67 For details, including a listing of primary sources from these nineteenth century rejections of each other’s views, see Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry, pp. 286–293.
68 For examples, see Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 4, part 1, p. 340; Raymond E. Brown, “The Resurrection and Biblical Criticism,” especially p. 233; Pannenberg, Jesus, pp. 88–97; Wilckens, Resurrection, pp. 117–119; Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 181–185.
attested as both early and eyewitness sources, as pointed out above. Other positive evidences include (2)the transformation of the disciples into bold witnesses, (3)the empty tomband (4)the fact that the resurrection of Jesus was the very center of the apostolic message, all of which require adequate explanations. It was also found that the disciples proclaimed this message in Jerusalem itself, where it is related that in repeated confrontations with the authorities, (5)the Jewish leaders could not disprove their message(Acts 1–5). Additionally, (6)the very existence and growth of the church, (7)featuring Sundayas the primary day of worship demand historical causes, as well.
Two additional major facts arguing for the historicity of the resurrection are that two skeptics, (8) James, the brother of Jesus, and (9) Paul, became believers after having experiences which they also believed were appearances of the risen Jesus. Fuller concludes that even if the appearance to James had not been recorded by Paul (1 Cor. 15:7), such an occurrence would still have to be postulated anyway in order to account for both James’ conversion and his subsequent promotion to a position of authority in the early church.^69 The same could be said even more emphatically concerning Paul.^70
When combined with the failure of the naturalistic theories, this minimum of nine evidences provides a strong case for the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. This is especially so in that each of these evidences was based on a known historical fact.^71 In particular, when the early and eyewitness experiences of the disciples, James and Paul, are considered along with their corresponding transformations,^72 the historical resurrection becomes the best explanation for the facts, especially since the naturalistic theories failed. Four Key Historical Facts
Earlier, twelve facts were enumerated as knowable history, accepted as such by almost all scholars. It is this writer’s conviction that even by utilizing only four of these accepted facts, a sufficient case can be made for the historicity of the resurrection, which will strengthen the earlier apologetic.^73
69 Fuller, Resurrection Narratives, p. 37. See also Wilckens, Resurrection, p. 113.
70 Fuller, ibid., pp. 37, 46–47.
71 As mentioned above, some would not include the empty tomb as a known fact, but it is accepted by many scholars as historical. For an excellent defense of this fact, see Edward Lynn Bode, The First Easter Morning, Analecta Biblica45 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970), pp. 155–175; William Lane Craig, “The Empty Tomb of Jesus,” pp. 173–200; Robert H. Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?” in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society20 (1977), pp. 23–29.
72 This does not even include the experience of the more than 500 persons who also claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, concerning whom Paul asserted that most were still alive and could be questioned.
Page 1234567891011121314151617
