Ben Stevens3/21/13HY490

Early Christianity—The Resurrection of JesusThe resurrection of Jesus is one of the most disputed events in history. But my goal is not

to offer an argument to the resurrection’s validity. My contention is to only prove the resurrection of Jesus was an attested belief that unified the earliest Christians and their mission to spread the Gospel. The resurrection proclamation is just as historically significant as whether the resurrection truly happened. For the proclamation of the resurrection is what convinced the disciples to begin ministering and allowed Christianity to continue its existence to the present.1 Ironically most scholars do not dispute this conclusion.2 Instead, scholars dispute the importance of certain sources like the four canonical Gospels for verifying such a conclusion. Some scholars like Richard Carrier also dispute if the resurrection claimed in the sources meant a physical and bodily one or merely a “spiritual” resurrection. I disagree with these scholars and will now present my plan for this paper.

The canonical Gospels are crucial sources for the resurrection proclamation. I will explain why from an argument for an early dating range of the Synoptic Gospels3 and the probable authors for the four Gospels. Next I will investigate 1 Timothy. This is also crucial as 1 Timothy 5:18 is an important piece of evidence revealing the early dating range of the Synoptics (especially Luke and Mark). Thirdly, I will elaborate Richard Carrier’s thesis that the resurrection proclamation of earliest Christians was a “spiritual” not “physical” resurrection and refute him. Finally, I will analyze all the primary sources and colligate them for positing a sound conclusion on the resurrection. Once this is all accomplished my contention stated at the beginning will be proved: The bodily resurrection of Jesus was a well attested and unifying doctrine held by the earliest Christians and disciples of Jesus.

Most scholars tend to gloss over the four Gospels and draw their conclusions only from Paul’s writings.4 Such a method is useful as it offers the foundational roots of the resurrection no scholar would dispute.5 But this method only permits a modicum of data for the critical historian. Therefore one should try to broaden the range of data by using the Gospels. But before one can use such disputed sources, they must prove why they are on equal footing with Paul.

1 Bart Ehrman, Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, (Oxford University Press, 1999), 229-30.2 For example, the importance of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 in showing just how early the resurrection claim was announced is conceded by contemporary scholars across the spectrum of thought. See: C.H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity, (Shoreline Books, 1970), 146-7; John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, ( First Fortress Press, 2001), 100; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jews: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, (First Fortress Press, 1981), 41; Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, (InterVarsity Press, 2010), 223, 233-4.3 That is…Matthew, Mark, and Luke.4 Even the evangelical scholar Michael Licona did so in his debates with the agnostic historian Bart Ehrman.5 Paul, after all, is probably the only undisputed source in contemporary scholarship.

First, I contend the Synoptic Gospels were written in the A.D. 40s and 50s rather than post-70 according to the scholarly consensus.6 1 Timothy 5:17-18 is the most significant piece of data affirming this range:

Elders who do their work well should be respected and paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching. For the Scriptures says, “You must not muzzle an ox to keep it from eating as it treads out the grain.” And in another place, “Those who work deserve their pay!”7

Deuteronomy 25:4 was the first book Paul quoted in that passage. But interestingly, Luke 10:7 was the next quote. Therefore, if the second quotation was from Luke 10:7 this is conclusive evidence Luke was written a few years before 1 Timothy. However, one may argue the quotation could have been from an oral tradition used in Luke or a separate written account.

The quotation in verse 18 is more likely from the Third Gospel in the current New Testament. Any theory asserting Paul quoted an oral tradition is implausible as the verse connected the quotation to “Scripture” which was necessarily a written source. Thus the probable alternative to Luke being the source is a lost, separate source that contained the same saying of Jesus. But such a theory is more speculative as Luke remains the only extant source containing the saying. Furthermore, the four Gospels were accepted as “Scripture” in the second-century churches.8 Since Paul quoted from one such Gospel as “Scripture” in the first century churches, the Gospels may have likely been accepted earlier. Justin Martyr attested to a widespread acceptance of the Gospels about A.D. 150; perhaps such an acceptance was based from earlier roots in the first century.

Therefore the quotation in verse 18 of 1 Timothy most likely references Luke 10:7. This quotation cannot be from an oral source as Paul quotes from it as written “Scripture.” Furthermore, the quotation is probably not from a different written source, since Luke is the only extant source containing the quote and was accepted as “Scripture” in the churches. 1 Timothy 5:18 offers the only direct evidence which points to an earlier dating range of the Synoptic Gospels. Now one may ask: what is the indirect evidence for such earlier dates?

Acts is a commonly used source for dating the Gospels early. The stylistic similarities of Luke and Acts show the same writer authored both works.9 In order to date Acts, one must first establish the veracity of the so-called “we” passages in Acts. These passages begin in the latter half of the book where the author seemingly places himself in the events with the first-person

6 Though some scholars have begun to question this consensus even more liberal ones such as John A.T. Robinson: “Yet the time-span over which the New Testament documents have been held to come into being has expanded and contracted in concertina fashion—or rather having been stretched to its greatest lengths by the extreme German critics of the nineteenth century it has been contracting fairly steadily ever since. At the turn of this century, the span extended from about AD 50 to about AD 150—and that was already a good deal shorter than it had been on some reckonings. By the middle of this century, with the isolated exception of one book, it was halved, from about AD 50 to about AD 100. I am personally of the opinion that it should be halved, or more than halved, again, from about AD 47 to just before AD 70.” John A.T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 62-63.7 1 Tim. 5.18. (NLV).8 Justin Martyr already quotes them in the mid-second century as the “memoirs of the apostles.” He affirms they are read with the Old Testament prophets throughout the churches he knew (and those were likely many from his extensive traveling as a missionary): “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67.9 I do not think practically any scholar disputes this. At least no scholar I have read has disputed it and all ostensibly treated it as undisputed that the same author of the Third Gospel also wrote Acts.

plural “we.” But some scholars such as V.K. Robbins argue the “we” passages are, instead, a literary device used for ship voyage stories rather than an implicit claim to first-hand recollection.10 Colin Hemer responded to this counter argument by pointing out though “we” appeared in Greco-Roman ship voyage narratives, this is no evidence the “we” was intended to be anything other than first-hand reports.11 Therefore, the inclusion of “we” alone is no proof the stories are necessarily literary fictions and is to be interpreted naturally regardless. Other scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman posit more radical explanations for the “we” passages.

Bart Ehrman in “Forged”12 posited the “we” passages were intentionally fabricated by the author. In other words, Luke lied. Hemer did not respond to such an argument likely because such an argument is an unexpected one. Indeed, Ehrman mentioned how other scholars might question if an intentional liar would be so ambiguous in a fabrication. Luke never directly asserts his authority and the “we” passages in the latter half of Acts only make the author’s assertion of authority implied rather than loudly announced. Ehrman responded to this in “Forged” by pointing out historians do not know enough to theorize how forgers could fabricate their authorities. Even if this point is true the argument works in the other direction. For instance, under what evidence does Ehrman or any scholar retain to claim a forger would be so ambiguous in claiming his authority? If historians cannot be confident that forgery in the ancient world could be ambiguous than ambiguity cannot be used in a negative argument against the acclaimed author. However, Ehrman’s point is also mistaken for scholars have access to several gnostic and apocryphal Gospels under forged authors, none of which are as ambiguous as Luke. The Gospel of Peter not only asserted to be by the pinnacle apostle Simon Peter but went out of its way to mention its authority in first person “I” and repeated the author’s recollection during the narrative: “But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother took our net and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord…”13 Also, Luke’s supposed authority implied by the “we” passages is particularly weak to early Christians. His only connection implied by the “we” is with Paul, who never knew Jesus and was a controversial figure in the early church. His connection to Paul is only related in the later chapters, as well. Why did Luke not claim to be present with a “we” at Paul’s miraculous conversion that was supposed to confirm Paul’s authority? Even in his asserted connection, Luke remains reserved and strangely distant.

Therefore, the “we” passages in Acts should be interpreted as a sign the author was involved to an extant first hand in the events he narrated. This is crucial for dating Acts, for the last two chapters of Acts are extremely minute in mundane details as if the events had only recently happened. In contrast to the indirect and general manner Acts recorded events prior to the twenty-seventh chapter,14 chapters twenty-seven and twenty-eight became direct and specific. The author paid close attention to mundane details of the ship voyages and specific times and

10 Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 317.11 Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, 318-19.12 See Bart Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, (New York: HarperOne, 2011).13 The Gospel According to Peter, 14.14 This more indirect writing style is present even in the other “we” narratives before Acts 27.

places. The best explanation for such data is Luke wrote Acts shortly after the last chapters.15 Since Acts ended in A.D. 62, the book was most probably composed in the same year. So the Synoptic Gospels, particularly Luke and Mark, were written no later than a few years prior to 1 Timothy and Acts. They were written no later than the A.D. 50s. Furthermore, since Luke used Mark as a source, Mark was written prior to Luke hence the A.D. 40s is a probable candidate. Both direct and indirect evidence for the dating of the Gospels has been given. However, one final piece of important evidence for dating the Gospels remains: patristic testimony.16

The late second-century church father Tertullian argued:

On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly

bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.17

Tertullian was disputing the authority of Marcion’s written Gospel with the four New Testament Gospels in the context of the quote. Tertullian was ostensibly saying here the original apostolic churches founded in the immediate decades after Christ were given such Gospels. This interpretation appears justified, since Tertullian argued such in the context of written Gospels and affirmed the Ephesians “read by it”. Tertullian affirmed in the same chapter the Gospels “were prior, and coeval in origin with the churches themselves.”18 Also, Tertullian stated Marcion believed the “false apostles” Paul criticized in Galatians 2 were the people responsible for corrupting Luke’s Gospel.19 If Tertullian was citing Marcion’s views correctly, then Marcion ostensibly believed Luke was written prior to Galatians. Since Marcion was part of the early second century orthodoxy before becoming a “heretic” the dates presupposed by the late second century church fathers likely had roots in the early second century.

Tertullian was not the only church father to presuppose earlier dates for the New Testament Gospels. Origen stated a common tradition in the church that Paul referred to Luke’s Gospel in 2 Corinthians 8:18.20 Clement of Alexandria believed Peter was still alive when Mark

15 Hemer defends this argument well: “This is what we have called the ‘immediacy’ of the latter chapters of the book, which are marked in a special degree by the apparently unreflective reproduction of insignificant details, a feature which reaches its apogee in the voyage narrative of Acts 27-28….It is our contention that these inconsequential details are hard to explain except as vivid experiences recalled at no great distance in time. Even an eyewitness writing years later would be likely to shape and smooth his narrative to fit more considered, selective criteria of significance…..The vivid ‘immediacy’ of this passage in particular may be strongly contrasted with the ‘indirectness’ of the earlier parts of Acts, where we assume that Luke relied on sources or the reminiscences of others, and could not control the context of his narrative. It also contrasts in lesser degree with the earlier ‘we-passages’, where the precision is more formalized, less inconsequentially vivid; indeed as we might expect in the comparison of a narrative of the latest period with one of a prosperously uneventful voyage of earlier date.” Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, 388-9.16 I am yet to read a single scholar acknowledge any patristic support for the dates of the Gospels. Most only use them for the traditional authorships. Thus, for now, I am alone in my contention that it gives credence to earlier Synoptic dates.17 Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.5.18 Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.5.19 Tertullian, Against Marcion 2.3.20 Origen, Homilies on Luke, 8-9.

recorded his Gospel.21 Hence church fathers in the late second century presupposed earlier dates for the Gospels. Such external evidence does not, by itself, prove the Gospels were written early. But the data supports the internal evidence I elucidated previously which can only be explained by pre-70 dates for the Synoptic Gospels.

In summation of what has been argued thus far, 1 Timothy 5:18 most likely was a quote from Luke’s Gospel.22 Acts was written in A.D. 62 therefore showing Luke and Mark were written prior to A.D. 62. Finally, the church fathers presupposed early dates for the Gospels in their writings. Having elaborated upon the dating on the Gospels, one must now ask: who wrote the Gospels?

I have heard countless times, “We do not know who wrote these anonymous Gospels.”23 This cliché paints a false portrait of the true nature in contemporary scholarship. Scholars are not separated into only two groups with one contending all four Gospel authors are unknown while the other contending the traditional ascriptions are all completely correct. James D.G. Dunn, for instance, may not acknowledge Luke directly authored the third Gospel but he does accept a companion of Paul who could have been Luke authored it.24 Martin Hengel argued an eyewitness and disciple of Jesus named John the Elder was behind the stories in the fourth Gospel but this John was not the apostle and son of Zebedee.25 Yet Hengel also argued the traditional author Mark the disciple of Peter recorded the second Gospel.26 Scholars dispute the authors of the Gospels indeed, but not in the fashion characterized today that contends with a broad generalization, “No one knows who wrote the Gospels!”27 Even if some scholars like Dunn refuse to affirm a direct author by name like Luke, they still argue for certain types of authors such as a companion of Paul.

21 Eusebius, Church History, 6.14.22 I also realize most scholars do not believe Paul authored 1 Timothy. For sake of brevity I chose not to go into that in detail. However, I would contend the most common arguments against Paul authoring 1 Timothy are unfounded. Stylistic differences in vocabularly and theology are always much more subjective when used to dispute an authorship rather than affirm one. That two independent writers would have the exact same style is highly improbable. But that one independent writer could change his style over time is easily conceivable. Also a writer’s style and vocabulary may change depending on the circumstances. I know my own writing style is not remotely the same here compared to my postings on Facebook. Thus using such logic scholars would have to affirm I could not have authored both. As the Pastoral epistles were the only ones where Paul wrote at the end of his life to personal friends rather than large communities, one should expect him to use a different style and theological focus.

I should also note there is evidence for accepting Paul wrote 1 Timothy. The epistle is quoted and hence affirmed by the early second century and by such church fathers as Polycarp who was a companion of the apostles. Also, one knows from Paul’s authentic epistles and Acts that Timothy and Titus were indeed close companions of Paul. Therefore, one should expect Paul to have written epistles to them, yet the Pastoral epistles in the New Testament are the only extant ones. In short, the arguments against Paul authoring the Pastoral epistles are inadequate, and reasonable evidence exists affirming Pauline authorship of the Pastorals as well.23 This public cliché really has become often cited by scholars themselves unfortunately. The matter is much grayer than black and white.24 James Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 75-76, 661-2.25 See Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question, (London: SCM Press, 1989). Richard Bauckman has reaffirmed Hengel’s position as well. See Richard Bauckman, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006).26 Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003).27 I remember Dr. Robinson stated we have no idea who wrote the four Gospels in “Religion, Magic, and Medicine” class. I am not making this personal. She was an excellent professor. But I strongly disagree with that statement in terms of how the dispute truly is in New Testament scholarship and my own position that I will posit shortly.

Of course, one should not only consider mainstream or liberal scholarship on the traditional ascriptions. What about evangelical scholars such as Craig Blomberg or F.F. Bruce? Such scholars would contend all four traditional ascriptions are genuine. Though they constitute a minority view, they cannot be thrown in the dustbin, for they are represented by equally renowned scholars in the field. The time has come to question with boldness this often repeated chant by many scholars and a skeptical public blasting, “No one knows who wrote the four Gospels!” F.F. Bruce thought he knew. Craig thinks he does. Martin Hengel and James Dunn thought they knew, at least, one or more of the authors. And I will claim to know here too. However, one should forgo the use of the word “know.” Historical evidence rarely achieves the authority of certitude. But it may conclude with the utmost probability that Mark, Luke, and John wrote the second, third, and fourth Gospels.

One may ask why I left out Matthew. The evidence for Matthean authorship is less authoritative than the other Gospels. The church fathers all asserted today’s Matthew was written in Hebrew and was the first Gospel. Yet most scholars agree Matthew was originally written in Greek and was based partly on Mark’s Gospel, the true first Gospel. Perhaps the church tradition reveals evidence of a Matthean source behind the first Gospel, but I will not travel that road for sake of brevity. On the other hand, Mark, Luke, and John all retain internal and external evidence revealing the probable identity of the authors.28 Patristic evidence represents the common external support for all the traditional ascriptions.

Patristic traditions from the church fathers represent the largest amount of external evidence for the traditional ascriptions. The most famous church father who revealed the authors of all four Gospels was Irenaeus:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.29

This statement showed a creed of the second century churches. Irenaeus acknowledged it at the start of the first chapter in book three and one can observe how the proclamation follows a strict chronological development to show the significance of each Gospel. Irenaeus was most likely quoting a tradition or creed of the apostolic churches. The probability of such a proposition is enhanced when one acknowledges Origen decades later affirmed the same authors but stated he learned the authors by church tradition.30 Tertullian, a contemporary of Irenaeus, also affirmed

28 And if such authors about the other Gospels are correct, then Matthew was undoubtedly based on similar sources considering Matthew makes use of Mark and many of the same stories in Mark and Luke. Therefore Matthew was still based upon early disciple reports regardless if the disciple source was the author himself or recollections from others. 29 Irenaeus, Against Heresy, 3.1.30 “Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism.  The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, “The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.” (1 Pet. v. 13) And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.  Last of all, that according to John.” Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 1.

the apostolic churches agreed on such ascriptions to the four Gospels.31 Clement of Alexandria stated he learned from the “earliest presbyters” in a tradition that Mark wrote the second Gospel.32 Therefore, the traditional ascriptions were widely accepted by the late second century churches and were counted among their apostolic creeds and traditions.

The creedal status of the traditional ascriptions by the late second century is adequate external evidence for judging the identities of the authors. The widespread acceptance of the tradition implies the creed likely retained earlier roots before the late second-century church fathers. As I said, Clement of Alexandria stated he learned the tradition from the “earliest presbyters.” Furthermore, Irenaeus’s teacher was Polycarp a friend and disciple of the apostle John himself.33 Polycarp did not die until Justin Martyr had started referring to the Gospels as the “memoirs of the apostles.”34 Such data shows church fathers like Polycarp probably accepted the traditional ascriptions too. C.H. Dodd, who did not accept the traditional ascriptions, admitted the evidence from Irenaeus’s testimony alone was convincing.35

Thus if the generation before Irenaeus accepted the traditional ascriptions, then the external evidence alone should convince anyone. For such data would imply men who knew the authors first hand accepted they recorded the books. Papias offers the only direct and extant evidence in the early second-century that such a contention is accurate.36 Papias explained how he waited for disciples of the apostles to travel to his destination and recite the teachings of the apostles to him.37 One such tradition he learned from them was a certain John the Elder acknowledged Mark wrote the second Gospel based on Peter’s teachings.38 Whether Papias was affirming he heard the tradition from John directly or a disciple of John’s is unclear. To be more critical I will accept the latter, for the latter still confirms the hypothesis that the traditions of Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and others were based on the first-hand students of the original Jesus disciples. Hence the external evidence for the traditional church ascriptions reveals first-hand support from those who knew the disciples of Jesus. Now one may ask: what is the internal evidence for the traditional ascriptions of each Gospel?

The Gospel of Mark contains more stories about Peter than any of the other Gospels in terms of percentage.39 And as Luke and Matthew borrowed some of Mark’s stories, Mark can be identified as the Petrine Gospel. Such data implies Peter is behind Mark’s stories in a general way. However, possible specific Petrine authority arises in verses such as Mark 7:18-19:

31 “The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage—I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.532 Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, 6.14.33 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3; Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, 5.2034 See his use of the term regularly in Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho: St. Justin Martyr, (Wyatt North Publishing, 2012); Justin Martyr, First and Second Apology: St. Justin Martyr, (Wyatt North Publishing, 2012).35 C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, (Cambridge University Press, 1963), 10-12.36 This is not to say my argument rests solely on Papias. As I said, the wide-spread testimonies from the late second-century church fathers give a strong probability that the generation of church fathers before them accepted the ascriptions. But Papias gives hardened proof of an already probable contention.37 Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, 3.39.38 Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, 3.39.39 Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 50.

“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body?” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)40

Mark was the only Gospel to include the notation explaining what Jesus meant. One may ask what would give the author this impression about Jesus’s teachings. Acts appeared to give the answer. Acts 10 recorded the story of Peter’s conversion from a vision to accept all foods clean due to God. Thus Mark’s notation parallels a story associated with Peter’s conversion. Perhaps Peter would have remembered Jesus’s teachings in light of his vision.41

The Petrine authority behind Mark’s Gospel is further supported by the ironic literary devices used by Mark. As Mark could have ended at 16:8, this means Mark ended with Peter cited as the last disciple. Yet Mark also mentioned Peter as the first disciple in the beginning of his Gospel. Furthermore, Mark clearly went out of his way to ensure Peter was the last disciple mentioned in his Gospel. Mark placed in the angel’s mouth: “But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’” Why would the angel single out Peter? Peter was already one of the “disciples.” Obviously Mark desired to ensure Peter’s presence was apparent by the end of his work whether Mark 16:8 is the final verse in the original or not. The reason for this was likely due to the authority Mark was based upon.42 Now Luke’s authority should be questioned.

Luke’s Gospel retains more internal evidence in favor of the traditional author than any of the Gospels. Firstly, the ascription itself is adequate support for the author. Why would a Christian fabricator forge a document and claim as its authority an obscure person only mentioned a few times in Paul’s letters as asides? This person was also not an eyewitness to Jesus or a disciple. And finally, his authority came from Paul who was not an eyewitness or original disciple either. Paul also received criticism from early Christians and was a controversial figure in the early churches. Indeed, the ascription to Luke is superb evidence in of itself that Luke is not a fabricated author. But the “we” passages in Luke revealed the best internal support for the traditional authorship.

The “we” passages in Luke beg judgments upon the type of author of the Gospel. As was already stated concerning the dates of the Gospels, the “we” passages in Acts showed the writer was involved in some of the events he reported.43 But the “we” passages only appear by the latter half of Acts where the writer was traveling as a companion with the apostle Paul. Since the writer followed Paul on his last voyage to await trial in Rome, one can judge the author must

40 Mk 7.18-19 (NIV).41 It is also worth noting Peter believed God was the one who made the foods clean in Acts. Yet, assuming I am correct about Mark’s source, Peter transferred this commandment back on the lips of Jesus. This would give more evidence that early Christians worshipped Jesus as God incarnate, another traditional Christian doctrine today. However, this essay is only concerned with the resurrection, but I could not fail to point that out.42 Hence Martin Hengel pointed out: “The extraordinary formulation of 16.7, the angel’s command to the women, ‘Go and say to his disciples and to Peter…’ puts the name of the disciple who appears first in the Gospel at the end as well: this is an inclusio, through which the evangelist deliberately wants to stress this one disciple in a quite special way. It can hardly be doubted that Mark is clearly stressing the unique significance of Peter, though without disguising his failure.” Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 51.43 Some scholars like C.K. Barrett affirm the “we” passages may only indicate eyewitnesses are behind the stories but not necessarily the author personally. C.K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study, (Wipf and Stock, 1961), 22. While Barrett is correct that it may not necessarily indicate the author was the witness that is still the natural interpretation. Saying it was merely an eyewitness source is additional speculation requiring evidence the “we” passages show signs of not being Lukan in style. But the “we” passages are introduced naturally into the narrative with no indication another source is behind it. Indeed, Luke asserted in his Gospel to have used eyewitness sources, yet there no first-person plurals or singulars in the third Gospel.

have been close to Paul. Since Luke and Acts were written by the same author, one may affirm a companion of Paul recorded the third Gospel. Finally one may ask: what is the internal evidence for the fourth Gospel?

Unlike Luke, the traditional ascription to the fourth Gospel cannot be used to support the asserted author. John was one of the twelve original apostles, one of the “pillars” of the church,44 and was an often cited apostle with Peter. Christian fabricators could have certainly ascribed works erroneously to John. Despite this set back, John’s Gospel still contains adequate internal support for the traditional ascription.

John’s Gospel is the only Gospel that asserted to be by an eyewitness directly at the end.45 However, more subtle allusions to the eyewitness identity of the author exist in the narrative that cannot be adequately explained as the work of a fabricator. The conclusion to the Gospel stated: “This is the disciple [beloved disciple] who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.”46 The “beloved disciple” alluded to throughout the fourth Gospel is an unknown disciple. His name is never given and no indicator is present directly referring to the apostle John the son of Zebedee. This is crucial as a fabricator of such claims would more likely make his authority known. Though the fourth Gospel contains references to being by an eyewitness they are much less frequent and more ambiguous than other Gospels who forged their identities like the Gospel of Peter. The conclusion to the Gospel is the only clear case of asserting eyewitness authority. However, John alludes to two other cases where an eyewitness is implied but indirectly.

The fourth Gospel made an aside while narrating Jesus’s crucifixion. The author noted: “The man who saw it [Jesus being pierced] has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you may also believe.”47 Of course such an assertion cannot more clearly state an eyewitness is behind the story. However, the notation need not be interpreted as saying the author was the eyewitness, though that can be implied if one trusts the concluding statement of the Gospel.

The third and last allusion to eyewitness and disciple authority is in verse fourteen of chapter one: “We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”48 The theme “glory” is only used in the fourth Gospel in reference to Jesus’s miracles during his ministry, his crucifixion, and his resurrection where the author affirmed Jesus “entered into his glory.” This verse most likely refers to eyewitness authority49 and begs the question who is the “we” in the verse? The same “we” might be inferred

44 Gal. 2.9 (NIV).45 Jn. 21.24-25 (NIV).46 Jn. 21.24 (NIV).47 Jn. 19.35 (NIV).48 Jn. 1.14 (NIV).49 See Bauckman, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 404. Paul Barnett also made the point: “Who, then, are those referred to as ‘we,’ who know that the testimony of the beloved disciple is true? It is sometimes suggested that these persons are in fact responsible for writing the Fourth Gospel. The text, however, clearly states ‘this is the disciple…who has written these things,’ referring to the disciple whom Jesus loved. Those who are described as ‘we’ authenticate what is written, but they are not the authors….The clue to their identity is found at the beginning of John’s book—‘we have beheld his glory’ (1:14). When he subsequently states, ‘Jesus…manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him’ (Jn 2:11), it is clear, since ‘glory’ is present in both passages, ‘his disciples’ in chapter 2 are the ‘we’ of chapter 1. ‘We’ represents the disciples who accompanied Jesus and who witnessed his signs (see Jn 20:30)….In summary, the ‘we’ of John 21:24, who know that the testimony of the beloved disciple is true, are those disciples who were with Jesus.” Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 55-56.

in the concluding affirmation in the Gospel: “We know that his testimony is true.”50 Furthermore the first epistle of John was likely by the same or similar author of the fourth Gospel from the stylistic and theological similarities.51 Yet that epistle began by affirming to the reader “we” witnessed the “Word” or Jesus in the flesh. Therefore, the fourth Gospel contains other allusions to an eyewitness recording the work beyond the controversial conclusion. And such allusions within the work would likely have not been invented by a fabricator, for most fabricators would ensure their authority was obvious and unquestionable. The fourth Gospel does not lend itself to the fabrication theory but created an intentional mystery to the identity of the writer.52

The four Gospels were written in the mid first-century by either disciples of Jesus or individuals who were connected to such disciples. The four New Testament Gospels, therefore, constitute significant sources for answering if the earliest Christians and disciples of Jesus believed their master bodily rose from the grave. I emphasize “bodily” resurrection for some scholars like Richard Carrier assert the early Christians merely believed in a “spiritual” resurrection.53

Saturday, February 9, I had the fortune to attend a debate hosted by the UAH-Non Theist group and the Christian apologetic Ratio Christi group. The debate was between two scholars Dr. David Marshall and Dr. Richard Carrier both well versed in the area of my thesis: Early Christian Origins. Instead of a “bodily” resurrection of Jesus, Carrier argued the earliest Christians such as Paul believed in an ethereal “spiritual” resurrection. According to Carrier, the “bodily” resurrection of Jesus where his physical body was affected as narrated in Matthew, Luke, and John were later embellishments to the original spiritual resurrection. Many of Carrier’s articles are on the secular website Infidels.org and thus this is where his article “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story” appeared. Much of the article is concerned with the validity of the resurrection doctrine held by Christians. These parts will not concern my critique but only the section where Carrier argued the original doctrine of Paul and hence many early Christians were in a spiritual not bodily resurrection. I contend though Carrier made important points to remember in reviewing the data for early Christianity, his thesis that the early Christians believed in a purely spiritual resurrection fails.

Carrier began by analyzing the famous Damascene road experience of Paul in the book of Acts. Carrier pointed out the experience Paul had of the resurrected Jesus was not a bodily,

50 This likelihood diminishes the probability that chapter 21 was added by a different author as some scholars have affirmed. I am of the opinion, whether it was added later or not, the “Epilogue” of the Fourth Gospel was undoubtedly by the same author precisely due to the “beloved disciple” and eyewitness allusions observed in the Gospel before the last chapter. Obviously chapter 21 must have presupposed such literary devices that would have made no sense if the Gospel did not conclude the way it did. Who would have been this mysterious “beloved disciple” without chapter 21? Thus the conclusion of the Gospel was purposefully written by the same author(s) as a revelation to the mysterious allusions.51 Indeed, 1 John even appeared to presuppose the famous verse John 3:16: “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.” 1 Jn. 4.9 (NIV).52 I should also note the theme of witnessing is apparent throughout the Gospel. The writer recorded John the Baptist emphasizing how he had seen and confirmed Jesus as the Christ. Jn. 1.33-34 (NIV). The same agenda to emphasize the importance of eyewitness testimony was affirmed again in the story of the Samaritan woman at the well: “They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’” Jn. 4.42 (NIV). Jesus also emphasized to his apostles to testify about him since they had seen him and been with him since “the beginning.” The fourth Gospel thus made witnessing and testifying a primary theme in his Gospel, hence perhaps alluding to the author’s identity as one such witness. 53 The famous Jesus Seminar group of scholars located in San Francisco also asserts the resurrection was interpreted as a subjective, visionary experience by early Christians rather than a physical happening involving Jesus’s body.

fleshly encounter but merely a light seen and voice heard from heaven.54 Furthermore, Paul was persecuting early Christians and likely had “the effects of guilt.”55 Paul could have felt he was wrong and thus felt guilty for his horrible actions therefore causing a purely subjective hallucination of the risen Jesus.56

Carrier’s next point stated the discrepancies found in the narrative of Paul’s experience in Acts and how Paul describes his experience in the later speeches of Acts.57 Carrier explained how the narrative in Acts stated Paul’s companions heard the voice from heaven but did not see the light, while Paul’s speech later said his companions saw the light but did not hear the voice.58 Furthermore Paul is completely silent in his own letters on the experiences claimed of him in Acts. Carrier pointed out more discrepancies, but his main contention argued the contradictions observed in the accounts shows the story grew over time and thus cannot be true.59

Carrier next moved to the famous appearances creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and the ending of Mark’s Gospel. True, Paul mentioned several appearances to apostles like Peter in 1 Corinthians 15, but he also placed his own appearance in the account. Thus if his experience was purely spiritual and subjective, does this not make the other appearances of a similar nature?60 However, Carrier focused mainly on the utter lack of appearance stories in Mark’s Gospel, since the “longer” and “shorter” endings in it were added later and the original Gospel likely ended at 16:8 without an appearance of Jesus to anyone.61 This important omission by Mark the earliest Gospel deserves an answer. Carrier supplied his own answer postulating the resurrection appearances “were a private, personal experience to be related only in secret.”62

Carrier then moved to the most important argument against any affirmation of a physical resurrection belief of the early Christians: Paul. Carrier argued the description of the resurrection body by Paul was of an ethereal and purely spirit substance.63 Indeed, Paul says directly that “flesh and blood” bodies cannot inherit the heavenly kingdom of God and they must become spiritual bodies. Carrier further defended this by pointing out Paul never appeals to the description of the resurrected body of Jesus as seen by the apostles. Therefore, Paul did not resort to witness claims about the nature of the body because it was not a physical body they saw.64

Finally, Carrier concluded his argument by analyzing the resurrection appearances in the Gospels. These appearance stories were odd in the sense people did not recognize Jesus immediately when they saw him.65 In Luke’s Gospel the two men who meet Jesus traveling did 54 Richard Carrier, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006),” The Secular Web. www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/3.html (accessed February 13, 2013).55 Carrier, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006).”56 Carrier, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006).” Psycho-analyzing the minds of ancients will always be tricky business, and thus I feel Carrier is getting a bit carried away here.57 Carrier, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006).”58 Carrier, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006).” I think an argument can be made for harmonizing these differences as not complete contradictions. However for brevity and exposing a greater weakness in Carrier’s argument, I will accept this claim of his when I return to it in my evaluation. 59 Carrier, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006).”60 Carrier, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006).”61 Carrier, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006).” I do not dispute this point as the vast majority of scholars I have read agree. The argument that Mark ended originally at 16:8 is well established considering the earliest manuscripts lack it, the style of the later endings is not Markan, and the earliest church fathers never quote the longer ending.62 Carrier, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006).”63 Carrier, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006).”64 Carrier, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006).”65 Carrier, “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006).”

not recognize him for the entire day until he told them the Messiah would resurrect and vanished. Such stories do not lend themselves to a physical resurrection of Jesus and more to the ethereal appearance of the risen Jesus. Having elucidated Carrier’s argument, one must question the validity of his thesis.

Firstly, the discrepancies in the Damascene road experience of Acts increase the credibility of Acts more so than exposing embellishment. If they were identical that would only reveal the author of Acts used the same source for every account. However, since the reports conflict, this shows the author likely used independent sources in the two stories. Yet both agree the companions of Paul experienced something, at least, of Paul’s experience. If the resurrection in Paul’s case was a purely subjective phenomena, why do both stories seem to assert a measure of objective verifiability behind Paul’s experience?

Second, that Paul does not describe this experience in his epistles is merely an argument of silence. An argument of silence would only be more feasible if the historian had access to a large collection of the author’s writings. Yet if one accepted Paul authored all the ascribed epistles to him in the NT, one would only have thirteen brief writings to examine Paul’s thirty years as a Christian. Furthermore, Paul’s main goal in all of these letters was to offer moral and theological guidance to those he writes for not write a biography of his life or Jesus’s. Any mention Paul gave to Jesus’ life in history, rather than as the risen Lord, or his own history is accidental and not related to his goals in the epistles. So one should not expect him to recant stories of his or Jesus’s past frequently.

Carrier used the same silence logic in the case of Mark. Also, Carrier’s argument that the silence shows the author knew the appearance accounts were private and purely spiritual is utter speculation. Mark’s Gospel contradicts this too, for why mention an empty tomb discovery if the appearances were purely spiritual and had nothing to do with Jesus’ physical body? The angel which told Mary Jesus was raised did so only when she entered and discovered an empty tomb!66 The narration of the empty tomb in all four Gospels shows the writers all considered the resurrection physical. Moreover, since the empty tomb is in all four Gospels and implicitly suggested by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:367, such data shows early Christians believed in a physical, bodily resurrection. Thus this shifts to Carrier’s next point: Paul’s definition of the resurrection body.

Carrier’s argument that Paul’s description of the resurrection bodies implied a purely spiritual body fails to convince. First, the tradition Paul narrated about the appearances in 1 Corinthians 15 stopped at verse 7 not 8 where Paul mentions his own experience.68 Paul’s addition to it with his own experience is not part of the tradition he quoted and thus cannot be used to say the appearances in the tradition conformed to his.69 Yet even if Paul’s experience is 66 Carrier actually mentions and responds to the question of the empty tomb but only to argue with Christian apologists about the evidence for it rather than if the stories of it (true or false) lend more to the belief of the writers in a physical rather than spiritual resurrection. 67 The Corinthian Creed begins by saying Jesus died and “was buried.” Why would Paul need to mention Jesus’ burial right before the appearance accounts if the burial of his physical body was not important for the tradition?68 Most scholars I have read agree the 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is quoting an early creed or tradition that stops at verse 7. Some argue it stops at verse 5, but none I have read so far believe it continues into Paul’s own experience. See:Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, (Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press, 2007), 147-9; Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, (InterVarsity Press, 2010), 233-4; Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, (Fortress Press, 1998), 490.69 N.T. Wright also pointed out Paul separated his appearance from the others as one “untimely born.” Paul used such language to denote his experience was of a different variety of the previous ones he mentioned. His was the last one where his experience was unexpected and sudden. Wright elaborates on Paul’s assertion saying: “We may

part of the tradition, one cannot say they must all be identical with each other to be counted in the tradition. I also pointed out how Paul’s experience is still suggestive of an objective phenomenon in Acts. Finally, if the resurrection was something purely subjective, this would imply Christians everywhere could experience it. But Paul stresses how witnesses attested to the resurrection and that seeing the risen Christ separated genuine apostles with authority like Paul’s from ordinary believers. This argument would make no sense in 1 Corinthians 15 if the resurrection could be experienced by any Christian in an inner way.70 Shifting away from Paul, Carrier’s argument about the confusion in the Gospel texts also fails to convince.

As for the confusion of Jesus’ identity in the Gospels, this can be better explained by a more correct interpretation of Paul’s description of the resurrected body. In Philippians Paul states Jesus “will take our weak mortal bodies and change them into glorious bodies like his own” (Philippians 3:6, NLV). In other words, the resurrected bodies are transformed into something greater. Carrier wished to argue the physical body would remain and an entirely new spiritual body was to be created. However, Paul appeared to be positing the physical body would be transformed into something new. Certainly this would explain why Jesus in the Gospels appears so different but still physical in many ways since he was in a new body. Yet this new body was merely the transformed body of his old physical one. Jesus’s body was indeed raised physically but transformed spiritually.71

bypass the famous opening of the chapter for a moment, and begin at verse eight. At the conclusion of the list of appearances of the risen Jesus, Paul declares, adding his own contribution to an otherwise pre-Pauline tradition: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” As to one untimely born. This is a violent image, invoking the idea of a Cesarean section, in which a baby is ripped from the womb, born before it is ready, blinking in terror at the sudden light, scarcely able to breathe in this new world. There is no doubt something here of autobiography, as Paul remembers what it felt like, blinded by sudden light on the road to Damascus, ripped from the womb of his old certainties, and confronted with the light of a new and deeply unwelcome day….To put it another way, Paul distinguishes his Damascus road experience both from all previous appearances of the risen Jesus and from the subsequent experiences of the church, his own included. On the basis of 1 Corinthians 15 we cannot, therefore, set up the Damascus road event as a model and assimilate the other resurrection appearances of Jesus to it; nor may we regard Paul’s conversion experience of Jesus as being the same sort of phenomenon as his own subsequent Christian experience, however ecstatic, or that of his converts.” N.T. Wright, “Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity,” Sewanee Theological Review 41.2 (1998).70 Paul makes this clear before citing the tradition: “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9.1, NIV). N.T. Wright draws a significant connection between this verse and the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15: “The combination of this verse [1 Cor. 9.1] with 15.8-11 makes it clear that Paul intends a ‘seeing’ which is something quite different from the manifold spiritual experiences, the ‘seeings’ with the eye of the heart, which many Christians in most periods of history have experienced. The Corinthians had had all kinds of spiritual experiences, for which indeed Paul congratulates them in 1.4-7; but they had not had this experience. Paul, too, has had many spiritual experiences as his life and work have progressed, but he is not here referring to something that might occur again. This was, for him, a one-off, initiatory ‘seeing’, which constituted him as an apostle but would not be repeated. The resurrection appearances of Jesus came to a stop.” N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 382.71 As I do not know Greek, I cannot rest my case solely on the one specific word “transformed” in Paul. However, I contend the general meaning, where good translations are usually accurate, also implies transformation as Philippians 3:6 revealed where the entire verse is solely about God transforming one’s body. 1 Corinthians 15 also implies the body we live in that is buried is still affected: “The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15.42-43). Again, the general context in this passage just appears to beg transformation in every phrase, so I find it difficult to believe if Paul meant our current bodies are not affected at all in any sort of transformative state, the general context would be translated inaccurately too. To maintain Paul meant a subjective experience, one must not simply contend a few specific words were translated inaccurately but the entire passages in all their contexts, as a passage like 1 Cor. 15.42-43 demands transformation over and over again.

The transformation of physical into spiritual bodies implies the physical body is affected not left in the grave. Such a better interpretation explains Carrier’s point on “flesh and blood” not inheriting the kingdom. Throughout his letters, Paul commonly connects the “flesh” to the sinfulness living inside it not the physical existence of the body alone. Thus God will raise such “flesh and blood” bodies up but transform them into “spiritual” bodies free from sin. I repeat the transformation of flesh and blood to spirit demonstrates the body of the former is not left in the grave.72

In summary Richard Carrier offered important points to remember when analyzing the data of early Christians. Interpretation is crucial for the critical historian should always be confident they are interpreting the nature of the resurrection belief correctly. Moreover, discrepancies in accounts cannot be overlooked. On the other hand, Carrier’s argument from such data was false. Discrepancies are a two edged sword. Though they may expose a measure of unreliability in the conflicting features of the accounts, the agreements between the accounts is measurably enhanced due to the independent nature of them. Carrier also overlooked important data such as the empty tomb narratives in all four Gospels and Paul’s more precise language for the resurrected body being transformed from the physical one rather than made entirely separate from it. Early Christians affirmed a bodily resurrection from the grave not an entirely subjective and ethereal resurrection. As the bodily interpretation in the sources and the trustworthiness due to the dating and authorships of four crucial sources has been explained, one may finally analyze the primary sources and determine how widespread and early the resurrection proclamation was in Early Christianity.

First one may ask: are there any important primary sources beyond the New Testament? Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp make up the majority of what is left from early Christianity outside the New Testament. The later church fathers asserted such men were disciples of the apostles.73 If their assertion is true they represent important sources for Christian beliefs. They may have written late but they were only one intermediary removed from Jesus himself.74 In the case of Polycarp one can be relatively sure he was a disciple of John and the other apostles. Irenaeus affirmed all of the Asiatic churches which Polycarp ministered too would confirm he was a disciple of the apostles.75 Irenaeus also affirmed he knew Polycarp was a

72 N.T. Wright sums up this argument well in a lecture: “Here [1 Cor. 15:50-54] Paul states clearly and emphatically his belief in a body that is to be changed, not abandoned. The present physicality—in all its transience, its decay, and its subjection to weakness, sickness, and death—is not to go on forever, that is what Paul means by saying “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” The term “flesh” (sarx) is seldom if ever for Paul a merely neutral description of physicality; almost always it carries some hint both of the corruptibility and of the rebelliousness of present human existence. What is required for God’s future state of affairs is what we might call a “noncorruptible physicality”: the dead will be raised “imperishable” and we—that is, those who are left alive until the great day—will be “changed” (1 Cor. 15:52). …It is not the mere resuscitation of a corpse, coming back into the same mode of physicality it had before, but equally and emphatically it is not disembodiment. And if this is what Paul believes about the resurrection body of Christians, we may assume, since his argument works in both directions, that this was his view of the resurrection of Jesus as well.” N.T. Wright, “Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity,” Sewanee Theological Review 41.2 (1998).73 So says Eusebius of Caesarea many times though quoting earlier fathers like Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.74 One must also remember some independent church traditions beyond the New Testament were cited as late as the mid second-century. Paula Fredriksen says: “Justin Martyr’s references to Jesus’ birth in a cave (Dial. 78) and fire in the Jordan at Jesus’ baptism (Dial. 88) suggest both that he was familiar with material about Jesus, whether written or oral, other than what we find in our gospels, and that he considered it equally authoritative.” Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ, (Yale University Press, 1988), 4.75 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.

disciple of John from his first-hand experience as a student of Polycarp’s.76 Thus Polycarp was a disciple of the apostles and especially of John. As for Ignatius and Clement, the traditions are not as sound. However, Polycarp mentioned Ignatius as a friend in his epistle and approved of his teachings.77 Clement of Rome was the bishop of a renowned church founded by the apostles and wrote to the Corinthians, another apostolic church. Though Clement and Ignatius’s apostolicity are more doubtful than Polycarp’s, Clement and Ignatius likely were disciples of the twelve apostles too.

Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp all reference the resurrection of Jesus as an important doctrine for Christians.78 Polycarp exhorted Christians to heed the example of the apostles saying: “For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.”79 Ignatius goes as far as to exhort Christians to “Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ… He was also truly raised from the dead…”80 Clement stated the apostles had “preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ” in which early Christians “received their orders” and were thus “fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ…”81 The disciples of the apostles immediately after the New Testament believed in the doctrine of the resurrection and emphasized such a doctrine was delivered to the church by the original and earliest disciples of Jesus. Surely then this must be counted as important data for early Christian beliefs. One may now shift their attention to the New Testament which verifies such proclamations.

The four New Testament Gospels were written by either disciples of Jesus or those that knew them. The Synoptic Gospels were written in the same time Paul’s earliest epistles were composed. Therefore, one may consult them as important primary sources in early Christian theology. All four stress the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Jesus predicted his future resurrection frequently in the accounts, particularly John’s. Whether one accepts Jesus himself truly predicted his resurrection is irrelevant.82 The important takeaway is early Christians widely thought he did, as the stories are told frequently in four separate writings. Of course, the most important resurrection data in the Gospels is the concluding narratives in the four.

All four Gospels made sure they ended at Jesus’s resurrection. Mark did not record any appearance stories of Jesus to the disciples.83 Yet even Mark made sure the empty tomb

76 As described in a letter by Irenaeus in Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, 5.20.77 Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, 13.78 They also often quoted and alluded to many books in the New Testament. Though this shows they did not write independently from the New Testament, this makes them important corroborative sources for the books. After all, if these individuals were disciples of the apostles, one would think they received confirmation from such apostles to the validity of the New Testament records. F.F. Bruce sums up the New Testament books Ignatius quoted from: “In the letters written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, as he journeyed to his martyrdom in Rome in AD 115, there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and possible allusions to Mark, Luke, Acts, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. His younger contemporary Polycarp, in a letter to the Philippians (c. 120) quotes from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and 1 John.” F.F. Bruce, New Testament Documents Are They Reliable? (Blacksburg, VA. Wilder Publications, 2009), 14.79 Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, 9.80 Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, 9.81 Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 42.82 However, some scholars such as Craig Evans seem confident to assert the historical Jesus predicated his death, albeit not equivalent to a resurrection prediction though. Craig Evans, “Assessing Progress in the Third Quest of the Historical Jesus,” Journal for the Study of Historical Jesus 4.1 (2006): 48.

discovery and the angel’s affirmation of Jesus’s resurrection was the conclusion to his work.84 The resurrection narratives in the Gospels were also widely different. Indeed, Christians have always had problems in reconciling the accounts so no contradictions remain. But whether the accounts truly conflict or not is a non-issue. The huge differences in how Jesus appeared to his disciples in the Gospels shows each Gospel went its separate way. In other words, they are independent from one another.85

The independency of the resurrection stories in the Gospels shows the resurrection doctrine was affirmed before any of the Gospels were written. If the resurrection of Jesus was affirmed at the time of writing for the Gospels, one should not expect so many independent variants in how the story was told. The variants show the authors had access to many different versions of the resurrection; hence the resurrection proclamation was announced before the authors recorded it.

The Gospel resurrection stories also show signs of genuine, earlier traditions rather than later fabrications. Amongst the many differences in the accounts, women remained the primary witnesses to Jesus’s empty tomb in all four Gospels.86 A woman’s testimony was not as valued as a man’s in first-century Palestine.87 A later fabrication would unlikely make women the primary witnesses to the empty tomb, as well as the first witnesses to Jesus’s resurrected body.88 The authors most likely were using earlier reports by Christians.89 But besides the Gospels, Paul remains a principal source for analyzing early Christian belief.

Paul asserted Jesus’s resurrection in every undisputed epistle countless times. The “risen” Christ was a theme throughout Paul’s epistles. Paul appeared to quote an earlier creed to the

83 Assuming Mark ended at 16:8, though some scholars such as N.T. Wright are convinced it continued and is now lost.84 Mk. 16.1-8 (NIV).85 Dunn pointed out: “It can hardly be denied that here [Gospel resurrection stories] we have conflict of testimony. There is nothing surprising in this. Conflict of testimony occurs in all trials to some extent. Some may be the result of false testimony. But it will be impossible to eliminate all conflict….Under such questionings the importance of the conflict of testimony becomes less weighty…. The confusion between the differing accounts in the Gospels does not appear to have been contrived. The conflict of testimony is more a mark of sincerity of those from whom the testimony was derived than a mark against their veracity. We may judge the witnesses to be confused on points of detail (as witnesses often are when they try to recall particular details), but hardly deceptive. And to describe them as untrustworthy on the basis of such differences would be ungenerous.” James Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus, (The Westminster Press, 1985), 64-65.86 Matt. 28; Mk. 16; Lk. 24; Jn. 20 (NIV).87 Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus, 65; N.T. Wright, Jesus, The Final Days: What Really Happened, (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 97.88 Jn. 20.15-18; Matt. 28.8-10 (NIV).89 I should also note the resurrection assertions themselves do not lend much to a fabrication theory, as a resurrected Messiah would have made little sense to Jews and would, therefore, have not been used by a fabricator. Hence the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes said: “The truth is that Jews in the age of Jesus were unaccustomed to handling the problem of a ‘historical’ resurrection. The universal rising of the dead before the final judgment was quite a different matter and occupied a well-established slot in Jewish eschatological thinking from chapter 12 of the Book of Daniel onward, though in the first instance resurrection was held to be the privilege of the righteous alone….This means that Jesus and his disciples were not preconditioned by tradition or education to look forward to a risen Christ; so the first narrators of the Jesus story had no pattern to follow when they tried to explain what happened to their deceased and buried teacher.” Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus, (Penguin Compass, 2000), 183.

Romans of Jesus’s resurrection.90 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 also remains the most accepted creed by scholars affirming an early proclamation of the resurrection.91 Paul stated:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles…92

The words “received” and “delivered” Paul chose were technical Greek terms for the transmission of oral tradition.93 Paul used the same terms elsewhere in his epistles for denoting tradition.94 Paul was saying he “received” this tradition before he “delivered” it to the Corinthians when he met them in the early A.D. 50s. Where did Paul “receive” this tradition? Most scholars agree Galatians holds the key. Paul affirmed in Galatians he met two critical apostles three years after his conversion and “stayed with him [Peter] fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.”95 In the next chapter Paul stated he traveled back to Jerusalem and met the apostles again fourteen years later.96 Paul thus met apostles soon after his conversion and preached the “Gospel” for over a decade before going back to Jerusalem. Paul must have “received” traditions from Peter and James of Jesus during his two week stay.97 C.H. Dodd wisely pointed out, “we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.”98 Thus Paul’s tradition of the burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus was one promulgated by Christians from the beginning. Since Peter and James were the

90 “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection of the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 1.1-5 (NIV).91 C.H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity, (Shoreline Books, 1970), 146-7; C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Development, (Ninth Impression, 1960), 16; John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, (First Fortress Press, 2001), 100; Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, (Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press, 2007), 147-8; Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, Missouri. College Press, 1996), 153; N.T. Wright, Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity, Sewanee Theological Review 41.2 (1998); Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jews: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, (First Fortress Press, 1981), 41; Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 223; Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: What did Jesus Really do? (Polebridge Press, 1998), 454, 466; Gerd Theissen and Annette Merze, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, (Fortress Press, 1998), 490; Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2007), 37-38; Gary Habermas, “Resurrection Research From 1975 to the Present: What Are Critical Scholars Saying?” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.2 (2005), 136.92 1 Cor. 15.3-7 (NIV).93 Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 147-8.94 1 Cor. 11.23 (NIV).95 Gal. 1.18-19 (NIV).96 Gal. 2.1-10 (NIV).97 Ancient historian Paul Barnett pointed out Paul’s meeting with “Cephas” or Peter likely provided him the opportunity to learn about the historical Jesus. After all, Paul’s conversion from the vision was merely a short message calling him to preach to the Gentiles. Being the scholar Paul was and the soon-to-be famous Christian teacher and missionary, Paul must have learned from the disciples he met like Peter the story of who Jesus was. Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 257.98 Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Development, 16.

probable intermediaries to the tradition for Paul, one can be sure the resurrection doctrine was accepted by the disciples of Jesus.99

In the case of early Christianity, historical judgments will always be difficult due to the fragmentary nature of the sources, but this need not prevent the historian from positing sound conclusions.100 The resurrection doctrine was proclaimed by the earliest disciples of Jesus. The church fathers Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement show the apostles of Jesus accepted the doctrine. The four Gospels made the resurrection their central concluding point with ostensibly many different versions they had access too within the immediate decades after Christ. As I showed previously, the Synoptic Gospels were most likely written between the A.D. 40s and 50s and thus constitute some of the earliest sources for both Jesus and his disciples. All four Gospels were written by disciples of the apostles like Mark but also by apostles directly such as John. Their resurrection proclamation confirmed directly that the disciples of Jesus accepted it from the beginning.101 Paul wrote in the same time as the Synoptic Gospels and received his traditions from Jesus’s apostles. Paul made the resurrection of Jesus the most important theological theme in almost all his epistles.102 His tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 exposed a creed accepted by the earliest disciples of Jesus. In conclusion, the earliest Christians and disciples of Jesus proclaimed their master had bodily rose from the grave, and this doctrine became the unifying belief of most Christians that continues today.103

99 Hence New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg concluded: “Thus even the renowned atheist historian Gerd Ludemann acknowledges that within one to two years after his death the belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead was so widespread and central to Christian practice that it formed part of basic catechetical instruction. There is no late evolutionary development of Christian faith decades after the real facts were forgotten.” Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 148.100 As Hengel said: “Awareness of his own limitations and the constant lack of source material should therefore make the historian modest, and always open to correction in his attempts at reconstruction. However, he should not become a skeptic, since the texts with which he is dealing as a theologian and a New Testament scholar resist destructive skepticism as much as they resist unbridled fantasy. He has to approach them in a responsible fashion, in the awareness that the evidence about Jesus and earliest Christianity which has been entrusted to him conveys a power which has shaken mankind to the core and which continues to be influential today in creating faith and bringing about community.” Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1979), 55. Theologian I. Howard Marshall also made the point that history is based on probabilities, and the historian must “exercise faith in the course of obtaining them.” I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, (Vancouver, British Columbia: Recent College Publishing, 2004), 92.101 The “we” passages in Acts thus not only show the writer was a companion of Paul but had several opportunities to consult with early disciples of Jesus when Paul met them in the narrative. James Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 75-76.102 Paul elaborates on just how crucial the resurrection doctrine is for Christians saying: “But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he has raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ as not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” 1 Cor. 15.12-19 (NIV).103 Bart Ehrman summed this conclusion up best: “What I think we can say with some confidence is that Jesus actually did die, he probably was buried, and that some of his disciples claimed to have seen him alive afterward. Among those who made this claim, interestingly enough, was Jesus’ own brother James, who came to believe in Jesus and soon thereafter become one of the principal leaders of the early Christian church. The apostle Paul knew James and passed long this information about his vision of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:7). Moreover, Paul claims that he himself saw Jesus after his death (1 Cor. 15:8), although there is nothing to indicate that he knew what Jesus looked

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Justin Martyr. First and Second Apology: St. Justin Martyr. Wyatt North Publishing, 2012.

Tertullian. Against Marcion. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. www.ccel.org (accessedMarch, 2013).

Origen. Homilies on Luke: The Fathers of the Church. Translated by Joseph T. Lienhard. TheCatholic University of America Press, 1996.

Eusebius of Caesarea. The Church History. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. www.ccel.org(accessed March, 2013).

Irenaeus. Against Heresies & Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus. Wyatt NorthPublishing, 2012.

Origen. Commentary on Matthew. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. www.ccel.org (accessedMarch, 2013).

Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho: St. Justin Martyr. Wyatt North Publishing, 2012.

Polycarp. Epistle to the Philippians. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. www.ccel.org (accessedMarch, 2013).

Ignatius. Epistle to the Trallians. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. www.ccel.org (accessedMarch, 2013).

Clement of Rome. Epistle to the Corinthians. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. www.ccel.org(accessed March, 2013).

Secondary Sources

Ehrman, Bard D. Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press,

like beforehand….Their convictions on this matter eventually turned the world on its ear. Things have never been the same since.” Ehrman, Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, 229-30.

1999.

Dodd, C.H. The Founder of Christianity. Shoreline Books, 1970.

Drane, John. Introducing the New Testament. First Fortress Press, 2001.

Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. First Fortress Press, 1981.

Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. InterVarsityPress, 2010.

Robinson, John A.T. Can We Trust the New Testament? William B. Eerdmans PublishingCompany, 1977.

Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Winona Lake, Indiana:Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Ehrman, Bard D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not WhoWe Think They Are. New York: HarperOne, 2011.

Dunn, James D.G. Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids,MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009.

Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press,1989.

Bauckman, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. WilliamB. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.

Hengel, Martin. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers,2003.

Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Carrier, Richard. “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006).” The Secular Web.www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/3.html (accessed February13, 2013).

Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsityPress, 2007.

Theissen, Gerd & Merz, Annette. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press,1998.

Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God.Vol. 3. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003.

Wright, N.T. “Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity.” Sewanee Theological Review41.2 (1998).

Dunn, James D.G. The Evidence for Jesus. The Westminster Press, 1985.

Evans, Craig A. & Wright, N.T. Jesus, The Final Days: What Really Happened. Louisville,Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

Dodd, C.H. The Apostolic Preaching and its Development. Ninth Impression, 1960.

Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin,Missouri. College Press, 1996.

Funk, Robert W. & The Jesus Seminar. The Acts of Jesus: What did Jesus Really do? PolebridgePress, 1998.

Hengel, Martin. The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament. Eugene, OR:Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2007.

Habermas, Gary R. “Resurrection Research From 1975 to the Present: What Are CriticalScholars Saying?” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.2 (2005): 135-153.

Hengel, Martin. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and StockPublishers, 1979.

Fredriksen, Paula. From Jesus to Christ. 2nd ed. Yale University Press, 1988.

Dunn, James D.G. Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI:William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.

Vermes, Geza. The Changing Faces of Jesus. Penguin Compass, 2000.

Barnett, Paul. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Barnett, Paul. Is the New Testament Reliable? 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,2003.

Barrett, C.K. Luke the Historian in Recent Study. Wipf and Stock, 1961.

Marshall, I. Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. 2nd ed. Vancouver, British Columbia:Recent College Publishing, 2004.

Bruce, F.F. New Testament Documents Are They Reliable? Blacksburg, VA. WilderPublications, 2009.

Evans, Craig A. “Assessing Progress in the Third Quest of the Historical Jesus.” Journal for theStudy of Historical Jesus 4.1 (2006): 35-54.