at Amazon<\/a>)
\n________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
creeds concerned the death and resurrection of Jesus and his resulting deity.^2 Thus we note the major interest in the life and person of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n
The Life of Jesus Christ<\/p>\n
The earliest Christians were confident that \u201cJesus Christ is come in the flesh,\u201d as proclaimed in the confession found in 1 John 4:2.^3 Seldom was belief in Jesus\u2019 incarnation expressed more clearly than in the \u201cpre-Pauline hymn\u201d of Philippians 2:6ff.,^4 which speaks of both Jesus\u2019 human and divine natures. His humble life on earth is clearly contrasted with his heavenly position \u201cin the form of God\u201d and his later exaltation and worship.<\/p>\n
Another ancient creed which expresses a contrast between aspects of Jesus\u2019 life is 2 Timothy 2:8.^5 Here Jesus\u2019 birth in the lineage of David is contrasted with his resurrection from the dead, again showing the early Christian interest in linking Jesus to history.^6 Similarly, Romans 1:3\u20134 is also an ancient, pre-Pauline creed.^7 It juxtaposes the man Jesus \u201cmade of the seed of David according to the flesh\u201d with the divine Jesus whose claims were vindicated by his rising from the dead.^8 For our present purposes, we need only note the early interest in Jesus\u2019 earthly, physical connections, as he was born of a descendant of David\u2019s family. As Moule relates, it was the same human Jesus who lived, died and was later vindicated.^9<\/p>\n
One early confessional creed is 1 Tim. 3:16^10 (sometimes referred to as a \u201cChrist-hymn\u201d^11 ), which gives a brief recital of both the human and divine Jesus: Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion:<\/p>\n
He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world,<\/p>\n
2 Ibid., pp. 57\u201358, 63\u201364.<\/p>\n
3 Ibid., p. 32.<\/p>\n
4 Ibid., pp. 22\u201323, 28, 55, 57\u201362. Cf. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1, pp. 27, 125, 131, 175, 298; Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 9, 49, 57, 61; Fuller, Foundations, pp. 204\u2013206, 221\u2013225, 248; Pannenberg, Jesus, pp. 366\u2013367.<\/p>\n
5 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, ibid., vol. 1, pp. 49, 81; Joachim Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, p. 102; Neufeld, ibid., p. 145, cf. p. 128.<\/p>\n
6 See Cullmann, Confessions, pp. 55, 58; C.F.D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, revised edition (New York: Harper and Row, 1982), p. 247; Neufeld, pp. 128\u2013129, 133. <\/p>\n
7 Cullmann, ibid., p. 55; Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, p. 27; II, p. 121; Pannenberg, Jesus, pp. 118, 283, 367; Neufeld, pp. 7, 50; cf. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, p. 14.<\/p>\n
8 For example, see Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, pp. 27, 50. Other such sources will be pursued later in this chapter. <\/p>\n
9 Moule, Birth, pp. 33\u201335.<\/p>\n
10 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, p. 102; Neufeld, pp. 7, 9, 128.<\/p>\n
11 Jeremias, ibid., p. 132; cf. Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, p. 176; 2, pp. 153, 156; Fuller, Foundations, pp. 214, 216, 227, 239.<\/p>\n
\ntaken up in glory (RSV). Moule notes not only the early date of this creed but also its pattern of rhyme, which was probably utilized in worship and hymnody.^12 This statement also presents a contrast between Jesus\u2019 human birth \u201cin the flesh\u201d and his deity,^13 further mentioning his approval by the Spirit and the witness of the angels. He was preached among the nations of the world and believed by people before he was \u201ctaken up in glory.\u201d Another early confession which may well reflect an event in Christ\u2019s life is Romans 10:9.^14 At present we are only concerned with the strong possibility that this may actually be a baptismal creed, cited by Christian candidates for baptism.^15 As such, it would be an indirect reference to Jesus\u2019 own baptism. Although these early creeds are interested in theological elements of Christology, to be sure, they are also early reports of events in the life of Jesus. We are told (1) that Jesus was really born in human flesh (Phil. 2:6; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 4:2) (2)of the lineage and family of David (Rom. 1:3\u20134; 2 Tim. 2:8). We find (3)an implication of his baptism (Rom. 10:9) and (4)that his word was preached, (5) resulting in persons believing his message (1 Tim. 3:16). The Death and Resurrection of Jesus Just prior to Jesus\u2019 trial and crucifixion, both the synoptic Gospels and Paul relate that Jesus had a private supper with his disciples. The Pauline account in 1 Corinthians 11:23ff. presents a fixed tradition which is probably based on material independent of the sources for the synoptic Gospels.^16 Jeremias notes that Paul\u2019s words \u201creceived\u201d and \u201cdelivered\u201d are not Paul\u2019s typical terms, but \u201crepresent the rabbinical technical terms\u201d for passing on tradition.^17 Additionally, there are other non-Pauline phrases such as \u201che was betrayed,\u201d \u201cwhen he had given thanks\u201d and \u201cmy body\u201d (11:23\u201324), which are further indications of the early nature of this report. In fact, Jeremias asserts that his material was formulated \u201cin the very earliest period; at any rate before Paul . . . a pre-Pauline formula.\u201d Paul is actually pointing out \u201cthat the chain of tradition goes back unbroken to Jesus himself.\u201d^18 It is widely held that this ancient tradition presents actual historical events which occurred on the evening of the so-called \u201clast supper.\u201d^19 Such is even recognized by Bultmann.^20 As Martin Hengel explains, \u201cPaul refers to a historical event with a<\/p>\n
12 Moule, Birth, pp. 33\u201335. <\/p>\n
13 Cullmann, Confessions, p. 41. <\/p>\n
14 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, p. 112; Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, pp. 81, 125; Neufeld, Confessions, pp. 43, 140. <\/p>\n
15 Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, p. 312; Neufeld, Confessions, pp. 62, 68, 144. <\/p>\n
16 Moule, Birth, p. 38; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 101, 104\u2013105. <\/p>\n
17 Jeremias, ibid., p. 101. <\/p>\n
18 Ibid., pp. 101, 104\u2013105. <\/p>\n
19 Cullmann, Confessions, p. 64; Moule, Birth, pp. 38\u201339; Neufeld, Confessions, p. 52. <\/p>\n
20 Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, p. 83.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
specific date . . . .\u201d^21 This tradition relates that Jesus did attend a dinner on the same evening as he was betrayed. He gives thanks to God before eating and afterward shared both bread and drink, which he referred to as the sacrifice of his body and blood for believers. Here we find insights not only to some of the events of the evening, but also to the actual words which may have been repeated at early Christian observances of the Last Supper.^22<\/p>\n
Another event just prior to Jesus\u2019 crucifixion is related by 1 Timothy 6:13, which is also an early tradition,^23 and perhaps even a part of a more extensive oral Christian confession of faith.^24 This statement asserts that Jesus came before Pontius Pilate and made a good confession.^25 Neufeld points out that Jesus\u2019 testimony was probably his affirmative answer to Pilate\u2019s question as to whether he was the King of the Jews (see Mark 15:2).^26 At any rate, \u201cJesus did not deny his identity in the trials but made a good confession before the Jews and Pilate.\u201d^27<\/p>\n
We have already noted how some early Christian traditions presented a juxtaposition between the human and the divine Jesus. Several other early reports contrasted the seeming defeat suffered at the cross with the triumph of Jesus\u2019 resurrection. Earlier, Philippians 2:6ff. was mentioned as expressing this first comparison of the human Jesus who was to be exalted by God. More specifically, Philippians 2:8 additionally reports the humbling of Jesus as he died on the cross in direct contrast to this later exaltation. Another example is to be found in Romans 4:25, which Bultmann refers to as \u201ca statement that had evidently existed before Paul and had been handed down to him.\u201d^28 The content of this tradition is that Jesus died for our sins and was afterward raised from the dead to secure the believer\u2019s justification. Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 (cf. 1 Tim. 2:6) also contrasts Jesus\u2019 death for the sins of mankind (in spite of his own righteousness) with the resurrection as the means of bringing people to God.^29<\/p>\n
Early accounts of Jesus\u2019 resurrection are also preserved in Christian tradition. Next to 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., the most crucial texts for historical purposes are several early passages in the book of Acts (especially Peter\u2019s speeches).^30 The death and resurrection of Jesus are the center of each sermon.^31 Critical research has<\/p>\n
21 Martin Hengel, The Atonement, transl. by John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), p.53. <\/p>\n
22 Moule, Birth, p. 38. <\/p>\n
23 Bultmann, Theology, vol. 2, p. 121; Neufeld, Confessions, pp. 20, 31. <\/p>\n
24 See Cullmann, Confessions, pp. 25, 27. <\/p>\n
25 Ibid.; Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1, p. 82. <\/p>\n
26 Neufeld, Confessions, pp. 31, 63\u201364, 146. <\/p>\n
27 Ibid., p. 114; cf. pp. 132\u2013133. <\/p>\n
28 Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, p. 82. <\/p>\n
29 Cullmann, Confessions, pp. 41, 45, 53, 57\u201362, including the creedal nature of these two references. See especially Acts 2:14\u201339; 3:12\u201326; 4:8\u201312; 5:29\u201332; 10:34\u201343; cf. 13:16\u201341. <\/p>\n
31 See Acts 2:22\u201323, 31; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30\u201331; 10:39\u201342; 13:28\u201329.
\n
\nshown that these texts reflect early, largely undeveloped theology, perhaps from the Jerusalem community. Drane explains it this way: 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. This is the evidence contained in the early sermons in the Acts of the Apostles. . . . But there can be no doubt that in the first few chapters of Acts its author has preserved material from very early sources.<\/p>\n
Scholars have discovered that the language used in speaking about Jesus in these early speeches in Acts is quite different from that used at the time when the book was compiled in its final form.^32<\/p>\n
Many scholars have argued that in these early texts we have a clear summary of the earliest apostolic kerygma.^33<\/p>\n
Jeremias holds that Luke\u2019s brief mention of Jesus\u2019 resurrection appearance to Peter in Luke 24:34 is of even greater antiquity than is 1 Corinthians 15:5, which would make this an extremely early witness to these appearances.^34 Dodd and Bultmann also note the connections between the fact that Peter appears in the references in both Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5.^35 A previously mentioned tradition, 2 Timothy 2:8, presents another contrast by linking the Jesus who descended from David with the same person who was raised from the dead. Not only is Jesus\u2019 resurrection proclaimed as an event of history, but early creeds also assert that, on the basis of this event, Jesus\u2019 claims were justified. In particular, it is said that the resurrection revealed the uniqueness of Jesus\u2019 person.<\/p>\n
That Romans 1:3\u20134 is an ancient pre-Pauline creed is shown by the parallelism of the clauses,^36 which is especially seen in the contrast between Jesus as both the son of David and the Son of God.^37 The same Jesus who was born in space and time was raised from the dead.^38 This creed proclaims that Jesus was shown to be the Son of God, Christ (or Messiah) and Lord and vindicated as such by his resurrection from the dead.^39 Cullmann adds that redemption and Jesus\u2019 final exaltation were also included in this significant creedal affirmation.^40 Such an encompassing<\/p>\n
32 Drane, Introducing the NT, p. 99.<\/p>\n
33 See the influential treatment by Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, pp. 17\u201331; cf. Craig\u2019s overview of the debate, pp. 36\u201338.<\/p>\n
Joachim Jeremias, \u201cEaster: The Earliest Tradition and the Earliest Interpretation,\u201d p. 306.<\/p>\n
35 C.H. Dodd, \u201cRisen Christ,\u201d p. 125; Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, p. 45.<\/p>\n
36 Cf. Neufeld, Confessions, pp. 7, 50; Pannenberg, Jesus, pp. 118, 283, 367; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, p. 14; Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, p. 27; vol. 2, p. 121; Fuller, Foundations, pp. 187, 189.<\/p>\n
37 Neufeld, Confessions, p. 50.<\/p>\n
38 Cullmann, Confessions, p. 55; Moule, Birth, p. 247.<\/p>\n
39 Cf. Moule, p. 247; Neufeld, Confessions, pp. 51\u201352; Pannenberg, Jesus, pp. 31, 133, 137, 147, 367; Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, pp. 27, 50; Fuller, Foundations, pp. 180 (fn. 81), 187.<\/p>\n
40 Cullmann, Confessions, pp. 55, 57\u201362.
\n
\nstatement, including three major Christological titles and implying some actions of Jesus, reveals not only one of the earliest formulations of Christ\u2019s nature, but also conveys an apologetic motif in relating all this theology to the vindication provided by Jesus\u2019 resurrection (cf. Acts 2:22f.).<\/p>\n
Another early creed which links the resurrection with the person and claims of Jesus is Romans 10:9\u201310.^41 In this passage, belief in this historical event is connected with confessing that Jesus is Lord. As a result one\u2019s salvation is secure.^42 Earlier it was pointed out that this may actually be a baptismal creed, whereby the candidate announced his belief in (and allegiance to) Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n
Lastly, some creeds also confess Jesus\u2019 ascension to heaven and his resulting exaltation. Two examples of such early creeds were mentioned earlier with regard to the life of Jesus. In 1 Timothy 3:16, it is proclaimed that, after his incarnation, Jesus was \u201ctaken up in glory.\u201d In Philippians 2:6f. it is related that after Jesus humbled himself as a man, he was highly exalted and is to be worshiped by all persons (2:9\u2013 11).^43 This latter passage is taken from Isaiah 45:23 where God the Father is receiving such praise and glory.<\/p>\n
Before proceeding to the extended examination of 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. it will be advantageous to briefly summarize the facts reported in various other creeds concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus. A few earlier events of Jesus\u2019 life are mentioned, all from the creeds in Acts: (6)Jesus was born in the lineage of David (13:23; also Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8), and (7)came from the town of Nazareth (2:22; 4:10; 5:38). (8)John preceded Jesus\u2019 ministry (10:37; 13:24\u201325), (9)which began in Galilee, (10)afterwards expanding throughout Judea (10:37). (11)Jesus performed miracles (2:22; 10:38) and (12)fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies (2:25\u2013 31; 3:21\u201325; 4:11; 10:43; 13:27\u201337).<\/p>\n
We are further informed by the creed in 1 Corinthians 11:23ff. that (13)Jesus attended a dinner (14)on the evening of his betrayal. (15)He gave thanks before the meal and (16)shared both bread and drink, (17)which, he declared, represented his imminent atoning sacrifice for sin.<\/p>\n
(18) Later, Jesus stood before Pilate (Acts 3:13; 13:28) and (19)made a good confession, which very possibly concerned his identity as the King of the Jews (1 Tim. 6:13). (20)Afterwards, Jesus was killed (Acts 3:13\u201315; 13:27\u201329) (21)for mankind\u2019s sins (1 Pet. 3:18; Rom. 4:25; 1 Tim. 2:6), (22)in spite of his righteous life (1 Pet. 3:18). (23)Crucifixion was specified as the mode of death (Acts 2:23; 2:36; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39), being performed (24)in the city of Jerusalem (Acts 13:27; cf. 10:39), (25)by wicked men (Acts 2:23). (26)Then he was buried (Acts 13:29). (27) After his death he was resurrected (Acts 2:24, 31\u201332; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30\u201337; 2 Tim. 2:8), (28)on the third day (Acts 10:40) and (29)appeared <\/p>\n
41 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, p. 112; Neufeld, Confessions, pp. 43, 140, 143; Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, pp. 81, 125.<\/p>\n
42 See Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, p. 11.<\/p>\n
43 Cullmann, Confessions, pp. 55, 57\u201362.
\n
\nto his followers (Acts 13:31), even (30)eating with them (Acts 10:40\u201341). (31)His disciples were witnesses of these events (Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31).<\/p>\n
(32)After his resurrection, Jesus ascended to heaven and was glorified and exalted (Acts 2:33; 3:21; 5:31; 1 Tim. 3:16; Phil. 2:6f.).<\/p>\n
(33)The risen Jesus instructed that salvation be preached in his name (Acts 2:38\u201339; 3:19\u201323; 4:11\u201312; 5:32; 10:42\u201343; 13:26, 38\u201341). (34)This event showed God\u2019s approval of Jesus, by validating his person and message (Acts 2:22\u201324, 36; 3:13\u201315; 10:42; 13:32\u201333; Rom. 1:3\u20134; 10:9\u201310). The person of Jesus Christ<\/p>\n
Regarding his person, Jesus is called (35)the Son of God (Acts 13:33; Rom. 1:3\u2013 4), (36)Lord (Luke 24:34; Acts 2:36; 10:36; Rom. 1:4; 10:9; Phil. 2:11), (37)Christ or Messiah (Acts 2:36, 38; 3:18, 20; 4:10; 10:36; Rom. 1:4; Phil. 2:11; 2 Tim. 2:8),<\/p>\n
(38)Savior (Acts 5:31; 13:23), (39)Prince (Acts 5:31) and (40)the Holy and Righteous One (Acts 3:14; cf. 2:27; 13:35). (41)It is even said that, regarding his essential nature, he is God (Phil. 2:6).<\/p>\n
1 Corinthians 15:3ff.<\/p>\n
While the subject of early Christian creeds is a fascinating area of research, some may wonder on what grounds the facts of the creeds themselves may be established. One approach to this question is to validate the New Testament documents as reliable sources and then argue to the creeds as trustworthy testimony. Although we have provided much of the grounds for such a response in the above chapters, and while this writer believes that such an answer is an approach that has much to commend it, we are again reminded that the task we have set up for ourselves is to pursue independentevidence for such claims. Therefore, because of this particular goal, we will endeavor to provide special evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus by referring to what is perhaps the most important single creed in the New Testament.<\/p>\n
In 1 Corinthians 15:3\u20134, Paul states: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures (RSV). As the passage continues, Paul records appearances of the resurrected Christ to Peter, to the \u201ctwelve\u201d disciples, to over 500 persons at one time, to James, to all of the apostles and then to Paul himself (vv. 5\u20138).<\/p>\n
That this confession is an early Christian, pre-Pauline creed is recognized by virtually all critical scholars across a very wide theological spectrum.^44 There are several indications that reveal this conclusion.<\/p>\n
44 See Reginald Fuller, Resurrection Narratives, p. 10; Oscar Cullmann, The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. by A.J.B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), p. 64; Pannenberg, Jesus, p. 90; Wilckens, Resurrection, p. 2; Hengel, The Atonement, pp. 36\u201338, 40; Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, pp. 45, 80, 82, 293; Willi Marxsen, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, transl. by Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), pp. 80, 86; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, transl. by James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), p. 251; Hans-Ruedi Weber, The Cross, transl. by Elke Jessett (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 58; Dodd, \u201cRisen Christ,\u201d pp. 124\u2013125; A.M. Hunter, Bible and Gospel, p. 108; Raymond E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus(New York: Paulist Press, 1973), pp. 81, 92; Norman Perrin, The Resurrection According to Matthew, Mark and Luke(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), p. 79; George E. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 104; Neufeld, Confessions, p. 47.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
First, Paul\u2019s words \u201cdelivered\u201d and \u201creceived\u201d are technical terms for passing on tradition. As such, we have Paul\u2019s statement that this material was not his own, but received from another source.^45<\/p>\n
Second, a number of words in this creed are non-Pauline, again indicating another origin of this material.^46 Jeremias, a leading authority on this issue, notes such non-Pauline phrases as (1) \u201cfor our sins\u201d (v. 3); (2) \u201caccording to the scriptures\u201d (vv. 3\u20134); (3) \u201che has been raised\u201d (v. 4); (4) the \u201cthird day\u201d (v. 4); (5) \u201che was seen\u201d (vv. 5\u20138); and (6) \u201cthe twelve\u201d (v. 5).^47<\/p>\n
Third, it is likely that the creed is organized in a stylized, parallel form, thereby providing a further indication of the oral and confessional nature of this material.^48<\/p>\n
Fourth, there are indications that there may be a Semitic source, such as the use of the Aramaic \u201cCephas\u201d for Peter (v. 5), hence pointing to an earlier source before Paul\u2019s Greek translation.^49<\/p>\n
Fifth, other indications of ancient Hebrew narration include the triple usage of \u201cand that\u201d along with the two references to the Scripture being filfilled.^50<\/p>\n
How early is this creed? Numerous critical theologians have endeavored to answer this important question, with very striking results. Ulrich Wilckens asserts that this creed \u201cindubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.\u201d^51 Joachim Jeremias calls it \u201cthe earliest tradition of all.\u201d^52 Concerning a more exact time, it is very popular to date this creed in the mid AD<\/p>\n
45 Fuller, Resurrection Narratives, p. 10; Wilckens, Resurrection, p. 2; Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, p. 293; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, pp. 13\u201314; \u201cRisen Christ,\u201d p. 125; Neufeld, Confessions, p. 27; Brown, Bodily Resurrection, p. 81.<\/p>\n
46 Cullmann, Early Church, p. 64; Fuller, Resurrection Narratives, p. 10; Marxsen, Resurrection, p. 80; Weber, The Cross, p. 59.<\/p>\n
47 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 101\u2013102.<\/p>\n
48 See especially Fuller, Resurrection Narratives, pp. 11\u201312; Weber, The Cross, p. 59; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 102\u2013103.<\/p>\n
49 Jeremias, in particular, provides a list of such Semitisms (Eucharistic Words, pp. 102\u2013 103). See also Pannenberg, Jesus, p. 90; Fuller, Resurrection Narratives, p. 11; Foundations, p. 160; Weber, The Cross, p. 59.<\/p>\n
50 Lapide, Resurrection, p. 98.<\/p>\n
51 Wilckens, Resurrection, p. 2.<\/p>\n
52 Jeremias, \u201cEaster,\u201d p. 306.
\n
\n30s. More specifically, numerous critical theologians date it from three to eight years after Jesus\u2019 crucifixion.^53<\/p>\n
How would Paul have received this creed? A number of scholars have arrived at the same scenario. Dating Jesus\u2019 crucifixion around AD 30, Paul\u2019s conversion would have occurred shortly afterwards, about AD 33\u201335. Three years after his conversion (AD 36\u201338) he visited Jerusalem and specifically met with Peter and James (Gal. 1:18\u201319). It is therefore reasoned that the gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus would in all likelihood be the normal center of discussion,^54 and that the presence of both Peter and James in the list of appearances (1 Cor. 15:5,7) indicates the probability that Paul received this creed from these apostles when he visited them in Jerusalem.^55 Another possibility is that Paul received this material in Damascus immediately after his conversion, which would make it even three years earlier, but the presence of the Semitisms in the creed, as mentioned above, in addition to the two proper names, favor Jerusalem as the location where Paul first received it.<\/p>\n
A Jerusalem location would date Paul\u2019s reception of the creed at about five to seven years after the crucifixion. But we can actually proceed back two stages earlier. Since the tradition would actually have been formulated before Paul first heard it, the creed itself would be dated even earlier. Additionally, the independent beliefs themselves, which later composed the formalized creed, would then date back to the actual historical events. Therefore, we are dealing with material that proceeds directlyfrom the events in question and this creed is thus crucial in our discussion of the death and resurrection of Jesus.<\/p>\n
Not only are these facts reported early, but they are reported directly by the eyewitnessesthemselves. Paul states that he specifically checked out his message<\/p>\n
53 For a sample of some of those who hold to these specific dates for this creed, see Hans Grass, Ostergeschen und Osterberichte, Second Edition (G\u00f6ttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962), p. 96; Leonard Goppelt, \u201cThe Easter Kerygma in the New Testament,\u201d The Easter Message Todaytransl. by Salvator Attanasio and Darrell Likens Guder (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 36; Thomas Sheehan, First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity(New York: Random House, 1986), pp. 110, 118; Cullmann, The Early Church, pp. 65\u201366; Pannenberg, Jesus, p. 90; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, p. 16; Hunter, Jesus, p. 100; Brown, Bodily Resurrection, p. 81; Fuller, Foundations, pp. 142, 161; Resurrection Narratives, pp. 10, 14, 28, 48; Ladd, I Believe, p. 105. O\u2019Collins points out that, as far as he is aware, no scholars date this creed later than the AD 40s. Even with such a date in the 40s, the general conclusions which we draw here, especially concerning the early and eyewitness testimony for the resurrection, still follow. See Gerald O\u2019Collins, What Are They Saying About the Resurrection?(New York: Paulist Press, 1978), p. 112.<\/p>\n
54 It is interesting that when Paul returned to Jerusalem 14 years later, again meeting with Peter and James, the gospel was specifically mentioned as the center of the discussion (Gal. 2:1\u201310).<\/p>\n
55 See note 53 above, since each of these scholars also adopts this general framework. Grass favors the Damascus location (p. 96), while Sheehan does not give the locale in his immediate context.
\n
\nwith the apostles (Gal. 2:1\u201310) and he probably received this creed directly from these eyewitnesses themselves (Gal. 1:18\u201319), as already noted. As a direct result, not only had Paul personally seen the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:8\u20139), but his testimony concerning the facts of the gospel agreed with that of the apostolic eyewitnesses (vv. 11, 14, 15).^56 Thus, Paul\u2019s factual account was the same as that of the other apostles, in spite of the fact that Paul distinguished himself from the others.^57<\/p>\n
As a result of this early and eyewitness testimony, the Christian teachings concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus are open to historical testing. As German historian Hans von Campenhausen attests concerning 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., \u201cThis account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text.\u201d^58 A.M. Hunter states that \u201cThe passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability.\u201d^59<\/p>\n
Now we begin to perceive the immense importance of this creed in terms of both facts and faith. Initially, it reveals some crucial facts concerning the gospel of the deity, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. It also shows that Paul was very close to these facts.^60 As Dodd asserts concerning this creed: Thus Paul\u2019s preaching presents a special stream of Christian tradition which was derived from the mainstream at a point very near to its source. . . . anyone who should maintain that the primitive Christian gospel was fundamentally different from that which we have found in Paul must bear the burden of proof.^61<\/p>\n
This factual witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus also became an apologetic for Christian belief.^62 The belief that the same Jesus who was dead and buried was raised again (1 Cor. 15:3\u20134) also strongly implies the empty tomb, especially in the context of Jewish thought.^63 On the other hand, this creed is also referred to by some as the most important single formulation of faith in the early church.^64<\/p>\n
The importance of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. can hardly be overestimated. No longer can it be charged that there is no demonstrable early,<\/p>\n
56 See Cullmann, The Early Church, pp. 65\u201366; cf. p. 73; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, p. 106; Hengel, The Atonement, p. 38; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, pp. 16\u201317.<\/p>\n
57 Cullmann, Confessions, pp. 72\u201373.<\/p>\n
58 Hans von Campenhausen, \u201cThe Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb,\u201d in Tradition and Life in the Church(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), p. 44, as quoted by Ladd, I Believe, p.105. <\/p>\n
59 Hunter, Jesus, p. 100.<\/p>\n
60 Cullmann, The Early Church, p. 64; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, p. 96; Pannenberg, Jesus, p. 90; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, p. 17.<\/p>\n
61 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, p. 16.<\/p>\n
62 Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, p. 295; Neufeld, Confessions, pp. 66\u201367, 146.<\/p>\n
63 Cullmann, Earliest Confessions, p. 32; Wolfhart Pannenberg, \u201cA Dialogue on Christ\u2019s Resurrection,\u201d in Christianity Today, 12\/14, April 12, 1968, pp. 9\u201311.<\/p>\n
64 Weber, The Cross, p. 58; Hengel, The Atonement, p. 37.
\n
\neyewitness testimony for the resurrection or for the other most important tenets of Christianity, for this creed provides just such evidential data concerning the facts of the gospel, which are the very center of the Christian faith. It links the events themselves with those who actually participated in time and space. As such this creed yields a strong factual basis for Christianity through the early and eyewitness reports of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, as will be shown in more detail in the next section of this chapter.<\/p>\n
We said earlier that the naturalistic theories fail to account for this data. Additionally, the evidence demonstrates that these witnesses actually did see the risen Jesus, as they claimed. The Known Historical Facts<\/p>\n
Because of the testimony of these early Christian creeds, as well as other data, even contemporary critical scholars recognize a certain amount of historical facts surrounding the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, even treating the New Testament as nothing more than a book of ancient literature, critics have deduced numerous historical facts concerning Jesus\u2019 life. In particular, 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. has played a significant part in this reconstruction.<\/p>\n
There are a minimum number of facts agreed upon by practically all critical scholars, whatever their school of thought. At least twelveseparate facts are considered to be knowable history.<\/p>\n
(1) Jesus died by crucifixion and (2)was buried. (3)Jesus\u2019 death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope, believing that his life was ended. (4)Although not as widely accepted, many scholars hold that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later. Critical scholars further agree that (5)the disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. Because of these experiences,<\/p>\n
(6) the disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection. (7)This message was the center of preaching in the early church and (8)was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus died and was buried shortly before. <\/p>\n
As a result of this preaching, (9)the church was born and grew, (10)with Sunday as the primary day of worship. (11)James, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he also believed that he saw the resurrected Jesus. (12) A few years later, Paul was converted by an experience which he, likewise, believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus.<\/p>\n
These facts are crucial for our contemporary investigation of Jesus\u2019 resurrection. With the exception of the empty tomb, virtually all critical scholars who deal with this issue agree that these are the minimum of known historical facts surrounding this event. As such, any conclusion concerning the historicity of the resurrection should properly account for these facts. An additional vital (and major) function of these known historical facts will be explained in the next section below.<\/p>\n
These known historical facts have a twofold part in our case for the resurrection which is developed in this section. First, they answer the various theories which have been proposed in order to account for Jesus\u2019 resurrection on naturalistic grounds. These hypotheses, chiefly popularized by liberal scholars in the nineteenth century, are rarely held today by critics, especially since they failed to account for the historical facts surrounding this event (such as those just mentioned above). Several reasons for this rejection could be enumerated.<\/p>\n
Each naturalistic theory is beset by many major objections that invalidate it as a viable hypothesis. Combinations of these improbable theories likewise fail, again on factual grounds.^65 Three other historical reasons also illustrate this initial major point. David Hume\u2019s essay against miracles, as well as more recent updates, are invalid rejections of the possibility of miraculous events, thereby eliminating such reasoning as the traditional backdrop for these alternative theses.^66 Nineteenth century liberal scholars themselves destroyed each alternative theory individually,^67 while twentieth century critical scholars of various schools of thought have rejected these theories wholesale.^68 In conclusion, naturalistic alternative hypotheses have thereby been shown to be unable to account for these facts concerning Jesus\u2019 resurrection.<\/p>\n
This leads to the second major argument for the resurrection based on the known historical facts. Not only do the naturalistic theories fail due to these historical facts, but these same facts also establish numerous positive evidences that corroborate the historical and literal nature of this event. Nine such evidences will be listed here, all of which have been taken from our list of accepted historical facts listed above. Thus, the factual basis for these nine evidences is admitted by virtually all scholars. However, because of the limitations of this chapter, these nine will simply be stated with very little elaboration.<\/p>\n
The key evidence for Jesus\u2019 resurrection is (1)the disciples\u2019 experiences, which they believed to be literal appearances of the risen Jesus, since these experiences cannot be explained by naturalistic theories (as just shown) and because they are<\/p>\n
65 For details, see, in particular, Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry(Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1976), pp. 114\u2013171; Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, chapters VIII and IX in particular.<\/p>\n
66 Numerous excellent critiques of Hume and more recent updates have appeared, exposing the invalidity of such attempts. For example, see C.S. Lewis, Miracles(New York: Macmillan, 1961); Richard Swinburne, The Concept of Miracle; Werner Schaaffs, Theology, Physics and Miracles, transl. by Richard L. Renfield (Washington, DC: Canon Press, 1974); Gary R. Habermas, \u201cSkepticism: Hume\u201d in Norman L. Geisler, ed., Biblical Errancy: An Analysis of its Philosophical Roots(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981).<\/p>\n
67 For details, including a listing of primary sources from these nineteenth century rejections of each other\u2019s views, see Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry, pp. 286\u2013293.<\/p>\n
68 For examples, see Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 4, part 1, p. 340; Raymond E. Brown, \u201cThe Resurrection and Biblical Criticism,\u201d especially p. 233; Pannenberg, Jesus, pp. 88\u201397; Wilckens, Resurrection, pp. 117\u2013119; G\u00fcnther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 181\u2013185.
\n
\nattested 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\u20135). Additionally, (6)the very existence and growth of the church, (7)featuring Sundayas the primary day of worship demand historical causes, as well.<\/p>\n
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\u2019 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<\/p>\n
When combined with the failure of the naturalistic theories, this minimum of nine evidences provides a strong case for the historicity of Jesus\u2019 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<\/p>\n
Earlier, twelve facts were enumerated as knowable history, accepted as such by almost all scholars. It is this writer\u2019s 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<\/p>\n
69 Fuller, Resurrection Narratives, p. 37. See also Wilckens, Resurrection, p. 113.<\/p>\n
70 Fuller, ibid., pp. 37, 46\u201347.<\/p>\n
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\u2013175; William Lane Craig, \u201cThe Empty Tomb of Jesus,\u201d pp. 173\u2013200; Robert H. Stein, \u201cWas the Tomb Really Empty?\u201d in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society20 (1977), pp. 23\u201329.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
73 The advantage of using only four of the facts is that, with such a small number, there is even wider support for these facts among critical scholars. Additionally, these four reveal how strong the case for the resurrection is, in actuality. But it should be noted that the case
\n
\nThe four facts to be used here are (1)Jesus\u2019 death due to crucifixion, (5)the subsequent experiences that the disciples were convinced were literal appearances of the risen Jesus, (6)the corresponding transformation of the disciples, and (12)Paul\u2019s conversion appearance, that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus. These four \u201ccore\u201d facts are even more widely accepted as knowable history than the rest of the twelve, being accepted by virtually all critical scholars.^74<\/p>\n
Each of these four facts is established by means of normal historical methodology (see Appendix 1). The deathof Jesus due to crucifixion is evidenced not only by 1 Corinthians 15:3, but is further corroborated by the nature of crucifixion (including Yohanan\u2019s skeleton, which we examine in the next chapter), medical testimony concerning Jesus\u2019 heart wound, and Strauss\u2019 famous critique of the swoon theory. Other New Testament creeds (like Phil. 2:8; 1 Cor. 11:23\u201326), as well as certain non-Christian and early non-New Testament Christian sources (see chapters below) are also helpful.<\/p>\n
The fact of the disciples\u2019 experiencesthat they believed to be appearances of the risen Jesus, is corroborated chiefly by the early and eyewitness testimony of 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. Other creeds (like Luke 24:34), and especially contemporary research on early confessions in the book of Acts,^75 are particularly valuable. Non-biblical references will also be discussed below.<\/p>\n
Since naturalistic theories have failed and the evidence so strongly confirms these early creeds, the earliest Christian experiences (both to groups and to individuals) are generally considered by critical scholars to be as firmly established as almost any fact in the life of Jesus. In short, it is admitted by virtually all that the disciples had real experiences that caused them to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.^76 Fuller even boldly states that these are \u201cindisputable facts . . . upon which both believer and unbeliever may agree\u201d!^77<\/p>\n
The transformationof the disciples as a result of these experiences is confirmed by the material immediately following this early creed (1 Cor. 15:9\u201311), which reports the ministry of the eyewitnesses. Again, the entire New Testament also<\/p>\n
for the resurrection does not rest on these four facts alone. In fact, there is no particular reason to use only four, except to make a point concerning their strong attestation.<\/p>\n
74 For a sampling of critical theologians who accept these four core facts, see Fuller, Resurrection Narrativesespecially pp. 27\u201349; Bultmann, Theology, vol. 1, pp. 44\u201345; Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, pp. 153\u2013158; Bornkamm, Jesus, pp. 179\u2013186; Wilckens, Resurrection, pp. 112\u2013113; Pannenberg, Jesus, pp. 88\u2013106; Moltmann, Theology of Hope, especially pp. 197\u2013202; Hunter, Jesus, pp. 98\u2013103; Perrin, Resurrection, pp. 78\u2013 84; Brown, Bodily Resurrection, especially pp. 81\u201392; Paul VanBuren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel(New York: Macmillan, 1963), pp. 126\u2013134.<\/p>\n
75 See especially Acts 1:1\u201311; 2:32; 3:15; 5:30\u201332; 10:39\u201343; 13:30\u201331.<\/p>\n
76 Compare the testimony of historian Michael Grant (Jesus: An Historian\u2019s Review, p. 176) with that of theologian Rudolf Bultmann (Theology, vol. 1, p. 45), who agree at this point with scholarship as a whole.<\/p>\n
77 Fuller, Foundations, p. 142.
\n
\nverifies this conclusion, as does the testimony of the early church authors, including the reports of the disciples dying for their faith as martyrs.^78<\/p>\n
Lastly, Paul\u2019s conversiondue to an experience that he also believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus, is both recorded by him personally in 1 Corinthians<\/p>\n
9:1and 15:8\u201310, and reported three times in Acts (9:1\u20139; 22:5\u201311; 26:12\u201318). Naturalistic theses also fail to apply to Paul.^79<\/p>\n
Therefore, these four core facts are established on strong, historical grounds. They are generally accepted not only by critical theologians but also by historians and philosophers who study this subject.^80<\/p>\n
Of these four core facts, the nature of the disciples\u2019 experiences is the most crucial. As historian Michael Grant asserts, historical investigation actually proves that the earliest eyewitnesses were convinced that they had seen the risen Jesus.^81 Carl Braaten adds that other skeptical historians also agree with this conclusion: Even the more sceptical historians agree that for primitive Christianity . . . the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was a real event in history, the very foundation of faith, and not a mythical idea arising out of the creative imagination of believers.^82<\/p>\n
One major advantage of these core facts is that, not only are they critically accepted as knowable history, but they directly concern the nature of the disciples\u2019 experiences. As such, these four historical facts are able, on a lesser scale, to both disprove the naturalistic theories and to provide major positive evidences which relate the probability of Jesus\u2019 literal resurrection.^83 A few examples will now point out these claims.<\/p>\n
First, using only these four historical facts, the naturalistic theories can be disproven. For instance, the swoon theory is ruled out by the facts concerning Jesus\u2019 death and by Paul\u2019s conversion. The disciples\u2019 experiences disprove the hallucination and other subjective theories both because such phenomena are not collective or contagious, being observed by one person alone, and because of the wide variety of time and place factors involved. The psychological preconditions for hallucinations were also lacking in these men. Paul\u2019s experience also rules out these theories because he certainly would not be in the proper theological frame of mind.<\/p>\n
That it was the disciples and other early eyewitnesses who had these experiences likewise rules out legend or myth theories, since the original teaching concerning the resurrection is therefore based on the early testimony of real eyewitnesses and not<\/p>\n
78 See Eusebius, Book II: IX, XXIII; XXV.<\/p>\n
79 See Habermas and Moreland, Immortality, pp. 245\u2013246, endnote 67.<\/p>\n
80 See note 74 above. See also Grant, Jesus: An Historian\u2019s Review, especially pp. 175\u2013 178; W.T. Jones, The Medieval Mind(New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1969), pp. 34\u201335; Carl Braaten, History and Hermeneutic(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), p. 78.<\/p>\n
81 Grant, ibid., p. 176.<\/p>\n
82 Braaten, History, p. 78.<\/p>\n
83 See Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic, chapter I for this argument in expanded form, including support for these facts.
\n
\non later legends (as shown by the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff.). Paul\u2019s experience likewise cannot be explained by legends, since such could not account for his conversion from skepticism. Lastly, the stolen body and fraud theories are disproven by the disciples\u2019 experiences and by their transformation, both because this change shows that the disciples really believed that Jesus rose from the dead and because of the probability that such liars would not become martyrs. Similarly, Paul would not have been convinced by such fraud.^84<\/p>\n
Second, these four core facts also provide the major positive evidences for Jesus\u2019 literal resurrection appearances, such as the disciples\u2019 early and eyewitness experiences that have not been explained away naturalistically, their transformation into men who were willing to die for their faith and Paul\u2019s experience and corresponding transformation. Thus, these core historical facts provide positive evidences which further verify the disciples\u2019 claims concerning Jesus\u2019 literal resurrection, especially in that these arguments have not been accounted for naturalistically.^85<\/p>\n
84 Expansions of these critiques and many additional refutations gathered from the larger list of known historical facts above cannot be presented here. For a more complete treatment of these and other such alternative theories, see Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry, pp. 114\u2013171.<\/p>\n
85 The additional known facts also provide other significant arguments for this event, such as the other evidences listed there. Perhaps an illustration utilizing a court case will be helpful. We will postulate that more than a dozen eyewitnesses clearly observed some events that involved seeing a person perform a series of acts on various occasions. This testimony both came immediately after the occurrences themselves and the eyewitnesses were firm in their claims, as evidenced at numerous points. Further, the opposing lawyer and his assistants could not disprove the testimony even after literally years of research, in spite of their interest in doing so. No lying, collusion or other fraud, hallucinations, or any other means of fakery or misconception could be established. Admittedly, quite a strong case would be made that this person in question was, in fact, seen by these persons at those places and times. But even more revealing, a limited but demonstrable case could be built based only on the facts that their opponents admitted to be true. Thus the argument could be based on the antagonistic testimony alone. Theoretically, would the jury be satisfied if the opposing lawyer pleaded that \u201cMaybe the witnesses did not really see the person for some unknown reason in spite of the evidence\u201d or \u201cIt\u2019s not really important whether they saw him or not\u201d? Clearly these would be inappropriate responses because the testimony reveals that the eyewitnesses did, in fact, literally see the person. However, evidence for Jesus\u2019 resurrection is actually superior to this. To be sure, as with the court case, people must make a decision about this event, but unlike the court case, their decision does not determine the issue. The historical fact is established on the evidence alone and not by any decision. And it is here that the evidence for the resurrection reveals that the earliest eyewitnesses did see the risen Jesus, as well as the literal nature of these appearances. Critical attempts fail at this point.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Since these core historical facts (and the earlier accepted facts in general) have been established by critical and historical procedures, contemporary scholars cannot reject the evidence simply by referring to \u201cdiscrepancies\u201d in the New Testament texts or to its general \u201cunreliability.\u201d Not only are such critical claims refuted by evidence discussed in other chapters, but it has been concluded that the resurrection can be historically demonstrated even when the minimum amount of historical facts are utilized. Neither can it be concluded merely that \u201csomething\u201d occurred which is indescribable due to naturalistic premises, or to the character of history or because of the \u201ccloudiness\u201d or \u201clegendary character\u201d of the New Testament texts. Neither can it be said that Jesus rose spiritually, but not literally. Again, these and other such views are refuted in that the facts admitted by virtually all scholars as knowable history are adequateto historically demonstrate the literal resurrection of Jesus according to probability.<\/p>\n
In short, instead of stating what they believe we cannotknow concerning the gospel accounts, critical scholars would do well to concentrate on what even they admit canbe known about the texts at this point. Although Jesus was not photographed in his resurrection body for the benefit of the disciples, the factual basis is enough to show that Jesus\u2019 resurrection is by far the best historical explanation. While critical doubts may be present with regard to other issues in the New Testament, the accepted facts are sufficient in themselves to show that Jesus rose from the dead in a new, spiritual body. As detailed in Appendix I, historical inquiry can yield certainty. The resurrection has remained established in the face of criticism for almost 2000 years. The various types of evidence for this event are outstanding, surpassing that of the great majority of ancient events. Sidestepping or rejecting the evidence a prioriis invalid, as we have seen. There is, indeed, historical proof for this event.^86 Jesus did rise from the dead in real history. <\/p>\n
Synopsis of Creeds and Facts<\/p>\n
In this chapter we have investigated probably the strongest single category of evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus. The data supplied by oral creeds that circulated before the actual composition of the New Testament and, often corresponding to these creeds, the facts that critical scholars admit as knowable history, together provide a formidable basis for knowledge about Jesus.<\/p>\n
From these sources we find reports of some incidents of Jesus\u2019 life but especially numerous details concerning his death and resurrection. Jesus was a real flesh and blood person (Phil. 2:6; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 4:2) who was physically born in the lineage of David (Acts 13:23; Rom. 1:3\u20134; 2 Tim. 2:8) and came from the town of<\/p>\n
86 It should be mentioned here that the New Testament asserts that the believer is given an assurance of this event (as well as other truths of God) by the witness of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:16; 1 John 5:9\u201313). Believers need not rely on investigations of critical hermeneutical methodology, as was done here. Such processes can confirm what is already certified, however, or answer the questions of skeptics.
\n<\/p>\n
Nazareth (Acts 2:22; 4:10; 5:38). John preceded Jesus (Acts 10:37; 13:24\u201325), and it is implied that Jesus was baptized (Rom. 10:9). Jesus\u2019 ministry began in Galilee, and was extended throughout Judea (Acts 10:37). Jesus both performed miracles (Acts 2:22; 10:38) and fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies (2:25\u201331; 3:21\u201325; 4:11; 10:43; 13:27\u201337). He preached his message among men, resulting in people believing his testimony (1 Tim. 3:16).<\/p>\n
On the night Jesus was betrayed, he first attended a dinner, where he prayed and gave thanks before the meal. Afterward, Jesus passed around both bread and drink, which he referred to as the sacrifice of his body and blood for sin (1 Cor. 11:23ff.). Later, Jesus appeared before Pilate (Acts 3:13; 13:28), where he made a good confession, which very possibly concerned his identity as the Messiah (1 Tim. 6:13).<\/p>\n
In spite of the fact that Jesus was a righteous man (1 Pet. 3:18), he died for the sins of others (1 Pet. 3:18; Rom. 4:25; 1 Tim. 2:6). He was killed (Acts 3:13\u201315; 13:27\u201329; 1 Cor. 15:3; Phil. 2:8) by crucifixion (Acts 2:23; 2:36; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39), dying in the city of Jerusalem (Acts 13:27; cf. 10:39), at the hands of wicked men (Acts 2:23). Afterwards, he was buried (Acts 13:29; 1 Cor. 15:4). These events caused the disciples to doubt and despair.<\/p>\n
On the third day after the crucifixion (Acts 10:40), the tomb was empty (1 Cor. 15:4, implied) and Jesus was raised from the dead (Acts 2:24, 31\u201332; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30\u201337; 2 Tim. 2:8). Jesus appeared to numerous eyewitnesses (Luke 24:34; Acts 13:31; 1 Cor. 15:4ff.), even eating with them (Acts 10:40\u201341). Two of these persons\u2014namely James (1 Cor. 15:7) and Paul (1 Cor. 15:8\u20139)\u2014were formerly skeptics before they met the risen Jesus. The disciples were witnesses of the appearances (Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31), which were reported at a very early date (Acts 10:40\u201341; 13:31; 1 Cor. 15:4\u20138). After his resurrection, Jesus ascended to heaven where he was glorified and exalted (Acts 2:33; 3:21; 5:31; 1 Tim. 3:16; Phil. 2:6f.).<\/p>\n
The disciples were transformed by these experiences (cf. 1 Tim. 3:16) and made the gospel the very center of their early preaching (1 Cor. 15:1\u20134). In fact, it was the risen Jesus who taught that salvation was to be preached in his name (Acts 2:38\u201339; 3:19\u201323; 4:11\u201312; 5:32; 10:42\u201343; 13:26, 38\u201341). The resurrection was the chief validation of Jesus\u2019 person and message (Acts 2:22\u201324, 36; 3:13\u201315; 10:42; 13:32\u2013 33; Rom. 1:3\u20134; 10:9\u201310). The apostolic preaching initially centered in Jerusalem, the same place where Jesus had been killed. Here the church was born and grew, with Sunday as the chief day of worship.<\/p>\n
In the early Christian preaching, Jesus was given numerous titles: Son of God (Acts 13:33; Rom. 1:3\u20134), Lord (Luke 24:34; Acts 2:36; 10:36; Rom. 1:4; 10:9; Phil. 2:11), Christ or Messiah (Acts 2:36, 38; 3:18, 20; 4:10; 10:36; Rom. 1:4; Phil. 2:11; 2 Tim. 2:8), Savior (Acts 5:31; 13:23), Prince (Acts 5:31) and the Holy and Righteous One (Acts 3:14; cf. 2:27; 13:35). Concerning his essential nature, he was even called God (Phil. 2:6).<\/p>\n
Most of these facts are reported in early Christian creeds and actually predate the writing of the New Testament. Others are virtually unanimously accepted by critical scholars, usually because of these creeds and other early historical data. It should be pointed out that these latter, critical facts were not accepted in this chapter simply because the critics also accept them, but because they are established by the facts, such as by the creeds that we investigated in this chapter and by the work of careful historical methodology.^87 Thus, critical scholars should not object to this data, since it is both validated by their methods and accepted by their cohorts.<\/p>\n
Summary and Conclusion<\/p>\n
This chapter has presented perhaps our strongest category of evidence, especially for the death and resurrection of Jesus. Admittedly, the amount of material concerning the life and ministry of Jesus before his death was not overwhelming. However, when we enter the \u201cpassion week\u201d of Jesus\u2019 life prior to his crucifixion and afterwards, the situation changes drastically.<\/p>\n
The strength of the testimony for Jesus\u2019 death and resurrection comes from several facets of the evidence. First, the material in this chapter was quite early. These early Christian traditions predate the writing of the New Testament and hence give us our earliest look at data dealing with the life of Jesus. In the case of 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. and the Acts creeds (along with a few other examples), this material dates within a few years of the actual events. This is not disputed by the critical community.<\/p>\n
Second, these creeds present eyewitnesstestimony for the facts that they report. Again, 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. and the Acts traditions are the keys in that they link us with the apostles, both singly and in groups, primarily through the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses Paul and Peter. An additional example is Luke 24:34, which may also date to the earliest church and Peter.<\/p>\n
Third, additional evidences for Jesus\u2019 resurrection include strong considerations like the empty tomb, the disciples\u2019 radical transformations and willingness to die for the truth of the gospel, which was their central message, along with the conversions of skeptics Paul and James. These and other considerations must be explained.<\/p>\n
Fourth, alternative hypotheses that seek to explain away the resurrection in natural terms have failed to adequately account for the known historical facts. Not only is this conclusion dictated by the data themselves, but critical scholars have even admitted this failure. Few researchers have favored any of these theses in recent times.<\/p>\n
Fifth, the accepted facts, and the minimal facts in particular, are not only established historically but are recognized by virtually all critical scholars as well. The advantages are that these facts provide a strong basis for belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus and, at the same time, should not be rejected since they are recognized on strictly historical grounds. The facts that almost all scholars accept provide a strong basis for belief in Jesus\u2019 literal resurrection from the dead, especially in the absence of viable naturalistic theories.<\/p>\n
On this basis, then, we may conclude that the early Christian creeds and accepted historical facts prove the historicity of the death and resurrection of Jesus. These data are sufficient both to disprove the alternative theories, and to present strong evidences for these events (such as the early and eyewitness testimony), all on the grounds of known history. Critical doubts in other areas cannot disprove and change these basic facts.<\/p>\n
87 See Grant, Jesus: An Historian\u2019s Review, for an example of a critical historical work which uncovers other such early data (in addition to the creeds) concerning the life of Jesus. Again, Grant also recognizes the four core facts (pp. 175\u2013178). See Sherwin-White\u2019s Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testamentfor an instance of another ancient historian who also uses critical methodology and applies it to the trial of Jesus and of the journeys of Paul, in particular. Interestingly, Sherwin-White finds that the appropriate New Testament texts are very trustworthy at these points […].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
What facts did the earliest Christians report concerning Jesus in the initial years after his crucifixion? Of what did the earliest Christology consist before the composition of the New Testament? Is it possible to get back to eyewitness testimony and to historical facts with regard to Jesus? These are fascinating and very important questions, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_disable_autopaging":false},"categories":[6702,6709,6708,6707],"tags":[6713,6710,6711,6712],"class_list":["post-3295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-thechrist","category-habermas-life-of-jesus-studies-thechristcontents","category-life-of-jesus-studies-thechristcontents","category-studies-thechristcontents","tag-creeds","tag-habermas","tag-jesus-historical-facts","tag-life-of-jesus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3295\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}