after his death,” and that this is “almost beyond dispute.” His disciples had resurrection experiences where they saw him. We “cannot reconstruct what really happened. . . . I do not pretend to know what they saw or just who saw it.” “I think that the Christian leaders really experienced the appearance of Jesus after his execution . . . but we cannot say what it was. In fact, neither could they . . . we must be content with the simplest, vaguest, sort of conclusion: something happened to the followers of Jesus, but we do not know what it was.”

64. Sobrino (via Loewe): According to Loewe, Sobrino holds that the disciples’ experiences “constituted real encounters with the risen Lord . . . indisputable on historical grounds that the origin of the appearance tradition lies in some significant experience of the disciples after Jesus’ death. . . . For Sobrino the appearances are to be explained by the appearance of the risen Lord to the clear exclusion of any natural mechanism.”

65. Sheehan: Says that “[Jesus’s] followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead” and that this “enhancement of Jesus’ reputation is a historical fact, observable by anyone who studies the relevant documents. But according to Christians, something dramatic happened not just to Jesus’ reputation but above all to Jesus himself. . . . There is no doubt that Christianity formally began with the disciples’ claim that Jesus had been rescued from death.”

66. Spong: Writes that Paul’s account is the earliest we have that “the Lord lived, that the Lord had made himself visible to them, and that they had seen the Lord.” Paul reported that Jesus appeared to many.

67. Staudinger: “The preaching of the resurrection . . . was freely proclaimed on each occasion by the witnesses to the resurrection itself who were present.” First and foremost for Staudinger is “that appearances did actually take place.” The eyewitnesses taught and controlled the creedal process as the witnesses were alive and telling others about their experiences.

68. Stuhlmacher: “The great variety in times and places of the appearances makes it difficult to hold all the reports of appearances to be legendary.” Similarly, Stuhlmacher notes that issues arise if one were to try to sweepingly explain them away as delusions. Regarding the variety of appearances, he notes that (1) they occurred at a variety of times and places, (2) to a multitude of people, (3) “they had an unobjectifiable character,” and (4) “they engendered faith in those who experienced them.” The appearances should not be objectified by calling them “objective fact” or talking about photographing them. Those to whom Christ appeared “could recognize him as their Lord.” See also Stuhlmacher’s German work that details the genesis of the Easter message and the appearances as well as his explanation of them.

69. Thrall: “It is very difficult to account for the origin of the Christian Church unless it is conceded that Jesus’ disciples and the apostle Paul really did undergo experiences which convinced them that Jesus himself had been raised from the dead and had personally made an appearance to them.” But, Thrall asks, is “their own interpretation of their experiences . . . the correct one”?

70. Verweyen (via Galvin): As noted by John Galvin, Verweyen “grants the historical probability” that Jesus’s death was such a blow to his followers that “only special occurrences after the crucifixion” allowed them to overcome the problem. He adds, “Verweyen concedes that the origin of the Easter faith in fact derives from visions of the risen Lord.”

71. Viney: “We have Paul’s and the Gospel writer’s word that Jesus appeared to certain persons.”

72. Vögtle (via Galvin): According to John Galvin, responding to the early Pesch, Vögtle judged that it was unlikely, although not impossible, that the disciples’ faith would grow without “new experiences.” But Vögtle states we still cannot tell how the Easter faith began.

73. Watson: The earliest Christians had “visionary experiences, as intensely held beliefs so often are in the history of religion.”

74. Wedderburn: Says that what is in the historian’s reach is “the early Christians’ claim that Jesus had been raised.” Even if that claim is considered to be an act of God’s revelation in history, then the effects in the historical natural world can still be assessed since it is human eyes and ears that experienced something. Therefore, these things are open to history. Wedderburn also says “something really happened.” “Something must surely have happened to effect this change.” These experiences were evidence to the disciples that what appeared to be a failure in the cross was, in reality, a victory in the resurrection.

75. Welker: Welker notes that it is not just one singular experience that led to these beliefs, “but rather from a variety of appearances arises the firm conviction: the resurrected Christ was and is with us.”

76. Wells: He says Paul states that Jesus had recently appeared to several believers. These appearances are “normal religious psychology.”

77. Williams: “The encounters with Jesus risen are historical,” although Williams says we can’t say much about the details (a somewhat skeptical point mentioned several times) except that the historical appearances are the best explanation for the New Testament texts. Williams appears to find it frustrating to have to say this.

78. Wink: “Something also happened to the disciples. They experienced the most essential part of Jesus’ presence as still with them after his death.”

79. Winter: Offers an excellent analogy on moving from whether the disciples thought they saw Jesus to whether they did actually see him. After commenting on the extremely good evidence for the resurrection compared to our knowledge of other ancient events, Winter says, “Where does it take us, into the minds of witnesses or back to the event? Is it sufficient to say that the sincere witnesses of the battle of Hastings were honestly convinced that the conflict had occurred? No, it does not stop there. The testimony of reliable witnesses leads us not merely into their minds, but to the event as reality. And the same applies to those who saw the risen Christ.”

80. Witherington: Says the resurrection without appearances would be insufficient to start the church. “Jesus had to appear to those disciples who denied and deserted him for the church to be formed.” “The pattern of appearances to various people at various times in differing places—sometimes to individuals, sometimes to groups, and at least once to someone who had never been a believer (Paul)—makes clear that these events cannot be categorized as mass hallucinations or the dreams of the deluded or even mere subjective visions.” Witherington notes that we only have access to those who reported these earliest experiences and their understanding of them.

81. Wolterstorff: “But a few days later [Jesus’s] followers, some of them, anyway, began having experiences which they could only interpret as experiences of him, of him embodied, though strangely so; and when they put together all their experiences, the only category which seemed to fit was that of ‘resurrection from the dead.’ It is my own belief that we can do no better.”

82. Wright: “The only explanation for the earliest church’s behaviour, their stories, their symbols, and their theology is that they really believed Jesus had been reembodied, that Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead. This conclusion is so well grounded that, today, even those who would like to insist that the body of Jesus in fact remained decomposing in the tomb agree that the early Christians believed him to have been bodily raised, leaving an empty tomb behind him.” “We are left with the secure historical conclusion: the tomb was empty, and various ‘meetings’ took place not only between Jesus and his followers . . . [but also] between Jesus and people who had not been among his followers. I regard this conclusion as coming in the same sort of category, of historical probability so high as to be virtually certain, as the death of Augustus in AD 14 or the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.” “In terms of the kind of proof which historians normally accept, the case we have presented, that the tomb-plus-appearances combination is what generated early Christian belief, is as watertight as one is likely to find.” “I regard as fixed historical points . . . Jesus’s tomb really was empty; second, the disciples really did encounter him in ways that convinced them he was not simply a ghost or hallucination.” “The empty tomb and the meetings with Jesus are as well established, by the arguments I have advanced, as any historical data could expect to be. They are, in combination, the only possible explanation for the stories and beliefs that grew up so quickly among Jesus’s followers.”

C. Specific Experiences (Except Paul)

1. Peter

A) Craig: He notes that although there are no narratives of an appearance to Peter, it is considered historical by nearly all New Testament scholars. The reason for this is because it is attested early (1 Corinthians 15 creed) and in other texts (Luke 24:34). Moreover, Paul had also personally met with Peter.

B) Grant: Grant repeatedly recognizes that Peter believed he saw the risen Jesus and preached so accordingly.

C) Lüdemann: Holds that Peter saw Jesus in a vision (hallucination) that also contained an auditory element. After Jesus’s death, certain “appearances” caused Peter to take a leading role in the Jerusalem community.

D) O’Collins: O’Collins argues for a “formidable consensus” among non-Catholic exegetical scholars on the primacy of the appearance to Peter and its crucial role in Peter’s prominence in the early church based on texts like 1 Cor 15:5; Luke 24:34; and Mark 16:7.

E) Robinson: James Robinson notes that there is a “relatively strong attestation” to Peter as the first witness.

F) Sheehan: Peter experienced a “revelation” and had an “insight.” The result “could have been as dramatic as an ecstatic vision” or as common as reflection.

2. James

A) See also: The discussion on 1 Corinthians 15 in “James” in this chapter (section 3.E.4.E).

B) Craig: Argues that James was antithetical toward Jesus during his life but eventually became a leader in the early church. This was probably due to a resurrection appearance (cf. 1 Cor 15:7).

C) Meier: Says that although James was apparently in opposition during Jesus’s ministry, he reportedly saw the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:7).

D) Price: Price does not think it was an appearance that led to James’s conversion, but rather he was tempted to be the leader of the early church. Jesus was the leader, but once Jesus died, an opportunity to take charge as Jesus’s brother was presented. His relationship to Jesus was so powerful and so great a credential that this makes Price skeptical. Interestingly, Price complains that an appearance to James is an “exegetical phantom.” On the other hand, he doesn’t mind making a jump that is at least on par with regard to textual evidence and the improbability facing Price’s view of James taking a leadership role where persecution and martyrdom await (especially taking over for a King Messiah who was crucified). What’s more, Price argues in Historical Jesus: Five Views that the James referenced was not even Jesus’s brother. This is symptomatic of an overt skepticism on Price’s part that suggests (1) James was not Jesus’s brother, and (2) if he was, then he only sought the position for power even though Jesus was crucified, the Christians were being persecuted, and James would eventually have to give up his life.

3. Women

A) General Comments

(1) Casey: Casey grants the appearances to the women, but as bereavement visions.

(2) Craig: The surprising fact that the first witnesses were women lends credibility, notes Craig, because it is not the type of thing the New Testament authors would have invented due to its embarrassing nature. This is probably part of the reason they were omitted in the 1 Corinthians 15.

(3) Dunn: “Why did these Evangelists accord the role of first witnesses to women? As already observed, it was hardly a tactic designed to inspire confidence in future hearers of the claim that God has raised Jesus.” When it comes to Matthew’s account, Dunn points out that they “could easily have been omitted” without affecting the narrative. “The only obvious answer is that there was a persistent report within the communal memory of the earliest churches that the first witnesses had been women, a report which Matthew could not ignore, however less than satisfying his telling of it.” See also Dunn’s comments in the next section regarding John’s account of Mary.

(4) Witherington: States that John 20:1–18 demonstrates the women saw Jesus and were also told to share the good news, including to the brothers.

B) Mary Magdalene

(1) Allison: Allison notes that there are good reasons for believing the appearance to Mary was an old tradition. Here are four: (1) Peter’s name is first in all the lists that name the Twelve, whereas Mary is first in the lists of appearances (except for John 19:25); (2) Mark 16:7 and John 20:17 probably contain variants of the same saying; (3) tradition (multiple attestation) has Mary or Mary and other women seeing an angel, the risen Jesus, or both (Psalms, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Gos. Pet.); (4) Mary’s experience is not downplayed to allow Peter the first appearance.

(2) Dunn: Regarding John’s account, Dunn similarly questions why Mary was given so much attention, especially toward the end of the Gospel. “Here again the most obvious explanation for this is that John (the Johaninne tradition) was in touch with an early memory (beloved disciple?) that Mary of Magdala had indeed been the first to see Jesus.” Note also that Dunn suggests that in John 20:2, “we” indicates John is using the device of “silent companions” (cf. John with Peter and Silas with Paul in Acts 3–4, 16–18).

C) Absent in Luke

(1) Dunn: Dunn notes that Luke’s silence regarding the women “would be understandable, given the low esteem for women as reliable witnesses.”

4. The Twelve

A) General Comments

(1) Casey: Argues that there is an element of truth to the appearance to the Twelve (technically eleven) that should not be doubted.

(2) Craig: Says the appearance to the Twelve in the pre-Pauline tradition is unlikely to be a late legend. Luke and John present independent traditions. For Craig, this appearance probably happened on the Sunday after the crucifixion in Jerusalem.

(3) Dunn: Dunn has a thorough discussion on the Twelve. Similar to Craig, he notes their appearances were reported early, and the appearances are listed as a group rather than as individual accounts, among other considerations. He holds that these appearances took place in Jerusalem. Dunn also challenges those (like Wilckens) who argue far too quickly from the fact that we have an early confessional statement to the conclusion that there were no narrative statements. “One form (kerygmatic confession) does not exclude another (narrative).”

(4) Goergen: Notes that this appearance is the “most historically attested appearance. It is contained in all our accounts.”

(5) O’Collins: Says the appearances to Peter and the other disciples and the women discovering the empty tomb are “two originally independent and historically reliable traditions.”

B) Embarrassing Testimony

(1) Casey: Casey notes that in Matt 28:17, the phrase “some doubted” indicates the truth of this report.

5. The 500

A) See also: The discussion of 1 Corinthians 15 in “500 Witnesses” in this chapter (section 3.E.4.G).

B) Craig: Although there are no narratives, Paul appeals to the 500 in 1 Corinthians 15 and to their testimony and had contact with some of them.

C) Davis: Paul here seems to be saying that the Corinthians could check with the 500 since they were eyewitnesses.

6. Tiberius Appearances

A) Craig: Says John 21 provides a possible location—the Lake of Tiberias—for the appearances. He adds that the testimony of the Beloved Disciple also adds weight.

7. Galilee Appearances

A) Casey: In the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, Casey finds some “literal truth” about the disciples fleeing and some of them having experiences of Jesus alive.

B) Craig: Says a Galilean appearance is indicated in the pre-Markan passion narrative via predictions.

C) Dunn: “In contrast to the accounts of the appearances to the eleven in Jerusalem, the accounts of the appearances in Galilee have no point of contact whatsoever.” Dunn also notes that Matthew leaves some doubting while Luke (24:39–43) and John (20:24–29) remove the doubt.

D) Twelftree: Twelftree notes that the appearance is contextually credible and there is agreement among Matthew, Mark, and John about appearances in this area too. “It is probable that the risen Jesus appeared to his followers and performed a miracle [catching of fish in John 21:4–14] as broadly outlined in this story.”

8. Jerusalem Appearances

A) Casey: Casey thinks Luke replaced the appearances in Galilee with those in Jerusalem, “though the basic idea of appearances in Jerusalem may well reflect historical fact.”

B) Dunn: Dunn notes three key features: that Jesus is said to be alive; the use of tekmēriois, “convincing proofs,” in Acts 1:3; and the use of synalizō, “to gather together” or “to eat together with,” for Jesus in Acts 1:4. (1) Dunn finds importance that Luke refers to Jesus as alive instead of risen (which probably reflects a very old but natural reaction to seeing Jesus after the crucifixion). (2) Dunn claims Luke stresses the tangibility of Jesus’s appearances by using tekmēria. (3) Last, Dunn says the use of synalizō is very intriguing with various implications.

C) Lüdemann: Lüdemann notes that there is no interpolation in Acts 1:3.

9. Emmaus Road

A) Dunn: Dunn asks some questions as to why Luke would include this appearance since it seems obscure and does not incorporate Peter’s priority. Dunn postulates that Luke included it just because the account was available to him.

10. Thomas

A) Dunn: Dunn believes this is probably a variation of appearances accounts to the Twelve (i.e., eleven).

D. Language Is Limited in Describing Resurrected Jesus

1. Alsup: Says the passive form of the Greek verb ōphthē, “to appear,” (lit. “to have been shown”) appears to place the emphasis on “divine initiative.”

2. Dunn: Dunn describes the difficulty in conceptualizing a resurrection body and articulating the “seeing” of a resurrected body. He rightly notes as the fact of the matter that “resurrection” was the language used to express the impact of the appearance experiences. This is significant because there was other language those who witnessed the risen Jesus could have used, such as that of visions for a hero who was exalted to heaven. “But this is not what we find.” According to Dunn, what did happen was the following: “Appearances of Jesus which impacted on the witnesses as resurrection appearances did not conform to any known or current paradigm. Instead they created their own.” It is for this reason that Dunn is compelled to the conclusion that these experiences reflect something that happened to Jesus as opposed to the disciples.

3. Johnson: Johnson notes that the experiences are clothed with language.

4. Lüdemann: Says the New Testament language of the appearances is the language of sight.

5. Murphy: Following McClendon, Murphy states that the resurrection appearances are to be understood as “word pictures” in which they are inadequate to properly describe the risen Jesus. Interestingly, the accounts tell us what Jesus is not: resuscitated, vision, or ghost. “The language of the present aeon [during the writing of the New Testament] is incapable of describing a resurrected body. No ordinary description is possible.”

6. Purves: Says Jesus and the resurrection are central, but “we have no human categories of thought by which to bring him to expression.”

E. Divided between Subjective and Objective Approaches

1. Badham: Badham names three modern positions on the resurrection body: (1) a spiritual body continuous with the body that was buried, (2) the survival of Jesus’s spirit (perhaps like an objective vision), and (3) the subjective “influence” view. Badham’s position appears somewhere between the second and third.

2. Russell: Russell divides the belief regarding the disciples’ experiences into subjective and objective camps.

F. Early Christians Claimed Jesus Was Resurrected

1. Brown: Notes that in having the apostles experience more than one appearance of Jesus in Luke 24 and Acts 1:3, Luke may be doing something similar to the formula in 1 Corinthians 15. John 21 may reflect the tradition of Jesus’s first appearance to Peter, as represented in Luke 24:34 and 1 Cor 15:5.

2. Hurtado: “Shortly after Jesus’ execution, at least some of his followers became convinced that he had been delivered by God from the hold of death.”

3. Jenkins: After noting that there is “overwhelming evidence for a very early belief in Jesus’ resurrection,” Jenkins notes that the “best evidence” is from Paul’s tradition in 1 Corinthians 15, dating from Paul’s trip to Jerusalem “around 40.”

4. Küng: Says Paul’s report in 1 Corinthians 15 is early, possibly from Jerusalem, and reports that Jesus was experienced as alive by others. But all that can be historically verified is “the Easter faith and the Easter message.”

5. Wright: Wright states emphatically that early Christians claimed Jesus was resurrected, that this had happened to Jesus and nobody else, and that it was related to his physical body being raised from the dead.

G. Uniqueness and Nonrepeatability of Resurrection Appearances

1. Borg: Notes that the experiences and encounters with Jesus by Christians for the past hundreds of years would take many different forms. While some of these encounters included visions, these experiences ultimately provide the evidence for the “truth of Easter” as opposed to what happened to Jesus so long ago.

2. Brown: Brown says resurrection is “unique” because nobody had ever been raised to everlasting life.

3. O’Collins: O’Collins, along with Daniel Kendall, points out several aspects concerning Jesus’s resurrection and concludes that witnessing Jesus the way he is described in the New Testament was reserved for the first-generation believers as part of their commissioning. The authors refer to the “unique role” of those witnesses.

4. Rahner: Rahner says the appearances didn’t occur indefinitely and weren’t reproduced.

5. Witherington: States that Paul knew the stories of Elijah and Elisha in the Old Testament, but Paul makes references to firstfruits, which indicates something different from a resuscitation and resurrection. Jesus was resurrected, not resuscitated.

6. Wright: Notes that Paul in 1 Cor 9:1 says he saw Jesus in a way that others could not claim. Also, when Paul writes “last of all,” it indicates an end to such experiences.

H. Mode of Appearances

1. Hurtado: Hurtado provides some unclear descriptions of the mode in which the disciples experienced the risen Jesus, but he appears to suggest a type of objective vision.

I. Definition of Apostle

1. General Comments

A) Conzelmann: “The important thing is that all apostles have seen the risen Christ. This is accordingly definitive for the concept of an apostle.”

B) Dunn: Says that “apostle” typically meant something along the lines of a messenger or delegate. This meant something more than a mere appointment by Christ, which “could legitimately be claimed for many pioneering evangelists in subsequent generations.” Dunn discusses additional issues regarding Paul’s apparently contested apostleship, particularly in Galatians (Cf. 1 Cor 9:1).

2. For Paul

A) Conzelmann: Paul thinks the essential thing is that all the apostles had seen the Lord.

B) Dunn: Says an apostle carried authority in the sense that he was commissioned by the will of God to be one. Paul was making arguments along this line in Galatians.

C) Wright: Wright notes that for Paul, apostles were those who had seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion.

3. For Luke

A) Dunn: To Dunn, Luke has criteria that would exclude Paul from being an apostle. Specifically, because Paul was not there from the beginning of Jesus’s ministry.

3. EARLY PROCLAMATION, CREEDS, AND ACTS

A. General Comments

1. Allison: Allison thinks the Gospels are accurate when they report that belief in the resurrection occurred only a few days after Jesus’s crucifixion.

2. Anderson: Says that these beliefs went back to within the first decade after Jesus’s crucifixion is beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Barnett: For Barnett, Paul’s Letters demonstrate that there were churches in and around Judea that worshiped Jesus in connection to the resurrection. This happened “immediately.”

4. Bartsch: Writes that “primitive Christian faith” arose from Jesus’s appearances.

5. Bauckham: Bauckham argues that the resurrected Jesus was understood in the earliest Christian communities along with the exaltation of Jesus.

6. Blackburn: Notes that belief in the resurrection was not a “secondary development” for the church.

7. Borg: “According to the earliest accounts . . . Jesus ‘appeared to them’ . . . a visionary experience,” but Borg states that we cannot tell exactly what happened to Jesus’s body.

8. Carnley: Says the appearance traditions may “readily be admitted to be early.”

9. Conzelmann: “From the very beginning the creed alludes to witnesses of the resurrection.”

10. Cranfield: Says Saul’s persecution of early believers who were convinced that Jesus was alive is dated “at the very most” to five or six years after the cross.

11. Crossan: Holds that 1 Cor 15:3b–7 and the Gos. Pet. (i.e., Cross Gospel) “are the earliest extant accounts of the resurrection.”

12. Dawe: Says Jesus was reported to have risen from the dead “within a short time after his death.”

13. Drane: “The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place.” For Drane, part of the reason for this is because of the very early material that is found in the Acts sermon summaries.

14. Fuller: In his first chapter, entitled “The Earliest Easter Traditions,” Fuller says Paul received the resurrection message within a max of five years “of the events concerned.” He concludes that “there was no period” when the resurrection was not the central Christian proclamation.

15. Fiorenza: Says literary analyses militate against taking the appearances as “later theological embellishments.” Rather, literary analyses show that Christian belief in the resurrection existed early.

16. Grant: Points out that the “first Resurrection stories began to be told very early.”

17. Goulder: Notes that the evidence that people believed in a resurrected Jesus goes back to a “couple of years after the crucifixion.”

18. Holleman: For Holleman, as with others, the belief in Jesus’s resurrection “belongs to the oldest persuasions of Christianity,” and various reports “belong to the oldest layers of Christian tradition; namely the pre-Pauline tradition transmitted in the letters of Paul.”

19. Hurtado: Hurtado posits “powerful revelatory experiences of followers of Jesus early in the days after his execution that conveyed the assurance that God had given Jesus unparalleled heavenly honor.”

20. Jenkins: “We have overwhelming evidence for a very early belief in Jesus’ resurrection.” “The best evidence” is from Paul’s tradition in 1 Corinthians 15, dating from Paul’s trip to Jerusalem “around 40.”

21. Lindars: According to Lindars, the reasons are good for thinking that belief in Jesus’s bodily resurrection belongs to earliest Christianity. The data in 1 Cor 15:3–7 comes from Jerusalem and “can be traced back to the earliest period of the primitive Church, probably less than five years after the Resurrection itself.”

22. Meier: Similar to Fuller above, Meier argues that “there was no period” when this preaching did not include Jesus’s “life, death, and resurrection.”

23. Perrin: Says Paul provides the “earliest statement concerning the resurrection.”

24. Robinson: John A. T. Robinson writes that the earliest preaching was based on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

25. Shuster: Says “the earliest preaching of the Christian community” included the centrality of the resurrection.

26. Staudinger: Writes that “the resurrection of Jesus was recognized even in the earliest times.” “In the earliest period” the resurrection “was freely proclaimed . . . by the witnesses to the resurrection itself who were present.”

27. Wedderburn: Says one can rightfully refer to these resurrection traditions as reflecting the “earliest times.”

28. Wilson: Says the message of the risen Christ has occupied Christians “from the beginning.”

B. Scholarly Consensus on the 1 Corinthians 15 Creed

1. Allison: “The overview of foundational events has its close, sequential parallel in Acts 13:28–31 and incorporates, as almost universally recognized, a pre-Pauline formula.”

2. Ehrman: “It is believed far and wide among New Testament specialists that Paul is indicating that this is a tradition already widespread in the Christian church, handed over to him by Christian teachers, possibly even the earlier apostles themselves.”

3. Hurtado: “It is widely accepted, however, that the tradition that Paul recites in 15:1–7 must go back to the Jerusalem church.”

4. Kirby: “This is widely acknowledged to be the earliest and best evidence that is available.”

5. Kloppenborg: “That 1 Cor 15:3b-7 contains a pre-Pauline confession/kerygmatic statement has been almost universally acknowledged.”

6. Ware: “There is almost universal scholarly consensus that 1 Cor 15.3–5 contains a carefully preserved tradition predating Paul’s apostolic activity and received by him within two to five years of the founding events.” Ware’s references include Conzelmann, Schlier, Kloppenborg, Lüdemann, and Gerhardsson.

C. Timelines Regarding the 1 Corinthians 15 Creed (and Galatians 1)

1. Akenson: Akenson provides a timeline of events (crucifixion, conversion, Corinth, etc.) and places the crucifixion around AD 27 or 30. He also dates Paul’s conversion around AD 30 or 33 and the first trip to Jerusalem around AD 33 or 36. Other dates are also presented here.

2. Barnett: Keeping in mind that Barnett thinks Jesus died in AD 33, Barnett places Paul’s conversion around 34. Three years later, Paul visited Jerusalem and met with Paul and James, Jesus’s brother. “Through these meetings with the leading disciple on the one hand, and the eldest of Jesus’ siblings on the other, Paul had extensive opportunity to hear about the historical Jesus.” It is important to also note that Barnett believes Paul received the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 while in Damascus.

3. Crossley: States that 1 Corinthians 15 is the first resurrection evidence, then Mark, which he dates around the 40s.

4. Dunn: “More or less all agree that the firmest points” of the timeline Dunn presents include the crucifixion, Paul’s conversion, and Paul’s Jerusalem trip. He notes Jesus’s death probably at 30, but possibly at 33; Paul’s conversion about two years later; and then three years between Paul’s conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem.

5. Ehrman: Presents a timeline very similar to Habermas’s outline. According to Paul, he went to Jerusalem to inquire with Peter and James three years after his conversion. “This means that . . . [Paul] would have seen them and received the traditions that he later gives in his letters, around the middle of the decade, say the years 35 or 36. The traditions he inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.” Paul knew James and Peter: “These are two good people to know if you want to know anything about the historical Jesus. I wish I knew them.” Ehrman then writes, “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?” Ehrman highlights specifically the value of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 as offering empirical evidence of a recent event and that the creed goes back to a year or so after the traditional date of Jesus’s death.

6. Meier: Meier’s timeline includes Paul’s letter to Corinth around AD 55–56, his visit around 50–51, and his conversion and trip to Jerusalem occurring around 31–34. Accordingly, “we have here one of the earliest creedal statements of the church, a creed that was formulated only a few years after the events narrated (ca. 30).”

7. Pannenberg: Pannenberg notes that this is the “oldest form of the appearances tradition” and that the account comes “from a man who knew personally the witnesses cited, or at least most of them.”

8. Ware: Ware argues that these events (in Galatians 1–2) are widely dated to within two to five years of the actual events.

D. Reasons 1 Corinthians 15 Is a Creed

1. General Comments

A) Ehrman: Ehrman briefly notes the reasons it’s a creed: it is tightly structured, and it uses non-Pauline language.

B) Fuller: “It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition.”

C) Murphy-O’Connor: Murphy-O’Connor states that there is “complete agreement” that “Paul introduces a quotation in v. 3b” of 1 Corinthians 15.

2. Delivery and Reception of Passed-On Tradition

A) Language of Delivery or Reception and Technical Rabbinic Language

(1) General Comments

(a) Various Scholars: Various scholars have identified the fact that Paul is using technical words for the passing on of tradition.

(b) Barnett: Says Paul would have originally “delivered” this information during his first visit to Corinth, which Barnett argues is dated around AD 50 and is “broadly uncontroversial.” He also notes technical Jewish rabbinic vocabulary for the handing over and reception of tradition. Barnett also notes that this language is “peculiar to Paul.” He adds that Paul uses tradition vocabulary in other letters as well. Last, Barnett states that to evangelize meant to “hand over” or “deliver” a body of information or content. That content can be found in 1 Corinthians 15.

(c) Collins: Adela Yarbro Collins points out that Paul is using words for passing on a tradition.

(d) Dunn: “The language of tradition transmission (paradidōmi, paralambanō) is unmistakable (BDAG, paradidōmi).” Dunn then briefly summarizes Paul’s language for receiving and passing on tradition.

(e) Fuller: For Fuller, the words used for the passing on of tradition by Paul are “the Greek equivalents of the technical rabbinic terms.”

(f) Hurtado: Although referring to 1 Cor 11:23–26, Hurtado identifies these terms for “delivered” and “received” as words that “refer to the passing on of fixed tradition” and adds that “equivalent Hebrew terms were used to describe the handing on of Jewish traditions.”

(g) Meier: “The vocabulary of handing on and receiving was used in the ancient world by philosophical schools, gnostic literature, and rabbinic circles (e.g., m. ‘Abot 1:1) to designate important traditions that were carefully passed down from the teacher to the student.” Meier also notes that Paul uses the same language regarding the Last Supper in 1 Cor 11:23–25. Meier makes the same connection elsewhere in his series A Marginal Jew.

(h) Price: Price notes that these are technical words for passing on a tradition. However, Price also suggests that there is something of a paradox or contradiction in Paul receiving it.

(i) Wedderburn: Wedderburn points out that Paul uses “technical terms for the transmission of tradition.”

(j) Wenham: “Here there is an explicit ‘tradition indicator,’ one that specifically identifies the tradition as one that goes back before Paul’s ministry in Corinth and probably to the time of his own conversion. (He received it, as the Corinthians did, at the time of conversion.)”

(2) Pharisees

(a) Barnett: Barnett argues that it is not a surprise that this rabbinic language for the passing on of a tradition is found only in Paul, since Paul had “official” training under Gamaliel.

(b) Bauckham: Bauckham notes how Josephus provides insight regarding the Pharisees and how the passing on of oral tradition relates to 1 Corinthians 15. “The important point . . . is that Josephus uses language of ‘passing on’ tradition both for the transmission from one teacher to another and also for the transmission from the Pharisees to the people. . . . Thus Paul provides ample evidence of the formal transmission of traditions within the early Christian movement, and good evidence more precisely for the formal transmission of traditions of the words and deeds of Jesus. Paul himself learned such traditions from Peter by a formal process of learning.”

B) Necessarily Abbreviated Form of Fuller Account

(1) General Comments

(a) Allison: Says 1 Cor 15:3–8 is a summary of a more detailed description or narrative. Allison is in agreement with Hengel’s comments that it must have originally come with explanation.

(b) Hengel: Hengel views this creed as “a highly compressed historical account.”

(2) Similar to Acts Summaries

(a) Allison: “The overview of foundational events has its close, sequential parallel in Acts 13:28–31 and incorporates, as almost universally recognized, a pre-Pauline formula.”

3. Grammar

A) Ehrman: Ehrman briefly notes the reasons why 1 Corinthians 15 is a creed, including the language used.

B) Murphy-O’Connor: Notes that the grammatical structure changes in 1 Cor 15:6.

C) Wedderburn: Wedderburn observes that the structure changes in 1 Cor 15:6.

4. Non-Pauline Words and Structure

A) Collins: Notes the use of words and phrases like “sins,” “was raised,” “in accordance with the scriptures,” and “the twelve.”

B) Conzelmann: Conzelmann points out that there is a non-Pauline sentence structure and diction.

C) Fuller: Fuller notes the presence of non-Pauline terms.

D) Jansen: Jansen identifies a non-Pauline sentence structure.

E) Kloppenborg: The sentence structure changes, according to Kloppenborg.

F) Lapide: Among the factors in Lapide’s list is the non-Pauline nature of the sentence structure here.

G) Murphy-O’Connor: Murphy-O’Connor says there is “a very high proportion of non-Pauline terms.”

H) O’Collins: O’Collins points out that there are non-Pauline terms.

I) Osborne: The use of non-Pauline terms is noted by Osborne.

J) Weber: Weber points out the non-Pauline sentence structure.

K) Wedderburn: Wedderburn notes that Paul uses “untypical” expressions.

L) Wells: Wells notes that the sentence structure is non-Pauline.

5. Semitisms

A) Conzelmann: Conzelmann is not sure if the original was Aramaic or not.

B) Fuller: Fuller concludes, “The safest conclusion for the moment seems to be that the tradition as Paul received it was originally Palestinian,” but it passed through other contexts. “Although Hellenized, the content of the formula is certainly Palestinian in origin.”

C) Hengel: Hengel comments on the possibility of an Aramaic original.

D) Lapide: Lapide points out the Aramaic “Cephas” as significant.

E) Meyer: Meyer mentions the presence of possible Semitisms.

F) O’Collins: O’Collins discusses the Semitisms in 1 Corinthians 15 and notes the possibility of an Aramaic original.

G) Osborne: Osborne notes the possibility of an Aramaic original.

H) Stanley: Stanley notes the issue of Semitisms.

I) Weber: Weber discusses Semitisms and whether the original was in Aramaic.

J) Wells: Wells comments on the Semitisms in this text.

6. Repetitive Usage of “That”

A) Conzelmann: Conzelmann points out the presence of “that” four times in the creed.

B) Fitzmyer: Fitzmyer argues that the repetitive nature of “that” indicates a formula.

C) Harris: Harris notes that the repetition used in the creed is important.

D) Lapide: Lapide notes the repetitive “and that” as evidence for 1 Corinthians 15 being a creed.

E) Lüdemann: Lüdemann notes the repetition in the formula.

F) Osborne: Osborne identifies the fourfold use of “that” as being indicative of a creed.

7. Parallelism

A) Fuller: Fuller notes that there is parallelism in 1 Corinthians 15.

B) Hengel: Hengel writes that it has a “catechetical form.”

C) Kloppenborg: Kloppenborg notes the “formal symmetry.”

D) Lapide: Lapide notes the parallelism in the formula.

E) Lüdemann: Parallelism in the text is also highlighted by Lüdemann.

F) O’Collins: O’Collins highlights parallelism in the creed and gives specifics.

G) Osborne: Osborne offers helpful specifics on the parallelism in 1 Corinthians 15.

H) Perrin: Perrin suggests it is a “liturgical formula.”

I) Spong: Spong finds the language to be “standardized.”

J) Weber: Weber gives additional details on the parallelism.

K) Wedderburn: Wedderburn considers the possibility of parallelism.

8. Use of Divine Passive

A) Lapide: Lapide notes that the divine passive is used to refer to Jesus being raised instead of mentioning God.

9. Double Reference to Scripture Being Fulfilled

A) Lapide: Lapide finds the double reference to Scripture as indicating a pre-Pauline origin.

10. Reference to the Twelve

A) Lapide: Lapide notes that the reference to the Twelve also points to a pre-Pauline formula.

11. Content Exceeds the Needs of Paul’s Immediate Context

A) Conzelmann: Conzelmann argues that the content of the formula goes further than what Paul needs in the immediate context.

12. Formula Is Self-Sufficient

A) Conzelmann: Conzelmann points out that the formula itself is self-sufficient.

13. Does Not Develop from the Narrative Tradition

A) Wilckens: Wilckens suggests that the creed does not develop from any narrative tradition but is a combination of traditions.

14. Tradition Found in New Testament

A) Dunn: Dunn discusses the general use of written sources and oral sources.

B) Lapide: Says the four basic events—died, buried, raised, and appeared—are “repeated almost in all later reports of the resurrection.”

E. Facts of the Creed in 1 Corinthians 15

1. General Comments

A) Allison: States that the comments in 1 Cor 15:3–8 are often considered evidential.

B) Barnett: Barnett recognizes the four facts of the creed: death, burial, raised, and appearances.

C) Betz: Says the creed is the content of the Gospel.

D) Casey: “There are therefore good reasons not to doubt the basic historicity of Resurrection appearances as recorded at 1 Cor 15:5–7, and reflected in the increasingly developed stories of the canonical Gospels. Some bereaved followers of Jesus had visions of him not long after he was dead, and interpreted them as appearances of the risen Jesus from heaven, where he sat at the right hand of God.” It’s worth noting that Casey argues against Craig that the early arguments are not as “decisive” as is often thought.

E) Johnson: Says the text contains comments on the good news.

F) Kerr: Discusses the four main facts (death, burial, raised, and appeared) in 1 Corinthians 15.

G) Kloppenborg: For Kloppenborg, 1 Corinthians 15 is “the essentials of the kergyma, namely the expiatory death and resurrection of Jesus.” He adds that it is “a confessional statement, containing the essential elements of the kerygma in an extremely compressed form.”

H) Lapide: Says it states the core facts, that Jesus “died . . . [was] buried . . . raised . . . appeared.”

I) Lindars: Says the resurrection is at the center of the Gospel.

J) Lüdemann: States and comments upon the four facts of the proclamation.

K) Meyer: Says that the text, being based on facts, is the “early Christian faith as a faith that intends and interprets events: present meanings hinge on past happening.”

L) Staudinger: Says it is the Gospel message. Staudinger notes that “from very early on fixed forms of confessions” contain “the facts of Jesus’ death and resurrection.”

M) Stuhlmacher: Says the creed stresses Jesus’s messiahship, atoning death, burial, his being raised, and his appearances.

N) Ware: “Congruent with the traditional understanding of the passage . . . many scholars argue that the core kerygma of 1 Cor 15.3–5 was from its inception transmitted as the good news of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.” He goes on to note such scholars as Kittel, Sider, Pannenberg, Kremer, Hauger, Wolff, Thiselton, Wright, Bryan, and Hengel. Ware believes Hengel makes the most detailed case for this.

2. Empty Tomb Not Mentioned

A) General Comments

(1) See also: “Paul Knew or Assumed the Empty Tomb” (section 1.B.8.A) and “No Mention of the Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15” (section 1.C.2.A.1) in chapter 4.

(2) Davis: Davis argues that Paul’s silence regarding the tomb in this creedal formula is not a good argument against the reality of the empty tomb.

(3) Ehrman: Says Paul does not comment on the discovery of the empty tomb or the women.

(4) Price: Price appears to agree that the empty tomb could be assumed by Paul and thus not mentioned. “It would be no surprise to find a mention of an empty tomb in this list, and its lack may simply be because the formulator of the list thought it too obvious to mention. True enough.”

B) Empty Tomb Not Assumed or Known by Paul

(1) Casey: Casey does not believe the creed assumes the empty tomb, and thinks one possible reason Paul did not include it or add it to the creed is that he did not believe in it either. He makes multiple points: (1) No one, specifically Craig, needs to take Paul’s resurrection language here literally. (2) Lack of an empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15 attests to the early dating of the creed (before the development of the later empty tomb legend) sometime before Mark’s account written in AD 40. (3) Casey counters Wright’s arguments regarding Peter’s implication in Acts that the tomb was empty. Finally, (4) the fact that there is no tomb veneration is evidence against an original tradition of the empty tomb, which is why Paul did not include it. Casey believes that Acts would have talked about the disciples visiting the tomb and venerating it, as happened with other tombs. He also argues (against Dunn) that the tomb would not need to contain Jesus’s bones to be venerated (following Barclay) and that the Christians did not know where Jesus was dishonorably buried.

(2) Ware: Ware references the scholars (Grass, Collins, James Robinson, Lampe, Smith, Borg, Lindermann, Holleman, Conzelmann, and Walter) who argue that because the 1 Cor 15:3–8 lacks reference to the empty tomb account, the good news in the Gospels is fundamentally at variance regarding the earliest core of the kerygma. These scholars think it is unlikely that the empty tomb would have been omitted if it were known. Regarding Bultmann’s arguments that the lack of mention of the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15 means that Paul knew nothing of an empty tomb, Ware argues that they are “unconvincing.”

C) Empty Tomb Assumed or Known by Paul

(1) Raised and Buried Language Assumes the Empty Tomb

(a) Bird: Bird notes that Paul’s emphasis on a burial refers to an interred place for corpses and that such a place was subsequently emptied.

(b) Davis: Davis thinks the creedal material obviously implies an empty tomb, as does Paul’s own view on the resurrection.

(c) Dunn: Dunn asks why there is mention of burial in the creed, yet it doesn’t just move from death directly to resurrection. “The most obvious answer is that the disposal of the body in burial was an important point in the earliest confessional statements. Which probably reflects the place of the tomb narratives—burial but also empty tomb—in the earliest traditions of Easter.”

(d) Wenham: For reasons similar to Dunn’s above, Wenham doubts that we could assume Paul was silent because he did not know or believe in the empty tomb. Additionally, as a “Pharisaic Jew he would most probably have thought in such terms.”

(2) Avoids Repetition

(a) Davis: Davis thinks Paul was trying to avoid repetition and was not ignorant of the empty tomb.

(b) Ware: Ware cites a number of scholars who believe that Paul mentions the burial but leaves out the empty tomb so as to avoid redundancy. The scholars are Bryan, Pannenberg, Kittel, Wolff, Slider, Kremer, Thiselton, Hengel, Wright, Schnabel, and Lüdemann. Ware believes the strength of this argument comes from its common-sense basis.

(3) Brevity

(a) General Comments

i. Wenham: The creed is clearly brief, as Paul was not trying to give all the details.

(b) Luke–Acts

i. Ware: Ware notes that the empty tomb is mentioned in the narratives of Luke but is not mentioned in the narratives of Acts. In other words, “the empty tomb had its proper home within narratives of the resurrection event, but was not to be expected within shorter formulae, or even narrative summaries concerning this event.” He then adds that none of the creeds or formulas from within the first two centuries contains a reference to an empty tomb. This is ultimately consistent with what we find in Luke–Acts. The empty tomb reports were limited to full narratives and not expected within creedal-type formulas.

(c) Creedal Formulas Lack the Empty Tomb

i. Ware: Ware argues that there is no creed from the ancient church that incorporates the empty tomb, and thus Paul’s lack cannot be considered as evidence. Instead, creeds typically follow the pattern seen in 1 Corinthians 15. Here Ware is referring to Rom 1:3–4; 4:24–25; 8:34; 10:8–10; 1 Thess 4:14; 1 Pet 3:18–22; Smyrn. 1.1–2; Trall. 9; 1 Apol. 21.1; 31.7; 42.4; 46.5; Dial. 63.1; 85.2; 132.1; Haer. 1.102; 3.1.2; 3.16.6; Prax. 2; Praescr. 13; Virg. 1. Even within the second half of the second century, the empty tomb is absent in creedal formulae. Here he refers to the Old Roman Creed (ca. AD 175); Creed of Jerusalem (ca. 350); Apostolic Constitutions 7.41 (fourth century); Creed of Milan (ca. 375); Creed of Hippo (ca. 400); Creed of Ravenna (ca. 400); Creed of the First Council of Toledo (400); Apostles’ Creed (sixth century). This seems to show that even when the empty tomb narratives were well known, they were not incorporated into creedal formulas.

(4) Use of Egeirō Indicates Bodily Resurrection

(a) Ware: Ware believes that arguments that infer a resurrection that does not affect Jesus’s body are “without historical foundation” since the sequence as well as the verb egeirō imply a resurrection of Jesus’s body from the tomb. Ultimately for Ware, it is the “meaning of the formula’s central affirmation that Jesus ‘has been raised’ (καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται, 15.4) . . . that is ultimately decisive.” The reason for this is because “the semantics of this verb, when used to denote resurrection, necessarily entail the restoration to life of the body of flesh and bones within the tomb. . . . In affirming that Jesus has been ‘raised,’ this pre-Pauline confession affirmed the resurrection of Jesus’ crucified body from the tomb.”

(5) Pharisaic Background

(a) Wenham: Wenham argues that Paul’s background as a Pharisee would likely have meant he understood resurrection in bodily terms.

(6) Later Seed and Sowing Language

(a) General Comments

i. Davis: For Davis, Paul’s imagery of a seed transforming (1 Cor 15:35–45) indicates a continuity between the body that dies and the body that rises.

(b) Concerns against Seed and Sowing Language

i. Ware: Ware cautions about using Paul’s language as decisive evidence since the formula is pre-Pauline. It is the language used in the creed that is ultimately decisive for him: “Paul’s specific use within this passage of the verb ἐγείρω to denote the resurrection event, in light of our findings here regarding this key verb, confirms our earlier analysis.”

(7) Ambiguous Evidence (the Empty Tomb Alone Proves Nothing)

(a) Davis: Davis notes that an empty tomb alone did not prove the resurrection, and so Paul did not feel the need to include it.

(b) Wenham: Wenham argues similar to Davis that it could very well have been the case that Paul only wanted to mention evidence that was clear rather than potentially ambiguous evidence such as an empty tomb.

3. Women Absent

A) See also: “No Mention of the Empy Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15” (section 1.C.2.A.1) and “No Mention of Women in 1 Corinthians 15” (section 1.D.2) in chapter 4.

B) Evangelistic and Apologetic Purpose

(1) Craig: “Paul’s formula probably omitted [the women] because of their lack of legal status.”

(2) Dunn: According to Dunn, it cannot really be argued that the women would be listed as witnesses in that cultural milieu. “This consideration alone may be sufficient to explain why the tradition cited by Paul does not include the testimony of women in its list of witnesses (1 Cor. 15.4–8).” Something similar is likely occurring with the appearances to the women.

(3) Wright: “The women were quietly dropped; they were apologetically embarrassing.” Wright makes this argument elsewhere and provides good sources in addition to citing the debate between Origen and Celsus as an example of the problems of the references of women.

C) Did Not Know of Appearances to Women

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman thinks that Paul appears to be giving an exhaustive list but does not mention any women.

D) Polemical Purpose

(1) Wenham: “Peter and James were perhaps the two most important people Paul had to deal with in the early church (see Galatians 2); his own relationship with these two and more broadly with the twelve and the apostles was a controversial matter of great personal importance to him. . . . The list thus may have an almost polemical purpose for Paul as he includes himself in the band of properly qualified apostles.”

E) Paul Only Notes Key Witnesses

(1) Wenham: Wenham argues that Paul only notes the key witnesses, especially those he met in Jerusalem.

F) Brevity

(1) Wenham: Again, Wenham notes that the brevity of the creed is likely why Paul left out the women. There was no need for Paul to be exhaustive in his list.

4. List of Witnesses

A) General Comments

(1) Allison: Writes that one of the evidential components of the creed is that there are multiple appearances, including to groups.

(2) Cavin: Cavin finds the list insufficient for proving the resurrection. He also finds that the creeds in 1 Cor 15:3–8 and Mark 16:1–8 are the only real pieces of data we have. Cavin appears to grant the “core” empty tomb tradition and appearances (although it is somewhat difficult to see if he is doing it just for the sake of the argument or if he really sees this as legitimate evidence—it appears to be the latter), but qualifies what he means by resurrection as essentially an inability to die. (Interestingly, we never see him attempt to explain why the term “resurrection” was used to describe what happened to Jesus.)

(3) Crossley: Crossley refers to the “eyewitness traditions of 1 Corinthians 15” and “list of eyewitnesses.” He adds that Paul seems to give “eyewitness accounts” of appearances.

B) Use of Normal Language (ōphthē) for Normal Sight

(1) See also: chapter 9, “Bodily Nature of Resurrection.”

(2) Dunn: “The very early formulation, ‘he appeared (ōphthē)’, indicates by its passive form the assumption/impression that there was something to be seen. They did not, as it were, create what they saw by their act of seeing.”

C) Peter and James

(1) Casey: “Peter, Jacob [James], and John, all of whom played leading roles in the Jerusalem church, did see visions which they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus.”

(2) Craig: Craig highlights the fact that Paul met with Peter and James and that they were witnesses of the risen Jesus.

(3) Wenham: Wenham makes a point similar to Craig’s regarding Peter and James.

D) Peter

(1) Dunn: Dunn points out a “formulaic ring” in the reports of the appearances to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5). “Its effect here is to give the appearance to Peter first place in importance.”

(2) Wenham: Wenham believes that Peter is in the first position in the witness list because he is in a position of prominence as one of the original leaders in the church.

E) James

(1) Allison: The reference to James must be that of the leader of the early church and Jesus’s brother due to the lack of any other indicators. He would be well known enough to use just the name alone. Allison also considers the location of James’s name next to Paul’s in the list.

(2) Casey: Casey points out that it is “probably right” that the James mentioned here was Jesus’s brother since the Twelve had already been mentioned (and would have included James the son of Zebedee).

(3) Lüdemann: “There were in fact appearances of the heavenly Jesus in Jerusalem (after those in Galilee). That can be said with certainty of the vision of James (1 Cor. 15.7), since the Lord’s brother only joined the primitive community at a later date.”

(4) Price: Comments that both believers and skeptics recognize that Jesus appeared not only to believers but to un-believers as well. Price believes James was not convinced by an appearance, but that after Jesus died, he was tempted by the leadership role offered to him. Interestingly, Price complains that an appearance to James is an “exegetical phantom.”

(5) Wenham: Identifies James as one of the ones who is a “key witness.”

F) Paul

(1) Allison: Allison notes that the appearance to Paul is intriguing because he did not have a prior commitment to Jesus.

(2) Dunn: Recognizes that Paul references his conversion as one untimely born (or aborted) and discusses its potential significance. For Dunn, this includes the fact that Paul was demonstrating that he was also part of the group of apostles.

(3) Tabor: Tabor believes Paul argues for a spiritual resurrection and links his experience to that of the disciples in 1 Corinthians 15. Thus, for Tabor, Paul’s experience is like a vision because he later uses the phrase “spiritual body” in 1 Corinthians 15, and since Paul’s vision is like the others, they likely had similar experiences.

G) The 500 Witnesses

(1) General Comments

(a) Lüdemann: “There were in fact appearances of the heavenly Jesus in Jerusalem (after those in Galilee). That can be said with certainty . . . also the appearances to five hundred brethren (1 Cor. 15.6).”

(2) Availability to Confirm the Appearances

(a) Craig: Craig considers that the 500 witnesses could be questioned since some of them were still alive.

(b) Davis: Davis points out that the appearances to the 500 makes the idea of a group hallucination difficult, especially because Paul seems to be saying that one could speak to one of these witnesses if one so desired.

(c) Johnson: “It was something experienced by over five hundred people. Some of them are still available to verify their experience.”

(d) Parsons: Parsons notes that Paul was really making a safe claim, as those in Corinth could not investigate the claim with any of the 500 alleged witnesses since traveling was a major undertaking and Paul does not provide information as to the whereabouts of the 500.

(3) Location

(a) Galilee

i. General Comments

(i.) Craig: Craig argues that the appearances to the 500 likely occurred in Galilee.

(ii.) Wenham: Wenham similarly places the appearance to the 500 in Galilee (Mark 16:7; Matt 28:10) and notes that those doubting in Matt 28:16 imply that a possible larger group may have been present.

ii. Meeting Specifically Convened

(i.) Wenham: He notes that this meeting was specifically organized, and Matthew and Mark indicate the meeting occurred in Galilee.

iii. “Brothers” Language

(i.) Wenham: Wenham considers whether or not the “brothers” language found in Matt 28:10 and 1 Cor 15:6 could help us identify the occasion.

(4) Inauthentic: Gospel Absence and Interpolation

(a) Price: Price wonders why the appearance to the 500 is not mentioned elsewhere. He believes the list in 1 Corinthians 15 is an interpolation and the list of the 500 represents a second, later interpolation. The reason for interpolating the text, according to Price, is that a scribe thought they could make Paul’s argument better by including apparent evidence. Price writes, “I freely admit the lack of direct textual evidence. There are no extant copies of 1 Corinthians which lack my passage. . . . There simply are no texts at all for the period in which I suggest the interpolation occurred.” Price recognizes that the stylistic and linguistic differences, which could indicate an interpolation, could equally be accounted for by the fact Paul was using a pre-Pauline creed.

H) Compared with Gospel Appearances

(1) Casey: Casey notes the differences between the creed appearances and those mentioned in the Gospels.

(2) Tabor: Tabor briefly considers the list Paul presents and does not think it fits easily with the other New Testament reports.

5. Language

A) See also: chapter 9, “Bodily Nature of Resurrection.”

B) Various Scholars: Here the additional details found in the extensive linguistic studies by Wright and, more recently, Cook are particularly helpful.

C) Crossley: Crossley notes that resurrection language often implies bodily resurrection.

D) Ware: Ware has an extensive article in which he deals with this and other issues (essentially a much more concise version of Wright’s Resurrection and the Son of God, but with his own twists). He argues that irrespective of whether one thinks a dead body could be raised from the grave, “we must recognize that, according to this ancient confession, that is exactly what happened to the body of Jesus. As historians, therefore, we must count 1 Cor 15.3–5 as evidence for belief in the resurrection of Jesus’ crucified body among the earliest Christ-followers.” As indicated above, Paul’s use of the verb egeirō is one of the most important factors in this text. Ware stresses the use of resurrection language in Jewish antiquity, especially egeirō, and that the emphasis of this verb was bodily. He points out that the linguistic study of the verb has received very little attention from many major thinkers (Kremer, O’Donnell, Murray, etc.). Ware points out that one of the main uses of the verb has to do with someone waking up or rising from sleep. Another use, stemming back to the fourth century BC, refers to rising up or sitting upright. Thus, “the verb’s basic semantic meaning of getting up or arising to stand is present. . . . When used with reference to the dead, therefore, the term refers unambiguously to the reanimation or revivification of the corpse.” There is no distinction between waking or standing, so awaking to rising posture is understood and has correlations when used with dead corpses. It is not the Greek word one would use for a spark from a campfire rising into the air. Ware helpfully brings some clarity to translation issues, since the word rise in English has a wider meaning than egeirō in Greek. Thus, the Greek word does not refer to some sort of ascension or assumption. He also notes that the few potential counterexamples are unconvincing (referencing 1 Enoch 103.4; Jubilees 23.30–31). For the New Testament, egeirō is the main verb used for describing resurrection. The verb could also be, and was, used widely in ordinary everyday life. The resurrection language is grounded in the word’s common and everyday meaning. According to Ware, the resurrection language refers to a specific transformation from death of the mortal body to immortal bodily life. In this context, Ware agrees with Pannenberg’s conclusions. Ware argues throughout his article that egeirō is consistently used to refer to physical bodies. Ware discusses a number of scholars (Grass, Smith, Holleman, Thomassen, Lüdemann, and Lindemann) who use a more expansive understanding of egeirō such that it includes nonbodily notions. Scholars in this vein will understand Jesus’s rising as being taken up in spiritual form or with a body disconnected from the mortal body. Ware argues that the analyses of Engberg-Pedersen, Martin, and Asher are founded upon a misapprehension and are ultimately not viable.

6. Agreement and Unity with Apostles in 1 Cor 15:11 through the Use of “We”

A) Segal: Segal notes that Paul proclaimed what the church proclaimed regarding Jesus’s death, resurrection, and return.

F. Extent and Number of Creeds in 1 Corinthians 15

1. General Comments

A) Dunn: Argues that this information would have been given to Paul as part of “his introductory catechesis (15.3).”

B) Wright: Wright argues that there are a few possibilities regarding the length of the creed, but ultimately it is the fundamental point of the creed itself, which is something that the Corinthians would have known from Paul and others, and something that Paul could appeal to as normal and representative of core Christian beliefs.

2. Agnostic

A) Wenham: Wenham isn’t certain about how much of 1 Cor 15:3–9 is part of the actual and early creedal material.

3. Creed Contained in 1 Cor 15:3b–5

A) Various Scholars: Various scholars have argued that the creed is contained in 1 Cor 15:3b–5.

B) Kearney: Kearney notes the “fairly widespread agreement” on 1 Cor 15:3b–5. However, Kearney believes the creed is larger than that (see below).

C) Kloppenborg: States that 1 Cor 15:3b–5 is Paul’s “core” and that Paul probably knew the other Easter traditions concerning the 500, James, and the other witnesses.

D) Murphy-O’Connor: Murphy-O’Connor notes a “wide consensus” regarding the ending of the creed in 1 Cor 15:5 because of the grammar change in v. 6 and non-Pauline words found in vv. 3b–5.

E) Osborne: Osborne places the creed in 1 Cor 15:3b–5 because of the four hoti clauses.

F) Weber: Says the creed in 1 Cor 15:3b–5 is “homogeneous.”

G) Wedderburn: Wedderburn notes that “the structure changes in v. 6.” However, other elements can be traditional too, like “all the apostles” in v. 7.

4. Creed Extends beyond 1 Cor 15:3b–5

A) Alsup: Alsup’s section heading is “The Kerygma Tradition:1 Cor. 15:3b–5, 6–7, 8.”

B) Fuller: Fuller thinks that “the original pre-Pauline tradition” is “3b–6a and 7.” Fuller lists the portion that is “generally recognized,” which is 1 Cor 15:3–7 except for v. 6b.

C) Kearney: Kearney prefers 15:3b–5, 6a, and 7b (with vv. 6a and 7b originating in an early worship setting). Paul added the words in vv. 6b and 7c.

D) Lindars: Lindars seems to think the creed is contained in 1 Cor 15:3–7.

5. Question of Multiple Creeds or Formulas

A) Fuller: Fuller thinks that the creed can be broken down into at least four parts and that the appearances may have been given to Paul apart from the death, buried, and raised tradition.

B) Hengel: Hengel thinks two formulas are present.

C) Lapide: Lapide says it is a “unified piece of tradition.”

D) Murphy-O’Connor: Murphy-O’Connor notes that the unity of 1 Cor 15:3b–5 “was accepted without question” until Wilckens argued that there were no known creeds where “each member is introduced by hoti.” However, in 1 Cor 8:4 Paul introduces two quotes—one with hoti and one with kai hoti. Murphy-O’Connor writes that “the parallel with 15:3b–5 is exact” and that “the unity of the creed in vv. 3b–5 remains the more probable hypothesis.” So Paul is the one who “introduced kai hoti for emphasis.” Regarding vv. 6–7, Murphy-O’Connor says that before World War II, “there was virtual unanimity among exegetes that vv. 6–7 represented a fixed tradition cited by Paul. Today this view is maintained by very few.” Most now “treat these verses as a free composition of Paul” with a few options listed. The most likely reason for Paul adding vv. 6b–c is that “he intended to underline the objectivity of the experience.” Paul “added v. 6 in order to show that the resurrection could be verified.” He also sought “to exclude the likelihood of hallucinations.” Also, Murphy-O’Connor notes that many think v. 7 is “a traditional formulation” parallel to v. 5. After some discussion, he concludes: “Thus, it seems more probable that [v. 7] came to Paul as a fixed formula.” In other words, v. 7 is a “traditional phrase.”

E) Perkins: Comments that multiple formulas may be present.

G. Pre-Pauline Creed(s)

1. Allison: “Paul knew Peter and James and presumably others who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. First Corinthians 15:3–8 is not folklore.” Allison is in agreement and citing from Eduard Schweizer.

2. Dunn: After referring to twentieth-century research, Dunn notes that the “major and most fruitful outcome has been the clarification of various kerygmatic and confessional formulae which Paul seems to draw into his own writing, notably Rom. 1.2–3, 10.9 and 1 Cor. 15.3–5/7.”

3. Ehrman: “Nowhere does Paul take credit for formulating new doctrines or instituting new practices for the Christian church. Instead, he talks about the central beliefs that he inherited from those who came before him—including . . . the core teaching of Paul’s entire ministry (see, for example, 1 Cor 15:3–5).” Ehrman adds that Paul “also insists, even in this case, that the views he developed were in complete continuity with those who were apostles before him.” Ehrman is very confident that 1 Cor 15:3 and following is a pre-Pauline creed.

4. Meier: Meier notes that the reference to the Twelve does not appear to come from Paul but is part of this early creed that Paul is reminding the church in Corinth about. He is reminding them of not only what they learned when he converted them, but of what he similarly learned himself.

H. Where Paul Received 1 Corinthians 15 Creed

1. General Comments

A) Alsup: Alsup states that the creed “goes back to pre-Pauline, Palestinian origins.”

B) Fitzmeyer: Wherever Paul received it, Fitzmyer refers to the creed as “the primitive Palestinian kerygma.”

C) Fuller: “Paul could have received the formula at any time or place between his conversion near Damascus . . . and his arrival in Corinth ca. A.D. 49.” Fuller places the fourth part (the list of appearances) to Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem when Paul went “to enquire (historesai) of Cephas (Gal. 1:18)” and James. The appearances “would be just the kind of information he [Paul] would have received on that occasion.”

D) O’Collins: Says the creed could have come from any of three places: Jerusalem, Damascus, or Antioch.

E) Osborne: Difficult to say, but thinks the best conclusion is that “the tradition had a Palestinian origin but came to Paul via Hellenistic Judaism. The formula itself began in the earliest Palestinian church.”

F) Weber: Weber notes three possible locations for the reception of this material.

2. Jerusalem

A) Barnett: Says Paul received the creed in Damascus, but it ultimately originated “from the Jerusalem apostles prior to being found in Damascus.” Barnett dates Paul’s conversion around AD 34. Note that this is where Paul received it, but ultimately Barnett believes it originated from the Jerusalem apostles.

B) Hengel: States that Paul passed on tradition in “unaltered” form five or six years after he went to Corinth. It “points back . . . to Palestine and above all to Jerusalem.” Even if Paul received it in Damascus, “its content in nearly all its statements refers back to Jerusalem.” Therefore, whether it has an Aramaic original and exactly where Paul received it “loses its significance,” as these are matters “of only relative importance.”

C) Hurtado: Hurtado points out that the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15 “must” be traced backward to the Jerusalem church. Indeed, Paul “emphasizes that this tradition represents the message proclaimed both by him and these other figures [see v. 11]. That is, Paul’s aim here is to present the beliefs in question as nonnegotiable and unquestioned among all the authoritative figures listed.” He adds, “Paul claims that it represents beliefs about Jesus affirmed by Judean circles as well as by him. Likewise, it matters little whether 1 Cor 15:3–7 is a translation from Aramaic, was formulated by Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, or is Paul’s own condensed statement of the key relevant beliefs and traditions that he claims are affirmed by the Jerusalem believers. What matters is the content of this tradition.” Hurtado concludes, “There was no objection because this cultic reverence of Jesus was in fact a shared devotional pattern among Judean and Pauline circles.” He summarizes, “Paul freely cites traditional formulas. . . . These traditions specifically affirm a broad commonality in beliefs about Jesus as Christ/Messiah, about his death and resurrection as redemptive, and about the eschatological context.”

D) Jenkins: Jenkins considers Jerusalem to be the location where Paul received this material.

E) Kearney: Says this material derived from the primitive Hellenistic Jerusalem church.

F) Küng: Claims this material is possibly from the early Jerusalem church.

G) Ladd: Ladd points out that it is “widely admitted” that Paul probably received it on his trip to Jerusalem in Gal 1:18.

H) Lindars: Says Paul is citing an “official statement of the Jerusalem church.” Probably Jerusalem, but he allows for Damascus as a second option.

I) Lüdemann: Sees Jerusalem as more likely, but he does not treat this as a major issue because even if Paul received it in Damascus, it still would have come from Jerusalem.

J) O’Collins: Could be any of three places (Jerusalem, Damascus, Antioch), but Jerusalem is the most plausible.

K) Pannenberg: Pannenberg indicates that the material comes from Jerusalem. Although some scholars say Paul received it in Antioch, Pannenberg states it is likely he got “firsthand confirmation of the content of that tradition” three years after his conversion.

L) Samuel: Says this creedal material derives from Paul’s trip to Jerusalem.

M) Wedderburn: Wedderburn seems to approve of a Jerusalem location, but notes that there is not strong evidence of an Aramaic original.

3. Damascus

A) General Comments

(1) Anderson: Anderson thinks Damascus is a good option, but if not there, then certainly by the time of Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem.

(2) Craig: Although Craig thinks Damascus is likely, the origin is ultimately from the Jerusalem church.

(3) Harris: Harris prefers the Damascus option.

B) Tradition First Existed There before Paul’s Conversion

(1) Barnett: “First such fundamental data must surely have come Paul’s way earlier than three years from his conversion and call. What had he been preaching in and around Damascus?”

(2) Wenham: Wenham argues that this tradition existed before Paul’s ministry.

C) Explains “First Importance” (1 Cor 15:3)

(1) Barnett: Barnett finds the en protois in 1 Cor 15:3 to mean “first importance,” which indicates Paul would have learned the tradition immediately in Damascus.

D) Supports Paul’s Claim That His Message Did Not Originate from the Jerusalem Apostles (Gal 1:1–24)

(1) Barnett: Barnett also finds that Damascus better suits the argument found in Galatians 1 and is consistent with Paul’s claim that his authority did not derive from the Jerusalem apostles.

4. Antioch

A) Kasper: Kasper believes the creed probably originated in Antioch.

5. Contradiction

A) General Comments

(1) Price: Price finds it to be an “insurmountable” problem that Paul delivers a tradition in 1 Corinthians 15 but says in Galatians 1 that he did not receive the Gospel from anyone.

B) Same Gospel Content, Not Form

(1) Dunn: “The resolution is fairly straightforward. Paul assuredly did not think of his gospel as a different gospel from that agreed upon by Peter, James and John (Gal. 2.2–9); the gospel of 1 Cor. 15.3–4/5 was the gospel which they all preached (15.11).” What was different for Paul was that the gospel was also open to the gentiles.

(2) Hurtado: Again, “Paul’s aim here is to present the beliefs in question as nonnegotiable and unquestioned among all the authoritative figures listed.” “Paul claims that his presentation of the gospel represents beliefs about Jesus affirmed by Judean circles as well as by him. Likewise, it matters little whether 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 is a translation from Aramaic, was formulated by Greek-speaking Jewish Christians, or is Paul’s own condensed statement of the key relevant beliefs and traditions that he claims are affirmed by the Jerusalem believers. What matters is the content of this tradition.” “The more reasonable conclusion . . . is that there was no objection because this cultic reverence of Jesus was in fact a shared devotional pattern among Judean and Pauline circles.”

(3) Wenham: Wenham offers some helpful comments as the gospel for the gentiles is at issue in Galatians, and the gospel that Paul received on the Damascus road was divinely given. But this does not mean that Paul had not learned anything from anyone else. “What is much more likely is that Paul means that the essence of his gospel of God’s grace (including for the Gentiles—the point at issue in Galatians) was divinely given to him when he was converted on the Damascus Road. . . . It is entirely probable that he learned much in dialogue with those Christians whom he persecuted before his conversion.”

(4) Wright: Wright emphasizes that the content came from no man, while the form ultimately did.

I. Early Date of 1 Corinthians 15 Creedal Material

1. Very Early

A) Akenson: “In First Corinthians, chapter fifteen, Saul provides what is probably his (and, therefore, Christianity’s) earliest written account of the resurrection.”

B) Allison: Allison, following Schweizer, is confident that because Paul had visited James and Peter five to six years after the events, 1 Cor 15:3 and following cannot challenge what he was taught while in Jerusalem (Cf. Gal 1:18). Allison refers to the creed and acknowledges that it is pre-Pauline, early, and primitive.

C) Alston: Alston writes that it is “our earliest surviving testimony to the resurrection.”

D) Alsup: Identifies the creed as the “oldest of the resurrection traditions,” which “goes back to pre-Pauline, Palestinian origins.”

E) Barclay: Says the creed “may date from as early as the 30s.”

F) Barnett: See his timeline above. Barnett argues that Paul received this material information in Damascus, but it ultimately originated “from the Jerusalem apostles prior to being found in Damascus.” “It is likely that Paul was converted within a year or so of the historical church. Thus the church which he persecuted, that is, the Jerusalem church, must have been in existence in the immediate aftermath of Jesus.”

G) Bauckham: Bauckham argues that Paul learned the material in this creed from Peter during Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem.

H) Borg and Crossan: “The language most plausibly suggests that what follows is a very early Christian tradition that Paul had ‘received,’ most likely soon after his Damascus experience. Perhaps even the pre-Damascus Paul had heard this, for he knew enough about the Jesus movement to persecute it.”

I) Brown: Says it is a primitive confession on the resurrection.

J) Callahan: He dates 1 Corinthians about thirty years earlier than the Gospels.

K) Collins: Collins notes that this is “the oldest text that refers to [the resurrection] in some detail.”

L) Conzelmann: “That the formula comes from early times is shown also by the fact that the decisive authority is still the immediate authority of the witnesses, not yet that of the church.”

M) Craig: Craig dates the material to within five years or so of the resurrection events.

N) Cranfield: Says Paul received the creed soon after his conversion.

O) Crusemann: For Paul, states Crusemann, this is a tradition that he agrees with and now uses himself.

P) Crossan: Sees 1 Cor 15:3b–7 as a pre-Pauline tradition. It comes from “an earlier stage.”

Q) Davis: Davis notes that this is the earliest appearance text. It is also likely the oldest tradition that can be dated confidently.

R) Drane: Drane states that the creed could be the earliest evidence for the belief in a risen Jesus.

S) Dunn: “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.” Dunn also notes that even Lüdemann believes this tradition dates within the first two years of Jesus’s crucifixion. “In other words, in the early 30s Paul was being told about a Jesus who had died two or so years earlier.” “And almost certainly he [Paul] received this basic outline of the gospel very soon after his conversion, as part of his original instruction. In other words, the testimony of 1 Cor. 15.3–8 goes back to within two or three years of the events described.”

T) Durrwell: Addresses 1 Cor 15:3–5 under the category, “The Earliest Teaching.” Durrwell says the text “must therefore date from before [Paul’s] conversion” (“La formulation est, sans doubte, anterieure a la conversion de Paul).”

U) Ehrman: See Ehrman’s comments above. Ehrman highlights specifically the value of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 as offering empirical evidence of a recent event, and he says the creed goes back to a year or so after the traditional date of Jesus’s death. He thus dates the 1 Corinthians 15 creed (cf. Galatians 1) to the very early 30s. He also dates other traditions or creedal material to the early 30s.

V) Evans: Writes that “most scholars” say it “is pre-Pauline.” It is “the earliest tradition of the kerygma.”

W) Fiorenza: Fiorenza notes that it reflects early tradition and hymnic language.

X) Fitzmyer: Fitzmyer notes that 1 Cor 15:3 and following is a famous kerygma used by Paul. He stresses that it is early and basic to the early Christian church that began in Palestine.

Y) Fuller: He dates the appearance portion of the formula from “two or three years after his [Paul’s] conversion.” Fuller adds that it was “within a few years of the events concerned (within five years at the very latest).” Elsewhere, Fuller states that it could be dated to AD 35 in Jerusalem or as early as 33 AD if Paul received it in Damascus.

Z) Funk: Funk notes that the creed is among the “early, pre-Pauline confessions of faith.”

AA) Goulder: For Goulder, the appearance tradition can be dated “a couple of years after the crucifixion.” Goulder agrees that there is “early and widespread evidence” for “visions” of Jesus to individuals and groups and that this is due to “early and widespread evidence,” which he indicates comes from the tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–8, “perhaps two years after Jesus’ death.”

AB) Grant: Says 1 Corinthians was written “before the mid-fifties AD, and repeats what Paul had told the same correspondents during his previous visit, which in turn had repeated assertions already current at an even earlier date. . . . But Paul offers peculiarly valuable evidence for the very early beliefs of the Christian community.”

AC) Grayston: Grayston notes that it is a “pre-Pauline formula” and a “primitive formula.”

AD) Harris: Harris believes the “latest date” for Paul to receive creedal information would have been roughly five years after the appearance events or while he was in Jerusalem.

AE) Hays: Hays believes that Paul presumably received the material from the witnesses mentioned within the creed and that “this confession is very ancient indeed, probably datable to the time surrounding Paul’s own call to apostleship—in other words, back to within about three years after Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.”

AF) Hoover: Hoover notes that 1 Cor 15:3–5 is “among the earliest confessions of the Christian faith that we have, going back to the time of Paul’s conversion and calling to become the apostle to the Gentiles, about three years after Jesus’ crucifixion, and perhaps even earlier.”

AG) Hurtado: “Indeed, [Paul] insists that in these matters he and other Jewish Christians of the Jerusalem church share a common faith and devotional pattern (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:1–11). . . . The devotion to Jesus that Paul affirms in his letters was manifest already in the very earliest circles of Jewish Christians, including those of the very first years (perhaps months) in Roman Judea.”

AH) Jansen: Jansen notes that 1 Corinthians 15 is “early,” “creedal,” and a “formula.”

AI) Jenkins: Jenkins argues that there is strong evidence for the belief that Jesus was raised. “The best evidence” is from Paul in 1 Corinthians 15: “This was the tradition which Paul received from James, Peter, and the other leaders of the Jesus community, presumably during his visit to Jerusalem around 40.” (It is not clear how Jenkins gets to such a later date than others.)

AJ) Jesus Seminar: “The earliest version of the oral gospel preserved for us in written records is the ‘gospel’ Paul reports in 1 Cor 15:3–5 as something he learned from his predecessors.”

AK) Kasper: “We have here therefore an ancient text, perhaps in use by the end of 30 AD.”

AL) Keck: Places Paul’s reception of the tradition in the mid-30s, since it was “received two decades before.”

AM) Kee: Howard Clark Kee states Paul received these formulas “by those who preceded him in the early Christian community.”

AN) Kelly: Kelly argues the creed predates Paul’s conversion and “belongs probably to the first decade of the Christian church.”

AO) Kent: “Today, most scholars agree” that Paul probably received this creed from Peter and James when he visited Jerusalem. While Kent dates this trip to Jerusalem eleven to seventeen years after the crucifixion of Jesus(!), he believes the creed was in circulation before Paul’s arrival and could still “be dated very close to the actual crucifixion.”

AP) Kerr: Kerr refers to “the decade or so that may have elapsed between the first Easter and Paul’s reception of this fragment of tradition.”

AQ) Küng: Dates the creed between AD 35 and 45, perhaps “reflecting the history of the primitive community.” He calls it a “document in any case belonging to 35–45 A.D., when Paul—shortly after Jesus’ death—became a Christian and an apostle.”

AR) Ladd: Ladd discusses Paul’s trip to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James three years after his conversion.

AS) Lindars: Paul probably received it in “Jerusalem three years after his conversion . . . traced back to the earliest period of the primitive Church, probably less than five years after the Resurrection itself.”

AT) Lorenzen: Lorenzen points out that it is a “pre-Pauline tradition.”

AU) Lüdemann: Says the “elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus. . . . not later than three years after the death of Jesus. . . . Appearances of Jesus were talked about immediately after they happened. . . . The formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in 1 Cor.15.3–8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” Elsewhere, Lüdemann notes that it “goes back to very old tradition.” Additionally, he says the Corinthian church was founded about AD 41, and 1 Corinthians is dated “around 50.” “All the pieces of tradition investigated here (death, burial, resurrection, appearances) came into being at a very early date . . . dated to the first couple of years after the crucifixion of Jesus.”

AV) Mack: Mack notes that it is an early oral teaching (AD 30s or 40s?).

AW) Madigan and Levenson: “Paul implies that by the time of his conversion, this proclamation was already being preached by his predecessors. Indeed, he was transmitting a young but well-established tradition. . . . In all probability this gospel was already proclaimed during the decade in which Jesus died.”

AX) Marxsen: “It is by no means an ancient formula, but a relatively late one.” However, the process is “quite early.” Fuller notes that Marxsen is the “one dissenting voice” that does not date Paul’s creed to the 30s.

AY) Meier: For Meier, this is “an early pre-Pauline formula. . . . [Paul] says that it is a formula that he taught people when he converted them to Christianity; in fact, it is a formula that he himself learned when he became a Christian. . . . Since he himself became a Christian and learned this primitive creed from other believers in Jesus somewhere around 31–34, we have here one of the earliest creedal statements of the church, a creed that was formulated only a few years after the events narrated (ca. 30).” Meier refers to various “primitive creedal formulas.” He notes that “one of the earliest Christian creeds we possess” is in 1 Corinthians 15.

AZ) Meyer: Meyer argues that it is “dating at least from the forties of the first century.”

BA) Mishkin: “It is an early hymn of faith which was passed on to Paul from the original disciples within just a few years after the crucifixion.”

BB) Moltmann: Says the material in 1 Corinthians is “the earliest testimony to the resurrection.”

BC) O’Collins: “Paul received the formulation . . . in the thirties or early forties.” O’Collins refers to it as “pre-Pauline” and “early.” He notes that “many scholars assign [it] to the thirties, and none, I think, after the late forties.”

BD) O’Donnell: Says it is a text “thought to reflect an early confession.”

BE) Oden: “Here we have an account of what the church already considered to be an established tradition less than forty months after the event itself.”

BF) Osborne: “The earliest verification of the resurrection” and “possibly the oldest fragment of a New Testament creed.”

BG) Pannenberg: States that in Gal 1:18 Paul says he was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion; this would place Paul there six to eight years after Jesus’s death (about AD 30). Accordingly, “one must even suppose that this tradition arose very early, namely, prior to Paul’s visit in Jerusalem,” which places it within “five years after Jesus’ death.” The creedal material is “a very early tradition” that dates “maybe a few years after those events happened” and is “very strong evidence” for the appearances. First Corinthians 15:5–8 is the earliest form of the Easter tradition.

BH) Parsons: “The earliest appearance account, Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians, is a bare formula, a kerygmatic assertion wholly lacking in detail.”

BI) Patterson: Says this creed “predates Paul.”

BJ) Perkins: Perkins believes it to be “pre-Pauline tradition” and “our earliest example of resurrection proclamation.”

BK) Perrin: Perrin does not know how old the creedal formula is, but it is “at least twenty years older than the Gospel of Mark, written about A.D. 70.”

BL) Riley: For Riley, the resurrection was a central component of the early church’s teaching “from the beginning,” and the “earliest record” is 1 Cor 15:3–5. The “story apparently was already in outline form before he [Paul] became a Christian within a decade of the death of Jesus (ca. A.D. 30).”

BM) Robinson: John A. T. Robinson states Paul received this material “within a few years of the crucifixion.”

BN) Samuel: Says the material in 1 Cor 15:1–11 “derives from St. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem,” which was “only six years after the crucifixion.”

BO) Sanders: Sanders believes the creed is the “earliest evidence” for Jesus’s resurrection. It is “pre-Pauline” and an “established tradition.” First Corinthians 15 is the “earliest surviving discussion of the resurrection.”

BP) Segal: “There is no doubt that this is the earliest Christian teaching with regard to the resurrection: it is part of the primitive kerygma.” Segal says it was “reduced to a formula before Paul recites it.”

BQ) Sheehan: “Paul himself learned the formula soon after he joined the Jesus-movement around 32–34 C.E.” Sheehan claims Paul’s formula “probably goes back to at least 32–34 C.E., that is, to within two to four years of the crucifixion.”

BR) Spong: Spong believes it is the “earliest official church chronicle.” It is a “formula.”

BS) Stanley: Stanley notes it is “a very early creedal formula” with a “Palestinian provenance.”

BT) Staudinger: “It crystallised as a settled formula back in the first decade after the crucifixion.”

BU) Stein: Stein writes that by “common consensus” this is a “pre-Pauline creedal formula” probably dating before AD 40. “The earliest Christian proclamation” of the gospel is 1 Cor 15:3–8 and several Acts creeds.

BV) Stuhlmacher: Stuchlmacher argues that the creed “originated in the earliest years following Jesus’ death and resurrection.”

BW) Tabor: Tabor states that our earliest appearance accounts are attested in 1 Corinthians 15.

BX) Talbert: Talbert notes that the creed is early and pre-Pauline.

BY) Ware: James Ware writes,“There is almost universal scholarly consensus that 1 Cor 15.3–5 contains a carefully preserved tradition predating Paul’s apostolic activity and received by him within two to five years of the founding events.” Ware references Conzelmann, Schlier, Kloppenborg, Lüdemann, and Gerhardsson.

BZ) Ware: Robert Ware notes that this is a “confessional formula.”

CA) Weber: Weber dates the creed between the mid-30s and early 40s.

CB) Wedderburn: Says the creed “may well go back to the time of Paul’s conversion, most probably in the first half of the 30s.” In a reference note, Wedderburn seems to approve of Lüdemann’s date of 30–33.

CC) Wells: He seems to agree (at least generally) with the “critical theologians” for whom “it is universally agreed that Paul’s words here are not his own composition, but that he is quoting an already existing creed about the resurrection events.” He then calls it a “pre-Pauline creed.” “Paul, in his statement about the appearances, is reciting an early Christian creed.” For Wells, it is “one of oldest pieces of written tradition in the New Testament.” This creed predates Paul’s conversion.

CD) Wilckens: States the “material collected here indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” “Paul quotes . . . a version reaching back to the earliest period in the history of Christianity.”

CE) Williams: Williams notes that it is an early creedal report.

CF) Wright: Wright dates the formulation of this creed to within two or three years of the events themselves. He discusses the pre-Pauline and early tradition.

J. First Jerusalem Meeting

1. General Comments

A) Akenson: Referring to Galatians 1, Akenson argues that Paul “certainly was in a position to learn a lot about Yeshua. . . . Now, in more than a fortnight of intensive discussion with Peter he must have been tutored in all the basic actions and sayings of Yeshua as Peter knew them. Further, Saul obviously was being examined not only on his own character, but on his knowledge and ideology. . . . [Saul] knows his Yeshua and his interpretations are within the acceptable boundaries of the plasticities of the time.”

B) Allison: Allison offers some helpful comments regarding the first Jerusalem meeting where Paul likely received the content of 1 Cor 15:3–8.

C) Barnett: “Paul played an active part in the history of Christianity throughout those years, first as a persecutor, then as apostle from the time the resurrected Jesus appeared to him; that is, from about AD 34. Less than three years later he returned from Damascus to Jerusalem to enquire of (historesai) Cephas, with whom he stayed for fifteen days and where he also saw James, the brother of Jesus. Through these meetings with the leading disciple on the one hand, and the eldest of Jesus’ siblings on the other, Paul had extensive opportunity to hear about the historical Jesus.”

D) Blomberg: Blomberg describes the checks and balances performed by the Jerusalem church and compares them to improper analogies like the game of telephone.

E) Craig: After discussing the pre-Pauline creed, Craig stresses the importance of Paul meeting with Peter and James. Craig appears to date this meeting to around AD 36.

F) Dunn: Dunn notes that the three people at this meeting are “crucial figures” of the first generation of Christianity. He also notes a special impact by Paul. Paul’s first trip was around AD 35. This was his first meeting with anyone from Jerusalem leadership after his conversion. Dunn observes three key aspects about Paul’s language in Galatians. (1) Paul “saw the importance of making contact with Cephas, the most prominent disciple of Jesus’ own mission.” This indicates a continuity of commissioning of both Peter and then Paul. (2) In his “getting to know” Peter, this “would assuredly include learning about his [Peter’s] time with Jesus, about Peter’s part in Jesus’ pre-passion mission . . . it is no strain whatsoever to conclude that Saul could hardly have spoken of ‘getting to know’ Cephas without including Peter’s own reflections on his time with Jesus.” (3) The final point is that there “would also have been some in-depth induction to the Jesus tradition, whether as formal instruction or simply as Peter reminisced at length on what Jesus did and said. It is no abuse of historical imagination to envisage many hours of conversation between Cephas and Saul during that two-week stay, sufficient to stock Saul’s own well-trained mind with many of the traditions he was to pass on in turn to the churches he founded.” Among other leaders, Paul was “probably” the “most significant” in shaping Christianity.

G) Ehrman: “This means that if Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and James three years after his conversion, he would have seen them and received the traditions that he later gives in his letters, around the middle of the decade, say the years 35 or 36. The traditions he inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.” Ehrman says Paul knew James and Peter: “These are two good people to know if you want to know anything about the historical Jesus. I wish I knew them.” Ehrman then writes, “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?” Ehrman highlights specifically the value of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 as offering evidence of recent events that may date two years or so after the traditional date of Jesus’s death.

H) Funk: Funk notes that this meeting between Peter, James (Jesus’s brother), John, and Paul occurred.

I) Harris: “Paul spent fifteen days with Peter and during this time he must have made certain that the gospel he was proclaiming was identical with that of the Jerusalem apostles.”

J) Lindars: Lindars notes that Paul received various data during his time with Peter according to Gal 1:18.

K) Lorenzen: Lorenzen argues that the main reason Paul went to Jerusalem in Gal 1:11–17 was to confirm the gospel message.

L) Pannenberg: Pannenberg offers a good discussion of Paul’s meeting with Peter and James and the pre-Pauline tradition.

M) Perkins: Says Paul legitimized the gospel he preached by meeting with Peter and James.

N) Tabor: Tabor offers a fairly straightforward summary of Paul’s trip. Noting that it was three years after Paul’s conversion, Tabor says Jerusalem was where Paul met Peter and James, and they were cautious, as Paul was a persecutor.

2. Historēsai in Galatians 1:18

A) Barnett: “Less than three years later [Paul] returned from Damascus to Jerusalem to enquire of (historesai) Cephas, with whom he stayed for fifteen days and where he also saw James, the brother of Jesus. Through these meetings with the leading disciple on the one hand, and the eldest of Jesus’ siblings on the other, Paul had extensive opportunity to hear about the historical Jesus.” Barnett adds that the word only appears here in the New Testament and has to do with inquiring into or becoming familiar or acquainted with something or someone.

B) Betz: Betz quotes George Kilpatrick that Paul was “getting information from” Peter and James. He also notes Jürgen Roloff, “who thinks Paul used the visit to get trustworthy information about Jesus and his life on earth, and to coordinate his theology with Peter’s.” Betz offers several details on this meeting in his commentary.

C) Dunn: Dunn has done some work on this subject and, for him, the “basic meaning is ‘to inquire into, or about, or from.’” Though he notes the word can sometimes be so minimized to refer only to a traveler, one cannot do away with the element of inquiry. He further states that this is all the more the case when the subject is a person rather than a place. “Added to this is the information that Saul ‘stayed (epemeina) with him for fifteen days,’ a period far exceeding the normal two to three days of traditional hospitality offered to a visitor.”

D) Fuller: Fuller believes historēsai to have similar meaning to that of those above. Thus when Paul “visited” with Peter in Gal 1:18, the creedal traditions “would be just the kind of information he [Paul] would have received on that occasion.”

E) Wenham: Says Paul had plenty of opportunity to learn about Jesus during his time with Peter.

K. Second Jerusalem Meeting

1. General Comments

A) Akenson: Referring to Paul’s second trip fourteen years later in Galatians 2, this time with John present as well, Akenson writes, “Whatever else occurred, each side clearly expressed its knowledge and interpretation of the life of Yeshua of Nazareth and, again, Saul’s work received the imprimatur.”

B) Barnett: Paul “was concerned to confirm the acceptability to James, Cephas and John of the gospel which he preached. . . . There was overarching agreement in the fundamentals of the gospel based on the death and resurrection of Christ.” He adds that Paul’s message was unchallenged. “Paul does not exercise authority independently of the ‘tradition’ he received from those who were apostles before him, or in denial of their apostolicity.”

C) Betz: Betz provides a detailed analysis in his commentary (page references here are in text). Galatians 2 and Acts 15 describe the same event, but Paul “is a first-hand witness and his account must have priority in case of doubt” (81). Betz lists problems between the two accounts (82–83). He finds that “Acts agrees remarkably well with Paul’s own account about the purpose of the journey,” which was for him to check out the gospel he was preaching and get approval (85). Paul’s use of the words “running in vain” “usually expresses apprehension” (87). The James-Peter-John listing of “pillars” shows the “order and importance” in the Jerusalem church (99). Betz notably states that “the event had an official and legally binding character.” The church was to consider “the gospel message as it was preached to Gentile Christians by Paul and his fellow missionaries” (86). In spite of the legalists, nothing was added to Paul’s message (95). “The positive result consists of the fact that his gospel and mission were officially acknowledged by the Jerusalem apostles” (96). Betz adds further that “the gesture of the handshake here formally concludes an agreement. . . . It is clear that the agreement was made between equal partners . . . a recognition of Paul and his gospel as theologically valid” (100). Two living evidences “of what was agreed in Jerusalem” and “that Paul was approved by the Jerusalem church” were Titus, “who returned to Antioch uncircumcised” (82, 85, 88, 103), and the Jerusalem church’s acceptance of Paul’s monetary gift (103). The command to remember the poor “was supplementary, unrelated to the main points of the debate” (101). “This summary statement may very well be a quotation from the agreement made at Jerusalem. . . . It could be an oral quotation, i.e., a quasi-legal rule which is easy to remember” (98).

D) Crossan and Reed: Crossan and Reed show that the agreement between Luke in Acts and Paul’s words indicates there was agreement between Paul and the other apostles at Jerusalem. The apostles agreed with Paul that gentile converts did not need to be circumcised.

E) Dunn: Dunn notes that Paul’s claim regarding the appearances “was accepted by the Jerusalem leadership.” Paul, therefore, did not think he was preaching a different gospel than Peter, James, or John. Peter, James, and John, according to Paul, could not help but give Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.

F) Ehrman: Says Paul does not go back to Jerusalem a second time because he thought his message was wrong, but rather because it showed his opponents that the Jerusalem church agreed with him. Paul could then also be confident that he had the support from Jerusalem for his efforts.

G) Hengel: States that the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition was a “common starting-point for the meeting” with Paul and the apostles in Gal 2:1–10. The content was what was important, especially the gospel Paul proclaimed and put forward to those in Jerusalem.

H) Johnson: Writes that there are certain historical facts that even “the most critical historian can affirm without hesitation.” One of these facts is that there was a meeting with Paul and the leaders in Jerusalem regarding the mission to the gentiles.

I) Kee: Howard Clark Kee notes that Paul was called to be a messenger like the other apostles.

J) Meier: Meier refers to the Jerusalem Council with a reference to Gal 2:9 and speaks of Paul’s knowledge of James, Peter, and John.

K) Pannenberg: Pannenberg points out that Paul was acknowledged by leaders in the early church. Paul acquired a form of acceptance regarding his claims (Acts 15). Elsewhere, Pannenberg states that those in Jerusalem appear to have acknowledged Paul and his mission.

L) Tabor: Similar to Ehrman, Tabor thinks Paul made the second trip to Jerusalem to receive approval for his mission to the gentiles. Having confirmation from the “pillars” of the church (Peter, James, and John) would have helped his efforts.

2. Galatians 2 and Acts 15 Describe the Same Visit

A) Dunn: Thinks it likely that Galatians 2 discusses the same meeting mentioned in Acts 15.

B) Tabor: Tabor notes that this is the same visit as well.

C) Lüdemann: Lüdemann also thinks Galatians 2 is the same visit as Acts 15.

L. Importance of the 1 Corinthians 15 Creed

1. General Comments

A) Barnett: Says that Paul’s creedal statement involves a precisely stated argument.

B) Chmiel: Chmiel seems to argue that 1 Cor 15:3b–5, as “the oldest kerygma of the resurrection,” reveals not only the disciples’ faith but also that Jesus’s appearance was a “historical fact.”

C) Craig: States it is at the very least “amazing” that Paul provides us such information when we also consider the fact that Paul spoke to Jesus’s brother as well as the top disciple (who themselves both claimed to have had an experience of the risen Jesus and ultimately died because of their beliefs).

D) Crossley: Says the appearances mentioned in this account “must be taken very seriously.”

E) Ehrman: Ehrman highlights the evidential strength of the creed at various points. “This means that if Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and James three years after his conversion, he would have seen them and received the traditions that he later gives in his letters, around the middle of the decade, say the years 35 or 36. The traditions he inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.” Ehrman also notes that Paul knew James and Peter: “These are two good people to know if you want to know anything about the historical Jesus. I wish I knew them.” Ehrman then writes, “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?” Ehrman highlights specifically the value of the creed of 1 Corinthians 15 as offering evidence of recent events and says it can be dated from two years or so after the traditional date of Jesus’s death.

F) Fuller: Says one cannot overestimate the value of Paul’s statement since it was not only provided by one who was himself an eyewitness, but also because he had personally met with and interacted with Peter and James. For Fuller, it forms the “sole reliable basis for reconstructing” Jesus’s resurrection.

G) Kasper: For Kasper, this is the “most famous and important formula.”

H) Keck: Keck believes it was texts like 1 Cor 15:3 that allowed Christianity, particularly Western Christianity, to more fully develop doctrines of atonement.

I) Kee: Howard Clark Kee says Paul’s early traditions “can be critically examined and compared with other testimony from eyewitnesses of Jesus, just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting.” In a somewhat similar comment about 1 Cor 15:3–8, Paul tells us that this event is as real as any in the Gospels.

J) Lindars: Says Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 15:3–7 is of “first-class importance.” Lindars argues because of the importance of the creed (i.e., “first importance”), Paul probably “reproduces it exactly.”

K) Lowder: Similar to Fuller above, Lowder does not think the historical value of 1 Cor 15:3–8 can be underestimated. Part of the reason for this is because Paul was an eyewitness himself, and the creed is the earliest resurrection account.

L) Lüdemann: Presents some consideration on why the information in 1 Corinthians can be considered “extremely reliable and complete.”

M) Merklein: Merklein believes it to be a legitimation formula.

N) O’Collins: O’Collins believes this to be the “most valuable single piece of testimony” in the New Testament because it is early and combines traditional and autobiographical elements.

O) Osborne: Osborne stresses the early nature of this creed and that it is potentially the oldest New Testament creed.

P) Pannenberg: Because Paul’s traditions are so early and close to the events and report multiple people experiencing the risen Lord, the report in 1 Corinthans 15 has a “good historical foundation.” Thus, references to legendary development does not account for the core of the message.

Q) Perrin: Says the creed is important for a few reasons: it is “the earliest statement concerning the resurrection”; “it lists appearances of the risen Jesus to various individuals and groups”; Paul is included in these appearances; and there is no mention of the empty tomb.

R) Weber: For Weber, it cannot be doubted that the “most important formulation of faith” from Paul is 1 Cor 15:3–5.

S) Wright: Says Paul’s utilization of this creed, in a concise manner, reflects Paul’s desire, in continuity with the early church, to tell the story of Jesus’s resurrection, which is ultimately a story of Jesus (and Israel).

2. Purpose of Paul Citing the Creed

A) Conzelmann: Conzelmann notes that “buried” and “appeared” are “added as verifications on the two statements on salvation.” However, Paul was still not trying to prove the resurrection according to Conzelmann.

B) Ehrman: For Ehrman, Paul repeatedly appeals to various types of proof in this text. These proofs show that the Scriptures were being fulfilled.

C) Fuller: Fuller seems to agree with Bultmann that Paul cited his list of appearances as evidence.

D) Osborne: Osborne notes three purposes: (1) didactic, to correct false views about the resurrection; (2) apologetic, “to prove beyond a doubt the truth of Paul’s teachings even to skeptics”; and (3) authentication, “to establish Paul’s own apostolic authority.”

E) Wedderburn: Wedderburn says these verses represent events that are central to the church. They might also carry apologetic elements.

3. Eyewitness

A) Bauckham: “There can be no doubt that in his own recital of a kerygmatic summary in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is citing the eyewitness testimony of those who were recipients of resurrection appearances, including the most prominent in the Jerusalem church: Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, and James the brother of Jesus. . . . Paul thus takes for granted the continuing accessibility and role of the eyewitnesses.”

B) Collins: Says eyewitness testimony is a crucial source for historians “because it is written by a participant in the phenomenon under discussion.”

C) Crossley: Crossley refers to the “eyewitness traditions of 1 Corinthians 15” and “list of eyewitnesses.” Elsewhere, Crossley notes that Paul seems to give “eyewitness accounts” of appearances.

D) Lapide: Lapide notes that this tradition “may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses.”

E) Wright: For Paul to list witnesses, according to Wright, is an indication that Paul was referring to something that happened in the world, as opposed to an existential or metaphorical resurrection.

4. Trips to Jerusalem

A) Dunn: Dunn notes three key aspects about Paul’s language in Galatians: (1) Paul thought it important to make contact with Peter, as he apparently understood their commissioning by Jesus and their gospel messages to be similar. (2) His inquiring with Peter undoubtedly led to Paul learning all sorts of things about Jesus and Jesus’s life. (3) Peter would have given Paul some specifics regarding important traditions about Jesus.

B) Hengel: Hengel thinks the creedal information in 1 Corinthians 15 underwent multiple examinations by Paul.

C) Tabor: The importance of Galatians for Tabor is that although it was written around AD 50, Paul is providing firsthand information from events around fourteen years prior. These are the sorts of things that historians desire.

5. Summaries

A) Allison: Allison provides a summary regarding the details and significance 1 Corinthians 15.

B) Bauckham: Bauckham provides a good assessment of 1 Cor 15:3 and following as a creed.

C) Dunn: In short, Dunn writes that the creed is “reckoned to be an account of the faith that Paul received when he was converted, that is within two or three years of the putative events.”

D) Wright: Wright provides his assessment of 1 Cor 15:3 and following in a few pages.

M. Other Early Creeds and the Acts Summaries

1. General Comments

A) Allison: Allison examines various creedal statements in the New Testament and early Christian texts. These include the following: (1) Variants of the idea that “God raise[d] Jesus (or Christ) from the dead.” Examples include Rom 4:24; 6:4; 8:11; 10:9; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col. 2:12; 1 Thess 1:10; 1 Pet 1:21; and Pol. Phil. 2.1. Shorter versions that exclude “from the dead” include Acts 3:26; 10:40; 13:33; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:15; and 2 Cor 4:14. (2) Creeds that contrast Jesus’s death and resurrection, like Acts 3:15 (cf. 2:22–24; 4:10; 5:30–31; 10:39–40; 13:28–30); Rom 4:25; 8:34; 1 Cor 15:3–4; 1 Thess 4:14. (3) Creeds embedded in passion predictions, like Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34. He also notes the differences of creeds that use “on the third day” versus “after three days.” Regarding “on the third day,” he references Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; 13:32; 18:33; 24:7, 46; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor 15:4. Regarding “after three days,” he cites Matt 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34. Last, he notes the odd similarity between 1 Cor 9:1 and John 20:18, 25.

B) Dunn: Dunn argues that one of the “more fascinating lines of research” recently has been to better understand through Paul’s Letters what the earliest Christians believed before Paul’s conversion. “The major and most fruitful outcome has been the clarification of various kerygmatic and confessional formulae which Paul seems to draw into his own writing, notably Rom. 1.2–3, 10.9 and 1 Cor. 15.3–5/7.” Dunn also notes different sorts of creeds, of which many are relevant to the resurrection.

C) Ehrman: Says these traditions in general date from the very early 30s. Ehrman also points to Aramaic traditions. He suggests some ways to determine when texts predate the work they were written in. Ehrman makes other comments regarding the dating of these materials.

D) Fiorenza: Fiorenza states that form criticism shows various texts to be very early that reflect a belief in Jesus’s resurrection. Fiorenza adds that “one-member verses” typically indicate an earlier report. Examples include Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:15.

E) Gathercole: Gathercole considers Rom 1:3–4 and various Acts creeds in light of Christological concerns.

F) Holleman: Holleman identifies three sorts of resurrection formulas: (1) God raised Jesus; (2) Jesus died and was resurrected; and (3) the “contrast” theme that Jesus was killed, but God raised Jesus. These examples are mainly found in Acts. Holleman thinks that some of these traditions are exceptionally early—even earlier than 1 Corinthians 15.

G) Hurtado: Hurtado finds the importance of early creeds and formulas in showing an early high Christology.

H) O’Collins: Says New Testament creedal traditions were developed around the first decade or two after Jesus’s resurrection.

I) Wilcox: Wilcox locates specific Semitisms within every chapter in Acts 1–10, 13, and 15, which he thinks is indicative that the material is very early.

J) Wright: Says that although it is entirely unlikely that a Jew could have applied the idea of messiah to a crucifixion victim, this is what very early creeds like Rom 1:3–4 suggest happened, and this was because of Jesus’s resurrection.

2. Romans

A) Ehrman: Ehrman believes Rom 1:3–4 to be an early pre-Pauline creed but argues that Paul adds “in power” to show that Jesus was elevated to an even higher state at the resurrection, while the original author of the creed only believed that Jesus was elevated at the resurrection. (Paul adding to a traditional formula and seemingly altering its meaning, however, does seem a bit odd if he were trying to show the church in Rome that he believed what everyone else did.)

B) Hurtado: Discusses the creed in Romans 1.

3. Philippians 2:5–11

A) Pannenberg: Finds Phil 2:6–11 to be a pre-Pauline hymn.

4. Acts Sermon Summaries and Creeds

A) General Comments

(1) Alsup: Refers to the Acts sermons in chapters 2, 3, 5, 10, and 13 as “summaries” and kerygmatic expressions while wondering if they are the original form or a “redactional composition.” Alsup thinks it is “impossible” to derive a link between these accounts and the Gospel appearance accounts. Because of the concise nature of the statements in Acts, they were likely originally brief kerygmatic statements. Acts 10:40 and 13:30 (and related verses) especially “call to mind the formulation of the kerygma in 1 Cor. 15.” This is presumably because the pre-Pauline formula itself has virtually no parallel with the Gospel appearances for Alsup. The author of Acts combined his own formula with the original. For example, in 10:40 the author employs the kerygma in vv. 40b–41a and combines his own redaction in v. 41b. Alsup then summarizes these conclusions.

(2) Barnett: Barnett finds key points of contact between 1 Peter and Acts as well as Aramaisms within Acts. He speaks further of Peter and Paul and their “missionary speeches” in Acts 2 and 13.

(3) Bauckham: Bauckham notes the correspondence between Paul’s creed and various Acts sermon summaries. In particular, Bauckham also points out the abbreviated nature of both.

(4) Brown: Brown lists several Acts texts as being from the “pre-50 period.”

(5) Craig: According to Craig, the sermons in Acts are indications that Paul’s creed was formulated in Jerusalem.

(6) Drane: Drane comments upon the Acts creeds and their gospel kerygma.

(7) Durrwell: Notes that although the case for the Acts creeds is not as strong as for 1 Cor 15, and although Luke does cast the comments in his own words, there still are ancient kerygmatic statements in Acts.

(8) Ehrman: For Ehrman, the Acts sermon summaries are at odds with Luke’s own incarnational view of Jesus’s deity, but the creeds themselves show that Jesus was elevated (adopted) at the resurrection.

(9) Elliott: Elliott states that the “early chapters” of Acts have material that presumably dates before the Gospel traditions. Moreover, these chapters are also “remarkably similar” to the early traditions in the Pauline writings.

(10) Fiorenza: Says Acts 2:32 and 13:34 are two (seemingly very early) traditions or hymns.

(11) Fitzmyer: Fitzmyer refers to “primitive tradition” and “the so-called Jerusalem kerygma” found within various Acts speeches, referring primarily to Acts 2:33 and 5:30–31. Acts 2:32–33 is specifically noted as an early speech of Peter.

(12) Fuller: Refers to “the kerygmatic speeches of Acts (2:32b; 3:15c; 11:40f; 13:31).” He seemingly speaks not only of the three Acts accounts of Paul’s conversion but also of the Acts creeds. Additionally, Fuller observes that although the speeches are primarily “Lucan compositions,” they nevertheless utilize earlier traditions, such as Christological ones.

(13) Goergen: Goergen mentions Acts 2:36 and refers to it as an “early and succinct christology” but says that doesn’t mean it goes back to the Jerusalem community. The language is Lukan, yet 2:36 “contains units of pre-Lucan tradition.” Goergen states Acts 3:12–26 is another example of a combination of Lukan and pre-Lukan material, which is difficult to untangle.

(14) Gourgues: Gourgues considers the meaning and historicity of Acts 2:33–34 and 5:31.

(15) Hemer: “Thus the author of Acts displays an interest in direct speech that is not readily paralleled in other ancient literature.” Hemer claims there is no problem identifying the wording of the Acts speeches as Luke’s, but the issue is whether Luke is accurately summarizing. There still remains “the evident primitive quality” regarding the material. Hemer comments that the information in these speeches is not just early but connected to a specific historical situation. He then provides a long list of details. He holds that while the question is far from settled, nevertheless good reasons remain for taking the Acts speeches as abstracts of real addresses rather than “fabrications.” He adds, “As our specific evidence goes, we have to reckon with the demonstrable factor that Luke used sources for the spoken word, and used them rather conservatively.”

(16) Hengel: States there is “archaic” material in Peter’s speeches, but redaction is also “very evident.”

(17) Holleman: Holleman refers to a “contrast theme” as a “more or less fixed way of speaking about Jesus’ resurrection.” Examples of this are largely found in Acts speeches such as 2:22–24, 36; 3:13, 14–15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39–40; 13:28–30.

(18) Johnson: Gives Acts 2:36 as an example of one of the “earliest of such confessions.”

(19) Kasper: Kasper singles out other Acts creeds, in particular Acts 10:40 and 2:23.

(20) Kloppenborg: Says there are “kerygmatic statements” within the Acts speeches (3:15; 4:10; 5:30–32; 10:40–41; 13:30–31; 17:3).

(21) Lapide: Identifies Acts 2:24 as the “oldest layer of tradition” in the New Testament.

(22) Lindars: Regarding Acts 3:20 and following, Lindars thinks that the text itself intrudes into the context and is “certainly Palestinian” in its concepts. He also refers to John A. T. Robinson’s comment that this reflects the earliest Christology. Lindars also refers to “the core of the apostolic preaching in Luke-Acts,” listing Luke 24:46; Acts 2:36, 38; 3:26; 5:31; 10:42; 13:30, 38; 17:30.

(23) Lüdemann: “Many of the traditions which [Acts] uses are historically reliable and enrich our knowledge of earliest Christianity in addition to the letters of Paul.” See also the various facts confirmed by Lüdemann. Compare also with Lüdemann’s arguments about Luke’s redactions. He claims the creeds as we find them are Luke’s redaction, but says it remains possible that some elements actually derive from traditions that are before Luke.

(24) Merklein: Merklein lists several creeds in Acts (2:32; 3:15; 4:10; 13:33; 17:31).

(25) Meyer: Meyer notes early traditions in Acts 2:23; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39. He also mentions longer “missionary discourses.”

(26) O’Collins: O’Collins argues that the early material in Acts, particularly the resurrection traditions, derive from the AD 30s. The evidence for this includes: “brief expressions” that are “simple and ‘primitive’” and “do not match the normal language and thought of Luke.” He also refers to Acts 10:41 as containing early material (about Jesus sharing a meal) that Luke had received. O’Collins lists Acts 3:15; 4:10; and 5:30 as examples of “early formulations” found within the speeches of Peter.

(27) O’Donnell: Says Acts 4:10 is an early formula regarding the teachings of the church and is used again later in Acts.

(28) Perkins: Provides a brief reference to “kergymatic speeches of Acts” in the context of Paul’s resurrection testimony. Perkins also writes that “Acts uses kerygmatic formulae” and “frequently pairs resurrection and crucifixion.” Perkins mentions texts like Acts 2:24–31, 33–36; 3:13, 15; 4:10–11; 5:31–32; 13:33; 17:31 and also notes John A. T. Robinson’s detection of an especially early Christology behind Acts 3:12–26. She also concentrates on Acts 2:24–36.

(29) Staudinger: Referring to the sermons in Acts 2 (Peter’s) and 13 (Paul’s), Staudinger argues that these are the two independent testimonies.

(30) Stein: Lists the earliest gospel statements as those in 1 Cor 15:3–8 and Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39–41.

(31) Williams: Says it’s “hard to deny” some historical basis to Luke’s reconstruction of the speeches in Acts.

B) Speeches in the Ancient World

(1) Dunn: Dunn offers some insightful comments regarding speeches and how they were recorded and reported by historians in the ancient world. Historians had some reasonable flexibility in their reporting of speeches. Dunn notes, for example, Lucian’s How to Write History as well as Josephus and Thucydides. He also refers to the work of Dibelius.

C) Acts Speeches

(1) Dunn: Dunn points out that it is tough to conclude anything other than that Luke used older material when “framing” his speeches of Peter. Moreover, it shows that Luke felt some level of constraint because he labored to find and use early material in these speeches to fairly represent them. This means that we can reasonably “imagine Luke carefully inquiring of those who remembered the earliest preaching of the Jerusalem church and crafting the sermon from these memories and from emphases” that had been present from the beginning of Christianity. Acts provides a good example of how Luke used the ancient practice of recording speeches. Dunn argues that in a majority of reports there is a uniqueness that indicates “Luke has been able to draw on and incorporate tradition.” Dunn points out that there are several considerations that point toward Luke’s use of early traditions.

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman notes the early dating of the Acts sermon summaries and says they were not based on Luke’s imagination but on oral traditions. Acts 2:36 is evidence of adoption for Ehrman because it shows that the earliest Christian beliefs indicate that Jesus’s resurrection demonstrated God’s exaltation of Jesus to one of power and splendor.

(3) Hurtado: Hurtado argues that Acts 2 is a summary of the views of early Christianity.

5. Specific New Testament Sermon Summaries and Creeds

A) Various Scholars: Various scholars have commented on the following creeds and sermon summaries:

(1) Matt 20:28

(2) Matt 28:18–19

(3) Mark 10:45

(4) Mark 16:6

(5) Mark 16:14

(6) Mark 14:61–62

(7) Luke 24:34

(8) John 8:28; 12:32, 34

(9) John 11:50–51

(10) John 18:14

(11) Acts 2:14–36, 38–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–12; 5:17–40; 10:34–43; 13:16–41

(12) Acts 2:22–28; 3:11–26; 5:31, 42; 13:26–41; 17

(13) Acts 2:33, 36; 5:30; 7:55; 17:31

(14) Acts 2:36

(15) Acts 2:36; 3:6, 4:10; 17:2–3

(16) Acts 3:6, 13; 8:37

(17) Rom 1:3–4

(18) Rom 3:24–26

(19) Rom 4:24–25

(20) Rom 5:6–7

(21) Rom 5:6, 8

(22) Rom 5:8

(23) Rom 6:4

(24) Rom 8:11

(25) Rom 8:15–16

(26) Rom 8:22

(27) Rom 8:32

(28) Rom 8:34

(29) Rom 9:3

(30) Rom 10:9

(31) Rom 11:33–36

(32) Rom 14:9

(33) Rom 14:15

(34) 1 Cor 1:13

(35) 1 Cor 1:17–18, 23

(36) 1 Cor 2:2

(37) 1 Cor 5:7

(38) 1 Cor 6:9–11

(39) 1 Cor 6:14

(40) 1 Cor 8:6

(41) 1 Cor 8:11

(42) 1 Cor 11:23–25

(43) 1 Cor 12:3

(44) 1 Cor 15:15

(45) 1 Cor 16:22

(46) 2 Cor 4:14

(47) 2 Cor 5:14–15

(48) 2 Cor 5:19a

(49) 2 Cor 13:4

(50) 2 Cor 13:13

(51) Gal 1:1

(52) Gal 1:4

(53) Gal 1:12

(54) Gal 2:20–21

(55) Gal 3:13

(56) Gal 3:27–28

(57) Gal 4:6

(58) Phil 1:29

(59) Phil 2:6–11

(60) 1 Thess 1:9–10

(61) 1 Thess 4:14

(62) 1 Thess 5:10

(63) Eph 1:20

(64) Eph 2:5

(65) Eph 2:14–18

(66) Eph 4:4

(67) Eph 4:7–10

(68) Eph 5:2

(69) Eph 5:25

(70) Col 1:1–15

(71) Col 1:15–20

(72) Col 2:9–15

(73) Col 2:12

(74) Col 3:1

(75) 1 Tim 2:5–6

(76) 1 Tim 3:16

(77) 1 Tim 6:13

(78) 2 Tim 2:8–13

(79) 2 Tim 4:1

(80) Titus 2:14

(81) Heb 1:3

(82) Heb 1:13

(83) Heb 2:9

(84) Heb 4:14

(85) Heb 5:7–9

(86) Heb 8:1

(87) Heb 10:12

(88) Heb 12:2

(89) Heb 13:20

(90) 1 Pet 1:3–5

(91) 1 Pet 1:21

(92) 1 Pet 2:21

(93) 1 Pet 2:22–23

(94) 1 Pet 2:24

(95) 1 Pet 3:18–22

(96) 1 Pet 3:22

(97) 1 Pet 4:1

(98) 1 Pet 4:6

(99) 1 John 4:2

(100) 1 John 4:14

(101) Rev 2:8

(102) Rev 15:3b–4

(103) Rev 22:20

(104) Ign. Trall. 9:2

4. THE DISCIPLES’ TRANSFORMATION

A. The Disciples’ Belief

1. See also: “Disciples Experiences” earlier in this chapter (section 2).

2. Borg: Borg thinks that Jesus’s followers were definitely changed.

3. Caird: Contra Bultmann, Caird states that for the New Testament authors, “the resurrection is to be believed not because it had happened to the early Christians, but because it had happened to Jesus. It was the event which created the faith, not vice versa.”

4. Carnley: Says “we can agree wholeheartedly” that unless the disciples were really convinced that Jesus was risen, we cannot explain their transformation.

5. Clifford and Johnson: These two consider the disciples’ transformation to be a strong piece of circumstantial evidence for Jesus’s resurrection.

6. Cranfield: “But it is evident that within a few weeks of the Crucifixion these same disciples had become bold and energetic witnesses of a risen Christ.” Within five or six years of the cross, Cranfield writes, Saul’s career shows how widespread the persecution was. This “astounding transformation . . . presupposes a sufficient cause, something which was enough to convince [the disciples] that Jesus was alive.”

7. Drane: Says the disciples were “transformed into a strong band of courageous witnesses.”

8. Eddy: Notes that the New Testament in its entirety “rests on the fact that Jesus’s immediate circle saw the risen Lord in ways that gave them overwhelming assurance that he had conquered death.”

9. Ehrman: States that Jesus’s disciples spread their teachings, and their “conviction on this matter eventually turned the world on its ear.”

10. Fuller: Says there was a “change in the behavior of the disciples, who at Jesus’ arrest had fled and scattered to their own homes, but who in a few weeks were found boldly preaching their message.”

11. Goergen: For Goergen, the “emergence of their [the disciples’] faith” came after Jesus’s appearances. “Thus historiography can take us back to the emergence of faith, to a change in the disciples after the death of Jesus, and to the disciples’ articulation of this change resulting from” Jesus’s appearances.

12. Grant: Holds it is not so important whether the appearances really occurred. What is important is what happened to those who had the experience and what effect it had on them. These beliefs led to the start of the church. It was the belief in the resurrection that changed Jesus’s disciples and subsequent Christians.

13. Harakas: Says the disciples “rejoiced” on the first Easter.

14. Johnson: States that Christianity was born out of the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

15. Kee: According to Alistair Kee, the appearances were not the basis of the Christian faith or the disciples’ transformation.

16. Kee: For Howard Clark Kee, Jesus’s followers were convinced that he had been raised from the dead. The resurrection, like the crucifixion, is understood as a past event.

17. Kent: Notes that fifty days after Jesus’s death, the disciples “began their new way of life . . . a new level of commitment . . . new energy level.”

18. Koester: Says that for “first Christian believers,” their despair was “changed . . . into joy, creativity, and faith.”

19. Lapide: After detailing the disciples’ despair and failure, Lapide writes they “suddenly could be changed overnight into a confident mission society, convinced of salvation and able to work with much more success after Easter.” He adds that they “were changed within a short period of time into a jubilant community of believers.”

20. Lorenzen: Lorenzen notes a “dramatic change took place in the lives of the disciples” from “fear to courage, from fleeing . . . to returning” to being “courageous proclaimers of the gospel. . . . These changes can only be adequately explained if something decisive and unexpected happened to the disciples.”

21. Maier: “Clearly, they [the disciples] deemed themselves eyewitnesses of the risen Christ, for myths do not make martyrs.” Maier notes many details from Acts.

22. Marxsen: For Marxsen, all that can be said is that Peter’s vision brought him to faith.

23. Meyer: “That it was the Easter experiences which affected [the disciples’] transformation is beyond reasonable doubt.”

24. Moltmann: Says that after fleeing to Galilee, the disciples “returned to Jerusalem, where they openly proclaimed the crucified Jesus as the Lord whom God had raised from the dead.” They put their lives at risk to “boldly” proclaim Jesus.

25. Oden: “The radically changed behavior of the disciples after the resurrection is the best evidence of the resurrection . . . an overriding argument for the authenticity of their testimony. . . . Their lives were completely reversed by the resurrection.” Oden also notes that Peter and James are two good examples of transformation and that the disciples were willing to die for the truth of the resurrection.

26. Perkins: Perkins cautions that Jesus’s charismatic effect on the disciples could have accounted for portions of their transformation, lessening the force of this point.

27. Robinson: John A. T. Robinson notes that Jesus’s appearances were what “turned the disciples around in their own tracks.”

28. Samuel: Samuel points out that “the historian has to explain the sudden transformation of the disciples from defeat to boldness and confidence.”

29. Sanders: States that after the appearances, the disciples would “spend the rest of their lives” preaching and “several of them would die for their cause” such that they founded a growing movement “so loyal to him that they changed history.” The disciples proclaimed the kingdom, formed a community, and evangelized.

30. Spong: Says Jesus’s disciples “emerged out of hiding. They were galvanized into action. They were energized. . . . They lost their cowardly fear. Nothing ever frightened them again. . . . They endured ridicule, arrest, torture, beatings, and even death. But they never deviated from their story. They never wavered. Cowards were turned into heroes. Men in hiding for fear became fearless martyrs. Death frightened them no more. It held no further power over them. Why should they fear those who could only hurt or kill their bodies? . . . At the very heart of that movement was an unshakable conviction and an un-wavering confidence that life, not death, was the final destiny for the human being.” There are “historic, measurable effects. . . . Lives were changed dramatically. A dispirited, scattered, cowardly band of men was reconstituted, galvanized, energized into a powerful missionary force.”

31. Staudinger: Notes there was a “new change of mood” in those who saw Jesus.

32. Thrall: Thrall notes the “devotion of the first Christians, which in some cases led them to sacrifice their own lives.” The disciples’ lives were certainly transformed, but not necessarily because of Jesus’s appearances.

33. Watson: After expressing some doubt, Watson concludes, in a critical discussion, “However, one may concede that some such transformation is highly likely.” This is because it is “equally certain” that the disciples went from doubt and discouragement “to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus—we may suppose, with both joy and courage.” He added, “All that is necessary to account for the transformation is that the discouraged disciples came to believe in the resurrection, whatever the origins of this belief.”

34. Wedderburn: Says something happened in history “to effect this change”—a world-changing transformation.

35. Wright: “Something, it is agreed on all sides, happened shortly after Jesus’ death which transformed the situation from one of apparent defeat to one in which a new movement came to birth.” He adds that after Jesus’s crucifixion, Jesus, “(unlike any others before or since—a fact of some significance) was declared by his followers to be alive shortly afterwards.” Jesus’s resurrection was the foundation for the earliest believers’ “remarkable joy.”

B. Despair of the Disciples

1. See also: “Jesus’s Death Led the Disciples to Despair” in chapter 4 (section 3).

2. General Comments

A) Allison: Notes the disciples experienced a “moral collapse, for they scattered when their master was arrested.” Allison also provides an excursus on “The Disciples and Bereavement.”

B) Davis: Similar to his comments above about the disciples’ transformation, Davis also points out that it is widely agreed that the disciples were “discouraged and dejected” after the crucifixion.

C) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that our early sources clearly indicate the male disciples fled during the crucifixion.

D) Gibson: Gibson notes that the disciples fled and none of them were crucified with Jesus.

E) Johnson: Says the disciples “abandoned him [Jesus] completely at the end.”

F) Tabor: Tabor points out that Jesus’s death would have been at least as traumatic as the death of John the Baptist. It was a “terrible shock” to his followers.

G) Wright: Wright argues that immediately after Jesus’s death, nobody thought Jesus was the Messiah. Wright notes the transformation of the disciples to joy because of Jesus’s triumph over evil via the resurrection.

3. Multiple Attestation

A) Allison: Allison notes Mark 14:27, 50 and John 16:32 as relevant sources.

4. Other Failed Messianic Movements: See “Failed Jewish Messianic Figures” in chapter 9 (section 5) and “Failed Messianic Movements” in chapter 10 (section 29.B.2).

C. The Disciples Did Not Expect the Resurrection (or Crucifixion)

1. General Comments

A) Allison: “Unlike Jesus’ martyrdom, the resurrection did not conform to anyone’s expectations . . . it was belief in the resurrection of Jesus, not knowledge of his crucifixion, that would have forced the disciples to reinterpret their expectations in drastic fashion. Far from being the straightforward product of dissonance, then, Easter faith must have been, if anything, the cause of dissonance.”

B) Craig: Says there were no conceptions by the disciples of “any resurrection prior to the general resurrection at the end of the world.”

C) Crossan and Reed: “But then Paul adds in the stunningly original adaption, the totally original variation, the utterly creative revision that Christian Judaism had already made to that Pharisaic theology. The general bodily resurrection has already begun with the bodily resurrection of Jesus.”

D) Davis: Davis argues that almost all scholars from all backgrounds agree “the idea of a dying and rising messiah was new” to first-century Jews.

E) Dunn: “It is the unexpectedness of the interpretation put upon the resurrection appearances which is so striking, compared with what was currently being envisaged in regard to exalted saints and martyred heroes of the past. Appearances of Jesus which impacted on the witnesses as resurrection appearances did not conform to any known or current paradigm.” Dunn goes on to note that there was language for visions of the dead and the exalted as well as imagery that could be used similar to that found in Daniel 7, but this is not the case for the resurrection appearances. The disciples were not even expecting a crucified messiah because it would assuredly have been a stumbling block.

F) Ehrman: “Ancient Jews had no expectation—zero expectation—that the future messiah would die and rise from the dead. . . . Jesus, in short, was just the opposite of what Jews expected a messiah to be.” Ehrman then goes on to say that something must have happened since they believed Jesus was raised again.

G) Goergen: States the disciples did not expect to see Jesus raised. Goergen points out that it was not stories about the tomb that changed them, but only after they saw Jesus (noting that the male disciples “did not believe” the women’s reports).

H) Ladd: States the disciples did not believe and had “lost hope,” and “something had to happen to create their faith. It was not faith which created the experiences of the appearances, but the appearances which created belief in the resurrection.” For Ladd, the disciples were entirely “unprepared” for Jesus to be crucified.

I) Lapide: Lapide stresses that nobody was expecting Jesus’s resurrection. He also observes that the disciples were “scared,” “frightened,” and in “despair”: and “the fact that the solid hillbillies from Galilee who, for the very real reason of the crucifixion of their master, were saddened to death.”

J) O’Collins: Claims for the disciples to be in a state of “shock and spiritual disillusionment” is what should be expected, even if we did not have the testimony of the New Testament. The crucifixion created a “profound theological crisis” and “shattered their faith.” “Only by ignoring this evidence” can we postulate that the disciples kept their faith intact and generated resurrection faith. O’Collins observes that even after Jesus’s prediction of his death and resurrection, Mark tells us the disciples still did not expect it.

K) Samuel: Argues the importance of realizing that the “resurrection was not expected.”

L) Segal: Segal notes that there were no pre-Christian views that conceived of the death of the Messiah by the Romans. Segal adds, “Yet nothing in the Bible text makes the death or resurrection part of the narrative inevitable. It must have come from the historical experience of the events of Jesus’ life, not the other way around.”

M) Wedderburn: Says there was “initial despair and hopelessness” for the disciples. Wedderburn also thinks the Gospels’ presentation of the disciples’ disheartened states is not indicative of a group who was expecting an imminent resurrection. It is “likelier” they were surprised since they were unprepared for what followed. Wedderburn also notes that this is one way in which Christianity is different from other messianic movements, as the Christian movement continued despite the death of its leader. Wedderburn adds that the “evidence” that transformed the disciples was the appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

N) Wright: States first-century Jews were not expecting the resurrection of a single individual but rather an event at the end of time that happened to God’s people. Wright notes that the disciples were not “expecting anything remotely like this to occur.” Nobody was expecting a dying, much less rising, messiah.

2. Discontinuity from the Jewish View

A) Wright: Wright notes seven “mutations” related to Christian belief and resurrection that arose after Jesus’s resurrection. (1) A consensus arose regarding life after death; (2) the resurrection became central; (3) the “transphysical” body became less vague; (4) the resurrection was split into two events: Jesus’s resurrection and the general resurrection; (5) eschatology became viewed as a collaborative effort of God with man; (6) resurrection began to be used as an analogy; and (7) the death of the Messiah became associated with resurrection.

3. Concerns against Not Expecting a Resurrection

A) Carrier: Carrier argues that a “desperate group” looking for hope in light of the crucifixion “could easily have inspired these reinterpretations, and dreams or visions could have contributed as well.” He continues that this search could have led to expectation and thus hallucinations.

D. The Disciples’ Willingness to Suffer or Be Martyed

1. Disciples in General

A) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that we don’t know what happened to “most” of the disciples and, therefore, we should not talk about someone dying for a lie. He adds the parenthetical comment that we have instances of people dying for a lie.

B) Meier: Refers to Stephen, Peter, Paul, and James as Christian martyrs while providing historical data for each of them.

C) Sanders: Sanders rejects the fraud theory and specifically asks, “Why should they have been willing to suffer and die because of their work on behalf of the risen Jesus?” Jesus’s followers spent their lives preaching that he was risen, and several died for their message.

D) Wright: Wright notes that it would be highly unlikely that the disciples would have been willing to suffer and die for their new beliefs, unless those beliefs were grounded in reality.

2. The Three Major Apostles (Peter, Paul, and James)

A) Barnett: Barnett argues that James was martyred in AD 62, while in AD 65–68, Peter and Paul were martyred.

B) Craig: Craig notes that it is remarkable that we have information from Paul about speaking with Peter and James, considering that each of them were martyred.

3. Peter

A) Betz: Notes that Peter’s “death as a martyr is attested in the New Testament (cf. John 21:18–21; 1 Pet 5:1 [?]; 2 Pet 1:14; see also 1 Clem. 5.1–7).” Betz adds that the most probable place of Peter’s death is Rome, with Asia Minor and Syria being less probable. The date is uncertain.

B) Borg and Crossan: “Our best historical guess, then, is that Paul, and presumably Peter as well, died among those many Christians martyred by Nero in 64 CE. . . . We suggest that Paul died among all those other Christians rounded up in Nero’s scapegoat persecution.”

C) Brown: Brown agrees that John 21 refers at least to Peter’s martyrdom and possibly his crucifixion.

D) Fuller: On the Johannine appendix, Fuller says it is “a prediction of Peter’s martyrdom” written after the fact.

E) Funk: States that Peter died in the 60s.

F) Grant: Says Peter’s martyrdom seems “probable” and occurred likely between AD 64–68. Peter suffered “martyrdom” by “crucifixion, and not merely some other form of unnatural death.” Where Peter was buried is disputed but unknown.

G) Lüdemann: First Clement 5:5–7 leads Lüdemann to conclude that Paul was martyred in Rome.

H) Meier: Meier notes Peter’s martyrdom. He also notes John 21:15–17 as referring to Peter’s martyrdom.

I) Sanders: Sanders mentions the facticity of Peter being willing to suffer and die for his message of the resurrection.

J) Spong: “There is no reason to doubt the tradition of the martyrdom of Peter. . . . The fact remains that the new Peter never again denied his Lord and went to his death willingly in witness to that Lord.”

K) Tabor: Briefly notes Peter’s martyrdom.

4. Paul

A) Borg and Crossan: See their comment above regarding Peter and Paul’s respective martyrdoms in Rome.

B) Craig: Says it is “historically certain” that Paul experienced an appearance that changed his life so drastically that he was willing to, and did ultimately, die for those beliefs.

C) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that Paul’s martyrdom is briefly mentioned in the 60s in a letter written by Clement around AD 95 (i.e., 1 Clement).

D) Johnson: In a discussion on Hebrews, Johnson notes that 1 Clement mentions Paul’s martyrdom and can be dated to AD 95.

E) Meier: Notes that several sources indicate Paul’s martyrdom: Acts 20:25–38; 21:11; 2 Tim 4:6–18; 1 Clem. 5:1–7; Ign. Rom. 4:1–3.

5. James

A) Meier: Meier mentions James’s martyrdom and considers the embarrassing testimony about him written in Mark. James’s martyrdom is discussed elsewhere by Meier.

B) Painter: Josephus is a reliable source regarding James’s martyrdom, according to Painter. Painter says that accounts of James found in Hegesippus and the Ascents of James were both based on a common lost source. Ultimately, Josephus is to be preferred.

C) Tabor: Tabor provides a summary of James’s martyrdom. He seems to agree with Josephus’s account and also notes its consistency with some details recorded by Hegesippus.

D) Yamauchi: Yamauchi notes James in passing, writing “Josephus knew that Jesus was the brother of James, the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem.”

6. James Son of Zebedee

A) Barnett: Notes that James Zebedee was killed in the early 40s according to Acts 12:2.

B) Meier: Notes that though there is only one first-century reference for the martyrdom of James, virtually all contemporary commentators appear to accept it as historical. Meier believes this acceptance to be reasonable since it does not appear that Luke created the account. Jesus’s prophecy about the martyrdom of James and John was fulfilled for James. The principle of embarrassment perhaps comes into play here, since we do not know about John.

7. Stephen

A) Meier: Meier briefly notes the martyrdom of Stephen.

5. CONVERSION OF THE SKEPTIC JAMES

A. General Comments

1. Bauckham: Bauckham notes that the “usual view” is that James did not follow Jesus during Jesus’s ministry and that, following 1 Cor 15:7, after having seen Jesus, James believed Jesus was the Messiah. However, Bauckham thinks that the Gospels present “a variegated picture of Jesus’ relationships” but that James was probably a believer by the end of Jesus’s ministry (as in John 2:12).

2. Betz: Betz recognizes an appearance to James following 1 Cor 15:7.

3. Conzelmann: Says James’s authority was grounded in the appearance to him.

4. Craig: Craig attributes James’s conversion to having seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion.

5. Davis: States that James was an unbeliever and that Jesus appeared to him.

6. Derrett: Derrett thinks that James saw a vision of Jesus.

7. Ehrman: Ehrman concludes that Jesus “probably” had a brother named James. He provides some helpful background information regarding Jesus’s brothers. Ehrman discusses the mythicists’ positions regarding James and argues against them.

8. Fuller: “It might be said that if there were no record of an appearance to James the Lord’s brother in the New Testament we should have to invent one in order to account for his post-resurrection conversion and rapid advance.” “James had not believed in the Lord during his earthly life.” For Fuller, the significance of Jesus’s appearance to James is that “it betokened his conversion.”

9. Funk: Writes that “according to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus’ mother and his brothers were originally skeptical of Jesus’ program but later became part of the Christian movement” and that scholars do not think these accounts would have been invented.

10. Grant: Though it is possible that James was skeptical during Jesus’s lifetime, Grant still thinks that the appearance to James was “invented.”

11. Hoover: “So far as we know, Jesus’ brother James was not one of his followers in Galilee.”

12. Kee: Howard Clark Kee recognizes that Jesus’s family was so skeptical of Jesus that they tried to keep him from being out in public.

13. Koester: Says it “cannot very well be questioned” that Jesus appeared to James too.

14. Ladd: Notes that James was an unbeliever. Jesus’s appearance probably accounts for James’s conversion. After the conversion, James “suddenly emerges as the central figure in the Jerusalem community.”

15. Lorenzen: States that James was an unbeliever before seeing Jesus alive. An appearance to James probably occurred in Jerusalem and made James a leader in the early church.

16. Lüdemann: Says James was initially unconcerned about Jesus’s life and ministry. However, following 1 Cor 15:7, Lüdemann thinks “it is certain that James ‘saw’ his brother.”

17. Meier: Due to independent attestation and embarrassment (“if not deeply offensive”), we can say that James and other members of Jesus’s family were opposed to Jesus’s public ministry. Meier thinks it likely that the skepticism of Jesus’s brothers during Jesus’s lifetime was widely known by those in the early church. Not only did James claim to see the risen Jesus, but he later suffered martyrdom.

18. Oden: Notes that James was one of Jesus’s relatives who did not believe in him before the resurrection, so we must explain the change afterwards by the appearances.

19. Osborne: Claims that most likely James, Jesus’s brother, was an un-believer during Jesus’s life but appears in the upper room in Acts 1:14 with the early believers, giving us a bit of a window for his conversion.

20. Painter: Painter agrees that most scholars grant James’s unbelief until his resurrection appearance experience, but Painter disagrees based on contrary evidence: there is no Gospel evidence of any hostility by family members, Mary is exempted from this family unbelief, John 7:5 is more nuanced than is usually recognized, and five other considerations based on the wedding at Cana in John 2:1–11. “Given that Paul nowhere mentions another James other than the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19), it is reasonable to take 1 Corinthians 15:7 as a reference to him. Indeed there is no alternative tradition of interpretation (see Eusebius, H.E. 1.12.4–5).”

21. Pannenberg: Says James apparently was not an early member of Jesus’s followers but later was.

22. Peterson: Eugene Peterson notes that James earlier had nothing to do with Jesus (John 7:2–9).

23. Sanders: Sanders mentions the facticity of James being willing to suffer and die for his message of the resurrection.

24. Spong: “We can be certain of the fact that the brothers of Jesus were not impressed, were not followers of Jesus during his lifetime. They were scoffers, cynics, suspicious of Jesus’ sanity. But something happened. . . . What caused a change that was this dramatic?” Spong adds that James in 1 Cor 15:7 is the same as Jesus’s brother mentioned in Gal 1:19, who “was a leader of the Christian church who exercised great authority.”

25. Stuhlmacher: Notes that James was an unbeliever until the risen Jesus appeared to him. “In 62 C.E. he was stoned by the Jews.”

26. Tabor: Tabor argues that James became the leader of the church after Jesus’s death as an “indisputable” fact. Tabor also believes in the authenticity of the James Ossuary.

27. Wedderburn: Wedderburn recognizes that Jesus’s brothers, including James, did not follow Jesus for the reasons given in texts like Mark 3:21 and John 7:5.

28. Wilckens: “The vision of James cannot be contested on any convincing grounds.”

B. Arguments for James as Jesus’s Half Brother

1. Multiple Attestation

A) Ehrman: Notes that Jesus having brothers is multiply attested in Mark, John, Paul, and Josephus. Thus we can conclude that Jesus “probably” had brothers and one was James.

2. Josephus’s Reference to James (Ant. 20.9.1):

A) See also “Josephus Antiquities 20.9.1 (Josephus concerning James)” in chapter 1 (section 6.B.5.D).

B) Ehrman: Ehrman notes the important connection between James and Jesus as reported by Josephus.

3. Galatians 1:19

A) Akenson: Writes that Gal 1:19 “forms a solid evidentiary link between the Yacov who is Yeshua’s brother in the Gospels and the Yacov who is a continual nemesis to Saul.”

B) Tabor: Says Paul clearly identifies that the James here is Paul’s brother.

C. Was James a Spiritual or Missionary Brother?

1. “Brother” Means Missionary Brother

A) Price: Price supposes, following Wells and others, that Paul’s reference to James as the brother of the Lord in Gal 1:19 makes more sense referring to “missionary brotherhood” (1 Cor 9:5).

2. Versus the Argument That “Brother” Means Missionary Brother

A) James Could Be Any Number of People

(1) Bock: Says the argument that “brother” means “missionary brother” is “very unlikely” due to the number of disciples it would need to distinguish between. It certainly seems to make a good deal of sense that Paul was referring to a specific person, since he refers to James specifically by name. It would seem likely that there would be several people named James who were also missionary brothers with Paul, and if true, then it would be very unclear which James Paul was referring to when using “brother.” A much simpler solution is that he is referring to James the half brother of Jesus.

B) No Qualifier Indicates a Well-Known James

(1) Allison: Allison, referring to the appearance mentioned in 1 Cor 15:7, writes that this James “must be the brother of Jesus: the lack of any qualifying phrase demonstrates him to be well-known.”

C) Peter and Apostles Not Spiritual Brothers

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman argues that if Paul meant James as the spiritual brother of Jesus, then this would make Peter and the other apostles not spiritual brothers “since they are differentiated from those who are brothers.” Accordingly, scholars are “virtually unified in thinking that Paul means Jesus’s actual brothers.” See too Ehrman’s comments on Paul’s distinctions in 1 Cor 9:5.

D. Arguments for James’s Skepticism

1. Criteria

A) Multiple Attestation

(1) Mark and John

(a) Derrett: Derrett points out that the Gospels (Mark 3:21–32; John 7:3–5) spend more time on the skepticism of Jesus’s family than on Joseph’s piety!

(b) Meier: Following Mark 3:20–35 and John 7:5, Meier points out that the “unsettling idea of a rift in Jesus’ own family is supported by the criterion of multiple attestation.” He further elaborates the difficulty of both sources independently making up such a story about the early leader of the Jerusalem church and Jesus’s brother.

(2) John

(a) Meier: Referring to John’s crucifixion scene, Meier argues that Jesus entrusts his mother to the care of the beloved disciple. This is apparently because Jesus’s brothers are not present.

B) Embarrassment

(1) General Comments

(a) Akenson: Akenson argues that the accounts are “nothing less than a clear derogation of Yeshua’s earthly family (including his mother) in a pattern that runs like a scarlet thread through each of the Four Gospels.” Akenson provides an interesting explanation as to why the Gospels included this embarrassing testimony. Briefly, it was to remove the family from religious control.

(b) Meier: Meier writes that it is difficult to think that Mark simply made these details up when writing around AD 70 since James was known to have been the leader of the early church. It is “much more likely” that James’s unbelief (along with that of his brothers) “was factual and was widely known to be so in the early church.” Moreover, what Mark and John report would be “embarrassing, if not deeply offensive, to a good part of the early church.” Furthermore, it is incredibly difficult to believe both sources independently making up such a story about the early leader of the Jerusalem church and Jesus’s brother. Meier also points out that Matthew and Luke soften the skepticism of Jesus’s family.

(2) Theological Reasons for Including Skeptical Accounts

(a) Meier: Meier considers the possibility that Mark and John included these embarrassing reports because they were, in some measure, similar to Peter’s unbelief and could thus provide a sense of hope to others.

2. James Became Leader of the Jerusalem Church

A) Casey: “Peter, Jacob [James], and John, all of whom played leading roles in the Jerusalem church, did see visions which they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus.”

B) Tabor: As noted above, Tabor finds it “indisputable” that James became the leader in the early Jerusalem church.

C) Wright: Wright comments that James’s leadership in the Jerusalem church is “common knowledge.”

3. Consistency

A) Meier: Meier also argues that Jesus referred to internal and external challenges to ministry. Internal conflict could include that of one’s family. Meier then goes on to discuss the high importance of family during Jesus’s time and setting. Meier notes that Jesus’s teaching that strife will occur within a disciples’ life is consistent with Jesus’s own life experience and with the skepticism of Jesus’s own family.

4. Not an Original Disciple

A) Wright: Because James was “probably” not a disciple during Jesus’s lifetime, “it is difficult to account for his centrality and unrivalled leadership unless he was himself known to have seen the risen Jesus.”

5. Paul’s Appearance Order in 1 Corinthians 15

A) Akenson: Akenson finds significance in the order of appearances presented by Paul and thinks that James was “not one of the original disciples,” which means at a “minimum this sequence implies that, to Saul’s personal knowledge, Yacov was not one of the inner circle of his brother’s disciples and . . . Yacov was not an apostle at all until after the resurrection experience.” Akenson thinks Paul’s appearance is similar to that of the others.

6. No Mention of Appearances in Gospels

A) Wright: Wright notes that it is only in the later Gos. Heb. (Jerome, Vir. ill. 2) that an appearance to James is mentioned. If this were present, what could it say about the Gospel that included it (especially if the others did not)? What does it say about the New Testament Gospels that they do not include it?

E. Arguments against James’s Skepticism

1. Allison: Allison offers a word of caution regarding James’s skepticism and notes that there may be some unnecessary assumptions being made. Allison does not appear to make mention of James’s absence during Jesus’s crucifixion.

F. The “James” Ossuary

1. Gibson: Gibson finds the inscription to be of “dubious value,” but then later notes that its status is “still unclear” and that although the ossuary is “undoubtedly authentic,” the inscription, or at least part of it, “may be a forgery.” But even if the forgery was authentic, “the ossuary is rendered useless for historical purposes since we lack information about its original provenance.”

6. CONVERSION OF CHURCH PERSECUTOR PAUL

A. General Comments

1. Betz: Paul’s texts in 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8 “suggest external visions rather than internal experiences.” Betz leans toward “ecstatic” experiences without necessarily deciding whether they were “external or internal or both.”

2. Borg: Says Paul’s reports are early and (the only) firsthand account. His experiences appear to be some sort of vision, per his description and those in Luke.

3. Carrier: “Paul is a witness to the resurrection.” Carrier claims Paul’s experience was a spiritual one.

4. Casey: Casey argues that Paul’s experiences were similar to those of the disciples in that he fell into the realm of visions, which were prevalent in that culture. Casey notes the differences between Paul and the disciples, in that Paul was not in a bereaved state of mind.

5. Conzelmann: Paul was the last one to see the risen Jesus according to Conzelmann. This is due to Conzelmann’s interpretation of 1 Cor 15:3 and following.

6. Craig: Craig recognizes that most scholars accept the Acts reports of Paul’s conversion as historical in their basic outline.

7. Crossan: Says Paul spoke of resurrection apparitions and may have had a trance or vision.

8. Davis: Davis stresses that Paul was an eyewitness himself. Paul holds to “corporeality” and the appearance of “a material object.”

9. Derrett: Even though it is the “greatest obstacle” to his thesis, Derrett still thinks that Paul saw a vision.

10. Dunn: Says it is tough to doubt Paul’s sincerity regarding his seeing of Jesus. Following 1 Cor 15:8, Paul saw Jesus as did the others. First Corinthians 9:1 is also clear that he saw Jesus. Dunn adds several nuances regarding what Paul saw: “(1) that unlike other appearances, this one was presumably directly from heaven; (2) that Luke does not hesitate to speak of it as a ‘heavenly vision’ (Acts 26.19); and (3) that Paul himself speaks of God revealing his Son ‘in me’ (Gal. 1.16). So a strong visionary and subjective element is not to be denied. The key factor, however, is that Paul experienced the encounter as a seeing of Jesus.”

11. Ehrman: Says Paul “claims quite plainly” that he saw Jesus alive.

12. Elliott: States Paul is the only witness, and his reports are of crucial significance.

13. Fuller: In discussing the Acts accounts—which he seems to trust because they have only “minor variations”—Fuller writes that there were “outward details of the vision . . . light . . . brighter than the sun . . . a voice (phōnē) is also audible. . . . self-disclosure of the Risen One . . . a visionary element and an auditory element, and . . . the inner meaning . . . apprehended by Paul alone . . . these three common elements are pre-Lukan, not redactional.” Fuller very cautiously and tentatively suggests that the form it took was “a vision of light” and “involved a communication of meaning.”

14. Funk: After speaking about Peter’s vision, Funk writes: “Paul claimed to have had a similar vision on the road to Damascus.” Funk thinks that Paul’s vision possibly occurred “as early as 33 or 34 C.E.” Or, Funk notes, it happened “some three or four years after the death of Jesus.” Paul died in the 60s.

15. Grant: Says Paul believed Jesus was seen alive after the crucifixion. The Acts accounts of Paul’s conversion give Grant a reason for pause. However, “the discrepancies” in Acts’ three accounts “are not serious enough to deserve much notice. It is clear that they represent minor variations from an identical tradition.” The consistent use of the same facts in each account indicates a solid and early account. Paul’s “conversion radically altered the direction of the world.” Grant thinks that Paul’s experience was a natural one.

16. Hedrick: Comparing the three Acts accounts of Paul’s conversion (from what appears to be a fairly skeptical stance), Hedrick writes: “Luke is apparently building on the narratives in Acts 9 and 22.” On whether or not Paul’s companions heard the voice, he gives options for and against, explaining Acts 9:7 and 22:9, which he calls “perhaps the most obvious contradiction and the most difficult to explain.” Even if Paul’s companions saw the light but heard nothing, Luke is “again confirming the objectivity of the event.” Also in 26:14, the companions fell down. In conclusion, “the narratives are composed so as to supplement, complement and correct one another.” The reader can’t get all the story from any single account, so these are “corrections” made by Luke instead of contradictions, even though, formally, they are “clearly contradictory.”

17. Hoover: States the proper place to begin is with Paul, and the “reason for starting here is simple and compelling: Paul’s testimony is the earliest and the most historically reliable evidence about the resurrection of Jesus that we have.” He is the earliest, as 1 Corinthians predates Mark by “nearly two decades.” Paul is the most reliable because he is an eyewitness.

18. Houlden: Says Paul is “unclear” about the empty tomb and appearances.

19. Johnson: Johnson notes that Paul claimed to have an experience of Jesus.

20. Kee: Howard Clark Kee notes that Paul was convinced he saw Jesus. Paul gives his own personal experience. It was a real event that occurred to both Paul and the other reported witnesses. When Paul reported the appearances in 1 Corinthians 15, this “can be critically examined and compared with other testimony from eyewitnesses of Jesus, just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting.”

21. Kerr: Finds four references to Paul’s experience in his own letters—Gal 1:16; Phil 3:8–12; 2 Cor 4:5–6; and 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8. We should let Paul’s accounts stand on their own without referring to Gospels or even the three Acts accounts.

22. Lindars: Says Paul is our only eyewitness.

23. Lüdemann: States Paul’s account is by an eyewitness. The Acts 9 account from Luke could have a “basis in tradition.” The tradition behind Acts 9 agrees with Paul’s letter, and its location is relevant. Acts is clear about Paul’s conversion from “persecutor to proclaiming Jesus.” “The tradition worked over by Luke may go back to an account from the apostle himself.” After removing the redacted portions of Acts 9, Lüdemann argues we can ascertain that “a heavenly light [shone] and Saul [fell] down,” and that his friends “heard the voice speaking to Saul” and took him to Damascus. Lüdemann adds more regarding the agreement between Luke and Paul. The location of Damascus is also accurate. “To sum up, it thus seems certain that the Damascus event was a vision” like those from the Old Testament and other Jewish, Hellenistic, and Roman sources as well as the New Testament. He concludes that the Acts reports “enrich our historical knowledge of Paul’s vision of Christ.” Paul’s appearance cannot be dated later than AD 33. “In my view it is certain that here the apostle is thinking of a vision of Jesus in his transformed spiritual resurrection corporeality.” Finally, Lüdemann says 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8 refer to the same event.

24. Maier: Maier discusses Paul and naturalistic theories concerning him.

25. Martin: “We have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s.” Everything else is secondhand or thirdhand.

26. Marxsen: Says we do not know the exact content of Paul’s Damascus experience, and it does not matter.

27. Meier: Meier notes that Paul gives us a firsthand account of a first-generation Christian.

28. Moltmann: Paul saw Jesus “apparently in the form of an inner experience.” “The effects of Christ’s appearances . . . are historically ascertainable.” “The manifestation changes him completely.”

29. O’Collins: Notes that what we do with Paul’s experience depends quite a bit on what we decide about the three Acts accounts. For Luke, this was not a vision but “an auditory experience accompanied by light phenomena.”

30. Perrin: Says Paul’s testimony cannot be overestimated. Anyone interested in what happened will have to address Paul, as he is the one witness whose writing we have. But we must “ignore” the three Acts accounts.

31. Robinson: James Robinson writes that Paul “conceives of the resurrection as bodily, but emphasizes change within the continuity of corporeality (1 Cor 15:40, 43, 48, 54).” The “visualization” depicted in the three Acts accounts “does seem to reflect accurately Paul’s own visualization of his experience.”

32. Robinson: John A. T. Robinson says Paul claimed to see “a vision of the glorified Christ.”

33. Segal: States that Paul’s experiences were “visions of the risen Christ in a body but not a physical body in normal sight.” Paul discusses the resurrection in light of his “visionary experience.” For Paul, his listing of witnesses is “sufficient to demonstrate its reality.” Again, “for Paul, the resurrection is demonstrated by the post-Easter appearances.” Segal notes that Paul had a “vision” and that Paul is not referring to a hallucination, but rather the visions were “through the Spirit and were therefore spiritual depictions.”

34. Spong: “There is no question that Paul was a learned Jew. . . . Yet his conversion was total, dramatic, and complete.” First Corinthians 9:1 is Paul’s explicit first-person statement.

35. Wedderburn: Says the only eyewitness report we have is from Paul.

36. Wells: States that Paul thought Jesus had appeared to him. These appearances are part of “normal religious psychology.”

37. Wilckens: “After all nobody disputes Paul’s vision.”

38. Wilson: Paul had a “vision of Christ, risen from the dead.”

39. Wright: Says we know Paul had an experience on the Damascus road “by the study of history.”

B. Paul’s Reliability

1. General Reliability

A) Historical Criteria

(1) Provides Eyewitness Material

(a) Bauckham: “There can be no doubt that in his own recital of a kerygmatic summary in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is citing the eyewitness testimony of those who were recipients of resurrection appearances, including the most prominent in the Jerusalem church: Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, and James the brother of Jesus. . . . Paul thus takes for granted the continuing accessibility and role of the eyewitnesses.”

(b) Carrier: “Paul is a witness to the resurrection,” although Carrier believes this to be a spiritual experience.

(c) Dunn: Dunn argues that in the “appearance to Paul we have the closest thing to a firsthand personal testimony to a resurrection appearance.” Dunn observes that there appears to be a difference between Paul’s experience and that of the others in 1 Corinthians 15.

(d) Johnson: Says Paul is a “firsthand witness of the resurrection experience.”

(e) Meier: States that Paul is the only first-generation Christian of whom we know his name and detailed facts about him and his writings, which mention his interaction with other church leaders. Paul provides the firsthand experience of one who experienced the risen Jesus and received a commission to share the gospel with the gentiles.

(2) Early

(a) Barnett: Barnett stresses the importance of Paul’s letters, including the fact that they are the earliest Christian documents: “They are documents remarkable for their closeness in time to the historical Jesus. And they were written by one who had been part of Christian history almost from the outset, first as prosecutor, then as apostle.” Paul’s letters are the “preferred point of historical entry” into Jesus and the early church for three reasons (earliest written, good manuscript attestation, and they are not evangelistic tracts). Barnett notes that this is especially important because Paul provides data for the view that Jesus was exalted from an early period by someone who knew the apostles. Barnett emphasizes the lack of evangelistic bias in Paul’s writings.

(b) Meier: Meier emphasizes Paul’s role as a figure of the first Christian generation who knew the other apostles.

(c) Neill and Wright: Note that Paul’s writings provide a reasonably short interval of time, about twenty years after the crucifixion. They note the virtual universality of starting historical inquiries with Paul, including F. C. Baur and Lightfoot.

(d) Segal: Segal points out that Josephus is a difficult text and that rabbinic sources are late, but Paul provides us with quality data for Jewish and Christian thinking within the middle of the first century. The evidence is not easily found elsewhere.

(e) Tabor: Tabor argues for the importance of Galatians as the “most valuable tool” since it gives information about events going back to the early 30s from a firsthand account.

(f) Wright: Wright comments on the early nature and confidence we have in dating Paul’s writings.

(3) Enemy Attestation

(a) General Comments

i. Barnett: Barnett references Paul as a persecutor of the church.

ii. Borg and Crossan: Borg and Crossan mention Paul as a persecutor of the church.

iii. Dunn: Dunn notes the multiple references Paul makes regarding his background as a persecutor of the church. He cites 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13, 23; Phil 3:6 and also their consistency with Acts 22:3–4. For Dunn, one cannot doubt that Paul persecuted the early church.

(b) Zeal

i. Crossan and Reed: Crossan and Reed find agreement with Paul and Luke referring to Paul as being a zealot (Acts 22:3–4; 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:6). They note that zeal “indicates religious vigilantism” following the “tradition of Phineas” (Num 25:6–8). They also refer to Philo’s understanding of a zealot as one who exacts judgment without delay or jury.

ii. Dunn: Dunn finds agreement with Paul and Luke as to Paul’s zeal and discusses what it meant to be a zealot.

(c) Paul’s Persecuting Authority

i. Crossan and Reed: Although they do not mention why they believe Paul’s authority to be implausible, they do mention that they believe it to be implausible.

ii. Dunn: Dunn notes as dubious Luke’s account of Paul being given authority to arrest those in Damascus and bring them to Jerusalem. But he also notes that there is more to it than meets the eye. Dunn wonders what jurisdiction a Jerusalem high priest would have had in Damascus. “A persecution within Judea, directed by Saul/Paul but involving minimal face-to-face contact with those affected, is probably the best explanation.” Dunn notes three aspects: (1) Luke states that the persecution occurred as a result of Saul seeking permission; (2) the responsibilities of the high priest included the content and timing of lived Judaism (easily imagining the maintaining of various traditions); and (3) financial consequences could be possible for those who would not comply. Dunn adds that while there may be some speculative elements in his view, it does add consistency to Luke’s report and, besides, one needs to explain why Paul was going to Damascus anyway. Paul’s ability to function as a persecutor while in Jerusalem thus makes good sense historically.

(d) Why Paul Was Persecuting Christians

i. Crossan and Reed: They argue that Paul “reacted violently” against those who were allowing pagans to enter into God’s people, and they note that Paul could have simply left Christians alone, been more like James, or converted while only preaching Jesus to other Jews. Their comments here seem odd since later, one of their main questions around Galatians 1–2 is regarding how it was possible that James would ever allow Paul to reach out to the gentiles for conversion. If this was only happening in a more formal approach after Paul’s meeting, how could he have been persecuting those, like Stephen in Jerusalem for example, who were preaching to the gentiles? Further, how prominent was preaching to the gentiles before Paul anyway? Why would Stephen be persecuted? Crossan and Reed also acknowledge that gentiles could be converted to Judaism, so was the issue about circumcision? It is not clear. Further, if Paul was persecuting what he became, as they argue he did, is it true that all Paul did was become a messenger to the gentiles without any other theological modifications? This seems doubtful. Ultimately, their “best guess” is that “Paul persecuted precisely that to which he was later called.” Paul “converted not from Judaism to Christianity, of course, but from violent opponent and persecutory of pagan inclusion to nonviolent proponent and persuader of pagan inclusion.”

ii. Dunn: Dunn notes that Paul’s training as a Pharisee, as well as being a zealous one, is part of the reason he had persecuted early Christians. Dunn thinks that Paul persecuted Christians because he saw them “as some kind of threat to Israel’s set-apartness to God.” “He saw the first Christians as abusing and abandoning the law, the very centre of his religion as a scrupulous Pharisee, and therefore as threatening Judaism itself.” Dunn also notes that Paul objected to the Hellenist revival of Jesus’s critique of the temple (Acts 6:14), and that is corroborated with Acts 7:48. The proclamation of a crucifixion victim as the Messiah is something to which Paul objected, as he may have viewed Jesus as being cursed by God (Gal 3:13) and thus blasphemous.

B) Conversion

(1) General Comments

(a) Allison: Allison finds naturalistic explanations difficult, thinks that a body (body of light?) was involved, and acknowledges that since we have “no access to exactly what Paul saw or thought he saw, we can imagine either that he saw an indistinct or overwhelming light, or alternatively, that his experience was akin to that of the prophet Ezekiel.”

(b) Meier: As noted above, Meier discusses Paul’s report of his conversion.

(c) Purves: “The most obvious answer” for Purves is that an appearance of Jesus converted Paul.

(2) Date of Conversion

(a) Barnett: Barnett dates Paul’s conversion around a year after the start of the church and the death of Jesus (AD 34, with Jesus’s crucifixion at AD 33).

(b) Dunn: For Dunn, “Paul was probably converted about two years following the events” of Jesus’s death and the start of the church. Yet Dunn also states “Paul’s role as ‘the persecutor’ (‘he who persecutes us’) (Gal. 1.23; also 13) obviously predated his conversion (possibly even within eighteen months of Jesus’ crucifixion) by some months at least, which confirms the fact of ‘persecution’ within months (one or two years) of Jesus’ death.” Dunn argues that the time period of two or three years has “become well established in common parlance as well as for historians of early Christianity.”

(c) Ehrman: Says Paul was converted around AD 32–33.

(d) Hurtado: “By common scholarly consent, scarcely more than a year after Jesus’ execution (dated variously from 27 to 33 C.E.), the Jesus movement had attracted the ire of religious zealots such as Saul of Tarsus (whose subsequent conversion is widely reckoned by scholars to have happened within a couple of years of Jesus’ crucifixion).”

(e) Tabor: Tabor places Paul’s crucifixion about seven years after Jesus’s crucifixion (that is, around AD 36).

(3) Conversion Account in Acts

(a) Craig: Says Paul had a “semivisionary” experience on his way to Damascus that included auditory and visual components (following the Acts accounts). Accordingly, Paul can legitimately add himself to those in the list in 1 Corinthians 15. Furthermore, Paul held to a bodily resurrection view, and his experiences contained a physical and bodily appearance.

(b) Dunn: Dunn comments that Paul and Luke’s ac-counts are “sufficiently coherent.”

(c) Lüdemann: Lüdemann thinks that Acts 22 and 26 should be interpreted in light of Acts 9 (he notes that Acts 22 and 26 highlight different aspects of the same event, namely the missionary component) and that the differences in the accounts are made by Luke to exclude the possibility that Paul’s companions participated in a revelation that was meant solely for Paul. Lüdemann notes several traditional components in Acts 9, including Ananias, and later in the appearance in Acts 21. He then provides a description of the historical elements. Historically, states Lüdemann, the traditions agree “that a particular event made the persecutor a proclaimer, the enemy of Christ a disciple of Christ.” He also thinks that Paul’s conversion occurring around Damascus is “accurate.” There is a presupposition that Paul saw someone in Acts 9 and that “there is probably no conflict in the mode of Jesus’ appearance between the tradition behind 9.3–9 and the letters of Paul—both in fact attest that Paul has seen the Lord.”

C) Interaction and Continuity with the Earliest Church

(1) General Comments

(a) Various Scholars: Many scholars express a wide range of contemporary agreement across various perspectives that the apostles held and proclaimed the same central components of the gospel proclamation.

(b) Akenson: Says Paul knew about Jesus’s life and also knew “at least one, and probably all, of the brothers of Yeshua.” Akenson also notes that Saul would be familiar with “variant traditions.” Paul’s interactions did not cease, but he continued to have them, including with communities outside of Jerusalem.

(c) Anderson: Paul provides his message, a message he argues is one that “they” (1 Cor 15:11) all preach and that dates back to soon after Jesus’s death on the cross.

(d) Craig: In the creed, Paul reports that it is the same message as the other apostles (i.e., “they” in 1 Cor 15:11).

(e) Fuller: Fuller notes that Paul’s main point is that his gospel is the same as that of the first apostles (cf. 1 Cor 15:11). All are preaching experiences of the resurrected Jesus (within an eschatological context).

(f) Harris: Given Paul’s time in Jerusalem with Peter, Harris states Paul would have undoubtedly verified that his message was the same as that preached by the original apostles.

(g) Hengel: Says Paul shared the same gospel message as the other witnesses he mentions in 1 Corinthians 15.

(h) Johnson: Says that in 1 Cor 15:11, Paul stresses that his message agrees with that of the other apostles.

(i) Kearney: Says Paul claimed to be giving the same gospel message that the earliest witnesses in Jerusalem also proclaimed.

(j) Kee: Howard Clark Kee writes that for Paul, the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus “is as real to him [Paul] and to the other witnesses who claim to have seen [Jesus] risen from the dead as are the events reported in the rest of the gospel tradition.” Paul’s report in 1 Corinthians 15 of the appearances of Jesus “can be critically examined and compared with other testimony from eyewitnesses of Jesus, just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting.”

(k) Lorenzen: Notes that in 1 Cor 15:11, Paul emphasizes that his message is “in continuity with” the gospel proclaimed by other apostles.

(l) Lüdemann: On the 1 Corinthians resurrection accounts he writes: “Paul had received the same ‘vision’ as all the other people cited in this list.” He notes Paul’s comment in 1 Cor 15:11 that his message was similar to that of those mentioned above. In discussing the disciples’ teachings in the context of his own appearance, Paul refers to others in Gal 1:17 that were apostles in Jerusalem before him.

(m) Meier: Meier points out that radical scholars do not address the fact that although there are differences with the early church leaders, “there was a common gospel message on which all of them agreed” (1 Cor 15:11). Although without mentioning the resurrection, Meier refers to the Jerusalem Council by a reference to Gal 2:9 and speaks of Paul’s knowledge of James, Peter, and John. In his epistles, Paul knows James, Peter, John, Barnabas, Apollos, “the apostles, and the brothers of Jesus.”

(n) Meyer: Says there were few direct opponents in early Christianity, but they were each addressed. Then, speaking about 1 Cor 15:11 and “the question of the resurrection,” Meyer says Paul made a point of noting that both he and “other missionaries” proclaimed the same message.

(o) O’Collins: Says 1 Cor 15:11, “so we preach and so you believe,” is an early creed. Paul presupposes that the Corinthians will be in agreement with the testimony of the early church leaders; thus he can appeal to their teachings as one and the same as his own.

(p) Pannenberg: Pannenberg notes that he agrees with “most” of the details Habermas presents, but especially Habermas’s comments on the connection of Paul with those in Jerusalem and the list of appearances of Jesus.

(q) Samuel: Quoting Pannenberg, Samuel says Paul “certainly spoke with the other witnesses . . . about the appearances to them in comparison” with his own.

(r) Segal: After speaking of Paul’s list of appearances in 1 Cor 15:3, Segal believes that Paul is claiming he saw the same thing, preaches the same, and believes the same thing as the others in the list. But Segal’s point is that Paul wanted to say that he was the equal of the apostles.

(s) Stuhlmacher: After discussing the creed in 1 Corinthians 15, Stuhlmacher writes: “Paul . . . himself declares it to be a characteristic for all apostles . . . all the apostles enumerated by him proclaim this gospel (cf. v. 11).”

(t) Witherington: Witherington argues that Paul was in “direct contact” with “eyewitnesses” to Jesus’s life and resurrection. Moreover, early Christians had a definite understanding as to what happened to Jesus. Accordingly, Witherington finds that the “silence” of Paul’s Christian contemporaries “is deafening. It shows where the common ground truly lay.”

(2) Early Church Leaders

(a) Ehrman: “This means that if Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and James three years after his conversion, he would have seen them and received the traditions that he later gives in his letters, around the middle of the decade, say the years 35 or 36. The traditions he inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.” Paul knew James and Peter, whom Ehrman says are “two good people to know if you want to know anything about the historical Jesus. I wish I knew them.” He then writes, “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?” Ehrman highlights specifically the value of the creed of 1 Corinthians 15 as offering empirical evidence of a recent event and dates the creed to only a year or so after the traditional date of Jesus’s death. The creed in Corinthians 15 (cf. Galatians 1) is dated by Ehrman to the very early 30s. He dates the traditions in general to the very early 30s.

(b) Hurtado: “The probable reason he [Paul] does not give a specific provenance for the tradition [1 Cor 15:3–7] is in 15:11, where he emphasizes that this tradition represents the message proclaimed both by him and these other figures. That is, Paul’s aim here is to present the beliefs in question as nonnegotiable and unquestioned among all the authoritative figures listed.” Hurtado believes that the same inference can be drawn regarding the “reverence of Jesus,” since it too was something that both groups shared. Accordingly, Paul openly cites formulas that reflect the teaching of the early church because they are the same teachings as Paul.

(c) Lowder: States that “it is quite probable that Paul would have talked with other Christians about the resurrection.”

(d) Lüdemann: Writes that in the earliest period the Jerusalem apostles had a “leading role,” and these are the ones to whom Paul is referring as apostles before him in Gal 1:17.

(e) Meier: Meier notes that Paul references or compares himself with the church leaders with whom he had contact, specifically James, Peter, John, Barnabas, Apollos, and the other apostles. Meier also considers the brothers of Jesus to belong in this category. Meier makes some general comments regarding John as a central leader along with others.

(3) Paul Met Jesus?

(a) Tabor: Says that if Paul met Jesus, he never stated it in his writings, nor is there any other evidence for it.

D) Pharisaic Background

(1) Dunn: Dunn notes that Paul’s training as a Pharisee, as well as being a zealous one, is part of the reason he persecuted early Christians.

(2) Wright: Wright notes that 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 makes it obvious that Paul is among those with Second Temple Jewish views on the afterlife, specifically the Pharisees.

E) Studied in Jerusalem

(1) Dunn: Says the consistency between Paul (Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:5–6) and Luke (Acts 22:3; 26:4) “makes it virtually impossible to doubt that Saul did indeed spend his most formative years of education and training (paideia) in Jerusalem.”

F) Non-Evangelistic Bias

(1) Akenson: “Saul actually tells us a lot about the historical Yeshua; however he does so almost unintentionally and he does so by writing non-narrative history.”

(2) Barnett: In reference to Paul’s writings, Barnett notes that Paul makes comments about the historical Jesus and early church “in passing and they were subject to checking and challenge; their historicity must be regarded as secure.”

G) Useful as a Historical Source

(1) Barnett: Says Paul’s letters provide important information regarding the disciples and Jesus.

(2) Ehrman: One of Ehrman’s main discussions is on Paul and his value.

H) Paul at the Center of Early Christian Belief

(1) Wright: Wright, in multiple places, discusses the importance of Paul as he relates to early Christian thought (especially concerning the resurrection).

I) Little Theological Development in His View of Resurrection

(1) Wright: Wright argues that essentially the only development in Paul is that he realized he would die before Christ’s second coming.

J) Miscellaneous Observations of Paul on Resurrection

(1) Ehrman: Although many biblical scholars focus on Paul in their New Testament courses, Ehrman says he does not. Nonetheless, he believes Paul to be highly important. Ehrman also notes that Paul believed Jesus was physically buried (although Ehrman doubts the historicity of Jesus’s burial as argued in How Jesus Became God [see below]).

(2) Wright: Wright provides a general overview on Paul and the resurrection. Wright makes five conclusions regarding Paul’s writings outside the Corinthian correspondence: (1) Resurrection is bodily for both Jesus and believers. (2) Little theological development in Paul’s view. (3) Paul’s view is rooted in Judaism. (4) Resurrection is central to Paul’s worldview. (5) There is a historical cause for Paul’s speaking about resurrection the way he does. Wright also makes several conclusions regarding Paul’s writings inside his correspondence to the Corinthians (excluding the key passages). Wright states that regarding the resurrection, Paul is with the Jews against the pagans and with the Pharisees against the Sadducees. Paul is also against any who support a purely spiritual afterlife. For Paul, the Spirit’s presence guarantees the resurrection to come. There is little stated about the intermediate state, but nothing to contradict it. Paul holds there is continuity and discontinuity between the present and future bodies of Christians. He hints at a larger picture (new covenant and new creation). Finally, Paul emphasizes the “present” meaning of resurrection. Jesus’s resurrection consisted in a new bodily life (i.e., transphysical). Wright also describes Paul’s view regarding the final portion of 1 Cor 15:50–58.

K) Paul as Unreliable

(1) Tabor: Tabor finds James to be more authentic and a better representative of early Christianity than Paul.

2. Paul on the Historical Jesus

A) General Comments

(1) Akenson: Akenson believes that the modern consensus that Paul knew little of the historical Jesus “is preposterous.”

(2) Barnett: Barnett lists fifteen facts that can be discerned about the historical Jesus from the works of Paul. Citing 2 Cor 5:16, Barnett thinks it is “highly likely” that Paul heard Jesus speak in Jerusalem.

(3) Borg and Crossan: Borg and Crossan clearly think that Paul’s message included more information than just Jesus’s death, and thus he also was concerned about Jesus’s life too.

(4) Ehrman: Ehrman highlights in Paul’s writings the life of Jesus, teachings, and provisional conclusions as well as mythicist’s objections and responses to those objections.

(5) Johnson: In concluding on what Paul knew about the historical Jesus, Johnson thinks it is obvious that Jesus was important for Paul and that Paul’s Letters include a diverse portrait of Jesus.

(6) Meier: He composes a short list of what Paul knew about Jesus. But he confesses that “one remains uncertain as to how much Paul knew.”

(7) Meyer: Meyer provides a list of some of what Paul knew.

(8) Stanley: Stanley agrees with Murphy-O’Connor that Paul knew quite a bit concerning the earthly Jesus and the tradition that later made up the Gospels. He disagrees with Fitzmyer that Paul showed little interest in what Jesus said and did.

(9) Wenham: Wenham lists several facts about the historical Jesus that Paul was familiar with. Wenham lists eight facts that are highly probable to have originated from outside of Paul (information that he received and did not invent), including the resurrection. Wenham lists six facts that probably originated from outside of Paul. Wenham lists roughly eight facts that plausibly originated from outside of Paul. He concludes: “The sheer quantity of evidence assembled is impressive. Indeed, if Paul knew all the gospel traditions which we have noted, then he knew most of the story of Jesus as the Gospels present it.”

B) Paul’s Knowledge of Jesus While Persecuting Christians

(1) Barnett: After mentioning Paul’s trip(s) to Jerusalem, Barnett contends that Paul also knew a lot about Jesus when he was a persecutor.

(2) Ehrman: Ehrman makes a few comments regarding Paul’s knowledge of Jesus when he was a persecutor of the church, noting especially Jesus’s death.

(3) Wenham: For Wenham, it is “entirely probable” that Paul learned a lot about Jesus as a persecutor.

C) How Paul Learned about the Historical Jesus

(1) Akenson: Says Galatians 1–2 tell us of Paul’s direct interaction with the Jerusalem church. Akenson notes that Paul would also have been familiar with “variant traditions.” Based on Akenson’s reading of Galatians 1, he concludes that Paul was “certainly” in a position to learn “a lot about Yeshua” and had spent a long time with Peter. Paul “must have been tutored in all the basic actions and sayings” of Jesus through Peter’s teachings. Paul was also able to confirm that his teachings were “acceptable.” Akenson further notes that when Paul returned to Jerusalem, this time he was there with Peter, James, and John. Among all the things that occurred, Paul’s message was again given an endorsement. Akenson refers to a third trip to Jerusalem, where Paul was imprisoned. This trip gave Paul yet another opportunity to connect with the Jerusalem church. Akenson contends that Paul was likely familiar with all of Jesus’s brothers. Akenson indicates some other potential interactions with Jerusalem. Paul unintentionally provides historical facts about Jesus in his writings, since his writings are non-narratives written to those who already believe.

(2) Dunn: States Paul’s conversion in the early 30s and his reports in Galatians 1–2 are important. Dunn says these should be a reminder that Paul was connected with the early church. Dunn notes three key aspects about Paul’s language in Galatians: meeting other apostles; learning about Peter; learning more about Jesus.

3. Paul’s First and Second Trips to Jerusalem

A) See: “Early Proclamation, Creeds, and Acts” (section 3) in this chapter.

4. Paul’s Appearance Experience Compared to Those of Other Eyewitnesses

A) Akenson: Says for Paul there is “no distinction between his seeing Jesus and the experience of the others.” Akenson notes that in Acts, Paul “encounters a visual embodiment of the spiritually resurrected Jesus, but not a physically resurrected human being.”

B) Alston: Alston thinks that Fuller’s argument that all the appearances are the same “is extremely weak.” For example, why couldn’t Paul have included his name in the list for other reasons? Since Paul’s experience was later, could he have recognized that appearances could come in multiple forms?

C) Badham: Says that for Paul, all the appearances were of “the same type.”

D) Borg: Borg thinks that Paul equated his experiences with those of the other eyewitnesses.

E) Collins: Collins thinks that Paul’s language indicates that his experiences were the same as those of other witnesses.

F) Craig: Holds that Paul had a “semivisionary” experience on his way to Damascus that included auditory and visual components (following the Acts accounts). Accordingly, Paul could legitimately add himself to those listed in 1 Cor 15:3 and following. Furthermore, Paul held to a bodily resurrection view, and his experiences contained a physical and bodily appearance.

G) Crossley: Crossley assumes that Paul’s vision was like the others listed in 1 Corinthians 15, but it was “vulnerable” to being interpreted in a nonbodily way by others.

H) Derrett: Similar to Hoover’s argument below, Derrett thinks that Paul believed the experiences to be the same (with few details provided).

I) Dunn: Dunn believes that the appearance to Paul was, according to Paul, “of the same order and significance” as the others listed in 1 Cor 15:3 and following. Dunn further discusses Paul’s use of the word “abortion” in 15:8 and its significance in this context. He notes that it is very unlikely Paul would have agreed with those who thought he had a subjective vision of some sort. Dunn notes that there is the “striking tension” of Paul including himself in the list since, “according to the Acts accounts, the appearance was from heaven, whereas all the other appearances are recorded as appearances on terra firma.” Dunn understands that Paul implies that resurrection experiences of Jesus (calls to apostleship with authority?) ended with his.

J) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that Paul speaks of his own experience in the same way as the other eyewitnesses.

K) Elliott: Claims Paul would have thought that his appearance experience was “comparable” to the others.

L) Fitzmyer: Says the appearances to the disciples and to Paul were basically the same except for the difference in time.

M) Fuller: Intriguingly, Fuller charges that Luke tends to “downgrade” Paul. Luke thinks that an apostle must fulfill Acts 1:21–22, but Paul does not, so Paul is not an apostle! Further, as a result, Paul was not the recipient of a true resurrection appearance but was converted by a vision of Jesus.

N) Funk: Says Paul’s experiences are in the same class with the other witnesses.

O) Grayston: Says that “Paul makes no distinction between the appearances.”

P) Gundry: States that we don’t know whether Paul claimed his appearance was from heaven, but even if he did, because of the language used, this wouldn’t show that the other appearances also were from heaven.

Q) Hoover: Claims Paul considers his appearance to have the “same character and significance” as the others.

R) Kee: Howard Clark Kee states that in 1 Cor 15:8, Paul “makes no distinction” regarding his and the other apostles’ experiences.

S) Kerr: There is no “serious doubt” in Kerr’s mind about Paul’s experience being on the same level as that of the disciples.

T) Kosanke: Kosanke compares the three Acts accounts of Paul’s conversion to Paul’s descriptions of his resurrection appearance as well as his nonresurrection visions.

U) Ladd: Says it does not follow that all appearances were like Paul’s.

V) Lüdemann: Lüdemann says that Paul saw the same vision as the others on his list, but Lüdemann gives few explanatory details (though he discusses it elsewhere).

W) Miosi: Miosi seems to agree on the “sameness” of the experiences.

X) Moltmann: Moltmann contends that we should think it likely that Paul’s experiences were “not very different from” the other witnesses.

Y) Muddiman: Notes that when listing the appearances, Paul did not make any distinctions between them.

Z) O’Collins: Notes that while it is true that Paul lists appearances without differences, O’Collins says we shouldn’t think that Paul assumed they were all identical in exact details. Nor should we think that the Acts accounts are the standard of the resurrection experiences (cf. Luke’s Gospel). He also states that the experiences should be considered to be of the “same type.” O’Collins also contends that Paul’s experiences were “like the apocalyptic visions of heavenly beings.”

AA) Osborne: States that Paul neither says his appearance was the same as the others nor claims he was equal to the other apostles. Additionally, the Greek verb ōphthē does not help one make such distinctions easily.

AB) Pannenberg: Gives two reasons why the appearances were apparently the same: (1) the earliest records tied the resurrection to ascension as one event, so Jesus must have appeared from heaven; and (2) the Jerusalem church recognized Paul. (It is exceptionally unclear why the truth of Paul’s commissioning involves the additional assertion that the type of appearances were all the same.) Paul’s resurrection appearance was similar to that of the disciples’ experiences.

AC) Perrin: Perrin contends that Paul thought his appearance experiences were similar to the others.

AD) Robinson: John A. T. Robinson claims Paul thinks other appearances were in the “same class” with his.

AE) Sanders: Says Paul does not differentiate his appearance from the others regarding their nature or kind. Jesus was not raised in a body that was physically the same as the one crucified. Further, Paul wanted to maintain Jewish hope of the resurrection body but acknowledged the spiritual nature of resurrection bodies, which were not of flesh and blood.

AF) Segal: Says Paul stressed continuity with the others who saw Jesus. Paul holds he is their equal. Segal states the appearances were nonbodily visions. For Paul, the word “bodily” resurrection means “the body is visible” while the soul is not. Flesh and blood can’t enter eternity. So neither will our body be flesh and blood.

AG) Spong: States that Paul thought the appearance to him “was identical with every other appearance on his list.”

AH) Wiebe: Although apparently not identifying with any gnostic or luminous trends, Phil Wiebe apparently thinks that some of Jesus’s resurrection appearances were insubstantial.

AI) Wright: States that by his language in 1 Cor 15:8, Paul is “indicating” that his experience was different from others. Paul’s appearance cannot be a model for others. Paul clearly distinguishes his appearance both from previous ones and from any subsequent visions.

5. Paul as the Founder of Christianity

A) Was Paul the Founder of Christianity?

(1) Arguments for Paul as the Founder of Christianity

(a) General Comments

i. Kent: Kent contends that Paul is Christianity’s founder. Interestingly, Paul apparently didn’t think of Jesus as God. Kent says he stayed within his Jewish heritage. Nevertheless, Kent still speaks of “Paul’s new religion.” Kent likes Maccoby’s thesis about Paul and his Greek education.

ii. Wenham: Wenham does not argue for Paul being the founder of Christianity, but summarizes that the most scholarly presentation of this view is from Hyam Maccoby in 1986.

(b) Paul’s Silence on the Life of Jesus

i. Wenham: Wenham summarizes one argument made by those in favor of Paul as the founder of Christianity: Paul doesn’t comment on Jesus’s life or teachings.

(2) Arguments against Paul as the Founder of Christianity

(a) General Comments

i. Ehrman: Ehrman notes that Paul is clear that he did not invent Christianity but “inherited” it (cf. 1 Cor 15:11; Gal 1–2).

ii. Hurtado: Notes that in 1 Cor 15:11 and Galatians 1–2, Paul stresses a unified and common faith.

iii. Nash: Provides lists of problems with connecting Paul with mystery religions and connecting Paul with Gnosticism.

iv. Segal: Segal notes some reasons to be cautious regarding Paul as the founder.

v. Wenham: Wenham provides a general overview of some differences between Jesus and Paul, with possible explanations of those differences. Wenham warns against parallelomania and offers some possible thoughts on how to avoid it.

(b) Response to Paul’s Silence on the Life of Jesus

i. Ehrman: Ehrman notes that Paul was quiet on many other issues as well.

ii. Wenham: Posits six possible responses.

(i.) Paul did not care about Jesus’s ministry and there are no allusions to Jesus’s ministry.

(ii.) Paul did care about Jesus’s ministry and the allusions are there.

(iii.) Jesus’s death and resurrection were far more important than other aspects.

(iv.) Palestinian traditions were not easily applicable in the Greek-speaking churches.

(v.) Paul felt more comfortable speaking about Jesus’s death and resurrection given that others had firsthand experience.

(vi.) Combinations of the above.

(c) Paul Assumes Readers’ Knowledge of Jesus

i. Ehrman: Ehrman notes that it was not part of the purpose of Paul’s writings to include much on the life of Jesus since he was writing to Christians who already believed in Jesus and were acquainted with church-related issues.

ii. Wenham: Wenham notes that some scholars contend that Paul assumes his readers are already familiar with Jesus’s life and teachings.

(d) Other Early Christian Writings Are Equally “Quiet”

i. Ehrman: Ehrman stresses that other New Testament and extrabiblical Christian writers are equally quiet regarding Jesus’s life for similar reasons.

ii. Wenham: Wenham notes that other letters are similarly quiet.

(e) Conclusions

i. Ehrman: Ehrman emphasizes that Paul was helping to grow Christianity and did not create it.

ii. Wenham: The entire point of Wenham’s book is to demonstrate Paul was not the founder of Christianity.

C. Time of Paul’s Experience

1. Funk: Notes that Paul’s conversion could have occurred as early as AD 33. Another option could be as late as 35, but in either case it was around three to four years after the crucifixion.

2. Lorenzen: Says Paul’s conversion occurred two years after Jesus’s death.

3. Lüdemann: States Paul’s appearance cannot be dated later than AD 33.

D. Paul’s Appearance Experience Transformed Him

1. Betz: Notes that Paul “was converted by a vision of Jesus.”

2. Craig: Craig argues that nobody should doubt that Paul was transformed by his experience. He was transformed to the extent that he was willing to die, which is equally historical.

3. Cranfield: “It cannot be maintained at all plausibly that this zealous persecutor of the disciples was in any way predisposed to accept the truth of the Resurrection. . . . The testimony of this man, with his background, his qualities, his character, with his mind which has left us so much authentic evidence of its workings . . . I personally find extraordinarily convincing.”

4. Dunn: “Whatever the detail of the event itself, it must have been a shattering blow to Paul, and must have convinced him that he had been totally wrong about Jesus. He was converted to what he had previously denied.” Dunn says his experience had “visual and auditory elements” and was enough to convince him.

5. Grant: States Paul was so convinced that Jesus appeared to him that he changed from a “savage opponent of Christianity, to . . . its passionate follower.”

6. Lorenzen: Writes that Paul had a “decisive encounter with the risen Christ which caused a radical reorientation of his life.”

7. Sanders: Sanders mentions the facticity of Paul being willing to suffer and die for his message of the resurrection.

E. Alternative Explanations for Paul’s Experience

1. Nonbodily Vision

A) Akenson: Akenson argues that Paul does not say his experience was of a bodily Jesus, and texts like Acts 9 and 1 Corinthians 15 are evidence for a spiritual resurrection, which is what early Jewish texts taught anyway. Yet it remains a “real event.” “It happened, Saul says, and then he ties it into his entire theological system.”

2. Mystical

A) Borg and Crossan: Argue that Paul had a “mystical” experience of Jesus. This was nevertheless a transformative experience that turned him from an opponent to a believer. Paul experienced a “real” vision that others would not have seen.

3. Epilepsy

A) Allison: Allison notes that it is a possibility that Paul could be explained as an epileptic, but this thesis has fallen on hard times. Allison finds it interesting that it has not been reconsidered given our greater understanding of Geschwind syndrome.

4. Conversion Disorder

A) Kent: Says Paul’s belief in Jesus’s resurrection accounts for his change, although his experience was due to conversion disorder. Kent also discusses Paul’s experiences.

F. Responses to Alternative Explanations for Paul’s Experience

1. General Comments

A) Allison: Allison examines a few naturalistic accounts for Paul’s experience (epilepsy and visions) but does not find them entirely convincing.

B) Ladd: Ladd concludes that naturalistic theories are “sheer fantasy.” Nothing in Paul’s writings supports these views either. For Ladd, however, the chief reason these views fail is that Paul’s conversion must be explained—we have to do justice to Paul having a real experience that dramatically changed his life in a holistic way.

2. Against a Nonbodily Vision

A) See: “Bodily Nature of Resurrection” (chapter 9), especially section 3H, “Arguments.”

3. Against Guilt-Type Visions

A) We Cannot Enter Paul’s Psyche

(1) Allison: Allison points out that others have warned about the fact there is no access to Paul’s mindset before Christianity.

B) No Evidence of Remorse during His Persecution Phase

(1) Allison: Notes that Paul’s clearest statement about his mindset before becoming a Christian is in Phil 3:4–11, and it gives no indication that Paul was conflicted about persecuting the church.

(2) Johnson: Though noting it is possible Paul could have been struggling with guilt, Johnson points out the lack of evidence for such a struggle and, moreover, Paul seemed to acknowledge he was “untroubled” about his actions at that time (following Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:4–6). Johnson also makes several comments regarding authentic religious experience.

(3) Neill and Wright: Similar to Allison above, there is “no hint” that Paul’s conscience was bothering him during his time as a persecutor.

C) Psychological Analysis Inappropriate

(1) Dunn: Regarding Paul’s conversion, Dunn notes that there have been a plethora of psychological speculations, with such speculation ultimately being a “largely fruitless exercise.”

Notes

Dale C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 332, 343, 364–65.

Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1987), 179, see also 178. Cf. Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” Bible Review 10, no. 2 (1994): 15.

Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan, The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary behind the Church’s Conservative Icon (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 11. They also place Jesus’s birth around 4 BC.

Tim Callahan, Secret Origins of the Bible (Altadena, CA: Millennium, 2002), 419.

Callahan, 370.

John T. Carroll and Joel B. Green, Death of Jesus in Early Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 166. See also 21, where Jesus’s death is considered a “virtual certainty.”

Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching (London: Continuum, 2010), 450. See also 459.

John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 145. See also 201.

John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperOne, 1993), 372–74. See also Crossan’s statement 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), 54.

John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995), 188.

Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 180–81. See also 15, cf. 171.

James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 775.

Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 233, 241, 247–50.

Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperOne, 2014), 116. See also 1, 45, 90, 96, 116–18, 123.

Craig A. Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology,” Theological Studies 54, no. 1 (1993): 34.

Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 220. See also 32, cf. 34.

Funk, 40.

Funk, 234–35.

Shimon Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 7, 90, 116, 123–25, 164–65.

Traugott Holtz, “Kenntnis von Jesus und Kenntnis Jesu: Eine Skizze zum Verhältnis zwischen historisch-philologisher Erkenntnis und historisch-theologischem Verständnis,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 104, no. 1 (1979): 5. See also 6–8.

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), 159. See also 160.

Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ (New York: Paulist, 1976), 113.

Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1982), 2:84.

George Eldon Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 93, 132.

Alan E. Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), esp. 36, 44.

Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 17.

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 5 vols., Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1991–2016), 3:10.

Jürgen Moltmann, “The Resurrection of Christ: Hope for the World,” in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 74.

Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), 84. Cf. 8.

Charles Austin Perry, The Resurrection Promise: An Interpretation of the Easter Narratives (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 4.

John A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 114–20, esp. 120, 127.

E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1993), 10–11, 280. See also E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 10–11, 322.

Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 13, 276.

Gerard S. Sloyan, Crucifixion of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 9. See also 1, 43, and 212.

James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 230.

Tabor, 228. See also 223, 310.

Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 4–5.

Nicholas Wolterstorff, “Remember to Remember,” Reformed Journal 39, no. 9 (1989): 12.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 1 4 (1978): 509. See also 511.

Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 25.

Hengel, 71.

Hengel, 87.

Hengel, 87.

Hengel, 49, 50, 55, 57.

Hans Küng, Eternal Life? Life after Death as a Medical, Philosophical and Theological Problem, trans. Edward Quinn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 333.

Sloyan, Crucifixion of Jesus, 12–23.

Sloyan, 20–44.

Sloyan, 212–13.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 219.

Carroll and Green, Death of Jesus, 168.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 112.

Craig A. Evans, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidence Right,” in How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature. A Response to Bart D. Ehrman, ed. Michael F. Bird (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 83–87.

Hengel, Crucifixion, 31–32. Cf. 26, 73.

Sloyan, Crucifixion of Jesus, 17.

Joseph Zias and James H. Charlesworth, “Crucifixion: Archaeology, Jesus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 273–89.

Zias and Charlesworth, “Crucifixion,” 279–80.

Zias and Charlesworth, “Crucifixion,” 284.

Joseph Zias and Eliezer Sekeles, “The Crucified Man from Giv’at Ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal,” Israel Exploration Journal 35, no. 1 (1985): 22–27.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 218.

Tabor, 218–19.

Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols., Anchor Bible Reference Library (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1994), 2:1090–92.

Carroll and Green, Death of Jesus, 168.

Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 135.

Ehrman, New Testament, 250.

Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 224–25, 229.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 115.

Donald Goergen, The Death and Resurrection of Jesus, vol. 2 of A Theology of Jesus (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988), 33–34.

Sloyan, Crucifixion of Jesus, 17.

Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 245. See also 252–54.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 219.

Hans-Ruedi Weber, The Cross: Tradition and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 6–7.

N. T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 33.

Zias and Charlesworth, “Crucifixion,” 281–82.

Zias and Charlesworth, 284–85.

Zias and Sekeles, “Crucified Man,” 26.

Hengel, Crucifixion, 70.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 781n93.

Pheme Perkins, “Reconciling the Resurrection,” Commonweal 112 (1985): 203.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 219.

Tabor, 220.

Wright, Who Was Jesus?, 33.

J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Event (Shipston-on-Stour: Drinkwater, 1982), 50. For the practice at 50n16 he cites Plutarch, Cleom. 37; b. Gittin 56a; and Lam. Rab. 1.5.31 as used by Jacob Neusner, Development of a Legend (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 229–34.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 781n93.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 123, 165.

John Wilkinson, “The Incident of the Blood and Water in John 19.34,” Scottish Journal of Theology 28, no. 2 (1975): 161.

Wilkinson, 169.

Wilkinson, 159–62.

Wilkinson, 162–66.

Wilkinson, 168.

J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Financial Aspects of the Resurrection,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 394.

Derrett, 405n6. Near-death experience similarities in ancient times are noted by Derrett on 407n35, citing Plutarch, Sera numinis vindicta 22–23 (Moralia 563D); Aristides, Orations 26.68–70.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 219.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 113–14.

Hengel, Crucifixion, 25–27.

Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1350–78.

Brown, 2:1376.

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 176.

Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 11. They also place Jesus’s birth around 4 BC.

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), 29.

James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, vol. 2 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 501.

Ehrman, New Testament, 43.

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: Macmillan, 1993), 128.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 35.

Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 128.

Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 66–67.

John P. Meier, “Dividing Lines in Jesus Research Today: Through Dialectical Negation to a Positive Sketch,” Interpretation 50, no. 4 (1996): 369.

Thomas Sheehan, The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986), 91–92, 101, 111.

Sloyan, Crucifixion of Jesus, 1, 11.

N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 53.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 251.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 93. In n9 he cites Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (London: SCM, 1983), 30–31 as dating Jesus’s death at AD 30 and Paul’s conversion between AD 32 and 34. See also Paul Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 8, 24–26.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 25n10.

Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1977), 111, 113–14, 142.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 24–25.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 165. See also 159–61.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 364–65.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 159–61. See also 165.

Barnett, 165. See also 159–61.

Carroll and Green, Death of Jesus, 166.

James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 153.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 775.

Dunn, 781n93.

Ehrman, New Testament, 233. See also 205, 241, 247–50.

Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 158, 163–64, 173, 292.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 124–25.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 109. See also 108

Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection, esp. 36, 44.

Alan F. Segal, Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 448.

Michael F. Bird and James G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin? A Believer and Non-Believer Examine the Evidence (London: SPCK, 2008), 40–41.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 39.

Callahan, Secret Origins, 366–70.

Carroll and Green, Death of Jesus, 166.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163. See also Ehrman, New Testament, 233, 241, 247–50.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163, 291.

Borg, Jesus, 178.

Richard C. Carrier, “The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 377. Cf. 390n31, where Carrier lists some possible charges worthy of stoning.

Carroll and Green, Death of Jesus, 166.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 156–58, 163–64, 173.

Joost Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia: A Tradition-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 184. Many examples are given on 181.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997), 110–11.

Jürgen Moltmann, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 40.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, “The Historicity of the Resurrection and the Identity of Christ,” in The Intellectuals Speak Out about God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984), 261.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 291.

Craig A. Evans, “What Did Jesus Do?,” in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 107–9.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 781.

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

Bauckham, 51.

Bauckham, 52. See also 55.

Bauckham, 54.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 156–58, 164, 173.

Ehrman, 292.

Ehrman, 163, 291.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 362, 364.

N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 709.

Peter Stuhlmacher, “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Dead,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 45–46. See also Peter Stuhlmacher, Was geschah auf Golgatha? Zur Heilsbedeutung von Kreuz, Tod und Auferweckung Jesu (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1998), 9–45. In this article he provides an overall discussion on Jesus’s death (9–45), including the reliability of the transmission of the death accounts (14), archaeological signs (15–16), and Jesus’s “ransom death” (33–34).

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 110–13.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 219.

Tabor, 220.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 123.

Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 89–91.

Callahan, Secret Origins, 370.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 221, 229.

Grant, Jesus, 151–52.

Richard A. Horsley, “The Death of Jesus,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. Bruce David Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 414. See also 405–8.

N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 551–52.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 165. See also 159–61.

Barnett, 159–61, 165.

Borg and Wright, Meaning of Jesus, 104.

Borg and Wright, 90.

Marcus J. Borg, “An Appreciative Disagreement,” 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: InterVarsity, 1999), 237–38.

Borg and Wright, Meaning of Jesus, 137–42. Virtually all five are summarized again in Borg, “Appreciative Disagreement,” 239.

G. B. Caird and L. D. Hurst, New Testament Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 411.

Caird and Hurst, 404.

Caird and Hurst, 408.

Fitzmyer, “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine,” 494.

John C. Lodge, Donald Senior, Eugene LaVerdiere, and Reginald H. Fuller, The Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord: A Commentary on the Four Gospels (Mundelein, IL: Chicago Studies, 1984), 51–52 (comment by Fuller).

Michael Green, The Empty Cross of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 171–80.

Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 31–32.

Hengel, 71–72.

Hengel, 34.

Brooke Hopkins, “Jesus and Object-Use: A Winnicottian Account of the Resurrection Myth,” International Review of Psychoanalysis 16, no. 1 (1989): 96.

Luke Timothy Johnson, Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), 82–83, 96, 108.

Ben F. Meyer, “Resurrection as Humanly Intelligible Destiny,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 22.

Moltmann, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, 42. See also Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 151.

Moltmann, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, 68. See also 41.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 88.

O’Collins, 92.

Gerald O’Collins, The Easter Jesus, 2nd ed. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1980), 121–22.

Lodge et al., Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord, 24 (comment by Senior).

Sloyan, Crucifixion of Jesus, 68. See 68–71.

Sloyan, 68–71.

Weber, Cross, 58.

Weber, 62.

Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 123.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 153.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 124.

Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 21.

James D. G. Dunn’s response to John Dominic Crossan, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 146–147; see also Darrell L. Bock’s response to Crossan, 152.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 323.

Theodore M. Drange, “Why Resurrect Jesus?,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 55.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 346. Cf. 343–44.

Allison, 200. See also 299.

Allison, 269.

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), 274.

Marcus J. Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” Bible Review 10, no. 2 (1994): 15.

Borg, “Appreciative Disagreement,” 242.

Hans Werner Bartsch, “Inhalt und Funktion des Urchristlichen Osterglaubens,” New Testament Studies 26, no. 2 (1980): 180. See also 194–95.

Hans Werner Bartsch, “Der Ursprung des Osterglaubens,” Theologische Zeitschrift 31 (1975): 16.

Raymond E. Brown, A Risen Christ in Eastertime: Essays on the Gospel Narratives of the Resurrection (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991), 59.

Brown, 87–88.

Peter Carnley, The Structure of Resurrection Belief (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 64. Cf. 82.

Carnley, 246.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 498.

Casey, 492. Note that Casey believes these to be visions or hallucinations. Appearances is a fair word to describe visions but not hallucinations (488, 493). Casey concludes that bereavement experiences are the most reasonable explanation for Jesus’s apperances (490–95, 508). For the 500 at once, Casey appeals to appearances of Mary to thousands of Christians and Muslims alike in Zeitoun, Egypt (495). Casey also states that Jesus did not raise bodily (497).

Robert Greg Cavin, “Is There Sufficient Historical Evidence to Establish the Resurrection of Jesus?,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 24, 30–31, 41n30.

William Lane Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” Modern Theology 6, no. 1 (1989): 63.

Craig, 63–64.

William Lane Craig, “John Dominic Crossan on the Resurrection of Jesus,” 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), 263–70.

John Dominic Crossan, in Robert B. Stewart, ed., The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 33.

John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 190.

John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperOne, 1991), 397; Crossan, Jesus, 165, 175, 181, 186.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 52.

Bird and Crossley, 54. Cf. 58.

Bird and Crossley, 52. Cf. 58.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 180–81. See also 15, cf. 171.

Davis, 182.

Davis, 182n23.

Joseph Doré, “Croire en la résurrection de Jésus-Christ,” Études 356 (1982): 532.

John Drane, Introducing the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1986), 103.

Drane, 101.

Drane, 104.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 861–62. There is an emphasis on these experiences on 862.

Dunn, 862.

Dunn, 841–57.

James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1985), 75.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 862.

Dunn, 863.

Dunn, 864.

Dunn, 863–64.

Ehrman, New Testament, 253.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 133. See also 174, 183–84, 189, 204.

Ehrman, Jesus, 230. Cf. 229.

J. K. Elliott, “The First Easter,” History Today 29, no. 4 (1979): 210. See also 209.

Elliott, 220.

Reginald H. Fuller, “John 20:19–23,” Interpretation 32, no. 2 (1978): 180. See also 181.

Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 238.

Fiorenza, 243.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 40.

Funk, 266.

John P. Galvin, “The Origin of Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus: Two Recent Perspectives,” Theological Studies 49, no. 1 (1988): 31. See also Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu: The Foundational Christology of Rudolf Pesch,” Theological Studies 38, no. 3 (1977): 521.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 127.

Goergen, 150.

Michael Goulder, “The Empty Tomb,” Theology 79, no. 670 (1976): 98.

Goulder, 98.

Grant, Jesus, 176. See also Michael Grant, Saint Paul (London: Collins, 1976), 79.

John Hick, Death and Eternal Life (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 177.

Hick, 171.

Hick, 173–74.

Hick, 173.

Holtz, “Kenntnis von Jesus,” 10.

Roy W. Hoover, “A Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 131.

Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 72.

Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 78.

Johnson, Real Jesus, 136.

Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Green (Mahweh, NJ: Paulist, 1976), 124–25.

A. Kee, From Bad Faith to Good News, 95–96.

James Keller, “Response to Davis,” Faith and Philosophy 7, no. 1 (1990): 114.

Jack A. Kent, The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (London: Open Gate, 1999), 1, 18–19.

Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:84.

Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien: Geschichten um Geschichte, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Katholoisches Bibelwerk, 1981), 153–55.

See respectively Kremer, 80–95, 112–35, 136–59, and 184, 236.

Ladd, Resurrection of Jesus, 22.

Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 127–28. See also 90.

Lapide, 125. See also 92. Cf. 15–16.

Barnabas Lindars, “The Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1993), 127.

Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 29–30. Cf. 48–49.

William P. Loewe, “The Appearances of the Risen Lord: Faith, Fact, and Objectivity,” Horizons 6, no. 2 (1979): 189. Cf. 179.

Loewe, 190.

Loewe, 191.

Thorwald Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship: Interpretive Models, Biblical Reflections, Theological Consequences (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995), 184.

Lorenzen, 123.

Michael Martin, The Case against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991).

Martin, 83.

Martin, “Why the Resurrection Is Initially Improbable,” Philo 1, no. 1 (1998): 70–71.

Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 182–88.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:252. Cf. 625. See also Meier, “Dividing Lines,” 368.

Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979), 60.

Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 243.

Moltmann, 226.

Moltmann, “Resurrection of Christ,” 74–75.

Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 216.

Moltmann, 219.

See the comments of C. F. D. Moule in Don Cupitt, “The Resurrection: A Disagreement: A Correspondance with C. F. D. Moule,” in Explorations in Theology 6 (London: SCM, 1979), 28.

Moule, 29.

Moule, 33.

Moule, 34.

Moule, 38.

John Muddiman, “I Believe in the Resurrection of the Body,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 134.

Gerald O’Collins, Interpreting the Resurrection: Examining the Major Problems in the Stories of Jesus’ Resurrection (New York: Paulist, 1988), 13.

Grant R. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 272.

Osborne, 271.

Osborne, 225–33.

Osborne, 233–72.

Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), 8.

Pagels, 9–10.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 91.

Pannenberg, 92–93.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 31.

As noted in Rudolf Pesch, “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu: Ein neuer Versach,” Freiburger Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und Theologie 30 (1983): 73–98.

Pesch explicitly notes the correction when writing, “Die These meines neuen Versuches ist nun diese: Die Visionen des Auferstandenen—die ich in Korrektur meiner früheren Auffassung als historische Ereignisse für zureichend gesichert halte—waren Visionen, in denen Jesus den Zeugen als Menschensohn erschien und in denen den Jüngern die mit Jesu Menschensohnworten—und nicht, wie ich ebenfalls zu korrigieren habe, mit Traditionen vom Martyrium und Auferweckung eschatologischer Propheten—gegebene Verheißung seiner Auferweckung als erfüllt offenbart wurde. Ich setze hier den Befund, daß die Ostererscheinungen, in denen der Auferstandene in seiner himmlischen Herrlichkeit geschaut wurde, exklusive, nur im Glauben wahrnehmbare Berufungserfahrungen waren, voraus” (87). For the French version, see Rudolf Pesch, “La genèse de la foi en la résurrection de Jésus: Une nouvelle tentative,” in La Pâque du Christ: Mystère de salut. Mélanges offerts au P. F.-X. Durrwell pour son 70e anniversaire, ed. Martin Benzerath, Aloyse Schmid, and Jacques Guillet, Lectio Divina 112 (Paris: Cerf, 1982), 51–74. Cf. Rudolf Pesch, Zwischen Karfreitag und Ostern: Die Umkehr der Jünger Jesu (Zurich: Benziger, 1973), 61.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 30, citing Pesch, “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens,” 87.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 30.

Galvin, 30.

Galvin, 30. Cf. 33, 34, 40, 42.

Norman Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark and Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 80.

Perrin, 82.

Perrin, 80.

Perrin, 83.

Charles Austin Perry, The Resurrection Promise: An Interpretation of the Easter Narratives (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 4.

John J. Pilch, “Appearances of the Risen Jesus in Cultural Context: Experiences of Alternate Reality,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 28, no. 2 (1998): 59.

Pilch, 53.

Charles P. Price, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, Virginia Seminary Journal 42, no. 1 (1990): 2.

Robert M. Price, “Is There a Place for Historical Criticism?,” Religious Studies 27, no. 3 (1991): 383.

Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William V. Dych (New York: Seabury, 1978), 277.

Rahner, 265.

James M. Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus (or to the Apostles’ Creed),” Journal of Biblical Literature 101, no. 1 (1982): 20.

John A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 124.

Robinson, 120, 125, 127.

Robinson, 127.

Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 280.

Sanders, 10–11.

Sanders, 13.

Sanders, 278.

E. P. Sanders, “But Did It Happen?,” The Spectator 276 (1996): 17.

Loewe, “Appearances of the Risen Lord,” 184–85, referring to Jon Sobrino, Christology at the Crossroads: A Latin American Approach (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1978), 375–76.

Thomas Sheehan, The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986), 91.

John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? A Bishop’s Search for the Origins of Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 51–52.

Spong, 51–53, 173.

Hugo Staudinger, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Saving Event and as ‘Object’ of Historical Research,” Scottish Journal of Theology 36, no. 3 (1983): 320.

Staudinger, 320.

Staudinger, 318.

Peter Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth: Christ of Faith (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 49.

Stuhlmacher, 48.

Stuhlmacher, 50.

Stuhlmacher, 49.

Stuhlmacher, Was geschah auf Golgatha?, 58–64.

Margaret E. Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” Thomist 43, no. 2 (1979): 197.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 36, citing Hansjürgen Verweyen, “Die Ostererscheinungen in fundamentaltheologischer Sicht,” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 103, no. 4 (1981): 429–30.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 40.

Donald Wayne Viney, “Grave Doubts about the Resurrection,” Encounter 50, no. 2 (1989): 128–29.

Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 519–20, citing Anton Vögtle, “Wie kam es zum Osterglauben?,” in Wie kam es zum Osterglauben?, ed. Anton Vögtle and Rudolf Pesch (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1975), 85–98.

Galvin, 520, citing Vögtle, 127.

Francis Watson, “‘Historical Evidence’ and the Resurrection of Jesus,” Theology 90 (1987): 368.

Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 14–15.

Wedderburn, 21.

Wedderburn, 38–39.

Wedderburn, 47.

Wedderburn, 188.

Michael Welker, “Theological Realism and Eschatological Symbol Systems,” in Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, ed. Ted Peters, Robert J. Russell, and Michael Welker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 37.

Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 32, 207; G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988), 43–44.

Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 29.

Rowan Williams, Resurrection: Interpreting the Easter Gospel (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1982), 97, 117–19.

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

Michael M. Winter, review of The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, Heythrop Journal 39, no. 3 (1998): 334.

Ben Witherington III et al., eds., New Proclamation: Year B, 2003, Easter through Pentecost (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 5.

Witherington et al., 5–6.

Ben Witherington III, “Resurrection Redux,” in Copan, Real Jesus, 131–32.

Wolterstorff, “Remember to Remember,” 12.

N. T. Wright, “Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem,” Sewanee Theological Review 41, no. 2 (1998): 118.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 710. See also 686–87, 707.

Wright, 707.

Wright, Surprised by Hope, 58.

Wright, 63.

William Lane Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” in Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, 155.

Michael Grant, Saint Peter: A Biography (New York: Scribner, 1994), 96–97. See also 100, 115.

Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 174.

Lüdemann, 148.

Gerald O’Collins, “Peter as Easter Witness,” Heythrop Journal 22, no. 1 (1981): 1, 8.

J. M. Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus,” 8.

Sheehan, First Coming, 104–9, 113.

Sheehan, 104–9, 113.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 156.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:70.

Robert M. Price, “Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 83.

Price, in Beilby and Eddy, The Historical Jesus, 65–66.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 496–97.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 155.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 843.

Dunn, 843.

Witherington et al., New Proclamation, 6–7.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 249–53.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 843.

Dunn, 829n11.

Dunn, 844.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 494. See also 487, 490, 492, 495, 497–98.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 155.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 850.

Dunn, 849.

Dunn, 850–51n107.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 128.

Gerald O’Collins, The Easter Jesus, 2nd ed. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1980), 29.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 481. See 479–81; see also 487.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 156.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 179.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 155.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 487.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 155.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 853.

Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 325.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 487. See also 494, 496.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 852.

Dunn, 852.

Dunn, 852.

Dunn, 852.

Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 27–28.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 849.

Dunn, 851.

Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 81–82.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 870–74.

Dunn, 875.

Dunn, 874.

Dunn, 874–75.

Dunn, 876.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 100.

Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 37, 50, 66; Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 103.

Nancey Murphy, “The Resurrection Body and Personal Identity: Possibilities and Limits of Eschatological Knowledge,” in Peters, Russell, and Welker, Resurrection, 205; see also Andreas Schuele, “Transformed into the Image of Christ: Identity, Personality, and Resurrection,” in Peters, Russell, and Welker, 222–23.

Murphy, “Resurrection Body,” in Peters, Russell, and Welker, Resurrection, 204–5.

Andrew Purves, The Resurrection of Ministry: Serving in the Hope of the Risen Lord (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010), 35, 82. He notes later with the resurrection appearances that “something utterly new broke into history” (47). See also 95.

Paul Badham, “The Meaning of the Resurrection of Jesus,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 30–35.

Robert John Russell, “Bodily Resurrection, Eschatology, and Scientific Cosmology,” in Peters, Russell, and Welker, Resurrection, 8–10. Similarly, Michael Welker, “Theological Realism and Eschatological Symbol Systems,” in Peters, Russell, and Welker, Resurrection, 35.

Brown, Risen Christ in Eastertime, 59.

Brown, 87–88.

Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 117. See also 116, 124.

Jenkins, Hidden Gospels, 79.

Hans Küng, On Being a Christian (New York: Doubleday, 1976), 348.

Küng, 349.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 83, 479.

Marcus Borg, “The Irrelevancy of the Empty Tomb,” in Copan, Real Jesus, 117–28.

Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Mahweh, NJ: Paulist, 1994), 105.

Daniel Kendall and Gerald O’Collins, “The Uniqueness of the Easter Appearances,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54, no. 2 (1992): 299. See also O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 115, 125–26.

Kendall and O’Collins, “Uniqueness of the Easter Appearances,” 307.

Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 277.

Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 134.

Wright, “Early Traditions,” 126.

Borg and Wright, Meaning of Jesus, 119.

Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 118–19.

Hans Conzelmann, First Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 258.

James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 136.

Dunn, 134.

Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 260, 266.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 136–37.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 381.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 135.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 232. See also 244n180, where Allison makes some vague comments regarding the resurrection being part of the earliest Jerusalem community.

Norman Anderson, Jesus Christ: The Witness of History (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1985), 122.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 128–29.

Barnett, 129.

Bartsch, “Inhalt und Funktion,” 194–95.

Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 128, 259, 268.

Barry L. Blackburn, “‘Miracle Working ΘEIOI ANΔPEΣ’ in Hellenism (and Hellenistic Judaism),” in The Miracles of Jesus, vol. 6 of Gospel Perspectives, ed. David Wenham and Craig Blomberg (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 196.

Borg, New Vision, 184–85, 189n44.

Carnley, Structure of Resurrection Belief, 64.

Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 259.

C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Expository Times 101, no. 6 (1990): 169.

John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), 550–51.

Donald G. Dawe, Jesus: The Death and Resurrection of God (Atlanta: Knox, 1985), 107.

Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 99.

Drane, 99.

Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 14, 28, 48.

Fuller, 48.

Fiorenza, “Advice for Religious Historians,” 243.

Grant, Jesus, 177.

Michael Goulder, “The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in D’Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, 48.

Joost Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia: A Tradition-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 139.

Hurtado, How on Earth, 30. See also 36.

Jenkins, Hidden Gospels, 78.

Jenkins, 79.

Barnabas Lindars, “Jesus Risen: Bodily Resurrection but No Empty Tomb,” Theology 89 (1986): 90.

Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 124.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:118.

Perrin, Resurrection, 80.

J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 114.

Marguerite Shuster, “The Preaching of the Resurrection of Christ in Augustine, Luther, Barth, and Thielicke,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 308.

Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 317. See also 318.

Staudinger, 320.

Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 113.

A. N. Wilson, Jesus (London: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1992), 239.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 233–34. Allison notes Price as an exception (235n134) and believes Price to be unpersuasive.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138.

Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 168.

Peter Kirby, “The Case against the Empty Tomb,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 248.

John S. Kloppenborg, “An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula 1 Cor 15:3b–5 in Light of Some Recent Literature,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 3 (1978): 351.

James Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5,” New Testament Studies 60, no. 4 (2014): 475.

Donald Harman Akenson, Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 144–45.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 41–42.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 52, 54.

Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 501.

Dunn, 501. See also 367.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 130–31, 149.

Ehrman, 131.

Ehrman, 144.

Ehrman, 145.

Ehrman, 130–32, 144–48, 156–57, 249–51, 254, 261.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:139.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:353.

Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 217.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 10.

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3–7,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43, no. 4 (1981): 582.

Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 251; Crossan, Birth of Christianity, 546–47; Hengel, Atonement, 37–38; Kent, Psychological Origins, 16; Küng, On Being a Christian, 348; Ladd, Resurrection of Jesus, 104; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98; Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 124; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 131; Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 61 and 61n4, see also 267; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 111; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 4; Oden, Word of Life, 497; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 222; Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 277; Wilckens, Resurrection, 2; Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 30, 32.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 7.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 44–45. See also Paul Barnett, Peter Jensen, and David Peterson, Resurrection: Truth and Reality (Sydney: Aquila, 1994), 24.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 50. See also 129.

Barnett, 44.

Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 123.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 855n127.

Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 69–70.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 10. See also Reginald H. Fuller, “The Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” in Critical History and Biblical Faith: New Testament Perspectives, ed. Thomas J. Ryan (Villanova, PA: Villanova University Press, 1979), 94.

Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 111.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:139.

Meier, 3:139.

Price, “Apocryphal Apparitions,” 74.

Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 113.

David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 366–67n86.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 50. See also 138–39, 142.

Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 269–71. See also 36–37.

Bauckham, 270–71. Cf. 266.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 235–39, 245, 288.

Allison, 236.

Hengel, Atonement, 37.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 323.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 217.

Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15,” 582.

Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 114.

Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 124.

Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 251.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 10.

John Frederick Jansen, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in New Testament Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980), 35.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351.

Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98.

Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15,” 582.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 111. See also O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 4.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 222.

Weber, Cross, 59.

Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 113.

Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 31. See also G. A. Wells, A Resurrection Debate (London: Rationalist, 1988), 42.

Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 252–54.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 10–11, quotes on 11.

Hengel, Atonement, 38–39.

Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98.

Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 61.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 111. See also O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 5.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 222.

David M. Stanley, “‘To Know Him and the Power of His Resurrection’ (Phil. 3:19): The New Testament Witness to the Central Mystery of Faith,” in How Could We Sorrow? Essays on the Resurrection, ed. Michael W. Higgins (Waterloo: University of St. Jerome’s College Press, 1989), 19.

Weber, Cross, 59–60.

Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 31.

Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 257.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ According to the New Testament,” The Month 20, no. 11 (1987): 405.

Murray J. Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 78. Cf. Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 360.

Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98.

Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 13.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 222.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 12–13.

Hengel, Atonement, 36.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 358–59.

Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98.

Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 13.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 111.

Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives, 222.

Perrin, Resurrection, 79.

Spong, Resurrection, 47.

Weber, Cross, 59.

Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 114.

Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98.

Lapide, 98.

Lapide, 98–99.

Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 251.

Conzelmann, 251.

Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation, trans. A. M. Steward (Edinburgh: St. Andrew’s Press, 1977), 16.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 173. See also 882.

Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 99.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 236.

Barnett, Jensen, and Peterson, Resurrection, 25. See also Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 44–45.

Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 72.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 492.

Casey, 456–57.

Luke Timothy Johnson, Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), 77. Cf. 157–58.

Fergus Kerr, “Paul’s Experience: Sighting or Theophany?,” New Blackfriars 58 (1977): 308.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 359.

Kloppenborg, 365.

Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 99.

Lindars, “Jesus Risen,” 96.

Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 14.

Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 63.

Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 317.

Staudinger, 318.

Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth, 8.

Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 476.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 77. One of Davis’s suggestions is that Paul was not present at the empty tomb and so did not want to comment on it (76).

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 142.

Robert M. Price, “By This Time He Stinketh: The Attempts of William Lane Craig to Exhume Jesus,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 422.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 458–61.

Casey, 458–59.

Casey, 459.

Casey, 459–60.

Casey, 460–61.

Casey, 461.

Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 478–79.

Ware, 480.

Ware, 480.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 66.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 76–77.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 840.

Wenham, Paul, 369. Regarding the views of the Pharisees, Wenham cites the work of Lapide, Resurrecting of Jesus, 130.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 76.

Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 482.

Wenham, Paul, 369.

Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 480.

Ware, 481.

Ware, 481–82.

Ware, 482.

Ware, 481.

Ware, 481. Cf. 483–84.

Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 497.

Ware, 497–98.

Wenham, Paul, 369. Regarding the views of the Pharisees, Wenham cites the work of Lapide.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 76.

Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 489.

Ware, 496.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 76.

Wenham, Paul, 369.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 155.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 833.

Dunn, 844.

Wright, Surprised by Hope, 55.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 607–8.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 142. Cf. 166, 192. On 166, Ehrman notes Paul’s reference to Junia as being foremost among the apostles. On 192, Ehrman says he thinks Mary had a vision of Jesus but does not specify whether it was veridical or not.

Wenham, Paul, 370; see also n96 regarding concerns on the polemical issue.

Wenham, 370.

Wenham, 370. In n97, Wenham also notes parallels with Acts 1 and 24.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 236–37.

Cavin, “Historical Evidence,” 36. See also 33.

Cavin, 24, 30–31, 41n30.

James G. Crossley, “Against the Historical Plausibility of the Empty Tomb Story and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus: A Response to N. T. Wright,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3, no. 2 (2005): 176, 178, 186.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 52.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 872. See also 873–74.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 495.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 153.

Wenham, Paul, 370.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 844.

Wenham, Paul, 370.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 261.

Allison, 237.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 457, 497.

Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 29–30.

Price, “Apocryphal Apparitions,” 82.

Price, 83.

Price, 83.

Wenham, Paul, 370.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 237.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 136.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 232, 262–64, 311.

Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 29–30.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 153.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 179.

Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 102.

Keith Parsons, “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 438.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 156.

Wenham, Paul, 367–68n89.

Wenham, 367–68n89.

Wenham, 367–68n89.

Price, “Apocryphal Apparitions,” 80. See also 69, 84.

Price, 91.

Price, 92.

Price, 92.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 465–66.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 231–32.

N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God; John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 410 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018).

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?: A Believer and NonBeliever Examine the Evidence (Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 2008), 52 (cf. 58).

See Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula.”

Ware, 498.

Ware, 490.

Ware, 492.

Ware, 492–93. See also n48 for several ancient references.

Ware, 493. See n50 for several ancient sources.

Ware, 494.

Ware, 491.

Ware, 492.

Ware, 490.

Ware, 491.

Ware, esp. 495–98.

Ware, 490. See also 495.

Ware, 496–97.

Segal, Life after Death, 403.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 855. See also n127.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 319.

Wenham, Paul, 366–67n86.

Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 251, 257; Crossan, Birth of Christianity, 546–47; Francis X. Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus: Mystere de salut (Paris: Cerf, 1976), 22; Murray J. Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 9–10; Gerd Lüdemann, “First Rebuttal,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 53; Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:139; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 4–5; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 317.

Peter J. Kearney, “He Appeared to 500 Brothers (1 Cor. XV 6),” NovT 22, no. 3 (1980): 264.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 360.

Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15,” 582.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 223–24.

Weber, Cross, 59–60.

Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 114.

Wedderburn, 115.

Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 55.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 11.

Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 93–94.

Kearney, “He Appeared to 500 Brothers,” 269.

Kearney, 264, 268–69, 283. Cf. Pannenberg, Jesus, 90–91; Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, ed. Terry L. Miethe (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987), 129; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 223–24.

Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 124.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 14.

Hengel, Atonement, 37.

Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, 99.

Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15,” 583.

Murphy-O’Connor, 583.

Murphy-O’Connor, 589.

Murphy-O’Connor, 584–85.

Murphy-O’Connor, 586.

Murphy-O’Connor, 589. See also 588.

Murphy-O’Connor, 588.

Murphy-O’Connor, 586.

Murphy-O’Connor, 587.

Murphy-O’Connor, 589.

Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 88.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 234.

Eduard Schweizer, “The Resurrection: Fact or Illusion?,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 1 (1979): 145.

Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 105.

Ehrman, New Testament, 136.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 139.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:139. See also 3:146, 243.

Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 55.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” Theological Studies 45, no. 3 (1984): 423.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 10.

Fuller, 28.

Fuller, 14.

O’Collins, What Are They Saying about the Resurrection?, 5.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 222.

Weber, Cross, 60.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 98n38. Cf. Barnett, Jensen, and Peterson, Resurrection, 24, 20.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 41–42n11 is a decent footnote on the Greek word historēsai, citing Herodotus, Polybius, and Plutarch alongside James Dunn. See also Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 26.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 98n38.

Hengel, Atonement, 38–39.

Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 168.

Hurtado, 168. See also 128, 169, 173, 175.

Hurtado, 169.

Hurtado, 173.

Hurtado, 175.

Jenkins, Hidden Gospels, 79.

Kearney, “He Appeared to 500 Brothers,” 270, 280, 283.

Küng, On Being a Christian, 348.

Ladd, Resurrection of Jesus, 105.

Lindars, “Jesus Risen,” 91.

Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 124.

Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 12–13.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 111–12. See also O’Collins, What Are They Saying about the Resurrection?, 5.

Pannenberg, Jesus, 90.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, “History and the Reality of the Resurrection,” in D’Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, 128.

David Samuel, “Making Room in History (Part 2),” 107.

Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 274n265.

Anderson, Jesus Christ, 120.

Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 39.

Harris, Raised Immortal, 9.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 98n38.

Wenham, Paul, 366–67n86.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 98n38.

Barnett, 98n38. He writes on 142: “The authority of the original apostles derived from Christ, but so, too, did Paul’s. Nevertheless, Paul does not exercise authority independently of the ‘tradition’ he received from those who were apostles before him, or in denial of their apostolicity.”

Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125.

Price, “Apocryphal Apparitions,” 74.

Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 354. See also 355.

Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 168. See also 128, 169, 173, 175.

Hurtado, 169.

Hurtado, 173.

Wenham, Paul, 396–97.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 319.

Akenson, Saint Saul, 176.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 234.

Allison, 233–36, 353.

William P. Alston, “Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 157.

Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 55.

John M. G. Barclay, “The Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” in D’Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, 16. Cf. 24.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 98n38.

Barnett, 93. In n9, Barnett argues that AD 33 is to be preferred over AD 30 for the death of Jesus, but he cites Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, 30–31, as dating Jesus’s death at AD 30 and Paul’s conversion between 32 and 34.

Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–71.

Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 149.

Brown, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 1375.

Tim Callahan, Secret Origins of the Bible (Altadena, CA: Millennium, 2002), 409. See also 369, where he dates Paul’s works prior to the Jewish War of AD 66–70.

A. Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 123.

Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 254.

Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 61.

Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 169.

Frank Crusemann, “Scripture and Resurrection,” in Peters, Russell, and Welker, Resurrection, 96.

Crossan, Birth of Christianity, 546–47.

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), 152.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 72.

Stephen T. Davis, “‘Seeing’ the Risen Jesus,” in Davis, Kendall, O’Collins, Resurrection, 139n23.

Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 100.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 855. See also 864.

Dunn, 855n129, citing Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 142–43. See also 180–81, 855–56, 864.

Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 70.

Francis X. Durrwell, The Resurrection: A Biblical Study, trans. Rosemary Sheed, 2nd ed. (London: Sheed & Ward, 1986), 22.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 130–32, 144–48, 156–57, 249–51, 254, 261.

Ehrman, 130–32, 144–48, 155–56, 164, 171–73, 249–51, 254, 261.

Ehrman, 92–93, 97, 111, 141, 157–58, 170, 251, 260–63.

Craig A. Evans, “Mark’s Use of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 8, no. 2 (1978): 54n8.

Evans, 51.

Fiorenza, “Advice for Religious Historians,” 226.

Fitzmyer, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 404.

Fitzmyer, 409. See also Fitzmyer, “Ascension of Christ,” 423.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 14.

Fuller, 48. See also 170.

Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 94.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 38.

Goulder, “Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” 48.

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

Grant, Saint Paul, 76. See also Grant, Jesus, 177.

Kenneth Grayston, “The Empty Tomb,” Expository Times 92, no. 9 (1981): 263–64.

Harris, Raised Immortal, 9.

Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation (Louisville: Knox, 1997), 255.

Roy W. Hoover, “Was Jesus’ Resurrection an Historical Event?,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: A Sourcebook, ed. Bernard Brandon Scott (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2008), 78.

Hurtado, How on Earth, 36. For early worship, see also 2–9, 23–30, 36–42, 48–49.

Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 27, 40–41, 68.

Jenkins, Hidden Gospels, 78.

Jenkins, 79.

Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 24.

Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125.

Leander E. Keck, Who Is Jesus? History in Perfect Tense (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2000), 139.

H. C. Kee, What Can We Know about Jesus?, 1.

Geffrey B. Kelly, “‘He Appeared to Me.’ 1 Cor. 15:8 as Paul’s Religious Experience of the End Time,” in Ryan, Critical History and Biblical Faith, 109.

Kent, Psychological Origins, 16–17.

Kerr, “Paul’s Experience,” 308.

Küng, On Being a Christian, 348.

Küng, Eternal Life?, 103.

Ladd, Resurrection of Jesus, 105.

Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 124. See also Lindars, “Jesus Risen,” 91.

Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 136, 141.

Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38.

Lüdemann, “First Rebuttal,” 53. Lüdemann’s dates are also cited by Robert H. Gundry, “Trimming the Debate,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 119.

Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 9–10.

Lüdemann, 14.

Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), 259.

Kevin Madigan and Jon Douglas Levenson, Resurrection: The Power of God for Christians and Jews (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 25.

Willi Marxsen, Jesus and Easter: Did God Raise the Historical Jesus from the Dead? (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 54.

Marxsen, 79.

Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 94.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:139. It is also considered a “primitive creed” (146) and a “primitive creedal formula” (243).

Meier, 2:777.

Meier, 2:901.

Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 61.

David Mishkin, Jewish Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017), 39.

Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 216.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 111; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 5.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 92 (cf. 123) and 111 (respectively).

O’Collins, What Are They Saying about the Resurrection?, 112.

Matthew Brook O’Donnell, “Some New Testament Words for Resurrection and the Company They Keep,” in Resurrection, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs, JSNTSup 186 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 139.

Oden, Word of Life, 497.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 221–22.

Pannenberg, Jesus, 90.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, “The Historicity of the Resurrection and the Identity of Christ,” in The Intellectuals Speak Out about God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984), 260.

Pannenberg, “Reality of the Resurrection,” 67.

Parsons, “Hallucination Theory,” 444.

Stephen J. Patterson, Beyond the Passion: Rethinking the Death and Life of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 106–7.

Perkins, Resurrection, 88. See also 84.

Perrin, Resurrection, 79.

Gregory J. Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 65.

Gregory J. Riley, One Jesus, Many Christs: The Truth about Christian Origins (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997), 69.

J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 125.

Samuel, “Making Room in History (Part 2),” 107.

Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 277.

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98, 101.

Sanders, “But Did It Happen?,” 16.

Alan F. Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection in Its Jewish Context,” New Testament Studies 44, no. 3 (1998): 414.

Segal, 415.

Sheehan, First Coming, 110.

Sheehan, 118. Cf. 135.

Spong, Resurrection, 52.

Spong, 49.

Stanley, “Central Mystery of Faith,” 19.

Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 317.

Robert H. Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” Themelios 5 (1979): 23, 27.

Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 270.

Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth, 8.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 231.

Charles H. Talbert, “The Place of the Resurrection in the Theology of Luke,” Interpretation 46, no. 1 (1992): 20.

J. Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475.

Robert C. Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus, 1: Theological Orientations,” Heythrop Journal 16, no. 1 (1975): 23.

Weber, Cross, 60.

Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 111.

Wedderburn, 274n265.

Wells, Resurrection Debate, 42.

Wells, 43.

Wells, Historical Evidence for Jesus, 36.

Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 30.

Wilckens, Resurrection, 2.

Wilckens, 15.

Williams, Resurrection, 38, 107.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 319. See also Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 401. Similarly, Wright, “Early Traditions,” 139.

Wright, “Early Traditions,” 126–27, 131.

Akenson, Saint Saul, 172.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 234.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 41–42. See also n11, which is a decent footnote on historēsai, citing Herodotus, Polybius, and Plutarch alongside Dunn. See also 93 for the date of Paul’s conversion: “It is likely that Paul was converted within a year or so of the historical church. Thus the church which he persecuted, that is, the Jerusalem church, must have been in existence in the immediate aftermath of Jesus.”

Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 33.

Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 61.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 155.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 119. See also xvii.

Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 367.

Dunn, 368–69.

Dunn, 368–69.

Dunn, 369.

Dunn, 369.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 119. See also xvii.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131.

Ehrman, 144.

Ehrman, 145.

Ehrman, 130–32, 144–48, 156–57, 249–51, 254, 261.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 36.

Harris, Raised Immortal, 9.

Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 124.

Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 136.

Pannenberg, Jesus, 90.

Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 38.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 251–52.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 41–42n11. Cf. Doré, “Croire en la résurrection de Jésus-Christ,” 291n11.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 10. Similarly Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 41–42.

Betz, Galatians, 76nn196–97.

Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 368. Dunn also notes that BDAG states that one is to visit for the purpose of coming to know someone or something (368n211). See also James D. G. Dunn, “Once More—Gal 1:18: Ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν in Reply to Otfried Hofius,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 76, no. 1 (1985): 138.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 28.

Fuller, 14.

Wenham, Paul, 397. See also n55 on historēsai.

Akenson, Saint Saul, 172.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 126–27. See also 128–29, 142.

Barnett, 142.

Betz, Galatians, 81–103. Quotes from throughout these pages.

John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom. A New Vision of Paul’s Words and World (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), 216–17.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 856. Cf. 180–81.

Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 354.

Ehrman, New Testament, 308.

Hengel, Atonement, 38.

Johnson, Real Jesus, 103.

H. C. Kee, What Can We Know about Jesus?, 1.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:219–20.

Pannenberg, “Historicity of the Resurrection,” 260.

Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 132.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:355.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 252.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 158.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 242.

Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 169–73.

Barnett, Jensen, and Peterson, Resurrection, 27.

J. Chmiel, cited in Joseph M. Lachowski, review of Interpretacja Starego Testamentu w kerygmacie apostolskim o zmartwychwstaniu Jezusa, by J. Chmiel, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 460.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 155.

Crossley, “Historical Plausibility,” 174.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131.

Ehrman, 144.

Ehrman, 145.

Ehrman, 130–32, 144–48, 156–57, 249–51, 254, 261.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 43–44; cf. 170.

Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 93.

Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125.

Keck, Who Is Jesus?, 139.

H. C. Kee, What Can We Know about Jesus?, 1–2.

Kee, 86.

Lindars, “Jesus Risen,” 91.

Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 124.

Jeffery Jay Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 275.

Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38; Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 15.

Helmut Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie (Messias bzw Sohn Gottes und Menschensohn),” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 72, no. 1–2 (1981): 2.

O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 16.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 221–22.

Pannenberg, Jesus, 91.

Perrin, Resurrection, 80.

Weber, Cross, 58.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 400–401.

Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 252.

Conzelmann, 250, 257.

Ehrman, New Testament, 293.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 29. Cf. 180.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 224–25.

Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 116.

Wedderburn, 115.

Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 308.

Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Empty Tomb in the Gospel according to Mark,” in Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology, ed. Eleonore Stump and Thomas P. Flint, University of Notre Dame Studies in the Philosophy of Religion 7 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993), 111.

Crossley, “Historical Plausibility,” 176, 178, 186.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 52.

Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 99.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 324–29.

Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 368–69.

Hengel, Atonement, 38.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 251.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 233–39.

Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–79.

James D. G. Dunn’s response to Robert M. Price, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 96.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 317–31.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 229–33.

Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 105.

Dunn, 106–7.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 92–93, 97, 111, 130–32, 141, 157–58, 170, 251, 260–63.

Ehrman, 87, 262, 289.

Ehrman, 111, 130–31, 251, 290.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 216.

Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 227.

Fiorenza, 225.

Simon J. Gathercole, “What Did the First Christians Think about Jesus?,” in Bird, How God Became Jesus, 103–16.

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 139–42.

Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 4, 93–99 (cf. 105), 111–13.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 14.

See Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965).

Wright, Surprised by Hope, 48. See also 54–55, 134.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 218–25.

Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 95, 112.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:369.

Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 64–65.

Alsup, 81.

Alsup, 57.

Alsup, 82 (similarly, 83).

Alsup, 85.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 198–99.

Barnett, Jensen, and Peterson, Resurrection, 29.

Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 307–8.

Brown, Introduction to New Testament Christology, 112–13. Cf. 164.

Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 39.

Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 99.

Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus, 22.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 225–30.

Elliott, “First Easter,” 215.

Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 225–26.

Fitzmyer, “Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” 412–13.

Fitzmyer, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 404.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 66.

Fuller, 44–45.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 221.

Goergen, 223.

Michel Gourgues, À la droite de Dieu: Résurrection de Jésus et actualisation du Psaume 110:1 dans le Nouveau Testament (Paris: Gabalda, 1978), Acts 2:33–34 (163–69), Acts 5:31 (169–78).

Colin J. Hemer, Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 418.

Hemer, 419–21.

Hemer, 422.

Hemer, 422.

Hemer, 427.

Hengel, Atonement, 34.

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 141. See also n5.

Johnson, Living Jesus, 34.

Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125–26.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361.

Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 91.

Barnabas Lindars, “The Apocalyptic Myth and the Death of Christ,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 57, no. 2 (1975): 367–68.

Lindars, 368.

Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 17. See also 9, 11–15, 54.

Lüdemann, 7–8, 12–14, 31, 35–37, 48–49, 54, 59, 63, 77, 133, 157–58, 165, 186, 192–95, 246, 249–50.

Lüdemann, 33, 51, 58, 61, 72–73, 77, 126, 130, 153–54, 256.

Lüdemann, 47–49. Cf. 112–15.

Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu,” 2.

Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 61, 64.

Meyer, 66.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 109–10.

O’Collins, Interpreting the Resurrection, 48–52.

O’Collins, review of The Anastasis (by Derrett), 59.

O’Donnell, “Some New Testament Words for Resurrection,” 138.

Perkins, Resurrection, 90.

Perkins, 228–29.

Perkins, 230–31.

Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 322.

Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 270.

Williams, Resurrection, 1, 7–11.

Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 87.

Dunn, 93.

Dunn, 91.

Dunn, 89.

Dunn, 89.

Dunn, 90.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 109–13, 141, 172, 232, 261–62.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 227.

Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 94–95, 98, 112 (listing other creeds from Acts).

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 32, 35–36, 51–52.

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Gerald O’Collins, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Some Contemporary Issues (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993), 5.

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 146, who notes this is the “prototype” of how to confess Jesus Christ as per the creed in 1 Tim 6:13.

Jean-Marie Guillaume, Luc interprète des anciennes traditions sur la résurrection de Jésus (Paris: Gabalda, 1979), 269. Guillaume says, “La donnee la plus ancienne est la formule kérygmatique. . . . Cette formule est l’une des premières de la résurrection que nous connaissons.” (The oldest data is the kerygmatic formula. . . . This formula is one of the first of the resurrection that we know.) See also Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 66, 112; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:901; O’Collins, Interpreting the Resurrection, 12; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 123; O’Collins, review of Risen from the Dead, by Henry Wansbrough, Heythrop Journal 20, no. 2 (1979): 193; Pheme Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 31; Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 63; Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 63; William Lane Craig, “The Disciples’ Inspection of the Empty Tomb (Lk 24,12.24, Jn 20,2–10),” in John and the Synoptics, ed. Adelbert Denaux, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 101 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 618n6; Kelly, “He Appeared to Me,” 110; Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 358n43. On 365, Kloppenborg writes: “That Luke 24:34 is pre-Lucan and not a Lucan summary is indicated by the fact that Luke nowhere narrates the appearances of Jesus to Peter mentioned in 24:34.”

Fitzmyer, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 403.

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Holleman, 181.

C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 18–29, 33–36.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 112, 232, 261–62; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 225–29.

Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:27, 81–82.

Johnson, Living Jesus, 34.

Vernon H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions, New Testament Tools and Studies 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 144–45.

Oscar Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, ed. Gary Habermas and Benjamin Charles Shaw, trans. J. K. S. Reid (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2018), 24.

Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:27, 50, 593; Robert M. Price, Deconstructing Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2000), 55; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 111, 130, 232; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 218–25; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 41, 55; Brown, Introduction to New Testament Christology, 114; Meier, “Dividing Lines,” 364; C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 3rd rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982), 247; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 50, 63; Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 400; O’Collins, Interpreting the Resurrection, 14–15; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 110; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 86; Richard N. Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins: Contextualizing the Early Christian Confessions (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 17; Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus, 21, 22n18; Perkins, Resurrection, 217–19; Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” 425, who describes Rom 1:3–4 as “primitive, pre-Pauline formulae”; Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 126; Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 30; Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 47; Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 219, 222; Dale C. Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 80, who writes that Rom 1:3–4 “presumably stems from the earliest Palestinian church”; Kearney, “He Appeared to 500 Brothers,” 274; Carey C. Newman, “Resurrection as Glory: Divine Presence and Christian Origins,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 81.

Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:293; Meyer, “Resurrection as Humanly Intelligible Destiny,” 23; Longenecker, New Wine, 17.

Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:293; Hengel, Atonement, 37–38; Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 50–51; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:418; Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 115; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 46; Perkins, Resurrection, 219–20; Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 34; Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu,” 2; Fitzmyer, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 404; Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 61n10; Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 402; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 92; O’Collins, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 6; O’Collins, review of The Anastasis (by Derrett), 59; Anthony Harvey, “‘They Discussed among Themselves What This “Rising from the Dead” Could Mean’ (Mark 9.10),” in Barton and Stanton, Resurrection, 74; Talbert, “Resurrection in the Theology of Luke,” 20; Longenecker, New Wine, 18; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 48.

Marxsen, Jesus and Easter, 54; Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 109; Newman, “Resurrection as Glory,” 80.

Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:81; Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu,” 2; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 109; Meyer, “Resurrection as Humanly Intelligible Destiny,” 23.

Johnson, Real Jesus, 119.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:418.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 92; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 46; Perkins, Resurrection, 220; Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 61n10; Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 402; Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 226; Gourgues, À la droite de Dieu, 45–57; Newman, “Resurrection as Glory,” 81.

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:81, 293, 312; Marxsen, Jesus and Easter, 54; Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 365; Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 402; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 59; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 43, 62, 144; Johnson, Living Jesus, 34; Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus, 21, 22n18; Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu,” 2; O’Collins, What Are They Saying about the Resurrection?, 64–65; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 14, 110; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 109; O’Collins, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 4–5; Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 126 (includes vv. 5–8); Perkins, Resurrection, 221; Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 225.

Longenecker, New Wine, 11.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 47, 62; Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 267n10; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 48; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Longenecker, New Wine, 18.

Longenecker, 18.

Johnson, Real Jesus, 119.

Meyer, “Resurrection as Humanly Intelligible Destiny,” 20, 23.

Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:81; Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu,” 2; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 109; Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 225.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 43, 51; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 65, 68.

Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 48; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:296; Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, trans. Norman Perrin (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 61, 101, 105; Johnson, Real Jesus, 119; Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 63–64; Meyer, “Resurrection as Humanly Intelligible Destiny,” 18–19; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 52, 54; Longenecker, New Wine, 158–59.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 28–29, 55; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 43–44, 61–63; Johnson, Living Jesus, 34; O’Collins, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 28.

Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu,” 2; Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 225; Talbert, “Resurrection in the Theology of Luke,” 20.

O’Collins, Interpreting the Resurrection, 14.

Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:81; Meyer, “Resurrection as Humanly Intelligible Destiny,” 23; Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu,” 2.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 48 (Rom 5:15).

Longenecker, New Wine, 18.

O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 109.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 36n1.

O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 109; O’Collins, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 5, 28.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361; Longenecker, New Wine, 18; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu,” 2.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:418; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Longenecker, New Wine, 18; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Longenecker, New Wine, 18 (3:26–28); David M. Stanley, “Power of His Resurrection,” 22.

Johnson, Real Jesus, 119; Longenecker, New Wine, 19 (4:4–5).

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:27, 82, 293; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 22–23, 28, 55, 59–60; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 9, 43, 61, 67–68, 145; Hengel, Crucifixion, 62, who says this text is a “hymn with its description of the divine essence of the pre-existence of the crucified figure . . . Lord of the whole creation and bearer of the divine name Kyrios”; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:369; Brown, Introduction to New Testament Christology, 114, who says the text “may go back to the late 30s”; Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 410, who notes that “the identification of Jesus with the form of God implies his pre-existence”; Fitzmyer, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 402–3, who writes that the text is a “pre-Pauline liturgical tradition embedded in one of his letters . . . an early (probably Jewish) Christian hymn to Christ” that notes “his divine preexistence” and calls him Lord; Fitzmyer, “Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” 411, calling it a “pre-Pauline hymn, probably of Jewish-Christian origin.” Cf. Johnson, Living Jesus, 34, 114. Also, Perkins, Resurrection, 237–38, writing that the text is “the earliest example” of a Christological hymn; Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 425, calling it a “primitive, pre-Pauline formulae”; Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 64, calling it a “pre-Pauline hymn”; O’Collins, What Are They Saying about the Resurrection?, 64–65; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 14; O’Collins, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 28; Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 126; Lindars, “Apocalyptic Myth,” 367, 385, who says, “Admittedly the hymn does not go back to the earliest days”; Robert Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 29 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 180; Newman, “Resurrection as Glory,” 78, writing that the text is “a window on to what the earliest Christians were believing and thinking” (81).

Perkins, Resurrection, 217; Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 34; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 91; Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 400; Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu,” 2; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 110; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 109; O’Collins, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 5; O’Collins, review of The Anastasis (by Derrett), 59.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361, 365; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 46; Longenecker, New Wine, 19 (4:14a); Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus, 22n18; Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 267n10; Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 401, who extends creed to 4:13–18; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 110; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 109; Stanley, “Power of His Resurrection,” 22.

Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 48; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 92; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu,” 2; Gourgues, À la droite de Dieu, 63–73; Perkins, Resurrection, 243–44 (1:20–23); Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 226; Talbert, “Resurrection in the Theology of Luke,” 20.

Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 226.

Longenecker, New Wine, 13, who says this is probably a hymn fragment.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 43.

Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 126.

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Holleman, 181.

Perkins, Resurrection, 238–41, who says many scholars consider this to be a christological hymn.

Longenecker, New Wine, 13, 16, who writes that this is “considered an early christological hymn by most NT scholars”; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 9.

Longenecker, New Wine, 13, saying this is probably a hymn fragment.

Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu,” 2; Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 226.

Gourgues, À la droite de Dieu, 57–63; Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 226.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 45, 53; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 45; Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth, 8–9; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 41, 60; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 9; Fitzmyer, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 403; Fitzmyer, “Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” 411; Longenecker, New Wine, 13, identifying 3:16b probably as a hymn fragment; O’Collins, What Are They Saying about the Resurrection?, 64–65; Perkins, Resurrection, 244–46; Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus, 22n18; Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125; Newman, “Resurrection as Glory,” 81; Harvey, “Rising from the Dead,” 74; Kearney, “He Appeared to 500 Brothers,” 276.

Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 30; Johnson, Real Jesus, 119; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 25, 27 (6:12–16); Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 144, 146.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 43, 58; Meier, “Dividing Lines,” 364 (only on 2:8); Perkins, Resurrection, 228; Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 402.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 56.

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Gourgues, À la droite de Dieu, 90–110; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 43 (1:2 and following); Perkins, Resurrection, 241–43; Longenecker, New Wine, 19; Newman, “Resurrection as Glory,” 82.

Gourgues, À la droite de Dieu, 90–110.

Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 43.

Longenecker, New Wine, 19.

Gourgues, À la droite de Dieu, 110–19.

Gourgues, 110–19.

Gourgues, 120–25.

Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu,” 2.

Longenecker, New Wine, 12.

Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:81; Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 226; Talbert, “Resurrection in the Theology of Luke,” 20; Newman, “Resurrection as Glory,” 80.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 181.

Longenecker, New Wine, 13, saying this is probably a hymn fragment.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:418.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 20, 41, 53; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 144–45; Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361; Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 126, who specifies vv. 19–22.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 43; Gourgues, À la droite de Dieu, 75–87; Newman, “Resurrection as Glory,” 82.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361.

Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 126.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 32.

Cullmann, 43.

Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361.

Longenecker, New Wine, 11–12.

Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 56.

Talbert, “Resurrection in the Theology of Luke,” 20.