Resurrecting A Marginal Jew: A Study on the Resurrection Narratives in the New Testament Using John P. Meier’s Criteria for Determining Historical Authenticity
A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Theology Acadia University Spring Convocation 2011
In (Partial) Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts
by
Gregory James Monette
B.A., Saint Mary’s University, 2007 M.Div., Acadia University, 2010
© copyright by Gregory James Monette, 2011
This thesis by GREGORY JAMES MONETTE was defended successfully in an oral examination on 19 April 2011.
The examining committee for the thesis was:
______Dr. Bruce Fawcett, Chair
______Dr. Allison Trites, External Examiner
______Dr. Christopher Killacky, Internal Examiner
______Dr. Craig Evans, Supervisor & MA Director
______Dr. Harry Gardner, Dean & President
This thesis is accepted in its present form by Acadia Divinity College, the Faculty of Theology of Acadia University, as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Theology).
ii
This thesis by GREGORY JAMES MONETTE was defended successfully in an oral examination on 19 April 2011.
The examining committee for the thesis was:
Dr. Bruce Fawcett, Chair
Dr. Allison Trites, External Examiner
Dr. Christopher Killacky, Internal Examiner
Dr. Craig Evans, Supervisor & MA Director
Dr. Harry Gardner, Dean & President
This thesis is accepted in its present form by Acadia Divinity College, the Faculty of Theology of Acadia University, as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Theology).
iii
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………..v
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1: John P. Meier: Miracles; History; Criteria 5
CHAPTER 2: The Historical Sources Pertaining to Jesus’ Burial, Empty Tomb and Resurrection 30
CHAPTER 3: The Burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea 50
CHAPTER 4: Women in Antiquity and the Empty Tomb 76
CHAPTER 5: Paul and the Earliest Creed about Jesus’ Resurrection 105
SUMMARY AND FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS 130
BIBLIOGRAPHY 135
iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
If you were to ask me five years ago what I would like to accomplish in the next half decade,
I definitely would not have said “write a masters thesis!” I have learned that life is full of surprises. Having pursued and completed this thesis, I have many people to thank and not enough space to do so. Therefore, I will limit my acknowledgements to only a few of those deserving of mention.
First of all, I want to thank the faculty and staff of Acadia Divinity College, particularly Professor Craig Evans who gave me excellent supervision. I value Craig’s friendship as much as his scholarly advice. I look forward to working with him in the years to come as I pursue doctoral studies. I would also like to give a word of thanks to Professors:
Glenn Wooden, Allison Trites, Chris Killacky and Danny Zacharias for their academic advice and friendship. Having completed both my M.Div., and M.A., at Acadia Divinity
College, I must say that this school is in excellent hands with the Rev. Dr. Harry Gardner at the helm of the ship as the school’s president. Harry is a man of God who is the perfect person to lead this school at the present time and I am blessed to call him my friend.
I would also like to thank all of my friends from Acadia Divinity College including:
Tyler Bennicke, Roy Medeiros, Sam Jess, Mike Gill, Matt Snow, Adam Wright, Mike
Fredericks, Paul Worden, Dan Pyke and Tammy Giffin. I am a blessed man to have you as my friends.
There is a popular and very true saying that “it takes a village to raise a child.” For this reason I would like to thank all of those from Fall River Chapel who raised me to be a man after God’s own heart. If it wasn’t for Glenn and Sharleen Clark and the youth group held in their home, who knows if I would have ever met my wife Julie?
v I want to thank my brothers: Connell, Mark and Johnnie, as well as my sister
Christine for their love and support. My parents Ray and Marilyn as well as my In-laws Tom and Debby (Rudolph) are to be thanked for raising such good looking and intelligent children!
Finally, I want to dedicate this thesis to two people: to my brother-in-law Matthew
Walsh who is currently pursuing his Ph.D. in Biblical Studies at McMaster University for encouraging me to attend Acadia Divinity College. I value my friendship with you very much and I thank God that I asked you to be my guitar teacher so you could indirectly meet my sister Christine (though I quit guitar after a few lessons ). Matt is an example of an academic who pursues higher critical study of the Biblical text and is also a committed and passionate Christian. I admire your life Matt and I love you very much.
I also dedicate this thesis to my beautiful wife Julie. Words cannot express how fortunate I am to be able to call you my wife. You are the greatest gift that God has ever given me next to his own Son. I look forward to growing old with you and ministering with you to see increase in God’s Kingdom. You are the love of my life and I am a better man because of you. I can attest to the truth of the statement “behind every good man is a greater woman!”
To my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: You are the reason I live! Because of your life, death and resurrection I can live each day with hope and purpose. Though I fail often, you never fail me. My life is dedicated to you and I hope to serve you for the rest of my days with energy and passion.
vi Introduction
John P. Meier is one of the most influential and impressive historical Jesus scholars in the world today. His work is so detailed and thorough that it is difficult to make arguments against what he concludes. He has engaged in a groundbreaking study of the historical
Jesus by applying what he considers to be the essential criteria of historicity to the life of
Jesus. So far, Meier has written four large volumes totaling 496, 1136, 720 and 752 pages respectively, and more is yet to come. That being said, Meier has said that he will not use the criteria of historicity that he uses on every other aspect relating to the historical Jesus on the resurrection accounts given in the New Testament. I agree with William Lane
Craig that, “It is sobering to think that the world’s preeminent historical Jesus scholar plans to end his voluminous life of Jesus with the crucifixion and burial, with apparently no concern for what German scholars call “das Geschick Jesu” (Jesus’ final fate).”1
The purpose of my thesis is to apply the criteria of historical authenticity as outlined by John P. Meier in his famous series A Marginal Jew to the resurrection narratives found in the four Canonical Gospels and in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. It is my goal to demonstrate, like many others have before me, that the criteria that John Meier endorses can be applied to the burial, empty tomb, and post-mortem appearance narratives in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15, yielding historical results.
As previously mentioned, Meier uses set criteria during his research in order to answer the question: ‘Who was the historical Jesus and what did he say and do?’ He begins the first volume (of which there are four to date) discussing the sources and criteria that will be used to conduct his study (pp.1-195). He makes it clear that during his
1 W.L. Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (3rd ed., Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 353.
1 research he will look at the life of Jesus from his birth to his death. However, Meier emphatically states that he will not look at the resurrection narratives because following in the tradition of Gerald O’Collins, “a treatment of the resurrection is omitted not because it is denied but simply because the restrictive definition of the historical Jesus I will be using does not allow us to proceed into matters that can be affirmed only by faith”
(p.13). Meier repeats this in a footnote on page 201 when he says that, “On this point…O’Collins argues (rightly, in my view) that, although the ‘resurrection is a real, bodily event involving the person of Jesus of Nazareth’ (p. 381), the resurrection of Jesus
‘is not an event in space and time and hence should not be called historical’ (p. 384), since ‘we should require an historical occurrence to be something significant that is known to have happened in our space-time continuum’ (p. 384)” (p. 202). Driving the point home, Meier explains once again in volume two of his A Marginal Jew series that,
“I would not count … Christ’s resurrection from the dead…as a miracle, since [it is not] in principle open to the observation of any and every observer” (p. 525).
I disagree with John P. Meier on the question of the historicity of Jesus’ bodily resurrection. I agree with him on the idea that Jesus’ resurrection was a real bodily event.
However, I feel as though Meier has decided to complete only a portion of the research necessary to draw up a history of Jesus of Nazareth and has decided to conclude his study without drawing a relatively complete picture, which would include a look at the resurrection. I will explain why I disagree with him in the introductory chapter of my thesis.
The purpose of Meier’s thesis on the Historical Jesus is to use set criteria that would be agreed upon by any scholar regardless of personal beliefs (Christian, Jew,
2 Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, etc.) and apply these criteria to the life of Jesus.2 This means that sometimes decisions will be made that will not rest comfortably with any one particular person based on his individual belief (including the Christian) in order to determine what can be known from history using the respected criteria.
The set criteria are as follows, beginning with five primary criteria followed by five secondary (or dubious) criteria: (1) The criterion of embarrassment, (2) The criterion of discontinuity, (3) The criterion of multiple attestation, (4) The criterion of coherence, and (5) The criterion of rejection and execution. The secondary criteria are as follows: (6)
The criterion of traces of Aramaic, (7) The criterion of Palestinian environment, (8) The criterion of vividness of narration, (9) The criterion of the tendencies of the developing
Synoptic Tradition, and (10) The criterion of historical presumption.
I will use these criteria to sift through the resurrection narratives in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15 in order to see what comes to the surface. My goal in this thesis is to come away with a few details about the burial, empty tomb and resurrection of Jesus that any historian, regardless of religious beliefs, would have to hold based on the application of the criteria. I will keep a narrow focus and will try to apply these criteria to the resurrection narratives in order to establish what the historian can deem historical.
It is an understatement to say that much has been written on the topic of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The focus of study is so large and so broad that it is next to impossible to consult every document written on the topic. For this reason, I will
2 Meier uses the following analogy to explain his research goals: “Suppose that a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic—all honest historians cognizant of 1st-century religious movements—were locked up in the bowels of the Harvard Divinity School library, put on a Spartan diet, and not allowed to emerge until they hammered out a consensus document on who Jesus of Nazareth was and what he intended in his own time and place… .” See J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1.
3 focus on the historicity of the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea, the historicity of the women being at the empty tomb on Easter Sunday, the historicity of the empty tomb itself, as well as the historicity that individuals and groups of people believed that Jesus appeared to them in a post-mortem state. When looking into the historicity of the burial and empty tomb I will use the four Gospels as my sources. However, when discussing the historicity of the claims that Jesus appeared to individuals and groups in a post-mortem state, I will use First Corinthians 15:3-8 as my guide since it is most likely the earliest text concerning the post-mortem appearances of Jesus in the New Testament.
The first chapter of this thesis will examine John Meier’s definition of a miracle, and why he does not think the resurrection qualifies. I will show why I disagree with him and will then explain what the criteria John Meier prefers to use are and how they function. Following this, I will give a brief testimonial about my own values and beliefs in order to make the reader aware of my personal biases. After examining the various issues involved in dating the Gospels and first Corinthians and coming to grips with the question of authorship in the second chapter, we will then move on to chapter three which will examine the historicity of the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea. Once this has been accomplished, we will look at the historicity of the empty tomb in chapter four and will determine whether or not women in antiquity were considered reliable eyewitnesses.
Following this we will move into the final chapter of this thesis, which focuses on the historicity of the post-mortem appearances of Jesus of Nazareth as described in 1
Corinthians 15.
4 21
John P. Meier: Miracles, History, Criteria
As long as historiography does not begin dogmatically with a narrow concept of reality according to which “dead men do not rise,” it is not clear why historiography should not in principle be able to speak about Jesus’ resurrection as the explanation that is best established of such events as the disciples’ experiences of the appearances and the discovery of the empty tomb.3
Wolfhart Pannenberg
1.1. Meier On Why Historians Can Never Call a Miracle “Historical.”
It is inherently impossible for historians working with empirical evidence within the confines of their own discipline ever to make the positive judgment: “God has directly acted here to accomplish something beyond all human power.” The very wording of this statement is theo-logical (“God has directly acted…”). What evidence and criteria could justify a historian as a historian in reaching such a judgment?...Hence it is my contention that a positive judgment that a miracle has taken place is always a philosophical or theological judgment.4
1.2. Michael Licona’s Response to Meier on Why Professional Historians Cannot Assign a Judgment of “Historical” to a Miracle-Claim
John Meier explains that after a historian has plumbed their investigation of a possible miracle in the past, he or she can only affirm that there is no good natural cause for what took place, but cannot say, as a historian, that it was a miracle. For as Meier claims, “To move beyond such affirmations and to reach the conclusion that God indeed has directly
3 W. Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man (translated by L.L. Wilkins and D.A. Priebe; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1974), 109. 4 J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Mentor, Message, and Miracles, Vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 513- 14.
5 caused this inexplicable event is to cross the line separating the historian from the philosopher or theologian.”5
Michael Licona responds with the following fictional story:
Let us suppose the existence of a fifty-year-old man named David who was born blind, is an atheist and has never prayed to be given his sight. One Saturday afternoon while he and his wife are talking in their living room David receives sight for no reason apparent to either of them. In his excitement he undergoes a thorough medical examination by a lifelong friend who is a highly regarded ophthalmologist and who informs him there is no medical explanation for why he now sees. Is the physician as physician justified in concluding that a miracle has occurred? It seems the only warranted answer in this scenario is no. Perhaps it was a miracle. Perhaps it is an anomaly. They may never know. Let us now alter some of the details of our scenario. Let us suppose the existence of the same fifty-year-old man named David who was born blind is an atheist and has never prayed to be given sight. One Saturday afternoon while he and his wife are talking in their living room they hear someone knock on their door. When David’s wife opens the door, she is greeted by a local Baptist pastor who is hesitant but speaks: “Please excuse my interruption. A number of us were praying at the church just thirty minutes ago when three of us had the simultaneous thought that someone should come to your charming home on the corner and share the words from the first verse of an old hymn named ‘Amazing Grace.’ So with your patience, here they are: “Amazing Grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost but now am found; was blind but now I see.’ Again, please excuse my uninvited visit. May God bless you both.” The Pastor then leaves. David’s wife closes the door and returns to find her husband in complete joy and astonishment. He looks at her and says, “As soon as he said ‘I was blind but now I see’ I could see!” David visits the same ophthalmologist, who provides a thorough medical examination and informs him there is no medical explanation for why he now sees. Is the physician as physician justified in concluding that a miracle has occurred? I would suggest he is.
5 J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (Vol. 2), 514.
6 Licona then explains that, “historians come with a number of philosophical commitments prior to any and every historical inquiry. But this does not prohibit them from proceeding. It is both common and necessary for historians, philosophers and theologians to cross disciplines. Historians neglecting to do this may unknowingly produce poor results.”6 Licona proceeds to mention how philosophers of science must understand certain principles of science in order to do their job. Philosophers and historians oftentimes switch hats in order to conduct their research. Archaeologists need to do history in order to do their work effectively. Even biblical scholars when trying to understand the nature of the crucifixion (i.e. the impact of scourging or nails going through body parts of the victim), step outside of their role of historian and begin to engage with the medical community (keeping in mind they will be critiqued by those who are more qualified and trained in this field).7
The question I believe Licona is asking in light of this is, why is one field strictly limited to only those people who study in that particular field? I can think of one book written to defend the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection composed by a philosopher,
Stephen T. Davis, who does a very fine job demonstrating that the resurrection of Jesus is both philosophically and historically reliable.8 In the words of Licona, “No reason exists a priori why philosophy is restricted to professional philosophers.”9
Sometimes a biblical scholar has training in more than one field. Licona gives a fictional dialogue between Dale Allison and Gary Habermas (who are friends), in order to
6 M.R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010), 166-67. 7 Ibid., 167. 8 S.T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 9 M.R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 167.
7 make the point that it is silly to make the claim that only the theologian can say whether or not a miracle has taken place:10
Allison: My training and work have been in the fields of biblical historiography and exegesis. Accordingly, since Jesus’ resurrection requires God’s existence, I do not believe I am qualified to adjudicate on the historicity of the event. I must punt to the philosopher.
Habermas: My training and work have been in the fields of biblical historiography and the philosophy of religion. Since adjudicating on Jesus’ resurrection requires training in both, I am qualified to render a judgment pertaining to the historicity of the event. Consequently, only those with formal training and work in both disciplines may adjudicate on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, and those who are only biblical scholars should hence-forth be silent on the matter.
Licona concludes by saying that:11
A historian may postulate that God resurrected Jesus, build a case that includes theistic evidence and then demonstrate that the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus occurred in a context in which we might expect God to act. However, it may be too much to argue that Jesus had a “resurrection body” as understood by first-century Christians, with all of the theological implications that accompany that term.
I believe that Licona has demonstrated that the historian can also do the work of a theologian or philosopher or anything else in order to do their work more effectively, as long as they receive training in that field or are willing to have their results challenged by experts in those fields. Terminating further study as soon as one is engaged in something outside of their own field will create extremely cramped starting points for anyone doing their work. Stephen T. Davis has shown that a philosopher can also do the work of a historian very well. He allowed his work to be scrutinized by the guild of biblical
10 Ibid., 168. 11 Ibid., 170.
8 scholarship and his book came out looking just fine. For this reason, I would disagree with John Meier that the historian cannot look into the historicity of a miracle claim, as it would involve doing the work of a theologian. I see no problem with cross-pollination between two different fields of research.
1.3. Meier’s Definition of a Miracle
“A miracle is (1) an unusual, startling, or extraordinary event that is in principle perceivable by any interested and fair-minded observer, (2) an event that finds no reasonable explanation in human abilities or in other known forces that operate in our world of time and space, and (3) an event that is the result of a special act of God, doing what no human power can do.”12
1.4. Why Meier Believes the Resurrection is Not a Miracle
“Hence I would not count either Christ’s resurrection from the dead or his “real presence” in the Eucharist as a miracle, since neither is in principle open to the observation of any and every observer.”13
“For my part, I would not classify the resurrection as a miracle, since it does not fit the definition I have proposed above. That is to say, it is not in principle perceivable by any and all observers (cf. the Apostle Peter’s statement in Acts 10:40-41). Indeed, some, while not denying the reality of the resurrection, would question whether it should be labeled a “historical event” at all; see A Marginal Jew, 1. 201 n. 2. (2)”14
1.5. My Response to Meier’s Definition of a Miracle
It sounds as though Meier is proposing that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it happen, did it really fall? I’m curious as to how Meier can hold to his own definition of a
12 J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (Vol. 2), 512. 13 Ibid., 525 n. 7. 14 Ibid., 529 n. 24.
9 miracle and reach the conclusions that he does in volume two of A Marginal Jew. In volume two he states that:
the historical fact that Jesus performed extraordinary deeds deemed by himself and others to be miracles is supported most impressively by the criterion of multiple attestation of sources and forms and the criterion of coherence. The miracle traditions about Jesus’ public ministry are already so widely attested in various sources and literary forms by the end of the first Christian generation that total fabrication by the early church is, practically speaking, impossible…if the miracle tradition from Jesus’ public ministry were to be rejected in toto as unhistorical, so should every other Gospel tradition about him. For if the criteria of historicity do not work in the case of the miracle tradition, where multiple attestation is so massive and coherence so impressive, there is no reason to expect them to work elsewhere. 15
Going back to Meier’s definition of a miracle: if a miracle is an event perceivable by any interested and fair-minded observer, how can the modern historian justify whether or not any miracle in history has occurred, or for that matter, any event in history? I would assume he would argue that if people in antiquity saw the miracle event take place, and we can apply the historicity criteria to the accounts, then the historian would be fair to say that those in antiquity would have understood what they saw as a miracle. Therefore, we need to trust the eyewitness accounts of people in the first century, and use the criteria for establishing historical authenticity against the claims eyewitnesses make, in order to make a plausible case for or against a miracle. So, why are we not able to do this with the resurrection accounts? I have in mind the burial of the body of the historical Jesus (Meier would have no problem with this), and the claim that his tomb was discovered empty three days later by his women followers, followed by eyewitness accounts that Jesus of
Nazareth appeared to many of his followers and at least one enemy (Paul). Each one of
15 Ibid., 630.
10 these on their own does not require the historian to lean toward a supernatural force causing them to happen.
I would agree that any of those three components of the resurrection of Jesus on their own would not provide substantial evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of
Jesus. However, if we were to demonstrate the historicity of each of those three events independently, it would strengthen the historical case for the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus.
When we discuss the burial, empty tomb and appearances of Jesus of Nazareth, we are not talking about something that was not experienced by humans. In fact, human beings within space and time could have verified all three of those components.
Why is there a need for an observer during the event itself in order for an extraordinary event or miracle to have occurred? Let me tell a fictional story to make my point. If I had a friend who was born with no left thumb, and I visited him on a Monday afternoon, according to Meier, and then I see my friend two days later with a left thumb on his hand with no scarring, and my friend explained that the morning before, he woke up and to his amazement he noticed that he had a new thumb on his left hand, this would not be a miracle because there was no one to observe what took place. One would be hard pressed not to grant this miracle status, and yet, no one saw the miracle happen! I parallel this story with the resurrection of Jesus. If the disciples (women friends of Jesus and others) saw Jesus dead and buried on Friday, and then on Sunday they (and others) saw him alive again, just like the story of my friend and his new left thumb, why is this not a miracle? It seems as though Meier has created a cramped starting point for his definition
11 of a miracle. Why does every stage of the extraordinary event need to have an eyewitness in order for it to be a miracle?
Meier’s comparison of the resurrection to the Eucharist is in my opinion lacking.
No historian can determine the historical validity of theological truths. The historian cannot say whether or not Jesus’ death actually did atone for the sins of human beings. In the same way, the historian cannot say whether or not the Eucharist holds the “real presence” of Jesus. However, the historian can discuss the historical reliability of events that could be observed by the ancients. This would include the resurrection accounts of
Jesus’ death, burial, empty tomb and post-mortem appearances to both supporters and enemies (Paul, and possibly James).
In an interview that took place in 1997 with www.americancatholic.org, John
Meier was asked the following16 (I will add emphasis where appropriate):
Q: Can historians address the Resurrection, then? A: We can verify as historians that Jesus existed and that certain events reported in the Gospels happened in history, yet historians can never prove the Resurrection in the same way.
Q: Why not? A: Perhaps some fundamentalists would claim you can. Apart from fundamentalists, perhaps even some more conservative Catholic theologians would claim you could. I myself along with most questers for the historical Jesus—and I think a fair number of Catholic theologians as well—would say the Resurrection stands outside of the sort of questing by way of historical, critical research that is done for the life of the historical Jesus, because of the nature of the Resurrection.
16 “Finding the Historical Jesus: An Interview With John P. Meier” (2007). Retrieved Dec. 5, 2010, from http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Dec1997/feature3.asp#F2.
12 “The resurrection of Jesus is certainly supremely real....Not everything real is verifiable by historical means.”
Q: What do you think happened to Jesus’ body? A: The true Jesus who had died rose in the fullness of his humanity into the full presence of God. That is, I think, the essence of belief in the Resurrection. What the relationship of that risen body is to the body that was laid in the tomb is first of all not something that is historically verifiable. It is not subject to historical research at all.
Indeed, theologians among themselves disagree on that question. The fundamentalists would almost have a rather crass resuscitation view. Most traditional Christians have at least read Paul, First Corinthians 15 about the necessary transformation, as well as the Resurrection appearance narratives in the Gospels. They think in terms of transformation as well as continuity.
Thus the risen body of Jesus is indeed in continuity with the body laid to rest in the tomb. But nevertheless it has undergone radical transformation as a glorified, risen body. It is no longer of this world of time and space and not subject to its laws....There is a whole range of speculative possibilities about the precise relationship of the risen Jesus to the body laid in the tomb. As a person trying to pursue historical work, that is something beyond what I can investigate.
In response to this, let me say that I agree with Meier when he says that as historians we cannot determine what the nature of Jesus’ resurrection body consists of.
The information in the Gospels and Paul’s epistles is too limiting for us to determine a precise definition of what his resurrection body is like. I also agree with Meier that the resurrection body was continuous with the old body. At this point, I would like to ask
Meier, could the historian verify the empty tomb? If the resurrection body is continuous with the earthly body of Jesus, would the tomb have been left empty after the resurrection? If not, then Meier would have to correct what he has said about the
13 continuity between the earthly body of Jesus and his resurrection body. Therefore, Meier could at least argue as an historian that the tomb was empty. This in itself would not even need a supernatural agent to cause it to happen. Even non-Christian historians such as
Geza Vermes17 who is Jewish, and Bart Ehrman,18 an agnostic, believe in the historicity of the empty tomb.
That being said, I think Meier goes wrong when he says that unlike the historical claim the historian can make that Jesus did in fact exist, he posits that we can not know of the resurrection in a historical manner, in the same way. To a degree, I agree with this.
We are no longer dealing with a naturalistic claim that someone did or did not exist; we are dealing with a miracle. A miracle is not something to be taken lightly. As a Christian,
I would initially doubt a miracle claim if I was told that a person of another faith prayed for by a non-Christian was healed. That is a sign of my bias against that type of miracle.
Now if there were a number of people who could attest to the healing and could vouch for it in such a way that they could demonstrate that the person did in fact have an ailment prior to the healing, and that many people saw the person well after the healing, I would have to check my bias carefully and ask whether or not it was well founded. To make the strict claim that as historians we can never know if the resurrection of Jesus took place is too strong a claim for me to make. In fact, I believe the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is quite strong. Let us move on.
In volume one of A Marginal Jew, Meier makes the following statement:
On this point, cf. G.G. O’Collins, “Is the Resurrection an ‘Historical’ Event?” HeyJ 8 (1967) 381-87. O’Collins argues (rightly, in my view), that, although the “resurrection is
17 G. Vermes. The Resurrection (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 140-41. 18 B.D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 229.
14 a real, bodily event involving the person of Jesus of Nazareth” (p. 381), the resurrection of Jesus “is not an event in space and time and hence should not be called historical” (p. 384), since “we should require an historical occurrence to be something significant that is known to have happened in our space-time continuum” (p. 384).19
This is a very odd statement. I fail to understand what Meier means by his agreement with O’Collins that “although the “resurrection is a real, bodily event involving the person of Jesus of Nazareth”… the resurrection “is not an event in space and time and hence should not be called historical.” I am in agreement with Wolfhart
Pannenberg’s response to O’Collins, who influenced Meier: “If it really took place,”…
“it took place in Palestine and not for instance in America.”… “One might add, “And it took place in time as well, sometime around A.D. 30 and not, for instance, in 1967.”20
Although this was said slightly tongue-in-cheek, the point is well made. The event, which caused the tomb to become empty, would have occurred at a specific point in time and a specific location. William Lane Craig gives this analogy:
Compare a shopper’s exiting a grocery store. Does his exiting the store occur in the store? At any point in the store right up to and including its boundary point, the shopper has not yet exited the store. But once he is outside the store, there is no first point at which he can be said to exit the store, for between any exterior point and the store’s boundary there is a dense series of close points at each of which the shopper had already exited the store. So where does his exiting the store occur? ... just as it is perfectly acceptable to say that the shopper exited the building, say, through the front door rather than the rear entrance in the sense that that was the last location at which he existed prior to being outside the store, so Jesus’ transformation to his glorified state can be similarly located in the sense that one can specify the spacetime point at which his corruptible existence ended prior to his being in a glorified state. Moreover, in ordinary language we content ourselves with approximations rather than spacetime points. Just as the historian can determine where
19 J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (Vol. 1), 201 n. 2. 20 W. Pannenberg, Theology as History, 265 n.76, as cited in W.L. Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (3rd ed., Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 356.
15 someone exited a building or when someone died, there is no realistic objection based on continuity considerations to the historian’s determining where and when Jesus’ resurrection occurred.21
William Lane Craig also points out the irony of Meier’s endorsement of
O’Collins’ argument in order to ignore historical inquiry into the resurrection of Jesus:
O’Collins, himself [is] a strong proponent of the historical credibility of Jesus’ resurrection, in the very same article goes on to insist, “To argue that the resurrection of Christ is not appropriately described as an historical event is not to assert that historical evidence and inquiry are irrelevant.”22 He lists three areas of inquiry: (1) the “proclaiming faith” of the disciples can be investigated by the historian; (2) Christ’s appearances at definite times and places to a particular number of persons are historical from the side of those who encountered him; and (3) the empty tomb can be the object of investigation by the historian.23
One could ask Meier whether or not it matters if the resurrected Jesus was raised in space and time? All scholars have in the New Testament are the accounts of eyewitnesses, those that could have consulted eyewitnesses, or possibly others who wrote down oral traditions about Jesus, likely originating from those who were contemporaries of Jesus of
Nazareth. In essence, what remains is Jesus as others remembered him. This includes the accounts of those who claimed to have seen Jesus alive shortly after his crucifixion.
Those who were in space and time composed these stories. Therefore, if those who were in space and time (i.e. Jesus’ followers and enemies) claimed to have had Jesus appear to them, Meier’s reasoning falls through.
21 Ibid., 356. 22 G.G. O’Collins, “Is the Resurrection an ‘Historical’ Event?” Heythrop Journal 8 (1967): 385. 23 W.L. Craig, Reasonable Faith, 357.
16 In light of what has been discussed in this section of my thesis, I have shown using the work of Michael Licona why I believe John Meier’s position on why a historian cannot determine the historicity of a miracle to be unconvincing. I have also demonstrated, with the help of William Lane Craig’s arguments, why John Meier’s decision to restrict his study on the historical Jesus to everything except his resurrection because it is an event outside of time and space to also be unconvincing. It has also been explained that it does not matter if the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth was raised in space and time as those that claimed to have seen him in a post-mortem form were in space and time and all we have in the New Testament is their accounts. I conclude this section by stating that I see no reason why the historian cannot engage in historical research regarding the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, I will do my best to apply the criteria that
John Meier uses for every other aspect of the life and ministry of Jesus (including the miracles) to the burial, empty tomb and resurrection appearances accounts in the four
Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15.
1.6. John P. Meier’s Preferred Historical Criteria
In this section of the thesis, we will examine John P. Meier’s criteria for determining historically authentic material in an ancient text. Meier describes the Gospels as being
“suffused with the Easter faith of the early Church.”24 In fact, this study is based around the attempt to understand the historical cause that influenced this suffusion of the Gospel narratives to be so “Easter” focused. Meier asks the following question in the first volume of A Marginal Jew: “How can we distinguish what comes from Jesus (Stage I, roughly A.D. 28-30) from what was created by the oral tradition of the early Church
24J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (Vol.1), 167.
17 (Stage II, roughly A.D. 30-70) and what was produced by the editorial work (redaction) of the evangelists (Stage III, roughly A.D. 70-100?)”25 Answering this question will hopefully give us firmer footing from which we can draw our historical picture. It is necessary to have set criteria from which to guide our research, and these criteria need to be logical and consistent. For this thesis, I will adopt Meier’s criteria and will show why many scholars believe they are adequate for doing Historical Jesus studies.
Before we do this, it is important to mention that, in the words of Meier himself,
“the criteria of historicity will usually produce judgments that are only more or less probable; certainty is rarely to be had … the function of the criteria is to pass from the merely possible to the really probable.”26 My goal in this thesis is to conclude with a few pieces of historical information concerning the burial, empty tomb and subsequent resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth which can be deemed as “very probable” using the criteria which Meier himself has used in the four volumes he has written on the topic of the historical Jesus thus far.
Meier provides us with five “primary” criteria, and five “secondary” criteria to determine historical probability. The five “primary” criteria include: (1) The Criterion of
Embarrassment, (2) The Criterion of Discontinuity, (3) The Criterion of Multiple
Attestation, (4) The Criterion of Coherence, and (5) The Criterion of Rejection and
Execution. The five “secondary” criteria include: (6) The Criterion of Traces of Aramaic,
(7) The Criterion of Palestinian Environment, (8) The Criterion of Vividness of
Narration, (9) The Criterion of the Tendencies of the Developing Synoptic Tradition, and
(10) The Criterion of Historical Presumption.
25 Ibid., 167. 26 Ibid., 167.
18 For this present study, I will mainly focus on using the five “primary” criteria, as well as two of the “secondary” criteria (Traces of Aramaic, Palestinian Environment).
The further down the list we move, the more questionable the criteria become. For this reason, I will explain the criteria I will be using.27
1.6.1. Primary Criteria
1.6.2. (1) The Criterion of Embarrassment
This first criterion is shaped around the view that there are certain pieces of information in the New Testament that might be embarrassing for either the founder (Jesus) of the church or would put the church in an awkward position because of the information that is present. In other words: the Criterion of Embarrassment is applied to a given statement or action in the New Testament that the Church would not have made up because it is embarrassing, and goes against apologetic tendencies. Meier explains that, “embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Four Gospels.”28 I would add that this would also hold true in the writings of Paul. An example includes the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (Matt.
3:13-17; Mk. 1:4-11; Lk. 3:19-22; not mentioned by John), which is a baptism of repentance from sin. The church would not have fabricated this story as it does not help the apologetic cause.
27 For further discussion pertaining to the three “dubious” criteria I will not use or explain in this thesis, consult: J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 180-83. 28 J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (Vol. 1), 168.
19 A second example includes Jesus’ lack of knowledge when it comes to understanding when the end will come. Mark. 13:32 quotes Jesus as saying, “But concerning that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Matthew suppresses this by eliminating “nor the Son” (Matt. 24:36) and
Luke and John never refer to it. Meier points out that, “The fact that embarrassing material is found as late as the redaction of the Gospels reminds us that besides a creative thrust there was also a conservative force in the Gospel tradition.”29 This gives us confidence in the early preservation of our sources. This criterion needs to be used with caution: just because something is embarrassing for us today does not mean that it was embarrassing for the early Church. Meier gives a prime example in Jesus’ cry from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mk. 15:34; Matt. 27-46) These words are a citation of the twenty-second Psalm (Ps. 22:1) and, “The cry is by no means so unedifying or even scandalous as moderns might think. The OT psalms of lamentation regularly direct forceful complaints to God … The very bitterness of the complaint paradoxically reaffirms the closeness the petitioner feels to this God he dares confront with such boldness.”30 Therefore, we need to be careful how we apply this criterion. That being said, it is very helpful when used properly.
1.6.3. (2) The Criterion of Discontinuity (Dissimilarity)
The criterion of discontinuity (or dissimilarity) can be applied to a saying or action in the
New Testament that cannot trace its origin to either the Judaism predating Jesus or at the time of Jesus, or from the early Church postdating him. Examples given include: Jesus’
29 Ibid., 170. 30 Ibid., 171.
20 complete prohibition of all oaths (Matt. 5:34, 7), and Jesus’ prohibition of divorce (Mk.
10:2-12 par.; Luke 16:18 par.).
This may be the trickiest of the criteria to apply, as our information is limited when it comes to Judaism before and during the time of Jesus; also, our Christian sources are really quite few. That being said, as Meier points out, “We do have 1st-century documents coming directly from the latter movements—Qumran, Josephus, and Philo for
Judaism, most of the NT for Christianity—to say nothing of important archaeological finds.”31 With this in mind, we need to be aware that, “our present-day judgments [no doubt] will need correction by future generations of scholars. But if we were to wait until we possessed a fullness of knowledge that excluded later revision, we would postpone all
NT scholarship until the parousia.”32
The biggest danger with this criterion (overuse) was witnessed when the “Jesus
Seminar” divorced Jesus from being a 1st-century Jew. As Meier has said, “To paint a portrait of Jesus completely divorced from or opposed to 1st-century Judaism and
Christianity is simply to place him outside of history.”33 Therefore, it is important that this criterion be used carefully.
1.6.4. (3) The Criterion of Multiple Attestation
This criterion comes in handy when we have a saying or deed of Jesus that is attested in more than one literary source (i.e. Mark, Q, Paul, John, M, L, etc.). It is also applied when a saying or deed is found in multiple literary genres (i.e. parable, dispute story,
31 Ibid., 172. 32 Ibid., 172. 33 Ibid., 173.
21 miracle story, prophecy, aphorism etc.). The criterion is strengthened when it can be applied to various literary genres and forms at the same time.
For example, Meier points out that scholars are quick to affirm the historicity of
Jesus proclaiming in some sense the kingdom of God (or heaven) because it is found in
Mark, Q, special Matthean and Lukan traditions, John, and it echoes in Paul without being mentioned explicitly. It is also seen in various literary genres (i.e. parable, beatitude, prayer, aphorism, miracle story).34
One thing to keep in mind is that just because a saying or deed of Jesus is not attested in multiple sources, it does not mean that it is inauthentic. Meier points to the
Aramaic word for “my own dear Father,” Abba, which is only found once in the Gospel of Mark (Mk. 14:36). Many scholars believe this to be an authentic word from the mouth of Jesus.35 The caution with this criterion is in being aware that just because a saying or deed is attested in multiple sources or forms could mean that it was invented very early on by the Christian community. However, the strength of this criterion is that if multiple independent sources attest to the same saying or action of Jesus, it raises the probability that it really occurred.
1.6.5. (4) The Criterion of Coherence
This criterion is only to be used when the previous three criteria have been well established. If other sayings or deeds of Jesus fit in with those sayings and deeds already deemed authentic, then it is more likely that a saying or event that is similar would also be more likely to be authentic. This criterion is a little more difficult to apply as Jesus’
34 Ibid., 175. 35 Ibid., 175.
22 own disciples may have created sayings or deeds of Jesus which embodied authentic material or something similar to authentic material that sounds just like Jesus. As Meier explains:
…we should not conceive of the earliest Christians as totally cut off or different from Jesus himself, there is no reason why they could not have created sayings that echoed faithfully his own “authentic” words. In a loose sense such derived sayings could be considered “authentic” insofar as they convey the message of the historical Jesus; but they cannot be considered “authentic” in the technical sense, i.e., actually coming from Jesus himself.36
It is important to keep in mind that “the criterion of coherence has a certain positive value; but its negative use, to exclude material as inauthentic, must be approached very cautiously.”37
1.6.6. (5) The Criterion of Rejection and Execution
This criterion begins with the historical fact that Jesus was put to death by Roman officials at the encouragement of the Jewish authorities. The question to ask is this:
“What caused these two groups to agree to have Jesus put to death?” In other words:
What did Jesus say or do in order that these two groups wanted to execute him? For this to happen, there must have been something in the teaching or actions of Jesus to incite such a negative response. As Meier states:
A tweedy poetaster who spent his time spinning out parables and Japanese koans, a literary aesthete who toyed with 1st-century deconstructionism, or a bland Jesus who simply told people to look at the lilies of the field—such a Jesus would threaten no one. The historical Jesus did threaten, disturb, and infuriate people—from interpreters of the
36 Ibid., 176. 37 Ibid., 177.
23 Law through the Jerusalem priestly aristocracy to the Roman prefect who finally tried and crucified him.… A Jesus whose words and deeds would not alienate people, especially powerful people, is not the historical Jesus.38
1.6.7. Secondary (Or Dubious) Criteria
1.6.8. (6) The Criterion of Traces of Aramaic
This criterion seeks to recognize traces of Aramaic vocabulary, grammar, syntax, rhythm, and rhyme in the Greek version of the sayings of Jesus. Those who hold to this criterion feel as though there are original phrases or themes or grammatical expressions that were written in Greek which can be seen to have an Aramaic original.
This criterion is tricky because many of the first Christians were Palestinian Jews who spoke the same language that Jesus spoke. Therefore, when scholars are able to see am Aramaic style or phrase embedded behind or in the biblical text, they must not assume it definitely came from the lips of Jesus, but rather it could have been written down in the style in which Jesus’ disciples would have spoken.39
Meier mentions that it is nearly impossible to distinguish between the Aramaic spoken around the year A.D. 29, and that spoken a decade or two later. Therefore, it is difficult to determine if the Aramaic touches discovered behind the Greek New
Testament came from Jesus or his disciples.40
1.6.9. (7) The Criterion of Palestinian Environment
This criterion is similar to that of the criterion of traces of Aramaic in that it attempts to see if what we read in the Gospels fits with the customs, beliefs, judicial procedures,
38 Ibid., 177. 39 Ibid., 178. 40 Ibid., 178.
24 commercial and agricultural practices, or social and political conditions of the 1st century in Palestine.41 Once again, the problem with this criterion is the same as that of the criterion of traces of Aramaic, since it is nearly impossible to determine the difference between the Palestine inhabited by Christian Jews in A.D. 33 and that inhabited by Jesus in A.D. 29.42 However, the strength of this criterion is that it can help demonstrate whether a story of an event in the New Testament is in verisimilitude with the culture or climate during the era it claims to be describing. Of course this criterion, like the others, is not a silver bullet, but it is effective in weeding out late traditions about Jesus which were concocted in the second and third centuries (for example: The Apocryphal Gospels).
1.7. Wide Acceptance of The Criteria of Authenticity
It is important to keep in mind that the criteria that Meier follows are widely accepted in mainstream New Testament scholarship. The Criteria are used by moderate to conservative Christians such as Craig A. Evans,43 Craig S. Keener,44 Robert H. Stein,45
Christopher Tuckett,46 as well as liberal Christians and non-confessing scholars such as
Dale C. Allison,47 Bart D. Ehrman,48 E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies,49 and Maurice
41 Ibid., 180. 42 Ibid., 180. 43 C.A. Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (AGJU 25; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 13- 26. 44 C.S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 155-61. 45 R.H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the life of Christ (Downers Grove: IVP Academic,1996), 46- 9. 46 C. Tuckett, “Sources and Methods” in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (ed. M. Bockmuehl; Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 132-37. 47 D.C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 1-7. Since the writing of Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet, Allison has come to “abandon” the criteria as a whole, yet is still seen to lean on multiple attestation and embarrassment. See D.C. Allison, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 10. 48 B.D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (4th ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 232-37.
25 Casey.50 Although the criteria are used primarily for historical Jesus studies aimed at locating historically accurate material relating to the words and deeds of Jesus of
Nazareth, the criteria can also be used for other aspects of biblical studies. In this thesis I will follow the criteria in order to establish what happened to Jesus after his death.
1.8. Confessions
Before we move onto chapter two of this thesis, I feel it is important to share with the reader my own biases, or as it has also been called, my horizon, as Michael Licona has done in his groundbreaking study titled, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New
Historiographical Approach.51 Too often, historians pretend that they are unbiased and objective in their research and for many readers like myself, we spend much of our time reading a text in order to understand what the author personally believes about what they are writing.
I know a young woman who is writing her Bachelor of Arts thesis at Saint Mary’s
University (Halifax, NS) where I am a Campus Minister with the Navigators. She is writing on Evangelization in the Catholic Church, and as part of her thesis, she felt it was important to discuss her own experiences with evangelization efforts in her church.
However, her professor recommended that she omit that section from her thesis as it would betray her bias, as all good historians need to do their work objectively. This is impossible. There is no such thing as a completely objective historian. One may try, and
49 E.P. Sanders and M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 301-34. 50 M. Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian’s account of his life and teaching (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 101-32. 51 M.R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 130-32.
26 one may succeed with some merit, but one will never be able to divorce their own experience and their own limits of knowledge from his or her academic work.
Therefore, in the opinion of this writer, it is important for every historian to divulge their horizon upfront so that the reader can adequately critique their work. For this reason, I will share why I feel passionate about studying the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and why there are huge ramifications for me personally depending on the conclusions of my research.
I was raised in an evangelical Christian home where my mother and father demonstrated to my siblings and me what being a Christian looks like, not only by going to church on Sunday but throughout the week as well. I am the youngest of five children though not all of my siblings would identify themselves as Christians at this time.
Growing up, my faith was always something that was a part of me. I went to church, Sunday school, youth group and bible camp in the summertime. The bible, Jesus and God were always the norm for me. I was used to the Christian story. That being said, when I went to junior high and high School, my faith was not something that defined me.
I did not ignore it completely, but it was not something that set me apart from the crowd.
It was like malaria: once you are infected by it, it can go dormant, but it is still there.
Christianity was like that for me. However, everything changed once I went to university.
I went to Saint Mary’s University to do a Bachelor of Arts degree. My areas of concentration were Religious Studies and International Development Studies. In my first year of taking Religious Studies, I took Introduction to New Testament and Comparative
Religions. These courses were my first introduction to liberal and skeptical ideas about
Christian faith and the bible. These were demanding and stimulating courses which
27 challenged that malaria-like faith lying dormant within me to spring up and come alive. I began to ask hard questions and I started to really care about my faith. I wanted to know if Christian faith had any historical backing or if it was simply a fairytale.
I had so many questions and I finally decided that in order for my faith to remain,
I needed to find the answer to this one question: “Is there any historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?” I realized then that my faith did not depend on anything else and began to look into this question with reckless abandon. A number of years later, I have now completed a Masters of Divinity and am near completion of a Masters of Arts in
Biblical Studies, both from Acadia Divinity College, and am hoping to commence doctoral studies in New Testament. Though I believe I asked the correct question, looking for an answer to the question of the resurrection has been difficult for me. I am still challenged by opposing theories to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. I keep reading books that argue for and against the resurrection in order to see if my faith is well founded. I believe the resurrection of Jesus is very well attested historically and I am quite confident that my faith is historically verified. That being said, I still have doubts. I continue to pray that God will help me to trust that this event happened, and that I will continue to discover more and more how historically solid the resurrection of Jesus is. To me, the resurrection of Jesus is everything. Without it, my faith is empty. This is what the
Apostle Paul stated himself in 1 Corinthians 15:17, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”
With this in mind, it is important to make the following confession: if I were ever to come to the point where I was completely convinced intellectually that Jesus of
Nazareth was not raised from the dead by God, I would give up my Christian faith. I
28 explain this so that the reader understands that I desperately want the burial, empty tomb and resurrection appearances of Jesus of Nazareth to be historically accurate and true. My research is partially shaped by my bias. For this reason, I am open to critique. I know that
I am influenced by my own inner desires. I also believe that following John P. Meier’s historical authenticating criteria are a way of helping to remain partially objective. If the criteria that Meier follows are generally accurate and verifiable, then it is a way of trying to remain as objective as possible. This is why I chose to use Meier’s criteria in my research, as he uses it in his.
Knowing that this thesis is at a Masters level and not a doctoral level gives me the humility to recognize that I have missed much in my research. My arguments are still a work in progress. Any lapses in logic or mistakes in demonstrating the interpretation of various biblical passages are from someone who has only been studying biblical studies for a few short years. I’m sure I will need to revise this thesis a few years from now when
I have gained more experience in biblical studies, if not a few months from now.
With my personal horizon in mind, I invite you to review my findings and see how well my research stands up to logical argumentation.
29
22
The Historical Sources Pertaining to Jesus’ Burial, Empty Tomb and
Resurrection
[The] basic portrayal of Jesus in the first-century Gospels, dependent on eyewitnesses, is more plausible than the alternative hypothesis of its modern detractors…On the whole there is much that we can know about Jesus historically, and that the first-century Gospels preserved by the church remain by far the best source for this information.52
Craig S. Keener
2.1. What are our Sources?
This thesis will focus on the burial, empty tomb and resurrection narratives of Jesus located in the four Canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), as well as Paul’s early creed found in 1 Corinthians 15. I have restricted myself to using only these sources for the purposes of this present study. I will also draw upon information found in the
Apocrypha53, the Dead Sea Scrolls54, the Pseudepigrapha55, Josephus56, the Mishnah57
52 C.S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 349. 53 These books cover the period of history between the Old Testament and the New. These texts run right into the first Century A.D. See D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 17. 54 The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered between 1947-56 at Qumran, Israel. They are a collection of over 100,000 fragments making up at least 900 Jewish documents. 200 of these documents were copies of Hebrew Scripture. Most of the scrolls date to the first and second centuries BC. See C.A. Evans, Holman Quick Source Guide to The Dead Sea Scrolls (Nashville: Holman Reference. 2010), 39, 267. 55 These are Jewish texts that span a period from the sixth century B.C. to the ninth century A.D. However, the bulk of the material is from the second century B.C. to the second century AD. Here I depend on D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 18.
30 and the Talmuds58 (Jerusalem and Babylonian) when necessary. From time to time, other ancient material will be discussed, however, this thesis’ focus is what is found in the
Gospels and Paul’s First Canonical letter to the church in Corinth.
The third chapter of this thesis will be looking at the historicity of the burial of
Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea. This study will be focused on the burial accounts we find in the four Gospels. The fourth chapter will focus on the historicity of the women as eyewitnesses of the empty tomb of Jesus. The four Gospels will also be the key texts used for this research. The final research chapter of this thesis will be on Paul’s early creed located in 1 Corinthians 15. In order to narrow the focus of this thesis, instead of doing an extensive exegesis on every relevant passage relating to the resurrection appearances of
Jesus following his death and burial, I will draw on Paul’s list of Jesus’ appearances listed in the creed he received and which he passed on to the Corinthian Christians. There is much more information on the resurrection of Jesus available in the New Testament, but for the sake of economy of time and expectations for this thesis, we will refrain from looking very far outside of the sources discussed.
It is my intention to demonstrate what a historian can extract from the four
Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15 when using John P. Meier’s historical criteria of
56 The Jewish general and historian Josephus (A.D. 37–c. 100) wrote four important texts for understanding Jewish history (especially first century history). He wrote Antiquities, which tells about Israel’s history from Genesis until c. A.D. 90. He also wrote The Wars of the Jews, which covers the time from the Maccabean war until his time of writing. Against Apion was written to defend Judaism against the criticism leveled against it by the Greeks. And finally, his own autobiography, The Life of Flavius Josephus. See D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 20-21. 57 The Mishnah is a collection of rabbinic legal discussions. It is said to be the official written version of the oral law. Darrell Bock dates the collection and codification of the Mishnah to around the year A.D. 170 under the leadership of Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi. See D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 38-39. However, from my own observation, most scholars tend to go with the date of c. A.D. 200. 58 The Jerusalem Talmud was composed around the fifth century A.D. The official version known as the Babylonian Talmud was composed around the sixth century A.D. The Talmud is a collection of rabbinic legal texts based on the Mishnah and the Gemara. From: D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 39.
31 authenticity. Meier has used these criteria wonderfully in his landmark four-volume series entitled, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking The Historical Jesus.59
2.2. The Synoptic Problem
When the Gospels are the prime sources for any historical study, it is important that one understands the relationship between the texts. This means trying to find answers to questions like, “Which Gospel was written first?,” “How do they relate to one another?” and “What sources are behind the Gospels?” These are just a few of the many questions faced by those who are engaged in the study of Christian Origins. What is clear, however, is that the historian needs to decide for himself or herself how to resolve the Synoptic
Problem. In the words of Mark Goodacre, “The Synoptic Problem is the study of the similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels in an attempt to explain their literary relationship.”60 Goodacre provides a helpful description of the three most popular theories scholars have come up with in order to try and solve this riddle.
The first theory is called, The Two-Source Theory. This theory is based on the position that Mark was written first, and that Q61 is the common sources behind much of the shared material between Matthew and Luke. Therefore, Matthew and Luke are both dependent on Mark, and on the hypothetical source document commonly referred to as
Q.62 This is the most popular way in which scholars have solved the Synoptic Problem.
59 J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking The Historical Jesus (4 vols., New York Doubleday, 1991, 1994, 2001, 2009). 60 M. Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (New York: T&T Clark, 2001), 19. 61 “Q” is believed to have originated as an abbreviation of the German word Quelle, which in English is “source.” Ibid., 20-21. 62 Ibid., 20.
32 The second theory is called, The Farrer Theory. While still holding to Markan priority, scholars who go with The Farrer Theory are doubtful about Q. This approach understands Luke as not only reading Mark’s Gospel but also Matthew’s.63
The third theory is called, The Griesbach Theory. This theory rejects Markan priority and replaces it with Matthean priority. Scholars who hold this theory believe that
Matthew composed his Gospel first. Luke then drew on Matthew’s Gospel, and Mark used both Matthew and Luke.64
This thesis will follow The Two-Source Theory. Although scholarly work continues in this important area, having read through Robert Stein’s book Studying The
Synoptic Gospels,65 which supports The Two-Source Theory, as well as Mark Goodacre’s two volumes, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze66 and The Case Against
Q,67 which support a version of The Farrer Theory, I believe that the most clear and logical solution to this problem at present is The Two-Source Theory. Stein provides us with a detailed list of reasons why:68
2.2.1. The Arguments for Markan priority:
1. Mark is the shortest Gospel. 2. Mark has the poorest writing style. 3. Mark has numerous harder readings.
63 Ibid., 21-22. 64 Ibid., 22-23. 65 R.H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation (2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001). 66 M.Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (New York: T&T Clark, 2001). 67 M. Goodacre, The Case Against Q (Harrisburg: Trinity Press. 2002). 68 R.H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 141-42.
33 4. Mark has many agreements in wording with Matthew against Luke and with Luke against Matthew; in comparison, there are few Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark. 5. Matthew and Luke “never” agree against Mark in the order of the material, and their deviation from Mark is more understandable than the reverse. 6. Certain literary agreements are best understood on the basis of the priority of Mark. 7. Markan redactional characteristics tend to appear more frequently in those sections in Matthew that contain the triple tradition, but Matthean redactional characteristics do not tend to appear in the triple tradition of Mark or Luke.
2.2.2. The arguments in favor of the view that Matthew and Luke did not
know and use each other’s work:
1. M additions to the triple tradition “never” appear in Luke. 2. The Q material never appears in the same context in Luke as in Matthew. 3. The Q material appears in a more primitive context in Luke that in Matthew. 4. At times the Q material appears to be more primitive in Matthew, and even more often it appears to be more primitive in Luke. 5. Matthew and Luke never agree in order against Mark (this argument also argues for the priority of Mark). 6. The M Material is lacking in Luke.
Although there are always exceptions to every rule, the best solution at the present time is The Two-Source Theory as demonstrated by Robert H. Stein. For this reason, I will consider Mark to be our oldest source, and I will also consider Matthew and Luke to
34 be dependent on a lost source known as Q. However, since the focus of this thesis is so narrowly focused on the resurrection narratives in the four Gospels and 1 Corinthians 15, and because Q does not have any resurrection material, I will refer to the resurrection material in the Gospels as coming from the sources in which they are located. Therefore, when discussing the burial and the empty tomb narratives found in the three Synoptic
Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), I will expect Mark to be the key source behind this information. Yet when discussing the resurrection material, I will count Matthew and
Luke as being independent sources of information. Therefore, when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, we have at least five independent sources: Mark, Matthew, Luke,
John and Paul.
2.3. The Independence of the Gospel of John
It is not hard to see that the Gospel of John tends to go its own way. Instead of focusing on Jesus’ ministry in Galilee as we see in the Synoptic Gospels, John tends to focus on
Jesus’ ministry in Judea and Jerusalem. I agree with John P. Meier that because of the fact that the Gospel of John only has Jesus’ ministry in Galilee discussed in John 21
(which was most likely added by a final redactor) as well as in John 6; also adding the fact that unlike the Synoptic Gospels which have Jesus traveling to Judea and Jerusalem one time at the end of his earthly ministry, John has Jesus traveling there four times; it makes the most sense that John wrote his Gospel independently of the other three.69
69 J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (Vol. 1), 1991.
35 2.4. The Dating of the Gospels
Dating the Gospels is a difficult task. Scholars have proposed various dates for the composition of the Canonical Gospels and the other documents that make up the New
Testament. Dating the Gospels is based on both internal and external factors. In this next section, I will demonstrate which dates I choose for the Gospels and why I have done so.
Dating the New Testament documents pertaining to the life of Jesus is very important as it helps to determine whether or not what was written was based on eyewitness testimony. If what we have in the Gospels is early material, it raises the possibility of being written by an eyewitness, or at least someone who had access to eyewitnesses.
The fine work of A.W. Mosley has shown that major historians in antiquity, like
Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, and Tacitus, felt strongly about eyewitness testimony and the ability to know the difference between “mere tradition” and “accurate history.”
Mosley has shown that historians in late antiquity were very critical of what they were reading in order to verify whether or not what they were studying was based on eyewitness testimony.70 Therefore, we will look at the question of how scholars date the
Gospels and I will weigh in on which dates I prefer.
Craig A. Evans provides us with a list of the early and late dates that scholars typically apply to the Gospels:71
Early Dates Late Dates
Mark (A.D. 55-60) Mark (A.D. 65-70)
70 A.W. Mosley, “Historical Reporting in the Ancient World,” NTS 12 (1965): 10-26. I want to acknowledge Craig Evans for pointing this out to me. 71 Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 202.
36 Matthew (A.D. 60-65) Matthew (A.D. 75-80)
Luke (A.D. 60-65) Luke (A.D. 75-80)
John (A.D. 85-90) John (A.D. 90-95)
Despite the early dates that Evans provides for the Gospels, some scholars would like to place them even earlier:
In his book titled Redating the New Testament, John A.T. Robinson began a study to see if there was any chance that all of the New Testament documents could be dated prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. He explains that, “as little more than a theological joke, I thought I would see how far one could get with the hypothesis that the whole of the New Testament was written before 70.”72 By the end of his “theological joke”, he was able to come up with the following dates for the Gospels: Mark (c. 45-60 A.D.), Matthew
(c. 40-60+ A.D.), Luke (-57-60+ A.D.) and John (C. -40-65+ A.D.).73 In a personal letter to Robinson from C.H. Dodd regarding the typical late dating that scholars apply to the
New Testament writings, Dodd wrote the following: “I should agree with you that much of this late dating is quite arbitrary…The whole business is due for radical re- examination.”74
In his work, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic
Problem, John Wenham also argues why he believes the Gospels should be dated much earlier than normally assigned. By the end of his research, he concludes with the following: “Dates should be reckoned by working back from Acts, the natural date of
72 J.A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (2nd ed., Eugene: Wipf and Stock. 2000 [orig. 1976]), 10. 73 Ibid., 352. 74 Ibid., 360.
37 which is 62.”75 With this in mind, Wenham dates Luke to the mid-50’s, Mark to around
45 A.D., and Matthew to around 40 A.D.76
In his book titled Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods,
Darrell Bock explains the issues involved in dating the Gospels:
2.4.1. Matthew:77
• The earliest citation of Matthew’s Gospel comes from the early second century from Ignatius, who died around the year A.D. 107 (To the Smyrneans 1.1; To Polycarp 2.2). • Some of the material in Matthew is written in such a way that it looks as though the temple is still in service (Matt. 5:23-24; 17:24-27). • That being said, the teaching of Jesus goes back much earlier than A.D. 70. • Irenaeus claimed the Gospel was written while Paul and Peter were still in Rome, placing it in the mid-60s (Against Heresies 3.1.1; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5.8). • The picture of conflict with the Jewish authorities could fit any period in the mid- first century, especially the mid-60s with Nero, since he pressured the Christians. • In A.D. 62, James was stoned (Josephus, Ant. 20.197-203). • This all points to a date in the 60s. • Those who prefer a date after the 60s do so with the belief that the stories of the prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction (Matt. 24:1-2) and the burying of “their” city (Matt. 22:6-7), indicate the Gospel was composed after A.D. 70.
75 J. Wenham, Redating Matthew Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991), 243. See also: J. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (JSNTSup 266; New York: T&T Clark, 2005). Crossley’s dissertation argues that Mark’s Gospel was composed in the 40’s. 76 Ibid., 243. 77 D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 25.
38 2.4.2. Mark:78
• Dating Mark is trickier as the external sources that speak about it disagree with each other. • Irenaeus claimed Mark was composed after the death of Peter and Paul in the late 60’s (Against Heresies 3.1.1). • Clement of Alexandria thought it was written during the time Peter and Paul were in Rome, pushing the writing into the 50s. • Most modern day scholars place the composition of Mark in the A.D. 65-70 range, or shortly after.
2.4.3. Luke:79
• Allusions to this Gospel are seen as early as 1 and 2 Clement (c. A.D. 95-100, respectively). • Dating Luke depends on its relationship to Mark as well as the dating one gives to Acts, which was also composed by the author of Luke. • Like Matthew, we see allusions to Jerusalem’s destruction (A.D. 70) in Luke 21. • Those who believe Acts was written around A.D. 62 (it ends with Paul in prison and doesn’t mention the deaths of James or Peter) would naturally place Luke earlier, possibly around the late 50s or early 60s. • Those who believe the allusions to Jerusalem’s destruction in Luke 21 were composed after A.D. 70 would naturally place Luke after A.D. 70. • In essence, the key to answering this question is deciding whether or not Luke 21 indicates Luke was written after the destruction of the temple and when Acts was written.
78 Ibid., 29. 79 Ibid., 32-33.
39 2.4.4. John:80
• Ireneaus claims John was written after the other Gospels, while he lived in Ephesus (Eccl. Hist. 5.20.6). • Some scholars date John prior to A.D. 70 since it lacks any mention of Jerusalem’s destruction and does not rely on the Synoptics. • The external evidence would suggest John was written in the 80s or 90s. • Tradition holds that John lived to the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117: Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5; 3.3.4; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.3-4). • Ireneaus references John as the last Gospel written (Against Heresies 3.1.1), as does a quote by Clement found in the writings of Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 6.14.7). • It is impossible for John to be dated later than A.D. 125-150, since a fragment of John’s Gospel (18:31-33, 37-38) was discovered and is now stored in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England. This fragment is known as P52.
With all of this in mind, I will hesitantly go with the later dating of the Gospels as given by Evans: Mark (A.D. 65-70), Matthew (A.D. 75-80), Luke (A.D. 75-80) and John
(A.D. 90-95). That being said, a strong case can be made for an earlier dating of the
Gospels, but since I cannot decide whether Matthew and Luke were aware of the destruction of the temple based on their allusions, I will go with the later dating.
However, if the Gospels are to be given the earlier dates (which could very well be accurate), then the strength of the Gospel material is increased, and the stronger the chance that what we have is eyewitness testimony.
80 Ibid., 35-35.
40 2.5. The Dating of First Corinthians
Lee McDonald and Stanley Porter explain that Paul most likely planted the Corinthian church on his second missionary journey, in the autumn of A.D. 50-spring A.D. 52 (Acts
18:1-8). Paul stayed in Corinth for about a year and a half. In the early part of his third missionary journey, probably spring of A.D. 53-summer A.D. 55 (Acts 19:1-41), Paul sent his first letter to the church in Corinth from Ephesus after “Chloe’s people” told him about some problems in the church (1 Cor. 1:11). Paul then received a letter from the church requesting advice on some important issues (1 Cor. 5:1; 7:1). Paul responded with the letter we call 1 Corinthians.81 According to The New Testament in Antiquity, Burge,
Cohick and Green claim that most scholars date the composition of the letter to around the year A.D. 54,82 though some date it anywhere between A.D. 52-55.
2.6. Authorship of the Gospels and First Corinthians
Prior to discussing the authorship of the Gospels, it should be said that there is hardly any dispute of the authorship of First Corinthians. It is practically unanimous that Paul composed this letter. McDonald and Porter point out that First Corinthians was held by
F.C. Baur to be one of the “pillar epistles.”83
In his classic, An Introduction to the New Testament, Raymond Brown discusses in great detail the various issues pertaining to the authorship of the four Gospels.84 I will draw heavily on his work in order to discuss the authorship of the Gospels, beginning
81 L.M. McDonald and S.E. Porter, Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 433. 82 G.M. Burge, L.H. Cohick, and G.L. Green, The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament in its Cultural Contexts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 308. 83 McDonald and Porter, Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature, 429. 84 R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997).
41 with Mark, followed by Matthew, Luke and then John. It is important to note that none of the authors of the Gospels included their names on the Gospels as Paul and the other New
Testament writers did.
2.6.1. Mark:85
1. The title of the Gospel of Mark was added no later then the end of the 2nd century. 2. In the mid-2nd century Justin (Trypho 106.3) refers to the memoirs of Peter, which only contain a passage of Mark’s Gospel (3:16-17). 3. Eusebius (EH 3.39.15-16) references the early-2nd-century tradition about Mark and Matthew which Papias received from someone he calls “the elder.” Here is the passage:
“Mark, having become the interpreter/translator of Peter, wrote down accurately, however, not in order, all that he recalled of what was either said or done by the Lord. For he had neither heard nor followed the Lord; but later (as I said) he followed Peter, who used to adapt his instructions to the needs [of the moment or the audience], but not with a view of making an orderly account of the Lord’s sayings [logia]. Accordingly Mark did no wrong in thus writing down some things as he recalled them, for he made it his aim to omit nothing he had heard and to state nothing therein falsely.” Such things did Papias recount of Mark; but about Matthew he said these things: “Now Matthew arranged in order the sayings [logia] in the Hebrew [=Aramaic?] language, and each one interpreted/translated as he was able.”
4. The name Mark is mentioned in Acts three times: “John whose surname was Mark” in Acts 12:12, Acts 12:25, 13:4,13 and “Mark” in Acts 15:39. 5. Paul mentions a Mark in Philemon 24, and also Col. 4:10 (if Pauline).
85 Ibid., 158-61.
42 6. 1 Peter 5:13 speaks of a Mark, Peter’s “son,” who is with him. 7. 2 Tim. 4:11 has Paul asking for Mark to be brought to him while in prison. 8. It is possible to combine these references and have Mark known to Peter in Jerusalem; also that he was a companion of Paul. 9. If Papias’ material is authentic, it was composed only decades after the events that are described as happening. 10. If someone was inventing a tradition about authorship, why make it Mark? 11. It is interesting to note that the author of Mark supplies translations of Aramaic words. 12. Papias’ reference to Mark interpreting Peter’s words could mean that Mark rephrased Peter’s preaching. However, it could also mean that Mark translated Peter’s words (Aramaic) into Greek. 13. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue (c. A.D. 180), Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.1-2), and Clement of Alexandria (reported in Eccl. Hist. 6.14) confirm Mark as the author of Mark!86 14. There is no external evidence for anyone else being the author of Mark.87 15. Mark must have had apostolic connections since it made it into the Canon, even though the church knew it was written by a non-apostle.88
Although there are some arguments against Markan authorship,89 the fact that it is named after such a minor Christian figure speaks loudly to the idea that the early church did not forge an influential name to the Gospel but instead went with the relatively unknown Mark. For this reason, I believe the testimony given by Papias is likely correct.
I strain to find a good reason against Markan authorship. As well, if Papias is correct, then we have early material in Mark’s Gospel that is based on the teaching of the Apostle
86 D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 28. 87 Ibid., 28. 88 Ibid., 29. 89 See Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God – why the bible’s authors are not who we think they are (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2011), 225-28.
43 Peter himself. This would increase the likelihood that what we see in the Gospel of Mark is quite vintage and preserves eyewitness material.
2.6.2. Matthew:90
1. The title, “According to Matthew” was added to the Gospel no later than the latter half of the 2nd century. 2. The name Matthew is found in all four New Testament lists of the Twelve. (Matt. 10:13; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13) Only in Matthew’s Gospel (10:13) is he referred to as the “Tax-collector.” 3. Papias mentioned that “Matthew arranged in order the sayings in the Hebrew [=Aramaic?] language (EH 3.39.16). 4. Although the Canonical Matthean Gospel we have is in Greek, Papias could be correct in saying that Matthew composed his version in a Semitic language. It is possible that Matthew wrote two original versions of his Gospel in both Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek.91 There is a medieval Hebrew version of Matthew which some scholars believe is based on the Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel mentioned by Papias.92 Josephus himself wrote Jewish War in his native language (Aramaic?) for the Jews of Mesopotamia and later translated it into Greek (He was helped by some assistants to write in Greek). See: Jewish War 1.3. Therefore, it was not unheard of for an author to have two or more versions of an original in different languages. 5. The current form of Matthew that we have was originally written in Greek. Therefore, in order for there to have been a Hebrew original, there would most likely need to have been two original Gospels of Matthew: One in Hebrew/Aramaic, and one in Greek.
90 R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, 208-12. 91 I learned this from Craig A. Evans in the Fall Term (2010) of his Introduction to the Four Gospels BIBL 6013 in Sackville, Nova Scotia. 92 G.E. Howard, The Gospel of Matthew According to Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1987).
44 6. Raymond Brown asks why if Matthew was an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, did he rely on Mark’s Gospel written by a non-eyewitness? And why would he need to depend on Q? I admit these are good questions.
Raymond Brown concludes with saying that, “it is best to accept the common position that canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a noneyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q.”93 However,
Darrell Bock points out that every manuscript that we have that contains the title of the
Gospel uniformly refers to it as the Gospel according to Matthew.94 Also, the fact that it was so widely read in antiquity and the most popular Gospel in the first few centuries causes one to ask how this would have happened if Matthew the apostle was not its real author? Papias’ tradition is very early and if he is to be trusted, then it would appear that
Matthew was written by none other then Jesus’ own hand-picked disciple Matthew.
There is no problem with the idea that Matthew used Mark. If Mark was using authentic Petrine material, and did a good job remembering it and recording it, why could
Matthew not refresh his memory by leaning on Peter’s accounts as recorded by Mark?
For this reason, I would lean towards Matthean authorship for this Gospel. Between the material contained within it from Mark and Q and Matthew’s own offering (special M), we have very early material telling about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of
Nazareth given by an eyewitness.
93 R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, 210-11. 94 D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 24.
45 2.6.3. Luke:95
1. The title was applied no later than the latter half of the 2nd century (title of P75, Irenaeus, Muratorian Fragment). 2. There are three references in the New Testament to one named Luke: Phlm 24; Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11. 3. Luke is referred to as a beloved Physician. 4. The Muratorian Canon attributes the Gospel to Luke, a doctor.96 5. It is suggested that because of the way Col. 4:11 is phrased: all the men listed before the verse are Jewish “of the circumcision”, which might mean Luke listed after that verse is not a Jew. 6. Luke may have referred to himself in Acts in the “we” passages: Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, 27:1-28:16, meaning he was a part of Paul’s missionary Journeys. 7. A Prologue to the Gospel from the end of the 2nd century states that Luke was a Syrian from Antioch who later died in Boeotia in Greece. Scholars are divided on whether or not this is historically reliable. 8. Several attempts have been made to establish that the author was a physician because of the technical medical language used in the Gospel. However, Brown references the work of H.J. Cadbury who convinced most scholars that Luke’s expressions were no more technical than those found in other writings composed by educated Greek authors who were not physicians (H.J. Cadbury, Style 50-51; JBL 45 (1926), 190; 52 (1933), 55-56).97 9. There are some discrepancies between Acts’ recording of Paul’s missionary journeys and his own information given in his Epistles.98 10. External evidence is consistent in naming Luke as the author (Justin Martyr, Dialogues with Trypho 103.19, who writes that this “memoir of Jesus” was composed by a follower of the apostles).99
95 R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, 267-69. 96 D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 32. 97 Ibid., 269 n.91 98 These are discussed on pages 324-26 in R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament.
46 Raymond Brown concludes with the following statement:
In summary, it is not impossible that a minor figure who had traveled with Paul for small parts of his ministry wrote Acts decades after the apostle was dead, if one makes the allowance that there were details about Paul’s early life he did not know, that he simplified and reordered information (even as he did in the Gospel what he took over material from Mark), and that as a true theologian he rethought some of Paul’s emphases that were no longer apropos. We have no way of being certain that he was Luke, as affirmed by 2d-century tradition; but there is no serious reason to propose a different candidate. Luke is mentioned only once in the nondisputed letters of Paul (Phlm 24) and twice in the deuteroPaulines (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11), and so he was scarcely the most obvious Pauline character upon whom to fasten as a fictional character. There is nothing to contradict Luke’s having been with Paul in the places and times indicated by the “we” passages, and he fits the profile of a minor figure. This proposal for authorship has more to recommend it than other theories, but “not impossible” is all that should be claimed.”100
Once again, I would lean in the direction of Lukan authorship for no other reason that the church recognized this as coming from a non-apostle very early on and that Luke is hardly a major figure in the New Testament. I find it difficult to believe that someone applied the title “According to Luke” to this Gospel for no good reason.
2.6.4. John:101
1. The author of John claims to be an eyewitness at the cross (19:35), who is also “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (19:26). 2. We find in John 21:20,24 the claims that the anonymous Beloved Disciple has both been a witness and “has written these things.”
99 D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 32. 100 Ibid., 326-27. 101 R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament.
47 3. Church Father Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 180) believed the Disciple to be the Apostle John who lived in Ephesus until Trajan’s time (ca. A.D. 98). (Against Heresies 3.1.1). 4. Irenaeus was said to have known Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna when he was a young boy. Polycarp apparently knew John. 5. Irenaeus believed that John wrote his Gospel after the others were finished (Against Heresies 3.1.2).102 6. The earliest claim to authorship of the Gospel by John is located in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John and the Muratorian Canon in the second half of the second century.103 7. In addition to John, some scholars have postulated that the Gospel was originally written or based on the eyewitness testimony of Lazarus and Thomas. 8. Some scholars hold that the Beloved Disciple is a symbol, created to demonstrate the perfect disciple. 9. He is never given a name in the Gospels. 10. He appears with Peter in scenes known from the Synoptic Gospels where no other person is mentioned: Compare Mark 14:18-21; 14:54; 16:1-4 with John 13:23-26; 18:15-18; 20:1-10 respectively. 11. That being said, there is another unnamed person with a symbolic role in John where she is absent in the Synoptics: The mother of Jesus (2:3-12; 19:25-27). 12. The Beloved Disciple (as Brown agrees) may have been a minor figure during the ministry of Jesus.
All this being noted, I would still hold to the belief that an eyewitness wrote John.
I am not certain of which eyewitness it was, but I believe that the internal evidence is strong enough to support the belief that it was written by someone who witnessed much
102 D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 35. 103 D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 35.
48 of the ministry of Jesus. That being said, what we have in John most likely preserves early and authentic eyewitness material, which strengthens the case for the historicity of the information, located within it.
Having dealt with the issues of the dating of the New Testament Gospels as well as the question of authorship, we can be confident that what we are dealing with in the
New Testament accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is based on early material, from either eyewitnesses or at least those who could have consulted with eyewitnesses during the research and writing process. This strengthens the possibility that we are dealing with eyewitness testimony. With this in mind, we will now move on to the historicity of the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea.
49
2 3
The Burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea
…if we deny any historical reliability in this burial story and dismiss it as a legend created either by the evangelist (or one of his sources), we would have to make the same negative judgment about the subsequent empty tomb narrative.104
Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall
[Mark 15:42-47] Καὶ ἤδη ὀψίας γενοµένης, ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευὴ ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον, ἐλθὼν Ἰωσὴφ [ὁ] ἀπὸ Ἁριµαθαίας εὐσχήµων βουλευτής, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν προσδεχόµενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, τολµήσας εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πιλᾶτον καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶµα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἐθαύµασεν εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκεν καὶ προσκαλεσάµενος τὸν κεντυρίωνα ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν εἰ πάλαι ἀπέθανεν· καὶ γνοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ κεντυρίωνος ἐδωρήσατο τὸ πτῶµα τῷ Ἰωσήφ. καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν µνηµείῳ ὃ ἦν λελατοµηµένον ἐκ πέτρας καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ µνηµείου. ἡ δὲ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆτος ἐθεώρουν ποῦ τέθειται. (When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid.)
[Matt. 27:57-61] Ὀψίας δὲ γενοµένης ἦλθεν ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος ἀπὸ Ἁριµαθαίας, τοὔνοµα Ἰωσήφ, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐµαθητεύθη τῷ Ἰησοῦ· οὗτος προσελθὼν τῷ Πιλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶµα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. τότε ὁ Πιλᾶτος ἐκέλευσεν ἀποδοθῆναι. καὶ λαβὼν τὸ σῶµα ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ [ἐν] σινδόνι καθαρᾷ καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῷ καινῷ αὐτοῦ µνηµείῳ ὃ ἐλατόµησεν ἐν τῇ πέτρᾳ καὶ προσκυλίσας λίθον µέγαν τῇ θύρᾳ τοῦ µνηµείου ἀπῆλθεν. Ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ Μαριὰµ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία καθήµεναι ἀπέναντι τοῦ τάφου. (When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.)
104 D. Kendall and G. O’Collins, “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?” Biblica 75 (1994): 235.
50 [Luke 23:50-55] Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ὀνόµατι Ἰωσὴφ βουλευτὴς ὑπάρχων [καὶ] ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ δίκαιος _ οὗτος οὐκ ἦν συγκατατεθειµένος τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῇ πράξει αὐτῶν _ ἀπὸ Ἁριµαθαίας πόλεως τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὃς προσεδέχετο τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, οὗτος προσελθὼν τῷ Πιλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶµα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ καθελὼν ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν µνήµατι λαξευτῷ οὗ οὐκ ἦν οὐδεὶς οὔπω κείµενος. καὶ ἡµέρα ἦν παρασκευῆς καὶ σάββατον ἐπέφωσκεν. Κατακολουθήσασαι δὲ αἱ γυναῖκες, αἵτινες ἦσαν συνεληλυθυῖαι ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας αὐτῷ, ἐθεάσαντο τὸ µνηµεῖον καὶ ὡς ἐτέθη τὸ σῶµα αὐτοῦ. (Now there was a good and righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, had not agreed to their plan and action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid it in a rock-hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid. It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid.)
[John 19:38-42] Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἠρώτησεν τὸν Πιλᾶτον Ἰωσὴφ [ὁ] ἀπὸ Ἁριµαθαίας, ὢν µαθητὴς τοῦ Ἰησοῦ· κεκρυµµένος δὲ διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ἵνα ἄρῃ τὸ σῶµα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ· καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν ὁ Πιλᾶτος. ἦλθεν οὖν καὶ ἦρεν τὸ σῶµα αὐτοῦ. ἦλθεν δὲ καὶ Νικόδηµος, ὁ ἐλθὼν πρὸς αὐτὸν νυκτὸς τὸ πρῶτον, φέρων µίγµα σµύρνης καὶ ἀλόης ὡς λίτρας ἑκατόν. ἔλαβον οὖν τὸ σῶµα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸ ὀθονίοις µετὰ τῶν ἀρωµάτων, καθὼς ἔθος ἐστὶν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐνταφιάζειν. ἦν δὲ ἐν τῷ τόπῳ ὅπου ἐσταυρώθη κῆπος, καὶ ἐν τῷ κήπῳ µνηµεῖον καινὸν ἐν ᾧ οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς ἦν τεθειµένος· ἐκεῖ οὖν διὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν τὸ µνηµεῖον, ἔθηκαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν. (After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission; so he came and removed his body. Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews. Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.)
[1 Cor. 15:3-8] παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑµῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ἡµῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡµέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα· ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ, ἐξ ὧν οἱ πλείονες µένουσιν ἕως ἄρτι, τινὲς δὲ ἐκοιµήθησαν· ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ εἶτα τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν· ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώµατι ὤφθη κἀµοί. (For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to someone untimely born, he appeared also to me.) (Italics mine)
51
3.1. What’s In a Name?
The historicity of the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea is very important in determining whether or not the subsequent resurrection of Jesus can be recovered with any hope using the tools of historical inquiry. Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall claim, “if we deny any historical reliability in this burial story and dismiss it as a legend created either by the evangelist (or one of his sources), we would have to make the same negative judgment about the subsequent empty tomb narrative.”105 Therefore, I will give
Joseph of Arimathea the necessary attention.
Amazingly, Joseph of Arimathea is mentioned in all four of our Gospels.106 This gives us at least two independent sources that attest to the historicity of Joseph of
Arimathea (i.e. Mark and John). Joseph is mentioned with his place name (i.e. Joseph of/from Arimathea) in each of the canonical Gospels (Mark 15:43; Matt. 27:57; Luke
23:50; and John 19:38). We immediately apply the criterion of multiple attestation. In his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham lists the most popular names in the first century based on available sources. The second most popular male name among
Palestinian Jews between 330 BCE–200 CE was the name Joseph (or a variation of the name).107 Based on a compilation of 218 references of the name from the New
105, D. Kendall and G. O’Collins, “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?” 235. 106 Dale Allison adds that, “Another pre-Pauline tradition about Jesus’ death appears in 1 Cor. 15:4, which asserts that Jesus was “buried” (ἐτάφη). The assertion is bare. Who buried him? Where? When? The text holds no hints. It does, nonetheless, clearly assume that Jesus’ body did not suffer the fate of so many victims of Roman crucifixion: his corpse was neither left upon its cross to rot in the sun unceremoniously dumped into an unmarked trench or pile to become food for scavengers (Contrast Suetonius, Aug. 13.1-2; Tacitus, Ann. 6.29; Petronius, Satyr. 111; Horace, Ep. 1.16.48; Artemidorus, Onir. 2.53; 4.49; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5:1.57-63; Mart. Pal. 9:9-10). Rather, somebody (the passive verb ἐτάφη leaves us in the dark) laid Jesus in the ground or in a cave.” From: D.C. Allison, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 403. 107 R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 85.
52 Testament, Josephus, known Ossuaries and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can determine that
15.6% of Jewish men bore one of the two most popular names (Simon and Joseph), and
41.5% of men bore one of the nine most popular male names.108 This being the case, as
Bauckham has shown, since “about half of the population of Jewish Palestine were called by only about a dozen personal names [this] carried one very important effect. It meant that a single personal name was not sufficient to distinguish them.”109
One such way of identifying individuals in antiquity from one another, especially since many of them shared the same name, was to locate the person based on their place of origin. In the case of Joseph of Arimathea, we have not only his first name “Joseph,” but also his place of origin, “Arimathea.” We see this designating marker of the first name followed by the place of origin in a number of places in the Gospels. For instance:
Jesus of Nazareth (Matt. 26:71; Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; John 18:5), Jesus the Galilean
(Matt. 26:69), Mary of Magdala (Magdalene: Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, Luke 8:2, John
19:25), Simon the Cyrenian (of Cyrene: Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26), and Nathanael of Cana
(John 21:2). In the specific case of Joseph of Arimathea, Bauckham states that, “Joseph of Arimathea doubtless had estates near a town called Ramathaim, but lived mostly in
Jerusalem, where he was naturally called Joseph of Ramathaim.”110 Craig Evans adds that
“Ramathain” is mentioned in Josephus (Ant. 13.4.9 §127), which may identify
“Ramathaim” found in 1 Sam. 1:1 as Josephs place of origin,111 as well as Rathamin which is identified in 1 Macc. 11:34.112 If this is the correct location, it is approximately twenty miles northwest of Jerusalem. Outside of the Gospels, this type of name and place
108 Ibid., 71. 109 Ibid., 78. 110 Ibid., 82. 111 C.A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 (WBC 34b; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 515. 112 Ibid., 518.
53 designation was common. Bauckham gives a list of other name and place identifiers from antiquity: From ostraca and ossuaries we have Philo the Cyrenian, Hillel the Cyrenian,
Sara the Ptolemaican (from Ptolemais in Cyrenaica), Nicanor the Alexandrian, Simon the
Babylonian, Salome the Galilean, and Yeho’ezer the Ezobite (=from Bet Ezob). From
Josephus, our best-known example includes: Judas the Galilean (Ant. 18.23).113
With this in mind, we can determine that the name Joseph of Arimathea is set up in such a way so as to specifically identify him based on his place of origin. People who may have wanted to corroborate the gospel narratives would have had the opportunity to investigate the burial of Jesus from Joseph of Arimathea himself, or at least his own family members. The multiple independent attestation found in both the Markan and
Johannine traditions demonstrates an early tradition that would have found its way back further than the writing of both Mark and John. Sufficient time would have been available to dismantle this rumor if it was in fact a loosely based rumor.
3.2. Crossan’s Objections to the Historicity of Joseph of Arimathea
This only scratches the surface in the ‘Quest for the Historical Joseph of Arimathea.’
Despite the majority view of scholars that Joseph of Arimathea was a real, historical individual who lived in the first century and buried the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth, John
Dominic Crossan stands apart. Using the Gospel of Peter, he builds a case that Joseph of
Arimathea was invented by Mark and later adopted by the other Gospel writers. With this view in mind, Crossan famously asserted that not only was Jesus not buried by Joseph of
Arimathea, he was not buried at all. Instead Crossan writes in his popular best seller
Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, that Jesus’ body was either left on the cross devoured
113 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 82.
54 by carrion crows,114 or perhaps it was placed by Roman soldiers in a shallow grave only to be dug up and eaten by wild dogs (Horace, Ep. 1.16.46-48; Petronius, Sat. 111-112;
Artemidorus, Onir. 2.53; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.1.61-62).115 This may have been the case regarding burial of executed criminals in Palestine during the civil unrest in 4 BC and in
AD 66-70. Dale Allison points out that, “Under Roman law, executed criminals were also commonly denied burial and instead thrown into a collective pile” (Diodorus Siculus
18.47.3; 16.25.2; Plutarch, Mor. 307C; Dio Chrysostom 31.85; Tacitus, Ann. 6.29:
“People sentenced to death forfeited their property and were forbidden burial”; Suetonius,
Aug. 13; Tib. 61.)116 However, as Allison explains, Crossan’s theory is easily overturned in the next few paragraphs, as we will see that Jews were very serious about the burial of corpses for the purity of the land and the Romans respected this during peacetime.
Crossan uses four basic arguments outlined by O’Collins and Kendall to build his case that Joseph of Arimathea is a fictional character:117
(1) Crossan holds the belief that the apocryphal Gospel of Peter antedated Mark, and thus also Matthew, Luke and John. Crossan proposes that the major source for the
Gospel of Peter, which he calls the “Cross Gospel,” is a document much like Q as found in Matthew and Luke. This “Cross Gospel” which is supposedly the original Passion-
Resurrection Source, describes Jesus’ burial as being in the complete control and motivation of his enemies. That being the case, since Jesus’ enemies were in complete control of his death and burial, Jesus’ disciples and companions would have been nowhere in sight and thus would not have seen where Jesus had been buried. In his
114 J.D. Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 127. 115 Ibid., 154. 116 D.C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 353 n. 597. 117 Kendall and O’Collins “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?” 235-41.
55 famous book, The Historical Jesus, Crossan makes the claim that, “With regard to the body of Jesus, by Easter Sunday morning, those who cared did not know where it was, and those who knew did not care.”118
In his presidential address to the Society of New Testament Studies in 1986,
Raymond Brown argued that Crossan’s position regarding the Markan dependence on the
Gospel of Peter was very much flawed. Brown concluded that the Gospel of Peter, “does not constitute or give the earliest Christian account or thoughts about the passion.”119 To which Crossan never replied in his subsequent work in his 1988, The Cross that Spoke and 1991 The Historical Jesus. To this John P. Meier remarked in an article in America magazine (March 7, 1992) that Crossan’s credibility as a scholar was in jeopardy because of his “refusal to debate other scholars who [held] alternate views.”120
(2) Another reason Crossan holds that the Markan burial narrative is mostly fiction is because he believes that The Gospel of Peter’s passion narrative, which Mark depends on, took Old Testament prophecy and created a story to historicize it. Therefore, it was basically the Gospel of Peter’s way of making history out of Deuteronomy 21:22-
23 instead of reflecting on actual events from the recent past surrounding Jesus of
Nazareth.
Major problems abound with this theory. One is that if Crossan is willing to make the Markan narrative of the burial of Jesus before sundown a literary way of historicizing
Old Testament prophecy, the same theory would have to apply to all Jewish victim’s in the first century who were put to death. However, the heel bone of Yehohanan with the
118 J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), 394. 119 R.E. Brown, “The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority,” NTS 33 (1987) 321-43. 120 J.P. Meier in America Magazine (March 7, 1992).
56 nail still intact puts a serious crack in this theory. The only reason why we have evidence of a crucified victims burial is because of a fluke, which prevented the Romans from extracting the nail. It was discovered in 1968 in Jerusalem in the district known as Giv’at ha-Mivtar (ossuary no. 4, in Tomb 1). Those who took down the crucified Yehohanan from the cross were apparently unable to extract the spike (11.5 cm in length) from his heel because it hit a knot in the wood. Therefore, they had to cut the bone in his leg as well as the cross that his foot was nailed to in order to get him down. We have the heel bone of Yehohanan found in his ossuary (bone box) with a nail still intact with a chunk of wood attached to the hooked nail/spike.121 The ossuary and the contents inside date to the late AD 20s—which may date the death of Yehohanan during the administration of
Pontius Pilate, the same Roman governor who had Jesus put to death.122 This demonstrates that Yehohanan was given a proper burial during peacetime.
The other problem with Crossan’s assumption is that the Jewish literature we have explains that even a criminal is to be given proper burial. This does not mean that criminals were given honorable burial, however, which means burial in a family tomb.
Craig Evans gives a number of references to the proper burial of executed criminals in antiquity:123 “They used not to bury (the executed criminal) in the burying-place of his fathers, but two burying-places were kept in readiness by the court, one for them that were beheaded or strangled, and one for them that were stoned or burnt” (m. Sanh. 6:5);
“When the flesh had wasted away they gathered together the bones and buried them in their own place” (m. Sanh. 6:6); “Neither a corpse nor the bones of a corpse may be
121 J. Naveh, “The Ossuary Inscriptions from Giv’at ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem,” IEJ 20 (1970) 33-37. 122 C.A. Evans and N.T. Wright, Jesus the Final Days: What Really Happened (ed. T.A. Miller; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 53. 123 C.A. Evans, “The East Talpiot Tomb in Context,” in Buried Hope or Risen Savior? The Search for the Jesus Tomb (ed. Charles Quarles; Nashville: B&H Holman, 2008), 59-60.
57 transferred from a wretched place to an honored place, nor, needless to say, from an honored place to a wretched place; but if to the family tomb, even from an honored place to a wretched place, it is permitted” (Semahot 13:7) There is one text that refers specifically to crucifixion: “If one’s (relative) has been crucified in his city, one should not continue to reside there….Until when is one so forbidden? Until the flesh is completely decomposed and the identity unrecognizable from the bones.”124
Josephus also provides us with a statement regarding the necessity of burial for criminals when he states, “We must furnish sire, water, food to all who ask for them, point out the road, not leave a corpse unburied [ataphon], show consideration even to declared enemies” (Against Apion 2.211; cf. 2.205).
And once again, Philo gives us another quote about the importance of proper burial. In an imaginative retelling of Jacob’s grief concerning the news that his son
Joseph had been killed and ravaged by wild animals, he gives the following lament:
Child, it is not your death that grieves me, but the manner of it. If you had been buried [etaphes] in your own land, I should have been comforted and watched and nursed your sick-bed, exchanged the last farewells as you died, closed your eyes, wept over your body as it lay there, given it a costly funeral and left non of the customary rites undone” (De Iosepho 22-23).
This emotional fictional statement by Jacob continues to speak of the necessity of proper burial: And, indeed, if you had to die by violence or through premeditation, it would have been a lighter ill to me, slain as you would have been by human beings, who would have pitied their dead victim, gathered some dust and covered the corpse. And then if they had been the cruelest of men, what more could they have done but cast it out unburied and go their way, and then perhaps some passer-by would have stayed his steps, and, as he looked,
124 Ibid.
58 felt pity for our common nature and deemed the custom of burial to be its due. (De Iosepho 25)
Although the first few passages come from texts dating later than the New
Testament era, they nevertheless demonstrate that proper burial was taken seriously by
Jews, even for convicted criminals.
However, the passages from Philo and Josephus act almost like bookends to the time of Jesus. James VanderKam explains that Philo may have been born ca. 20-10 B.C., and possibly died around AD 47.125 Josephus was born approximately AD 36, and dies around the year AD 100.126
With this in mind, we have two examples book-ending the life of Jesus, which speak of the importance of proper burial. What is clear is that Jesus’ death by the Romans at the request of some of the Jewish authorities would have been a travesty in its own right. Many people in Palestine would have been deeply impacted by Jesus’ execution and this in itself would have stirred up feelings of anger towards the establishment. On the other hand, the high priestly authority that influenced the decision to crucify Jesus would not have wanted to defile the land. This would have outraged many Jews as the purity of the land was taken very seriously. Jesus’ punishment was meted out in his crucifixion, not his burial. Why would the Jewish authorities have defiled the land to make a point? Simply put, they would not have. Jesus and the other two criminals crucified alongside of him would have been quickly taken down from their crosses at sundown and given proper burial. The Jewish authorities would not have wanted to punish themselves by defiling the land.
125 J.C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 139. 126 D.L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 53.
59
3.3. Qumran; Crucifixion? And Proper Burial
We also may have evidence from the Temple Scroll (11Q19) found at Qumran that crucified criminals were permitted proper burial in order to prevent the defiling of the land. The passage in question is column 64, lines 7-13. Dating the Temple Scroll has been difficult. Using 4Q524 as a possible copy of the Temple Scroll, this would demonstrate using the study of paleography that the manuscript should be dated no later than 150–125
BC.127 The original translator of the Temple Scroll, Yigael Yadin placed the scroll between 134-104 BC during the time of John Hyrcanus, and possibly a little earlier.128
Lawrence Schiffman gives a detailed date breakdown for each of the major Dead Sea
Scrolls. Showing the results of Carbon-14 Dating of the Scrolls, we know the following relating to the Temple Scroll: there are five samples of this scroll for our study, which the calibrated age range(s) of the samples falls between 97 BC–AD 1. The paleographic or specified age of the samples on hand falls between the late first century BC and the early first century AD.129 With this in mind, we can safely date the Temple Scroll within one hundred years BC and the early part of the first century AD. Martin Hengel following on from Yigael Yadin explains that the Temple Scroll gives us a passage from the first century BC which demonstrates that crucifixion was used as a viable form of punishment for cases of high treason adopted at least by the sectarian Jews of Qumran during the
Hellenistic-Hasmonean period.130
Michael Wise translates the relevant passage from the Temple Scroll as follows:
127 J.C. VanderKam and P.W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 211. 128 Ibid., 212. 129 L.H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their True Meaning for Judaism and Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 32. 130 M. Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 84.
60 (11Q19 Col. 64. 7-13) If a man is a traitor against his people and gives them up to a foreign nation, so doing evil to his people, you are to hang him on a tree until dead. On the testimony of two or three witnesses he shall be put to death, and they themselves shall hang him on the tree. If a man is convicted of a capital crime and flees to the nations, cursing his people and the children of Israel, you are to hang him, also, upon a tree until dead. But you must not let their bodies remain on the tree overnight; you shall most certainly bury them that very day. Indeed, anyone hung on a tree is accursed of God and men, but you are not to defile the land that I am about to give you as an inheritance131(emphasis mine).
Schiffman believes this text refers to crucifixion for apostates.132 The pertinent phrase within this passage is “hang him on a tree” which Schiffman explains can also be translated as “impale him on a stake” which is an interpretation of Deuteronomy 21:22-
23.133 Although this interpretation of the Temple Scroll passage is debated by scholars, the general idea of the requirement of burial even for a convicted criminal following their death was maintained during this period, at least for the sectarian community gathered at
Qumran in order to prevent defiling of the land.
According to Evans, there is no evidence that the Roman authorities denied burial to criminals during peacetime.134 The primary reason for burying the dead before the sun went down was to prevent defiling the land, as commanded in Scripture (Deut. 21:22-23).
Both Philo and Josephus mention that the Romans respected Jewish law and customs
(Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 300; Flaccus 83; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.73). Roman law even
131 M. Wise, M.Abegg Jr., E. Cook, A New Translation The Dead Sea Scrolls: A comprehensive translation of the controversial ancient scrolls, with material never before published or translated-including the most recently released texts (New York: HarperSanFransicso, 2005), 630. 132 Another example of crucifixion within a Jewish context comes from the account of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BC) seeing to the crucifixion of 800 Pharisees (Josephus, J.W. 1.97-98; Ant. 13.3808-3). 133 Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 378. 134 C.A. Evans “The East Talpiot Tomb in Context,” in Buried Hope or Risen Savior? 59-60.
61 allowed the bodies of crucified criminals to be taken down from their crosses and buried
(Digesta 48.24.1, 3).
Therefore, Crossan’s position that the burial of Jesus was a way of historicizing
Old Testament prophecy is simply an assumption that is not based on any evidence. On the contrary, as has been shown, in antiquity, we have evidence that executed criminals were granted proper burial (as seen in the case of Yehohanan), the proper burial of executed apostates (possibly as a result of crucifixion) from the Temple Scroll dating to the 1st century B.C. to early 1st century A.D., and that the Romans honored the Jewish belief in the preservation of the purity of the land of Palestine for religious purposes based upon Old Testament scripture (as seen in the passages given above) by allowing proper burial during peacetime. Byron McCane points out: “Roman prefects like Pilate, in fact, often allowed crucifixion victims to be buried.”135 He then mentions how Cicero, a governor in Sicily, would release the bodies of crucifixion victims to their families in return for a fee (In Verrem 2.5.45), and Philo tells us of the bodies of the crucified being taken down and given to their families on the eve of Roman holidays “because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them ordinary rites” (In Flaccum 10.83-84).
(3) Crossan’s third reason for not trusting the Markan account of the burial of
Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea is simply because he claims that, “It is impossible, in my mind, to overestimate the creativity of Mark.”136 As far as I am concerned, this is not worth addressing as a logical reason for rejecting the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea.
It seems here as though Crossan is going with his intuition rather than giving any reason why Mark made up the entire story. Ironically, even Rudolf Bultmann, the famous
135 B.R. McCane, “‘Where no one had yet been laid’: The shame of Jesus’ burial,” in B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), 435. 136 Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 390.
62 hypercritical form critic accepted the basic credibility of the burial narrative. He claimed that the basic burial story found in Mark 15:44-45, 47, was “an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend.”137 Raymond Brown adds that, “the fixed designation of such a character as “from Arimathea,” a town very difficult to identify and reminiscent of no scriptural symbolism, makes a thesis of invention even more implausible.”138 Brown also adds, “If Mark and John bear witness to a preGospel tradition about Joseph, so old that already by Gospel-writing time his identity is being modified, that tradition has to go back to the first decade or two of Christianity, which is a bit early for etiological creation.”139 This is another major crack in Crossan’s theory.
(4) Crossan’s final reason for rejecting the historicity of the burial of Jesus by
Joseph of Arimathea is because Mark created Joseph as a mediator between Jesus’ enemies and his friends. Crossan explains that:
First, he is ‘a respectable member of the council’ but, second, he is ‘one who was also looking for the kingdom of God’. This locates him somewhere in between the ‘Jewish’ side and the ‘Christian’ side. Still one recognizes a problem in that description. If he was a member of the Sanhedrin, where was his voice when Jesus needed him earlier during the trial? The rest of the intracanonical tradition would solve, each in its own way, the problem created by Joseph’s ambiguous position and Mark’s difficult description.140
O’Collins and Kendall give three reasons for rejecting Crossan’s position. Firstly: why would Mark go so far to create a fabricated story about the burial of Jesus where the protagonist is not only named but given a place of origin (i.e. Joseph from Arimathea),
137 R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 274. 138 R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 1240. 139 Ibid., 1240, f. 85. 140 J.D. Crossan, The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 238-39.
63 and from such an obscure city as Arimathea? I have shown above using the work of
Richard Bauckham that giving Joseph a place name (Arimathea) would have been a specific identifying marker for any first century inquirer to do follow-up research in order to see whether or not the Gospel claims were well founded. Secondly: do the redactional changes brought forth by Matthew and Luke really create such a great problem for
Joseph’s connection to the Sanhedrin? I will return to this below. Thirdly: why would it be so surprising for Jesus to have disciples or would be disciples from the “leadership elite” in Jerusalem? If Jesus was known as a charismatic presence who proclaimed the in- breaking of the Kingdom of God, wouldn’t there be some people from the top of the economic class like a Joseph of Arimathea who would have at least been sympathetic?
Why not an in between? What is so problematic with that? One would expect there to be a few people from the upper crust of Jerusalem who would have wondered curiously about Jesus’ message.141
I would like to take a more in depth look at O’Collins and Kendall’s second reason for rejecting Crossan’s position. That is, that there really is no grand scale problem of redaction between Mark’s Gospel and Matthew and Luke’s when it comes to the connection between Joseph of Arimathea and the Sanhedrin, primarily Joseph’s connection to the Sanhedrin.
3.4. My overly-literal translation of Mark 15:43:
Mark 15:43 ἐλθὼν Ἰωσὴφ [ὁ] ἀπὸ Ἁριµαθαίας εὐσχήµων βουλευτής, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν
προσδεχόµενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, τολµήσας εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πιλᾶτον καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶµα
141 D. Kendall and G. O’Collins, “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?” 240-41.
64 τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. (Came, Joseph from Arimathea, a respected (βουλευτής), who also himself was waiting the kingdom of God, dared to enter before Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.)
3.5. Mark’s Account of Joseph of Arimathea
Since Mark is the earliest source for the Joseph of Arimathea account in our Gospel narratives, I want to give it more attention. According to O’Collins and Kendall, “Mark’s language about Joseph (εὐσχήµων βουλευτής) does not make it clear that he belonged to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin (as Luke seems to suppose); it may indicate a rich property owner and member of some local council. Hence Matthew may be simply interpreting
Mark’s text rather than redactionally changing it.”142 What exactly was this council, this
“βουλή” that came together with the chief priests in order to find condemning testimony to put Jesus to death (Mark 14:55, 15:1) of which Joseph of Arimathea was supposedly a member? Traditionally, the council has been understood as being the Jewish Sanhedrin.
Graham Twelftree points out that the Greek word “βουλή” was often used by Josephus to refer to the Senate in Rome (Jewish Wars 1.284; 13.164), local Roman city councils (Ant.
14.230), local Jewish city councils (Life 64), the Jerusalem Sanhedrin (Jewish Wars
5.532) and its place of meeting (Jewish Wars 5.144). The New Testament does not use the word in this way.143
According to the Old Testament Apocrypha, The New Testament and Josephus, there was one single body in Jerusalem. However, according to the Mishnah, there were two different courts in Jerusalem. “The greater Sanhedrin was made up of one and seventy [judges] and the lesser [Sanhedrin] of three and twenty” (m. Sanh. 1:6). Twelftree
142 Ibid., 240, n. 14. 143 G.Twelftree, “Sanhedrin” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. J.B. Green, S. McKnight, and I.H. Marshall; Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1992), 729.
65 explains that membership into the Sanhedrin was based on the following factors: Both the
New Testament and Josephus claim that in the first century it was priests who were the key figures in the Sanhedrin (Matt. 27:41; Mk 14:53; Josephus, J.W. 2.301, 316-42).
These were most likely the former high priests and the members of the priestly aristocracy from which the high priests were chosen. The second group within the
Sanhedrin were the scribes (Acts 5:34; 23:6; Josephus, Ant. 18:17; J.W. 2.411). The third major group within the Sanhedrin during New Testament times consisted of priests and lay members of the nobility (Matt. 26:3; 27:1; 28:11-12). With this in mind, we can learn that the Sanhedrin was made up of the leading men of the people (Lk 19:47; Josephus,
Life 194), and were the leading men of Jerusalem, the powerful and the dignitaries
(Josephus, J.W. 2.316, 410; Life 9).144
This being the case, it is not necessary for Joseph to be identified as a priest in order to be a member of the Sanhedrin. He may not have even been part of the first group within the Sanhedrin. He might have been a wealthy businessman around Jerusalem who made a name for himself and found his way into a position on the second body within the
Sanhedrin because of his stately influence. This removes much of the redactional doubt placed on the text by Crossan. Although Mark does not make it clear that Joseph is a member of the Sanhedrin, he does make it known that Joseph is a council member. This most likely implies that Joseph is a member of the Sanhedrin.
Craig Evans explains the following regarding the necessity for the Sanhedrin to bury victims properly:
The Gospels tell us that “Pilate…granted the body to Joseph…and laid it in a tomb” (Mark 15-42-46). According to Jewish law and custom, the executed criminal could not
144 Ibid., 730.
66 be buried in his family tomb. Instead, his body was to be placed in one of the burial vaults set aside for such persons (cf. m. Sanhedrin 6:5-6; Semahot 13:7). There it must remain, until the flesh has decomposed. One rabbinic text addresses this point, specifically in reference to someone who has been crucified: “If one’s (relative) has been crucified in his city, one should not continue to reside there…Until when is one so forbidden? Until the flesh is completely decomposed and the identity unrecognizable from the bones” (Semahot 2.13). Because the Jewish Council (or Sanhedrin) delivered Jesus to the Roman authorities for execution, it was incumbent upon it to arrange for proper burial (as in m. Sand. 6:5 cited above). This task fell to Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the council. The Gospel narrative is completely in step with Jewish practice, which Roman authorities during peacetime respected.145
Therefore, we have ample evidence supporting the seriousness that Jews in antiquity placed in the proper burial of the deceased, including criminals who were executed. We have also seen that Crossan’s point about the New Testament not being clear to equate Joseph of Arimathea as a member of the Sanhedrin is flawed. Based on what we know, it would be difficult to hold that Joseph of Arimathea was not a member of the Sanhedrin in some capacity. It is also fitting that since the Sanhedrin took the burial of corpses seriously, that at least one of them, namely Joseph of Arimathea, would have buried Jesus. This strengthens the historicity of the burial of Jesus by Joseph of
Arimathea.
3.6. Comparing the Gospels Accounts about Joseph of Arimathea
It is now time to compare the four accounts about Joseph of Arimathea in our four
Gospels. As already mentioned, it is not a discrepancy for Joseph to have been both a businessman and a member of the Sanhedrin or the “Council” (βουλή). Matthew is the
145 C.A. Evans, Jesus, the Final Days, 69.
67 only writer to mention that Joseph was a rich man. However, since nowhere in the Gospel texts does it say that he was a priest, we may assume that Joseph earned his position in the Sanhedrin because of his influence in Jerusalem (i.e. possibly as a wealthy businessman). One must ask the question how Joseph was able to afford the tomb in which Jesus was buried (Matt. 27:60)?146 On the other hand, if this is a redactional touch applied by Matthew to lesson the shame of Jesus’ burial, doesn’t this in itself add credibility to the historicity of the burial of Jesus? Why would Matthew have been so emotionally distraught as to alter such a specific detail to an otherwise normal story of a
Jewish man’s burial if in fact it was as Crossan says, merely a fiction?
Mark 15:43 and Luke 23:51 both claim that Joseph was a member of the council, and that he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. Whereas Matthew 27:57 which is most likely based upon Mark’s version and John 19:38 both claim that he was a disciple of Jesus. Being a disciple of Jesus and one who waits for the kingdom of God might be synonymous with one another or at least demonstrates, as Evans states that,
“Joseph was sympathetic to Jesus’ goals, even if not necessarily committed to the Jesus movement itself.”147
There are a few things we can draw from the Gospels relating to Joseph of
Arimathea. Joseph is attested in all four gospels (multiple attestation). He had to have been a person of influence in order to go before Pilate to ask for the body. A member of the council as Mark and Luke mention (Mk 15:43; LK 23:51), who earned this position by being a man of wealth (Matt. 27:57). These are good reasons for explaining the influence he held in order to approach Pilate. We also learn that he was a secret disciple
146 If this detail is not a later redactional touch included by Matthew to lesson the shame of Jesus’ burial, as discussed by R.E. Brown, “The Burial of Jesus (Mark 15:42-47),” CBQ 50 (1998): 233-45. 147 C.A. Evans, Mark 8:25–16:20, 518.
68 of Jesus as shown by the criterion of multiple independent attestation in both Matthew’s
(27:57) and John’s (19:38) Gospels, and possibly alluded to in Mark’s (15:43) and Luke’s
(23:51). It is also known by our Gospel sources that Joseph went to Pilate at evening
(explicitly mentioned in Matt. 27:57 and alluded to by the time of day of the crucifixion of Jesus as mentioned in all four Gospels). This coupled with the reference to Joseph’s burial of Jesus along with Nicodemus who came to Jesus at night (John 3:1-21 and confirmed by John 19:39) might give us a place to apply the criterion of embarrassment.
Joseph was so frightened to stand up for what was right that he did it during the cloak of night rather then during the day. And even though Luke (23:51) informs us that Joseph was not in support of the councils decision to have Jesus condemned, Mark (14:55, 15:1) describes that the entire council voted to have Jesus put to death with no mention of opposition within the group. Brown adds in a footnote in his famous tome The Death of the Messiah (Vol.2) that there is no need to “invent a Sanhedrist, given the Christian tendency to universalize Sanhedrin guilt visible in Mark 14:53 (“all”); 14:44 (“whole”);
14:64 (“all”).”148 This in itself is an embarrassing piece of information about Joseph of
Arimathea. Another point of embarrassment is the fact that Joseph was connected to the council or “Sanhedrin” to begin with. In Acts (2:23, 36; 4:10) we learn from the sermons of the early church that it was the Jewish leaders who had Jesus crucified! William Lane
Craig states that, “Given his status as a Sanhedrist—all of whom, Mark reports, voted to condemn Jesus—Joseph is the last person one would expect to care properly for
Jesus.”149 This is agreed to by the late Raymond Brown who explains “That the burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation
148 R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (Vol. 2), 1240. 149 W.L. Craig, Reasonable faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (3rd ed., Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 364.
69 from nothing of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus.”150 This in itself provides solid ground for the application of the criterion of embarrassment.
3.7. Joseph (and Nicodemus) prepare the body for burial
In each of the four Gospels we read that Joseph wrapped “ἐνειλέω” (in various forms: Mt
27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) or tied/bound “δέω” (Jn. 19:40) Jesus’ body with linen cloth
“σινδών” (in various forms: Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) or strips of cloth “ὀθόνιον”
(Jn. 19:40). It appears as though there is a slight discrepancy between the synoptics and
John when it comes to the type of garment Jesus was buried in. This is not a very difficult problem however. Although John mentions a separate napkin “σουδάριον” found that was used to cover Jesus’ face, Matthew and Luke were most likely following Mark’s burial account which doesn’t reference a separate face covering (and does not have a detailed resurrection narrative which the missing information may have been a part of). One other
Matthean redactional touch to lessen the blow of Jesus’ shameful burial may be seen in his use of the word “καθαρᾷ” which Craig Evans points out may help to distinguish
Jesus’ “clean/pure” burial shroud from the typical shroud placed on the common victims body.151
The use of a burial shroud was common practice in second temple Judaism. In the
New Testament there are a number of stories which demonstrate the use of a burial
150 R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (Vol. 2), 1240. 151 C.A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 521.
70 shroud:152 the story of the death of Lazarus informs us that he was bound and wrapped in cloths (John 11:44). Also, the burial of Ananias tells us he was wrapped and buried (Acts
5:6). This may be implied in the account of the death of Dorcas, who was washed and placed in an upstairs room following death (Acts 9:37). The corpse of the deceased was often perfumed (Josephus, Ant. 15.61), or applied with spices to deal with the stench of the decomposing flesh (Ant. 17.196-99; John 19:39-40). It must be mentioned however, that the inclusion in John 19:39 of Joseph and Nicodemus applying 75 pounds (or 100
Roman pounds “λίτρας ἑκατόν”) of myrrh and aloe is surely there for theological reasons rather than historical. It was common for vast amounts of burial spices and perfumes to be used when burying famous people in antiquity. This may be a literary way of John informing his audience that Jesus was such an important figure.153 Explaining the process of preparing the dead for burial, Byron McCane writes that “As soon as death occurred, preparations began: the eyes of the deceased were closed, the corpse was washed with perfumes and ointments, its bodily orifices were stopped, and strips of cloth were wrapped tightly around the body—binding the jaw closed, holding the hands to the sides, and tying the feet together.”154 The use of burial clothes for the deceased was common practice for Jews, mentioned outside of the New Testament as well. Dale Allison references the rather bizarre discussions the rabbis had about whether or not the resurrected will appear nude or clothed.155 This implies that Jews during the rabbinic
152 C.A. Evans, Jesus, The Final Days, 42. 153 B.R. McCane, “Where No One Had Yet Been Laid,” 446. 154 Ibid., 438. 155 Allison supplies the following examples: b. Ketub. 111b; b. Sanh. 90b; Pirqe R. El. 33. Cf. Sem. 9.23: “In the same clothes in which one descends to Sheol will he appear in the age to come.” Allison adds, “It is probably against this background that we should interpret R. Gamaliel II’s attempt to curb spending too much on burial clothes.” See b. Ketub. 8b; b. Mo’ed Qat. 27b. These examples are from D.C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 220.
71 period were buried wearing clothes of some sort. Rabbi ‘Akiba says: “In the course of time, the sheet will waste away; in the course of time, the bones will intermingle. Let them rather be gathered and placed in ossuaries (Semahot 12.8).156
Archaeology has also provided us with at least one confirmed example of the use of burial shrouds in the 1st Century. On June 14, 2000, while hiking with a group of students in the Hinnom Valley, just south of the Old City of Jerusalem in an area called
Akeldama, Shimon Gibson and James Tabor with the help of their student Lee
Hutchinson discovered the remains of the skeleton of a Jewish male that had been laid out inside one of the loculi (inset-shelf) of a first century tomb. Part of the man’s burial shroud was still stuck to the bones. It appears the man’s body was laid out for second burial but his bones were not collected a year later to place in an ossuary (bone-box).
DNA and Carbon-14 testing has shown that the body was that of a man who died from
Hanson’s disease (leprosy) and that the burial shroud dated to the first half of the first century.157 This would place the use of burial shrouds by Jewish folk close to the time
Jesus.
3.8. Applying Meier’s Criteria to the Burial of Jesus
In this section of chapter three, we will apply John Meier’s criteria of historicity to the accounts of Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea.
156 The translation is that of D. Zlotnick, The Tractate Mourning (1966). 157 B. Zissu, S. Gibson, and J. Tavor, “Jerusalem Ben Hinnom Valley,” in Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Israel Antiquities Authority (2000): 70-72; J. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006), 6-15; S. Gibson, The Final Days Of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 139-47; C.D. Matheson, J.K. Vernon, A. Lahti, R. Fratpietro, M. Spigelman, S. Gibson, C.L. Greenblatt, and H.D. Donoghue, “Molecular Exploration of the First-Century Tomb of the Shroud in Akeldama, Jerusalem,” posted on www.plosone.org, Volume 4, Issue 12 (December 2009). Accessed 2 December 2010.
72 • 3.8.1. The Criterion of Embarrassment
1. Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin. The
Sanhedrin appears to have voted unanimously to have Jesus
executed: Mark 14:55, 15:51.
2. Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple of Jesus. He did not
defend Jesus at his trial: Matt. 27:57; John 19:38.
3. Joseph went to Pilate at evening. This is a sign that he did not want
anyone knowing he was a follower of Jesus: Matt. 27:57.
• 3.8.2. The Criterion of Discontinuity
1. There are no Old Testament stories or allusions to someone from
“Arimathea” giving proper burial to an enemy. Therefore, the
burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea is not to be considered
“Prophecy Historicized.”
• 3.8.3. The Criterion of Multiple Attestation
1. Joseph of Arimathea is mentioned in all four Gospels: Mark 15:43;
Matt. 27:57; Luke 23:50; John 19:38.
2. Jesus received proper burial in all four Gospels: Mark 15:43-47;
27:57-60; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42.
3. Joseph of Arimathea being a secret disciple is mentioned in two
independent traditions: Matt. 27:57; John 19:38.
73 • 3.8.4. The Criterion of Palestinian Environment
1. The use of the last name “Arimathea” for Joseph as an identifier of
his place of origin is paralleled with other people having their last
name given as an identifier as seen in other Jewish texts in
antiquity. This demonstrates that what we see in the Gospels fits
with a Palestinian Environment.
2. The proper burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea fits with the
context I have demonstrated, whereby executed criminals were
even granted burial before sundown in order to prevent defiling the
land. The Sanhedrin according to Josephus required bodies of
executed criminals to be buried.
3. The wrapping of Jesus’ body with a burial shroud matches with the
literary and archaeological evidence from the first century.
3.9. Conclusion
In this chapter we have seen that the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea stands on firm historical ground. Many of Meier’s criteria have been applied to the burial stories we find in the four Canonical Gospels. It has been shown that the arguments put forward by
John Dominic Crossan that Joseph of Arimathea was not a historical figure and that
Jesus’ body was most likely thrown into a shallow grave eaten by wild dogs do not stand up to first century Palestinian Jewish purity laws connected to the burial of the deceased, including executed criminals. In the words of Jodi Magness:
74 the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial are largely consistent with the archaeological evidence. Although archaeology does not prove there was a follower of Jesus named Joseph of Arimathea or that Pontius Pilate granted his request for Jesus’ body, the Gospel accounts describing Jesus’ removal from the cross and burial are consistent with archaeological evidence and with Jewish law158
It has also been explained that the use of the last name “Arimathea” for Joseph as an identifier of his place of origin works very well in the first century as we have many other people with their last names given in ancient texts in order to specify where they originated. As well, the biblical texts explaining that Joseph was a member of the Jewish
Sanhedrin gives us more reason to believe that this man really did bury Jesus’ body, since the Jewish Sanhedrin appears to have voted Jesus down leading to his execution in a unanimous vote. Would the early church really concoct a fictional story of a Jewish
Sanhedrist doing what was right? I think not.
Therefore, in light of all this and what else has been explained throughout this chapter, combined with the application of John Meier’s historicity criteria to the accounts of Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea, we can be quite certain that this is in fact what happened. I leave it to the skeptic to demonstrate why we should not trust what the
Gospel’s unanimously agree on: That Jesus of Nazareth, after he died from crucifixion, was taken down and buried by Joseph of Arimathea in his own tomb. This much, should be considered historically certain. Settling this with confidence, we may now move on to the question of the historicity of the empty tomb.
158 J. Magness, “Jesus’ Tomb: What Did it Look Like?” in Where Christianity Was Born: A Collection from the Biblical Archaeology Society (ed. Hershel Shanks; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeological Society, 2006), 224.
75 43
Women in Antiquity and the Empty Tomb
…for the sake of posing the question correctly, we have to say that the empty tomb as such, while it cannot prove the Resurrection, is nevertheless a necessary condition for Resurrection faith, which was specifically concerned with the body and, consequently, with the whole of the person.159
Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI
4.1. Relevant Passages
[Mark 16:1-8] Καὶ διαγενοµένου τοῦ σαββάτου Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ [τοῦ] Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώµη ἠγόρασαν ἀρώµατα ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν. καὶ λίαν πρωῒ τῇ µιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἔρχονται ἐπὶ τὸ µνηµεῖον ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου. καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἑαυτάς· τίς ἀποκυλίσει ἡµῖν τὸν λίθον ἐκ τῆς θύρας τοῦ µνηµείου; καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι θεωροῦσιν ὅτι ἀποκεκύλισται ὁ λίθος· ἦν γὰρ µέγας σφόδρα. Καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι εἰς τὸ µνηµεῖον εἶδον νεανίσκον καθήµενον ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς περιβεβληµένον στολὴν λευκήν, καὶ ἐξεθαµβήθησαν. ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς· µὴ ἐκθαµβεῖσθε· Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωµένον· ἠγέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε· ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν. ἀλλὰ ὑπάγετε εἴπατε τοῖς µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ ὅτι προάγει ὑµᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν· ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε, καθὼς εἶπεν ὑµῖν. Καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ µνηµείου, εἶχεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόµος καὶ ἔκστασις· καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν· ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. (When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. They had been saying to one another, ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?’ When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, ‘Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.’ So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.)
[Matthew 28:1-8] Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς µίαν σαββάτων ἦλθεν Μαριὰµ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον. καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισµὸς ἐγένετο µέγας· ἄγγελος γὰρ κυρίου καταβὰς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ προσελθὼν ἀπεκύλισεν τὸν λίθον καὶ ἐκάθητο ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ. ἦν δὲ ἡ εἰδέα αὐτοῦ ὡς ἀστραπὴ καὶ τὸ ἔνδυµα αὐτοῦ λευκὸν ὡς χιών. ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ φόβου αὐτοῦ ἐσείσθησαν οἱ τηροῦντες καὶ ἐγενήθησαν ὡς νεκροί. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν ταῖς γυναιξίν· µὴ φοβεῖσθε ὑµεῖς, οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἐσταυρωµένον ζητεῖτε· οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, ἠγέρθη γὰρ καθὼς εἶπεν· δεῦτε ἴδετε τὸν τόπον ὅπου ἔκειτο. καὶ ταχὺ πορευθεῖσαι εἴπατε τοῖς µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ἰδοὺ προάγει ὑµᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε· ἰδοὺ εἶπον ὑµῖν. Καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ταχὺ ἀπὸ τοῦ µνηµείου µετὰ φόβου καὶ χαρᾶς µεγάλης ἔδραµον ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ. (After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the
159 J. Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth–Part Two: Holy Week. From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), 254.
76 other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, “He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.” This is my message for you.’ So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.)
[Luke 24:1-11] Τῇ δὲ µιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέως ἐπὶ τὸ µνῆµα ἦλθον φέρουσαι ἃ ἡτοίµασαν ἀρώµατα. εὗρον δὲ τὸν λίθον ἀποκεκυλισµένον ἀπὸ τοῦ µνηµείου, εἰσελθοῦσαι δὲ οὐχ εὗρον τὸ σῶµα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ. καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἀπορεῖσθαι αὐτὰς περὶ τούτου καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο ἐπέστησαν αὐταῖς ἐν ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ. ἐµφόβων δὲ γενοµένων αὐτῶν καὶ κλινουσῶν τὰ πρόσωπα εἰς τὴν γῆν εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτάς· τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα µετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν; οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη. µνήσθητε ὡς ἐλάλησεν ὑµῖν ἔτι ὢν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ λέγων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὅτι δεῖ παραδοθῆναι εἰς χεῖρας ἀνθρώπων ἁµαρτωλῶν καὶ σταυρωθῆναι καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡµέρᾳ ἀναστῆναι. καὶ ἐµνήσθησαν τῶν ῥηµάτων αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ὑποστρέψασαι ἀπὸ τοῦ µνηµείου ἀπήγγειλαν ταῦτα πάντα τοῖς ἕνδεκα καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς λοιποῖς. ἦσαν δὲ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ Μαρία καὶ Ἰωάννα καὶ Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ σὺν αὐταῖς. ἔλεγον πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους ταῦτα, καὶ ἐφάνησαν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν ὡσεὶ λῆρος τὰ ῥήµατα ταῦτα, καὶ ἠπίστουν αὐταῖς. (But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in, they did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, ‘Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’ Then they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them.)
[John 20:1-8] Τῇ δὲ µιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ ἔρχεται πρωῒ σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης εἰς τὸ µνηµεῖον καὶ βλέπει τὸν λίθον ἠρµένον ἐκ τοῦ µνηµείου. τρέχει οὖν καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς Σίµωνα Πέτρον καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄλλον µαθητὴν ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἦραν τὸν κύριον ἐκ τοῦ µνηµείου καὶ οὐκ οἴδαµεν ποῦ ἔθηκαν αὐτόν. Ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ Πέτρος καὶ ὁ ἄλλος µαθητὴς καὶ ἤρχοντο εἰς τὸ µνηµεῖον. ἔτρεχον δὲ οἱ δύο ὁµοῦ· καὶ ὁ ἄλλος µαθητὴς προέδραµεν τάχιον τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ ἦλθεν πρῶτος εἰς τὸ µνηµεῖον, καὶ παρακύψας βλέπει κείµενα τὰ ὀθόνια, οὐ µέντοι εἰσῆλθεν. ἔρχεται οὖν καὶ Σίµων Πέτρος ἀκολουθῶν αὐτῷ καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ µνηµεῖον, καὶ θεωρεῖ τὰ ὀθόνια κείµενα, καὶ τὸ σουδάριον, ὃ ἦν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ, οὐ µετὰ τῶν ὀθονίων κείµενον ἀλλὰ χωρὶς ἐντετυλιγµένον εἰς ἕνα τόπον. τότε οὖν εἰσῆλθεν καὶ ὁ ἄλλος µαθητὴς ὁ ἐλθὼν πρῶτος εἰς τὸ µνηµεῖον καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐπίστευσεν· (Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.’ Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went towards the tomb. The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;)
77 4.2. Women Present at the Burial of Jesus
We have already concluded that the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea stands on firm historical ground. However, it was not stated that Joseph of Arimathea and
Nicodemus were not the only people present at the burial of Jesus. We know from each of the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 15:47; Matt. 27:61; Luke 23:55-56) that women followers of Jesus were also present at the burial. We are told that Mary Magdalene and another
Mary (“mother of Joses” [Mark 15:47], “the other Mary” [Matt. 27:61]. Is this the same
Mary? This would make sense as Matthew would have known Mark at least up to this point) were at the burial site when Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus interred Jesus’ body in the tomb.
John most definitely implies that the women knew exactly where the tomb was since Mary Magdalene was certain that Jesus’ body was missing. She shows no signs of being confused or mistaken because of a lack of knowledge when she runs back to tell
Simon Peter that, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him” (John 20:2).160 This sets up the story of the empty tomb, to which we now turn.
160 These passages alone make one wonder how Kirsopp Lake came up with the Wrong Tomb Hypothesis in (1907). His theory was that the women were so distraught that they went to the wrong tomb in a different garden and met up with a caretaker who delivered them the news that there was nobody in the tomb he was standing near. It is highly unlikely that Jesus’ disciples would have allowed the resurrection story to develop with such a thin thread of evidence as this, if it was in fact what happened. K. Lake, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Crown Theological Library; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907; repr. 2009).
78 4.3. A Horizontal Look Through the Four Gospels for Parallels
Taking a horizontal look through these four texts, we notice the following parallels:
(1) The tomb is empty in each of the four Gospel accounts.
(2) Other than in Matthew’s version ([28:2] However, It is not absolutely clear that the women have arrived at the tomb before the earthquake happens and the stone is removed from the entrance to the tomb), the stone is rolled away before the women arrive there.
(3) Each of the four Gospels informs us that the women are going to the tomb. The first century Palestinian Jewish reader would most likely know immediately why they would do so. Mark (16:1 “…bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.”; Luke 24:1
“…they went to the tomb, taking spices which they had prepared.”) and Luke’s accounts tell us that they went to anoint Jesus’ body with spices.
(4) Women are the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb. Compare Mark 16:1 “Mary
Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome”; Matt. 28:1 “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulcher.”; Luke 24:10 “Mary Magdalene and
Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them…”; and John
20:1,2 “Mary Magdalene…we do not know where they have laid him” (emphasis mine).
Notice that Mary Magdalene tells Simon Peter that “we do not know where they have laid him.” The word she uses in Greek is οἴδαµεν, which is the first person plural, present active indicative form of οἶδα which means “to know.” Therefore, we have multiple women going to the tomb in each of the four Gospels.
(5) Mary Magdalene is mentioned in all four Gospels as being the first named eyewitness of the empty tomb.
79 (6) At least one angel (or young man dressed in white) is mentioned in the three Synoptic
Gospels as being at the tomb, delivering the news to the women that Jesus had been raised, and that they must witness what they have seen and heard (Mark 16:5 and Matt.
28:2 both speak of one angel/man in white, whereas Luke (24:4) speaks of two men dressed in white.).
(7) Peter is introduced into Mark and John’s empty tomb narrative by specific reference.
In Mark (16:7) the man in the white robe informs the women to tell the disciples and
Peter that Jesus would go before them into Galilee, whereas John (20:2-8) has Mary running to Simon Peter to tell him that the tomb is empty. It could be that Mark and
John’s accounts complement each other in regards to Peter being notified that the tomb was empty by Mary (and the other women?). It may also be possible that Peter is among those who went to check the women’s story of the empty tomb and the visit with angels spoken about in Luke 24:22-24. In this passage in Luke, two men are walking on the road to Emmaus when Jesus arrives. Not recognizing him, the men proceed to tell the story of this horrible thing that has happened to Jesus (i.e. his crucifixion 24:20), that some women from their own company amazed them with news that Jesus’ tomb was found empty, and that angels visited the women. Following this, they tell Jesus “Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see” (Luke 24:24).
With all this in mind, it is clear that the empty tomb narrative hinges on the testimony of women. For this reason, I will spend considerable time on the question of the historicity of the empty tomb. I will look in depth at each of the parallel observations noted above with the exception of numbers one and seven. Number one immediately
80 allows us to apply the criterion of multiple attestation. Answering the other questions will help reinforce the historical reliability of number one. Number seven is more of a transitional aspect of the story, connecting the empty tomb to the resurrection appearances. That being said, we will also observe the following: 2. The stone being rolled away in all four Gospel accounts and whether or not this fits the first century context of Jewish burial practices. In other words, do the four Gospel accounts fit with the archaeological data relating to first century burial practices? 3. Does the desired anointing of Jesus’ body with spices by the women on Easter Sunday morning make sense according to first century burial practices? 4. Were women considered reliable witnesses in antiquity? Does this part of the Gospel narratives help or hinder the credibility of the empty tomb narratives in the first century? 5. How historically reliable is it that Mary Magdalene was one of the women who discovered the tomb empty and that she had an encounter with a heavenly messenger (i.e. Angel(s), or Jesus?) at the site of the tomb? And leading into question 6. How reliable is it that there was some sort of heavenly messenger at the site of the empty tomb? Questions five and six will be discussed at the same time.
This chapter will examine each of these six questions in the hopes of answering the question, “Was the tomb of Jesus discovered empty on the first Easter Sunday morning?” John P. Meier’s authenticity criteria will be applied at the end of the chapter.
81 4.4. Was the Stone Rolled Away?
We will not spend very long responding to this question. Simply put, were there rolling stones used for closing tombs in antiquity? In the three Synoptic Gospels (Mark 16:4
“ἀποκεκύλισται”; Matt. 28:2 “ἀπεκύλισεν”; and Luke 24:2 “ἀποκεκυλισµένον”), we are told that the stone blocking the entrance to Jesus’ tomb had been “rolled away”.
However, in John’s version (20:1) we are told that the stone had been (“ἠρµένον”) taken away from the tomb. All four versions could technically be saying the same thing. That being said, what do we know about first century burial practices in Palestine? In his article titled “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” in Biblical Archaeology Review
(1999) Amos Kloner says the following:
It is true that the massive blocking stones (in Hebrew, golalim; singular, golel or golal) used to protect the entrances to tombs in Jesus’ day came in two shapes: round and square. But more than 98 percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the Second Temple Period (c. first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones. Of more than 900 burial caves from the Second Temple period found in and around Jerusalem, only four are known to have used round (disk-shaped) blocking stones.161
Kloner also points out that in the time of Jesus, round stones were extremely rare and were most likely used for the burial of the wealthiest Jews.162 He then explains that the word we use for “rolled” is just one translation of the Greek word ἀποκυλίω, which he says can also refer to something being “dislodged,” “moved back,” or simply “moved.”
He reinforces this point by pointing out that in Matthew 28:2 after the angel removes the stone from the entrance to the tomb, the angel proceeds to sit on the stone. Kloner claims
161 A. Kloner, “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” Biblical Archaeology Review 25/5 (Sept/Oct 1999), 23. 162 Ibid., 28.
82 that, “as was the case with Second Temple period round stones, it would have been impossible to sit on it.”163 Though Kloner may have a point (But the round stone may have been on its side), Craig A. Evans, however, has suggested that, “since the Gospel tradition remembers that the tomb belonged to a wealthy man, the stone that closed Jesus’ tomb may very well have been of the larger, wheel-shaped variety.”164
With all this in mind, we can be quite sure that whether or not the stone used for blocking the entrance to Jesus’ tomb was round or square in shape, the narrative account in all four Gospels that there was a stone that was used for blocking the entrance to Jesus’ tomb is well situated in the first century during the time of Jesus.
4.5. First Century Burial Practices and Anointing Dead Bodies
Craig A. Evans reminds us of the process involved in ancient Jewish burial practices:
Following death, the body is washed and wrapped. We can find this custom mentioned in several episodes in the Gospels and elsewhere. We see it in the story of Lazarus, who was bound and wrapped in cloths (John 11:44). The body of Jesus is wrapped in a clean linen shroud (Matt. 27:59; Luke 23:53; John 19:40). The body of Ananias is wrapped and buried (Acts 5:6); so also Dorcas, who “became ill and died. When they had washed her, they laid her in a room upstairs” (Acts 9:37). Moreover, the corpse was usually perfumed (Josephus, Ant. 15:61; for spices, see Ant. 17. 196-99; John 19:39-40). The day of burial was the first of several days of mourning (Semahot 12:1).165
Evans adds that seven days of mourning can be referenced in Josephus (Ant.
17.200), as well as in Old Testament Scripture (Gen. 50:10; 1 Sam. 31:13).166 People
163 Ibid., 28. 164 C.A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (WBC 34B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 535. 165 C.A. Evans and N.T. Wright, Jesus the Final Days: What Really Happened? (ed. T.A. Miller; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 43. 166 Ibid., 44.
83 would normally mourn at the entrance to the tomb of the deceased or inside of the tomb itself. We know this because archaeologists have discovered carved out places in the floor of many tombs where people could come to mourn and pray, as well as the discovery of many perfume bottles and jars. It is no wonder perfume was used to anoint the bodies of the deceased; the stench would have been unbearable167 without it.168 In his commentary on the Gospel of Mark (8:27–16:20) Evans references the Testament of
Abraham, which speaks about angels caring for the body of Abraham following his death
“And they bore his precious soul in their hands in divinely woven linen. And they tended the body of the righteous Abraham with divine ointments and perfumes until the third day after his death. And they buried him in the promised land” (T. Abr. 20:10b-11).169 This passage gives us an example of the proper type of burial one would have expected in the ancient Jewish world including placing the body in a burial shroud and pouring ointment on the corpse.
Since Jesus was placed in the tomb on Friday afternoon, the first chance for anyone to visit the tomb would not have been until Sunday morning, as Sabbath would have prevented a visitation the day before. Evans explains that, “The women’s intention to anoint the body of Jesus indicates their intention to mourn for their master in the tomb itself.”170
With all this in mind, it is plain to see that the Gospel accounts of the women going to anoint Jesus’ body to prepare for an extended period of expected mourning
167 In John 11:39 we read that Martha (Lazarus’ sister) was worried that there would be a stench “ἤδη ὄζει” since Lazarus was buried for four days. 168 Ibid., 44. 169 Evans, Mark 8:26–16:20, 534. 170 Ibid., 70.
84 matches with first century Jewish burial practices.171 This demonstrates that the accounts in the Gospels are referring to something that happened around the time of Christ and not a story fabricated later on that has little to do with burial practices during the time of
Jesus.
4.6. The Concept of Witness in Antiquity
Allison A. Trites explains in his article titled “Witness” in the Dictionary of Jesus and the
Gospels that, “A witness is a person who knows the truth and can testify before a court of law, declaring what has been seen or heard.”172 It is interesting how Trites points out that there was a Jewish principle of the necessity of multiple witnesses in order to establish the evidence of an event.173 He references the following Old Testament passages: Num.
35:30; Deut. 17:6-7; and 19:15,174 as well as the following New Testament passages that demonstrate how the principle of multiple witnesses was honored in New Testament times: John 5:31-32; Heb. 10:28.175 Although this chapter will take note of the fact that common women were not considered reliable witnesses in antiquity, it is worth keeping in mind that there were multiple women who witnessed the empty tomb and encountered the heavenly figure(s). The multiplicity of women at the tomb would have at least counted for something in antiquity despite the common perception that women were not considered trustworthy to give an eyewitness testimony to an event.
171 Joseph Ratzinger explains that “Anointing is an attempt to hold death at bay, to preserve the corpse from decomposition. And yet it is a vain effort: anointing can only maintain the dead person in death; it cannot restore him to life.” See J. Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: Part Two, 228-29. 172 A.A. Trites, “Witness,” in the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. J.B. Green, S. McKnight, and I.H. Marshall; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 877. 173 Ibid., 879. 174 Ibid., 877-79. 175 Ibid., 877.
85
4.7. Were Women Considered to be Reliable Eyewitnesses in the First Century?
In a bibliographical survey, Gary Habermas has shown with the help of over 2,200 publications on the topic of the resurrection of Jesus in English, French, and German from 1975-2006, that about 75 percent of scholars accepted the historical reliability of the empty tomb of Jesus.176 These scholars believe the empty tomb to be historical because of the accounts of the women as being the first eyewitnesses of the empty sepulcher. This statistic demonstrates that a good majority of experts who have studied the resurrection of
Jesus believe this part of the account to be historically well situated and reliable. On the other hand, I also agree with Dale C. Allison who states that he is, “much less interested in counting noses than in reviewing arguments.”177 For this reason, we will examine the pertinent data in the hopes of establishing a relatively comfortable conclusion on the matter.
James Crossley claims that, “People in the ancient world were more than happy to invent stories about their heroes and were not constrained by modern concepts of truth and historicity.”178 Although this statement was not given by Crossley to refer to the accounts of the empty tomb being discovered by women in the four Gospels, it is ironic that he says this; as unlike today, women’s testimony in antiquity was considered to be quite shaky and would not serve to be an apologetical help for the propagation of the
176 Gary R. Habermas, “Experience of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection,” Dialog 45 (2006): 292. 177 Dale C. Allison, “Explaining the Resurrection: Conflicting Convictions,” in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3 (2005): 125. 178 M.F. Bird and J.G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin? A Believer and non-Believer Examine the Evidence (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 56.
86 Christian message.179 As will be seen in this section of the thesis, the following statement by Richard Bauckham will ring with truth! He states that in the Greco-Roman world educated men considered women as “gullible in religious matters and especially prone to superstitious fantasy and excessive in religious practices.”180 It spite of this, it will be shown that the four Gospels accounts of the women as the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb are historically reliable.
Michael Bird informs us that, “the lack of scriptural echoes and citations shows that the story has not been made up on the back of a catena of Old Testament proof texts.”181 Therefore, it cannot be argued that the women at the tomb is to be thought of as prophecy historicized. We can observe in the New Testament itself how a woman’s testimony was taken with great hesitancy (i.e. Luke 24:11 ‘these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them”). With this in mind, let us examine some passages from antiquity which speak of the status and place of women in regards to the respect of their testimony.
4.8. The Reputation of Women in Antiquity
• Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt that delivered to women. (Talmud, Sotah 19a)
• The World cannot exist without males and without females—happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females. (Talmud, Kiddushin 82b)
179 The earliest written Pagan critique of Christianity is that of the middle Platonist Celsus. In his work entitled The True Word (c. AD 175), he argues that the resurrection of Jesus is not reliable since it depends on the testimony of hysterical women who were said to have been the first witnesses and proclaimers of Jesus’ resurrection. This critique is found in Contra Celsum 2.55 (apud Origin). See D.M. Scholer, “Women,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. J.B. Green, S. McKnight, and I.H. Marshall; Downers Grove: InterVarity Press, 1992), 883-84. 180 R. Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 270-71. 181 M.F. Bird and J.G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 42.
87
• But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, not let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. (Josephus, Ant. 4.8.15)182
• Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman. (y. Rosh Hashannah 1.8)
The Roman historian Suetonius (c. AD 115) writes of Caesar Augustus who was emperor at the time of Jesus’ birth through AD 14:
• Whereas men and women had hitherto always sat together, Augustus confined women to the back rows even at gladiatorial shows: the only ones exempt from this rule being the Vestal Virgins, for whom separate accommodation was provided, facing the praetor’s tribunal. No women at all were allowed to witness the athletic contests; indeed, when the audience clamored at the Games for a special boxing match to celebrate his appointment as Chief Priest, Augustus postponed this until early the next morning, and issued a proclamation to the effect that it was the Chief Priest’s desire that women should not attend the Theatre before ten o’clock.183
These passages provide us with some valuable insight regarding the common standing of a woman’s testimony in antiquity. Although the passages shown from the
Talmud are dated much later (Palestinian=5th cent., Babylonian=6th cent.184), it may contain early tradition. As well, the passages from Josephus and Suetonius provide us with earlier ideas about women which have an even stronger chance of reaching back into
182 William Lane Craig rightly notes that “No such regulation is to be found in the Pentateuch but is rather a reflection of the patriarchal society of first-century Judaism.” See W.L.Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (3rd ed., Weaton: Crossway, 2008), 367. 183 Gaius Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Augustus 44 (trans. Robert Graves; New York: Penguin, 1989), 80. 184 J.C. Vanderkam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 175.
88 the first century. Richard Bauckham gives us a number of further references which speak of the low esteem of women in the Roman world: “Juvenal, Sat. 6.511-91; Plutarch, De
Pyth. 25 (Mor. 407C); Fronto apud Minucius Felix, Octavius 8-9; Clement of Alexandria,
Paed. 34.28; Celsus apud Origen, C. Cels. 3.55; 2 Tim. 3:6-7;…Strabo, Geog. 1.2.8.”185
Michael Licona also provides Suetonius Aug. 44 which suggests “women were esteemed less than men,”186 as well as 1 Tim. 4:7, “where old women are mentioned in a manner lacking respect.”187
Licona supplies a list of Jewish sources which indicate a low view of women in
Jewish culture (one must keep in mind that the Talmud was dated quite a bit later. Some of these were already given as examples above): Jos. Ant. 4.8.15; t. Ber. 7:18; Sotah 19a;
Kiddushin 82b; Rosh HaShana 1.8 (“According to Rosh HaShana 1.8, the value of a woman’s testimony was equal to that of a thief.”).188
Everett Ferguson reminds us of the prayer from the Jewish prayer book which is often cited as evidence of Jewish Misogyny: ‘“Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, who has not made me a woman,” [This] must be understood in [its] context as referring to [a] woman’s inability to fulfill all the commands of the law, which was the highest privilege recognized by rabbinic Judaism. It must be balanced by many statements in rabbinic literature giving a positive estimate of women.”189
Pinchas Lapide explains that, “In a purely fictional narrative one would have avoided making women the crown witnesses of the resurrection since they were
185 Bauckham, Gospel Women, 270-71. 186 M.R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010), 350 n. 276. 187 Ibid., 350 n. 276. It should be noted that 1 Tim. 4:7 does not specifically mention women. This example may not be useful. 188 Ibid., 350 n. 277. 189 E. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (3rd ed., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2003), 78.
89 considered in rabbinic Judaism as incapable of giving valid testimony.”190 To support this claim, Lapide supplies the following references:
Manoah said to the angel, “Until now I have heard it from women that I am to have a son…but one cannot rely on the words of women; but now the word may come from your mouth. I would like to hear it; because I do not trust her words; perhaps she has changed or omitted or added something (Numbers Rabbah 10).
Another story in Yalkut Shomoni I, 82 explains that women were unable to give testimony before a court, since Sarah denied laughing at the word that she would bring forth a son (Gen. 18:15). Finally, Lapide shows the irony in the resurrection narratives regarding how the women give testimony to men about Jesus’ resurrection. In Rosh
HaShanah 22a we are told that the only time a woman was permitted to give testimony before men was if a man had died. In the case of the Gospels, the opposite is taking place!191
One can also apply 1 Cor. 15:3-7 (an early Jewish Christian Creed) which omits the women from the entire list of resurrection appearances (it is likely that they were assumed as being a part of the larger group that encountered the risen Jesus in v.6). This, however, is not surprising as Paul is passing on an orderly and early creed, which included no unnecessary extras. Also keeping in mind the above referenced passages from the Roman world, it would have been more to Paul’s benefit not to mention the women as the Greco-Roman population appeared to have had even less patience for women than the Jewish population.
190 P. Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1982), 95. Pinchas Lapide is particularly intriguing because although he is not a Christian but an Orthdox Jew, he demonstrates in his book why Jesus did in fact bodily rise from the dead! In an article titled “Religion: Resurrection?” in Time Magazine (Monday, May 07, 1979), the liberal German Rabbi Peter Levinson responded to Lapide by saying that, “If I believed in Jesus’ Resurrection I would be baptized tomorrow.” 191 Ibid., 95-96.
90 Dale Allison also weighs in on Paul’s omission of the women as witnesses of the empty tomb and resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 with the following:
This inference from 1 Cor 15:3-8 and Paul’s disregard of the empty tomb is less than overwhelming. It remains and argument from silence regarding a very compressed statement, one mostly bereft of details. Pilate, Jerusalem, and the crucifixion also go unmentioned….Paul also fails to mention Joseph of Arimathea. The apostle often surprises us by what he fails to refer to in Jesus tradition, even when it would serve his purpose… 192
Therefore, in light of all of these references, we can be confident that in the words of Everett Ferguson, “The Jewish woman…was not qualified to appear as a witness in court”193 or most other areas of Jewish life in the first century. I have shown that the testimony and standing of women was not considered on par with the testimony and standing of men in antiquity both in Greco-Roman and in Jewish societies. Before we apply the criterion of embarrassment to the empty tomb narratives located in the four
Gospels, we should look at what some other scholars have said on the subject of whether or not the criterion of embarrassment is an applicable criterion to apply to these accounts.
4.9. Is the Criterion of Embarrassment Not Valid for Women as Eyewitnesses?
James Crossley argues that the criterion of embarrassment should be ignored from the
Gospel accounts of the women as the eyewitnesses of the empty tomb because there are non-biblical references to women in prominent roles in ancient societies. He gives the following examples:
192 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 306. 193 Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 78.
91 (1) We have another Jewish revolutionary during the time of the Jewish revolt against Rome named Simon bar Giora, who also had a culturally unusual following of women (Josephus, J.W. 4.505).194 The problem with this example given to us by Crossley is that it says nothing of the status of the women in Simon Bar Giora’s following. It also leaves out anything to do with his women followers’ ability to give testimony. One could possibly argue that Josephus’ mentioning of Simon’s women followers was meant to show the opposite of what he said in the previous two lines:
(503) And now there arose another war at Jerusalem. There was a son of Giora, one Simon, by birth of Gerasa, a young man, not so cunning indeed as John [of Gischala], who had already seized upon the city, (504) but superior in strength of body and courage; on which account, when he had driven away from that Acrabattene toparchy, which he once had, by Ananus the high priest, he came to those robbers who had seized upon Masada. (505) At first they suspected him, and only permitted him to come with the women he brought with him into the lower part of the fortress, while they dwelt in the upper part of it themselves. (506) However, his manner so well agreed with theirs, and he seemed so trusty a man…195
It would appear that Josephus is not fond of Simon bar Giora. His use of the phrases “not so cunning,” “superior in strength of body and courage…when he had driven away from that Acrabbatene toparchy, which he once had,” “he came to those robbers who had seized upon Masada,” “only permitted him to come with the women he brought with him,” “he seemed so trusty a man…” Maybe Josephus mentioned Simon’s women followers as a way of showing that he was not so “superior in strength of body and courage” after all? (2) Celsus (second-century CE opponent of Christianity) noted the prominent role of women in Christian history:
194 M.F. Bird and J.G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 59-60. 195 W. Whiston, trans., The Works of Flavius Josephus (Philadelphia: Jas. B. Smith and Co., 1854), 688.
92 For such was the charm of Jesus’ words, that not only where men willing to follow Him to the wilderness, but women also, forgetting the weakness of their sex and a regard for outward propriety in thus following their Teacher into desert place…By which words, acknowledging that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children.” (Origin, Contra Celsum 3.10, 44)196
Crossley explains how although this passage given by Celsus has been used to demonstrate how unlikely it would have been to use women as eyewitnesses in antiquity, he offers an alternative interpretation. It could demonstrate that it may have been
“culturally acceptable for Christians to use [women] as witnesses to Jesus or to be given a prominent role in the story.”197 That being said, even if Crossley is correct, this does not necessarily mean that common women were given prominent standing in normal Greco-
Roman and Jewish societies. Jesus having women followers may very well have been revolutionary, as has been shown in the fine work by Ben Witherington III titled Women in the Earliest Churches.198
(3) Crossley considers another plausible counter-argument, that Jews could and did compose written accounts of women, such as Esther and Judith.199 The problem with this counter-argument is that the stories of Esther and Judith were most likely composed well before the first century. Mary Joan Winn Leith dates the composition of Esther in the early Hellenistic period (late fourth-third century BC).200 James C. Vanderkam explains that Judith should most likely be dated either c. 330 BC or 167 BC, depending
196 Ibid., 59-60. 197 Ibid., 60. 198 B. Witherington III, Women in the Earliest Churches (SNTSMS 59; Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988). 199 M.F. Bird and J.G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 60. 200 M.J.W. Leith, “Esther,” in The New Oxford Annotated Bible: NRSV (ed. Michael Coogan; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 708HB.
93 on how one works with the details within the text.201 These dates place both books well before the time of Jesus and do not support Crossley’s theory.
One could also make the argument that the purpose of the stories of Esther and
Judith was to show that Jewish women were heroines who make Gentile and enemy rulers look weak and foolish. Israel’s women were greater leaders than the Pagan nations’ male leaders!
(4) Crossley gives yet another: It could be that since the biblical texts say that
Jesus’ male disciples were not at the crucifixion and the burial of Jesus, and women were present, in order for there to be a plausible empty tomb narrative and a subsequent resurrection, one would need to create witnesses of the burial and empty tomb of Jesus.
Since men are not present at either event, “The narrative almost requires the women to be the first witnesses.”202 The problem with this argument is that Joseph of Arimathea and/or
Nicodemus could have been used as the eyewitnesses of the empty tomb, because as far as we know, they are still in Jerusalem. This would have produced a plausible account where men would have been the first witnesses of the empty tomb. It would also have helped reinforce the case if the same person who buried Jesus (in his own tomb) was the same person who saw the tomb empty.
Habermas and Licona do mention, however, that the principle of embarrassment when applied to the women’s testimony can only be pressed so far. References do exist which demonstrate a higher view of women. For example, the Talmud says that “God has endowed women with a special sense of wisdom which man lacks” (Niddah 45), as well a
201 J. C. Vanderkam, An Introduction to Early Judaism, 72. 202 M.F. Bird and J.G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 60.
94 clear passage where a women’s testimony is accepted (Ketubot 2:6-7). That being said, the Talmud is dated much later than Josephus.203
For these reasons, none of Crossley’s counter-arguments of the application of the criterion of embarrassment to the empty tomb narratives make any impact on the acceptance of a woman’s testimony in antiquity during the time of Christ.
In her book Women in the World of the Earliest Christians, Lynn H. Cohick brings the Qumran community to our attention.204 She references 1QSa 1:11 which reads that, “at that time shall be received to bear witness of him (concerning) the judgments of the law and to take her place at the hearing of the judgments.” It appears that a woman’s testimony was sought in order to know about her husband’s sexual behavior for the purposes of maintaining a pure community. We should read this passage along with
4Q270 frag. 7, col. i, lines 12-13 (and parallel text: 4Q267 frag. 9 col. vi, lines 4-5), which speaks about a man getting excommunicated for having illicit sex with his wife.
Cohick believes this should be understood as men having sexual intercourse with pregnant wives.205
Cohick also brings our attention to other passages from the scrolls which speak of a woman having the chance to give her testimony. These include: 4Q270 4; 4Q266 12; and 4Q271 frag. 3, line 14.
Even with these passages in mind, the Qumran community was such an isolated group, and the references from the Scrolls that Cohick provides for us allows women’s
203 G.R. Habermas and M.R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 289 n. 35. 204 L. H. Cohick, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 204. 205 Ibid., 204.
95 testimony in rare cases. None of the examples she has given allow woman to speak up in the public forum on a regular basis, but in extreme circumstances.
Cohick also references numerous passages in Greco-Roman literature that speak of women giving testimony to the Roman Senate. Cohick points to the late second and first centuries BC, when the Oppian Law was overturned in 195 BC.206 After this happened, many prominent women begin speaking up in the Roman court. This being the case, Cohick mentions, “It would be a mistake to suggest that public and private benefaction raised the level of all women throughout the Roman world.”207 That being said, wealthy, elite women were given greater status and increased opportunity to speak up in both the Roman imperial cult as well as the ability to speak up in the Jewish synagogue for wealthy, elite Jewish women.
Even with this in mind, it does not represent the common Greco-Roman or Jewish woman but only those who were of a wealthy and elite status. Wayne Meeks suggests that with some notable exceptions, Christians in the first-century were mainly made up of the lower and working class.208 Ben Witherington III adds that “early Christianity was largely an urban phenomenon, and Paul was writing to Christians who had not withdrawn from the world like the Qumran community.”209
For this reason, we should not assume that the testimony of female Christians in the first century (especially Mary Magdalene with her past history) would be considered
206 Cohick adds : “This law enacted in 215 BC restricted women’s finery in public and thus their abilities to highlight their wealth and family’s honor. After 201 BC, with Hannibal’s defeat, Roman men once again began to wear purple and display their wealth, but the Oppian Law prevented noble women from the same. The mass demonstration by elite Roman matrons before the senate was unprecedented. See Livy, Hist. 34.1-7.” See L.H. Cohick, Women in the Earliest Churches, 286-87. 207 Ibid., 319. 208 W.A. Meeks, First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (2nd ed., New York: Yale University Press, 2003), 9. 209 Ben Witherington III, Women in the Earliest Churches, 213.
96 reliable. We have seen that women in antiquity were not in high esteem as in modern times, as well as in Western cultures (women are still oppressed in much of the Arab world). It has become clear that scholars have failed to demonstrate a high perception of the common woman (Greco-Roman and Jewish) in the first century. With the information we have available to us, we are now in the position to apply the criterion of embarrassment. It is highly unlikely that the early church would have fabricated a story about women as the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb. This places the story of the empty tomb of Jesus on firm historical footing.
4.10. A Heavenly Appearance and Message to Mary at the Empty Tomb
Dale Allison believes that there are good reasons to believe that there was an early tradition about a christophany or angelophany to Mary. It will become apparent that this also helps to demonstrate the historicity of the empty tomb itself. We will examine
Allison’s work in detail.
(1) Allison notes that just like Peter who is always named first in the lists of the
Twelve (Matt. 10:1-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; cf. also Matt 17:1; 26:37;
Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; Luke 8:51; 22:8; John 21:3), with the exception of John 19:25,210
Mary Magdalene is always listed first in the empty tomb or appearance narratives (Matt.
28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 20:1). In response to this observation, Allison posits that: “One explanation for Mary’s initial placement, especially given the dearth of other stories about her, would be the memory that she first saw Jesus. A competing explanation
210 Theissen and Merz note that “John 19:25 is only an apparent exception: this list puts the women under the cross in order of their kinship with Jesus (beginning with his mother). Mary Magdalene is the only woman to be mentioned who is not a relation – thus this passage also confirms her prominent place among the male and female disciples of Jesus.” See G. Theissen and A. Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 498.
97 does not suggest itself.”211 I would add to this that Mary Magdalene may have been the first female follower to see the empty tomb as well. At this juncture we are in the position to apply the criterion of multiple attestation.
(2) It is plausible that Mark 16:7 (the angelophany) and John 20:17 (the christophany) most likely contain variants of the same saying. Both of these announcements are given to Mary Magdalene, and both are spoken near Jesus’ tomb on
Easter morning. As well, both command Mary to tell the disciples about what Jesus is going to do. We see the parallels here:
Mark 16:7 ὑπάγετε (Go) εἴπατε τοῖς µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ (tell his disciples) προάγει (he is going before) John 20:17 πορεύου (Go) πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφούς µου καὶ εἰπὲ αὐτοῖς (to my brothers and say) ἀναβαίνω (I am ascending)
Allison believes there is good reason to suspect that the angelophany is a version of the christophany, or visa versa. He also notes a parallel in Matthew, where the words of the angel to Mary as well as the words of Jesus to Mary seem even more similar:212
Matt. 28:7 πορευθεῖσαι (Go) εἴπατε τοῖς µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ (and tell his disciples) προάγει ὑµᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν (he is going ahead of you into Galilee) ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε (there you will see him)
211 D.C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 249. 212 Ibid., 250.
98 Matt. 28:10 ὑπάγετε (Go) ἀπαγγείλατε τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς µου (tell my brothers) ἀπέλθωσιν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν (to go to Galilee) κἀκεῖ µε ὄψονται (there they will see me)
Although these parallels are most definitely fascinating, it is difficult for a scholar to know whether to apply the criterion of multiple attestation to the angelophany or christophany. Allison may well be correct in noting the similarities between the Synoptic and Johannine accounts of the encounters of Mary Magdalene (the other women) and the heavenly figure (angel or angels? or resurrected Jesus?). We cannot be sure how to proceed at this point regarding the application of the criterion of multiple attestation.
More study could be done on these parallels or similarities in the future, which may help to shed more light on these passages. That being said, we may be able to loosely apply the criterion of multiple attestation to the historicity of Mary having an encounter with a heavenly figure(s) at the tomb as will be shown in the following point.
(3) Tradition tells us that Mary, or Mary and other women, are greeted by an angel or the risen Jesus himself, or maybe even both:
Matt Mark Ps.-Mark Luke John Gos. Pet.
Angelophany 28:1-8 16:1-8 24:1-11 20:1-13 13:55-56
Christophany 28:9-10 16:9-11 20:14-18
It is possible that Mark ended with a Christophany. That being said, Mark does not include such an event in its current. Robert Gundry believes that Matthew 28:8-10 might
99 be depending upon the lost ending of Mark.213
Why is Mary excluded from 1 Corinthians 15:3-8? It is possible that Mary’s past history, which may have included being known as one, “from whom seven demons had gone out” (Luke 8:2; Ps.-Mark 16:9), discouraged Paul from including it in his account of
Jesus’ resurrection appearances.214 After all, who would trust the word of a former demoniac?
Allison points out that even Matthew, who does mention the appearances to Mary, seems to rush over the story to get to Jesus’ appearances to his male disciples (Matt.
28:16-20). it could also be because women were not trusted as reliable eyewitnesses in antiquity and Paul was trying to demonstrate to the Corinthian Church that Jesus’ resurrection was trustworthy and can be attested to by a number of men.
Allison is correct in saying that consideration should be given to G.W. Trompf’s claim that while, “fiction surrounds appearances to Peter, James and Mary in apocryphal literature…there are no examples of entirely derived appearances to people for whom no such appearances have already been attested.” The implication of Trompf’s statement is that Matthew and John would not have included an appearance of Jesus to Mary if in fact they knew that such a tradition did not happen.215 Theissen and Merz add in conclusion:
213 R.H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1009-12. 214 Depending on where the Creed Paul received ends and where he adds his own material to it, it is possible that Paul only mentions the key leaders of the Christian Church by name. Or that he only names those whom he has personally met. (i.e., Cephas/Peter is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:5 and James in 1 Cor. 15:7). Paul personally met both of them on his trip to Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18- 20). In fact, they are the only two apostle’s Paul mentions in Gal. 1:18-20. 215 G.W. Trompf, “The First Resurrection Appearance and the Ending of Mark’s Gospel,” NTS 18 (1972): 317 n. 5, as cited in Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 252.
100 “it is more probable that an original tradition of a [first appearance] to Mary Magdalene has been suppressed than that it first came into being at a later date.”216
Joachim Jeremias thought that the Gospel reports of Jesus appearing to Mary
Magdalene to be “quite credible” and defended this by saying the following:
Were it a fabrication, the first appearance would not have been said to be to a woman, as women were not qualified to give testimony. There is also a ring of truth about the note that the two experiences of Mary of Magdala, the appearances of the angels and of Christ, at first had no effect: no one believed her (Luke 24.10f., 23; Ps.-Mark 16:10f.). This sounds credible because it does not put the disciples in a good light.217
Jeremias’ keen insight may provide us with another example of where the criterion of embarrassment can be applied. Not only are the women the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb with Mary Magdalene named first in each account, but the disciples do not believe what she is saying. It certainly does not place them in a good light and in the course of the biblical narrative they will stand corrected!
Ben Witherington III adds that:
What is significant is that the women were not simply eye-witnesses of an empty tomb that, taken in isolation, was ambiguous. Indeed, first they were ear-witnesses of the Easter message, which gave them the key to a proper interpretation of the empty tomb. Thus, the women had both heard and seen. They could testify not only to an empty tomb but also to a risen Jesus.218
4.11. Jewish Polemic Against the Empty Tomb
Michael Bird reminds us that there was an ancient Jewish polemic against the resurrection of Jesus. It is found in Matthew 28.13; Justin, Dial. 108.2 and the Gospel of
216 Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, 498. 217 J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), 306. 218 Witherington, Women in the Earliest Churches, 164.
101 Peter 8.30. The Jewish counter-claim to the resurrection of Jesus is that his disciples stole the body. The irony of this counter-claim is that it gives historical credibility to the empty tomb narratives and helps add historical veracity to the accounts of Jesus’ burial as well as the empty tomb being discovered by the women on the first Easter Sunday morning.219
4.12. Applying Meier’s Criteria to the Empty Tomb
Applying the various criteria of authenticity is not an easy task as it is not a completely objective process. That being said, he or she who applies the criteria has the burden of proof in defending how he or she has made his or her decisions. I believe I have demonstrated throughout this chapter why the historicity of the events I will now list is more reliable than not, since the criteria that John P. Meier has adopted (and I have adopted) can be applied to them:
• 4.12.1. The Criterion of Embarrassment
1. The women as the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb.
2. Mary Magdalene as an eyewitness because of her past reputation as being
a former demoniac (Luke 8:2).
3. The male disciples are not seen in a good light for not trusting Mary’s
report (Luke 24:10,23).
4. Matthew’s Gospel (28:13) includes a Jewish polemic against the
resurrection by claiming the disciples stole the body. This also strengthens
the case for the historicity of the empty tomb.
219 M.F. Bird and J.G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 42.
102
• 4.12.2. The Criterion of Discontinuity
1. There are no Old Testament Scriptural allusions that the story of the
women at the empty tomb could be based on. Therefore, the women as the
first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb, and the subsequent encounter with
the heavenly figure(s) (one or two angels and/or Jesus) should not be
considered as prophecy historicized.
• 4.12.3. The Criterion of Multiple Attestation
1. Women at the burial of Jesus (if we include John 20:2).
2. Multiple women as the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb: Mark 16:1;
Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:10; John 20:1,2.
3. The tomb is empty in all four Gospels.
4. Stone removed from tomb: Mark 16:4; Matt. 28:2; Luke 24:2; John 20:1.
5. Mary Magdalene named as first of all the women at the tomb: Mark 16:1;
Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:10; John 20:1.
• 4.12.4. The Criterion of Palestinian Environment
1. A stone was used to close the tomb: Mark 16:4; Matt. 28:2; Luke 24:2;
John 20:1.
2. Jewish burial and mourning practices are observed within all four Gospels.
103 4.13. Conclusion
In light of the above research, it is more probable than not that the tomb in which Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea was discovered empty by some of his women followers including Mary Magdalene on the first Easter Sunday morning. This is most likely since common women were not considered to be reliable witnesses in antiquity.
We have also seen that this event cannot be based on Old Testament allusions, therefore it should not be considered prophecy historicized. As well, the story discussed in this chapter is very well situated in a first century Palestinian environment. For all of these reasons and others previously mentioned, this story should be considered historically reliable and the Christian should have confidence that the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth was empty on Easter morning. This alone does not prove the resurrection of Jesus, but without it, the resurrection would make no sense. Thus far, we have established the historical reliability of the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea, and the empty tomb. The next chapter will look at our earliest material relating to the appearances of the risen Jesus.
The final words of this chapter will go to D.H. Van Daalen who goes so far as to say that,
“It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.”220
220 D.H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection (London: Collins, 1972), 41.
104
54
Paul and the Earliest Creed about Jesus’ Resurrection
…despite some scholarly opinion to the contrary, there is just no good evidence for belief in a non-physical resurrection in Paul, much less within the primitive Jerusalem community…even in Paul, in 1 Cor 15, when defending the notion of a “spiritual body,” teaches – like 2 Bar. 51:10 – the transformation of corpses, not their abandonment.221
Dale C. Allison Jr.
It is very unlikely that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive of any distinction between resurrection and physical, ‘grave-emptying’ resurrection. To them an anastasis (resurrection) without an empty grave would have been about as meaningful as a square circle.222
E. Earle Ellis
5.1. Relevant Passage
[1Cor. 15:3-8] παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑµῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ἡµῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡµέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα· ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ, ἐξ ὧν οἱ πλείονες µένουσιν ἕως ἄρτι, τινὲς δὲ ἐκοιµήθησαν· ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ εἶτα τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν· ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώµατι ὤφθη κἀµοί (For I passed/handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he has been raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter/Rock), then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, however some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. At the very end, as to one [miscarried], he appeared also to me. (My own translation).
221 D.C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 317. 222 E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (New Century Bible; London: Nelson, 1966), 273.
105 5.2. The Famous Creed
1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is one of the most famous passages in the entire Bible. It is the earliest statement of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus in existence. In the words of Donald A. Hagnar, “If the empty tomb does not have great apologetic significance… the resurrection of Jesus certainly does.”223 Scholars are quite certain that in 1
Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul is writing down an early creed or tradition, which he himself received from another person and/or persons. Paul most likely composed 1 Corinthians
(his second letter to the Corinthian church) around the year A.D. 54, depending on the location of the writing (Ephesus 52-55).224 He is writing the letter to a mixed church made up of both Jews and Gentiles gathered together in Corinth who were most likely converted by Paul himself (50/51-52 or 42-43).225 According to James D.G. Dunn, “This tradition (1 Cor. 15:3-8), we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death”226 (emphasis mine). In a chapter titled “Tracing Jesus’
Resurrection to Its Earliest Eyewitness Accounts,” Gary Habermas asserts that the majority of New Testament scholars believe that Paul received this early tradition (1 Cor.
15:3-7) during his visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:15-18) from none other than Peter and
James, the only other people named in the 1 Cor. 15:3-7 tradition besides Paul himself.227
Paul’s reception of this material in Jerusalem should be dated to around three years after
223 D. A. Hagnar, “Gospel, Kingdom, and Resurrection in the Synoptic Gospels,” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament (ed. R. N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 120. 224 Most scholars date 1 Corinthians between AD 52 and early AD 55. It is believed that Paul composed the letter in Ephesus on his third missionary journey (1 Cor. 16:8, 19; cf. Acts 19:1-41). The preferred date is sometime in the spring of AD 54 (1 Cor. 16:8). See G.M. Burge, L.H. Cohick, and G.L. Green, The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within its Cultural Contexts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 308. 225 R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL: New York: DoubleDay, 1997) 512. 226 J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 855. 227 G.R. Habermas “Tracing Jesus’ Resurrection to Its Earliest Eyewitness Accounts,” in God is Good, God is Great (ed. W.L. Craig; IVP Books; Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 206-207.
106 his conversion, approximately A.D. 34-36. In Galatians 1:18, Paul uses the Greek word
ἱστορέω (“to visit” with the purpose of gaining information228) to describe the purpose of his trip. As Richard Bauckham makes clear, “There can be no doubt that…Paul is citing the eyewitness testimony of those who were recipients of resurrection appearances.” 229
Emphasizing the importance of this Creed, Richard N. Longenecker has said that, “what needs to be noted…is the fact that in 15:12-58 Paul bases all of his arguments on an early
Christian confessional portion that he incorporates in 15:3b-5.”230
5.3. Dating 1 Corinthians 15:3-7
According to Seyoon Kim, there are at least eleven references to Jesus tradition embedded in the writings of Paul.231 Although this list is based solely on the sayings traditions of Jesus located in Paul’s writings, it is safe to say that Paul would have received the tradition we have in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 at approximately the same time.
So, where should we date Paul’s reception of this material? Several options will be discussed, yet it is important to note that even if Paul received this tradition later than the earliest date, the tradition itself is most likely earlier and more primitive. That being said, a solid argument can be made for an early dating of Paul’s reception of the material in question.
228 J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains (1989; accessed from Accordance Bible Software: OakTree Software, Inc., 2010). 229 R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 308. 230 R.N. Longenecker, “Is there Development in Paul’s Resurrection Thought?” from: Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament (ed. R. N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 187. 231 S. Kim, Paul and The New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 259-70. See 1 Cor. 7:10-11; 9:14; 11:23-25; 13:7; Rom. 14:14; Rom. 12:14- 21/1Cor. 4:11-13; Rom. 13:8-10/Gal. 5:14; Rom. 13:7 Rom. 8:15/Gal. 4:6 (not including 1 Cor. 15:3-7 because it does not contain oral tradition from Jesus).
107 A case can be made that Paul received the tradition as early as within three years of the death of Jesus. Immediately following Paul’s conversion, according to Luke’s account in Acts, he enters Damascus and spends time with Ananias who heals his blindness from the Road to Damascus experience (blinding light). We are told in Acts
9:19-22 that over the course of Paul’s visit to Damascus he becomes increasingly powerful in his ability to prove the Christian faith to his Jewish opponents. One must ask how this would have been possible had he not received training in the Christian faith during his stay. It is quite possible that Paul in fact received the tradition we find in 1
Corinthians 15:3-7 during this visit.232
Another possible date for Paul’s receiving of this early tradition is three years after his conversion experience (Gal. 1:18). On this trip, Paul stays with Peter in
Jerusalem for fifteen days. As was previously mentioned, Paul’s use of the Greek word
ἱστορέω (“to visit” with the purpose of gaining information233) to describe the purpose of his visit helps the reader see that Paul must have had ample opportunity on this visit to glean early tradition about Jesus from the Jerusalem leadership led by Peter. It is unlikely that Paul would have missed such an opportunity to ask Peter questions about the death and resurrection of Jesus. We are told that Paul visits Jerusalem at least two more times before he sits down to compose 1 Corinthians (Acts 17:27-30; 15:1-29; Gal. 2:1-10).234
232 Joseph Ratzinger: “When exactly and from whom Paul received this confession has been the object of further inquiry, just as we saw in the case of the Last Supper tradition. In any event, it forms part of the primary catechesis that he as a convert would have received while still in Damascus, but its essential con- tent was doubtless formulated in Jerusalem and therefore dates back to the 30s, a real testimony to the origins.” J. Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth–Part Two: Holy Week. From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), 250. 233 Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Accordance Bible Software). 234 Michael Licona lists more meetings Paul had with Christians prior to his writing of 1 Corinthians. M.R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010), 231-32.
108 It is very likely that Paul received this tradition within three to six years of Jesus’ death and resurrection, placing the tradition quite early. To repeat James D.G. Dunn,
“This tradition (1 Cor. 15:3-8), we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death”235 (emphasis mine). It may very well be possible that the tradition behind the writing of 1 Cor. 15:3-7 was composed the same year that Jesus died and rose from the dead!
5.4. Exegesis of Passage
In order to grasp what Paul is talking about in this passage, I will give it a thorough exegesis in order to shed light on what makes this Creed so famous. It is loaded with historical information, and many of John P. Meier’s historical criteria can only be applied once the exegetical legwork has been accomplished. For this reason, I will give some detailed attention to this famous Creed.
5.5. First Corinthians 15:3
παρέδωκα is the first person singular, aorist, active, indicative form of the verb
παραδίδωµι. According to BDAG, it means, “To pass on to another what one knows, of oral or written tradition, hand down, pass on, transmit, relate, teach”236 (emphasis mine).
This verb is used 119 times in the New Testament. Paul himself uses it nineteen times
(Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; 4:25; 6:17; 8:32; 1 Cor. 5:5; 11:2, 23; 13:3; 15:3, 24: 2 Cor. 4:11;
235 J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 855. 236 “παραδίδωµι,” in W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd English ed., Revised and Edited by F.W. Danker, based on W. Bauer’s German Edition, and the Previous English Editions; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 762-63.
109 Gal. 2:20; Eph. 4:19; 5:2, 25; 1 Tim. 1:20 [if it is included as Pauline). In most of these references, it is clear that there is a passing and/or handing on of something to be entrusted by a recipient. In the case of 1 Cor. 15:3, we can see Paul continuing the same line of thought as a few chapters earlier in 1 Cor. 11:23 (“ Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ
κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑµῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν
ἄρτον”: “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread”). The imagery is clear: Paul is speaking about passing on to someone else what he himself had received. Although the imagery of handing over is clear, it is not always used consistently in the Pauline corpus to refer to the same thing. According to the Exegetical Dictionary of the New
Testament,237 the verb παραδίδωµι in its various forms can refer to:
God [abandoning] the sinner to his fate (Rom 1:24, 26, 28, more resignation than punishment); be entrusted to a form of teaching (Rom 6:17, cf. the Jewish practice of entrusting a student to the teaching of a rabbi: see E. Kasemann, Rom [Eng. Tr., 1980] 181); deliver a sinner to Satan for punishment (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20); no exact parallels; pass on teaching and modes of conduct (for faithful observance, 1 Cor. 11:2, 23a; 15:3); surrender one’s body to be burned (13:3: Martyrdom by fire? As a mark of slavery?); experience imitation of the death of the cross (2 Cor. 4:11); and abandon oneself to sexuality (Eph 4:19).238
In the case of 1 Cor. 15:3b-8 except for v. 6b (regarding the five hundred witnesses), Christ is the subject of all the verbs.239
237 “παραδίδωµι,” in H. Balz and G. Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 20. 238 Ibid., 20. 239 R.E. Ciampa and B.S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2010), 744.
110 We have in v.3 a direct object clause using the conjunction “ὅτι”: “For I passed on to you…that Christ died for our sins. παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑµῖν…ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ
τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ἡµῶν”240
παρέλαβον is the first person singular second aorist active indicative form of the verb παραλαµβάνω which means receive, take; draw to oneself; take over.241 It is used
50 times in the New Testament and eight times in the Epistles of Paul. A. Kretzer explains that:
the essential elements of the paradosis are explicitly mentioned in 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:1-3. These passages deal with the weighty matter of the celebration of the Eucharist and the confessional formulation of the Christ experience in death and resurrection, i.e., with the “primitive gospel” (cf. 15:1f.). These materials of the faith (oral and/or written) are both firmly anchored in the tradition of the community (e.g. in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper: Mark 14:22-25, esp. Luke 22:19f.) and considered universally binding because they were established by the Lord himself (1 Cor. 11:23).242
Joachim Jeremias has discovered that Paul’s use of the phrases παρέδωκα (“pass on”) and παρέλαβον (“I received”) is comparable to rabbinic language of passing on a tradition (example: m. ’Abot 1:1,3)243. This could mean we are dealing with early non-
Pauline tradition, as evidenced by the number of expressions not used elsewhere in the
Pauline Epistles: “sins” in the plural (ἁµαρτιῶν), “according to the scriptures” (κατὰ τὰς
240 D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 678. 241 “παραλαµβάνω,” in Balz and Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. 3), 29. 242 Ibid., 30. 243 English translation of m. ’Abot 1:1 by Jacob Neusner: “Moses received Torah at Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to elders, and elders to prophets. And prophets handed it on to the men of the great assembly”; and m. ’Abot 1:3 “Antigonus of Sokho received [the Torah] from Simeon the Righteous…” (emphasis mine). See J. Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 672-73.
111 γραφὰς), ἐγείρω (“was raised”) in the perfect (ἐγήγερται) instead of the aorist, “he was seen/appeared” (ὤφθη), and “the Twelve” (τοῖς δώδεκα).244
Michael Licona points out that there is a debate amongst scholars regarding whether or not “for our sins” and “according to the Scriptures” in v.3 as well as “on the third day” and “according to the Scriptures” in v.4 actually belonged to the original tradition which Paul delivered unto the church in Corinth.245 However, as Richard Hays and N.T. Wright both explain, there is no reason to believe that “according to the
Scriptures” should be seen as a later addition.246 Licona himself points to the book of
Acts, where Luke claims that Christ died and rose from the dead in accordance with the
Scriptures (Acts 3:18; 17:2-3; 26:22-23), and Luke cites a number of Old Testament passages in support of his claim (Ps. 16:8-11 in Acts 2:25-32; Ps. 118:22 in Acts 4:10-11;
Ps. 2:1-2 in Acts 4:25-28; Is. 53:7-8 in Acts 8:32-35; Is. 55:3 and Ps. 16:10 in Acts
13:33-37).247 This support given by Licona anchors “according to the Scriptures” to the original tradition Paul received prior to his passing it on to the Corinthian church. Gordon
Fee adds to this by pointing out an allusion from the Old Testament narrative found in
Leviticus 16 of the Day of Atonement, where a sacrificial animal would be used to bear the sins of Israel.248 Nevertheless, it is clear to see how first century Jewish Christians
244 J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (trans. Norman Perrin; London: SCM Press, 1966), 103-4. 245 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 319. 246 Richard Hays affirms: “The interpretation of Jesus’ death and resurrection, as far back as we can trace it, grows organically out of the matrix of the psalms of the Righteous Sufferer (i.e. Isa 53).” See R.B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 117-18. Also, N.T. Wright who states that “Paul does not mean that there are one or two biblical prophecies which, taken by themselves, point in this direction. He refers to the entire scriptural narrative, stretching forward as it does towards the climax of God’s purposes for Israel, and characterized throughout by the powerful grace which brings hope out of disaster and life out of death.” See N.T. Wright, Paul: Fresh Perspectives (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 224. I am indebted to Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 319. 247 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 319. 248 G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (TNICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 725.
112 could have understood Isaiah 53, Leviticus 16, the many passages listed by Licona, and the overarching theme of the Old Testament as setting the scene for Jesus’ need to die for our sins “in accordance with the Scriptures.”
The language “died for our sins” is a direct reference to the Septuagint’s rendering of Isaiah 53.249 Gordon Fee explains that the reference to Jesus’ death as being in some way “for our sins” should be thought to originate from Jesus himself as Judaism:
did not interpret this passage messianically, at least not in terms of a personal Messiah, and since there is no immediate connection between the death of Jesus and the idea that his death was ‘or our sins,’ it is fair to say that whoever made that connection is the “founder of Christianity.”250
5.6. First Corinthians 15:4
ἐγήγερται is the third person singular, perfect indicative passive form of the verb ἐγείρω meaning to cause to return to life, raise up.251 Daniel Wallace explains that:
the perfect may be used to emphasize the completed action of a past action or process from which a present state emerges. It should normally be translated in English as a present perfect…The emphasis is on the completed event in the past time rather than the present results…For example, ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡµέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ (“he has been raised on the third day”) in 1 Cor. 15:4, though extensive, still involves current implications for Paul’s audience.252 ἐγείρω in its various forms is used 144 times in the New Testament. Thirteen of these occurrences refer to the raising of deceased persons and 52 times to the resurrection of
Christ.253 According to J. Kremer:
249 Ibid., 724. 250 Ibid., 724. 251 “ἐγείρω,” BDAG, 271. 252 Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 577. 253 “ἐγείρω,” in H. Balz and G. Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 372.
113 The context (e.g., “died” and “was buried,” 1 Cor. 15:3) and the frequent absence of a more precise definition of ἐγείρω indicate that the verb is used in a technical sense known to the readers…the formulaic addition “from (the) dead”…apparently stems from the Church’s resurrection message…its use means that Jesus is no longer among the dead, i.e., no longer in Sheol (cf. Rom. 10:7) nor in the tomb (Mark 16:6 par.).254
Some scholars have postulated that Paul did not know about the empty tomb because he does not mention it explicitly. However, this is not a strong argument. This is not even an argument from silence as Paul clearly knows that Jesus was buried (καὶ ὅτι
ἐτάφη: “And that he was buried”)! Allison explains that the argument from silence against Paul’s knowledge of an empty tomb can be turned on its head:
One could equally construct the following quite different argument from silence: Had those Corinthians whom Paul sought to correct known or imagined Jesus’ corpse to be yet in his grave, then surely, given their rejection of a physical resurrection, they would have brought this forward as a point in their favor, and Paul would have been compelled to answer them. This he did not do.255
James D.G. Dunn holds that, “the disposal of the body in burial was an important point in the earliest confessional statements. Which probably reflects the place of the tomb narratives—burial—but also empty tomb—in the earliest traditions of Easter.”256 My own analogy is as follows: just like a man who paddles out into the middle of a lake is discovered dead from drowning, implies that he most likely fell out of the boat, so too, it is unnecessary to reference the empty tomb of Jesus in light of Jewish beliefs of a post- mortem afterlife. It would simply be redundant to say Jesus was buried, raised up, left behind an empty tomb, and then appeared to others.
254 Ibid., 375. 255 D.C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and It’s Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 306. 256 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 839.
114 The tradition of Jesus’ resurrection happening “on the third day” can be seen in numerous forms in the New Testament:257
(1) “After three days”: Matt. 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34.
(2) “Three days and three nights”: Matt. 12:40.
(3) “In three days”: John 2:19-20.
(4) “On the third day”: Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Luke 9:22; 24:7, 46;
Acts 10:40.
(5) “The third day”: 1 Cor. 15:4; Luke 18:33.
(6) “Today and tomorrow and on the third day”: Luke 13:32.
(7) “This is the third day”: Luke 24:21.
(8) “On the third day”: 1 Cor. 15:4.
It is possible that Hosea 6:1-2 is the passage that Paul (or the early Christians) is referring to by the designation that Jesus was buried and subsequently raised on “the third day according to the Scriptures.” However, as previously explained through the ideas of
Richard Hays and N.T. Wright, it might be a more general allusion to the Psalms of the
Righteous Sufferer as described in Isaiah 53, and as Wright points out, an overarching biblical theme as seen throughout the Old Testament Scriptures.
5.7. First Corinthians 15:5
ὤφθη is the third person singular aorist passive indicative form of the verb ὁράω which
258 means “become visible, appear.”
257 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 325-26. 258 “ὁράω,” BDAG, 719.
115 Regarding the visual connotations of ὤφθη, the verb in both Jewish and Christian texts most often refers to people seeing heavenly beings (e.g. LXX Gen 17:1; 18:1; Exod
3:2; Judg. 6:12; 13:3; Tob 12:22; Mark 9:4). Dale Allison posits that the Christian use of
ὤφθη may very well be modeled upon the language of theophanies in the Septuagint
(Gen. 12:7; Gen. 26:2; 1 Kgs. 3:5; 1 Kgs. 9:2; 2 Chron. 3:1).259
Michael Licona has done extensive research into the meaning of ὤφθη in the
Pauline corpus of writings and especially in the context of 1 Cor. 15:5, 6, 7, 8. It is used
29 times by Paul in various forms and more specifically 16 times with a clear reference to physical sight, only once referring to a heavenly-type vision (Physical Sight: Rom 11:1; 1
Cor. 2:9; 8:10: 16:7; Gal. 1:19; 6:11; Phil. 1:27, 30; 2:28; 4:9; Col. 2:1; 1 Thess. 2:17;
3:6, 10; 1 Tim. 6:16; 2 Tim. 1:4; Heavenly Vision: Col. 2:18). Licona admits that:
word studies alone are inconclusive in determining whether Paul (and the rest of the authors of the New Testament)…meant for us to understand that the experiences of the risen Jesus by Paul and the others listed in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 were physical events in space-time…[that being said] if Paul understood resurrection as the revivication and transformation of a corpse, when he reports that Jesus appeared to others after his resurrection it seems most likely that he is thinking of a physical appearance of the resurrected Jesus in space-time.260
Paul lists the post-mortem appearances of Jesus (or received by Paul only to be passed on again) beginning with Cephas (Aramaic for ‘Rock’, which is the same meaning as the Greek word for ‘Peter’).261 Dale Allison explains that the reason Peter is listed as the first of the eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus may simply be because he was the most
259 D.C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 238 n. 149. 260 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 330-33. 261 Paul uses “Cephas” eight times: 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal. 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14. Paul also uses “Peter” twice: Gal. 2:7, 8.
116 well known of the initial group that Paul was with who had seen Jesus alive. Allison gives the example of fictional characters Peleg and Serug who would not have drawn any awareness from the early hearers of the creed and thus Peter is named because of his fame. As Allison himself puts it, “what would be the point of naming individuals not known to everyone?”262 Peter is also usually named first in the various canonical lists of the Twelve (Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Luke 24:34 explains how the Lord appeared to Simon! Gerd Lüdemann reasons that Peter is always listed first because he is the one who saw the hallucination of Jesus due to his feelings of guilt for not doing something to stop Jesus’ death. Allison responds by asking the question:
Even if, however, we accept Lüdemann’s suppositions, we are still left with the question why a hallucination led a first-century Jew to confess that Jesus had been “raised from the dead.” Half of the Jewish texts from 200 BCE–100 CE that speak of an afterlife do so without mentioning resurrection, and there is no single idea about life after death in our period but instead a variety. Immortality of the soul or something akin to it is found as often as not. It would have been easy enough for Peter and those who welcomed his testimony to declare that God had vindicated and exalted Jesus without using the concept of the eschatological resurrection.263
In this passage it is clear that Christ is the subject and Peter and subsequently the
Twelve are the objects. Daniel Wallace writes that:
It is not insignificant that virtually every time ὤφθη is used in the NT with a simple dative, the subject of the verb consciously initiates the visible manifestation; in no instance can it be said that the person(s) in the dative case initiate(s) the act. In other words, volition rests wholly with the subject, while the dative noun is merely recipient. (cf. Luke 1:11; 22:43; 24:34; Acts 7:2, 26, 30; 13:31; 16:9; 1 Cor. 15:5, 6, 7, 8)264
262 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 239-40. 263 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 243-44. 264 Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 165.
117 The use of εἶτα…ἔπειτα…ἔπειτα…εἶτα respectively in vv. 5, 6, and 7 should be seen as demonstrating a chronological order of the appearances of Jesus to those named
(or alluded to). Licona demonstrates how in the New Testament, and specifically in
Paul’s writings the term ἔπειτα (“then”) is most often used in a chronological manner (1
Thess. 4:17; Gal. 1:18, 21; 2:1; 1 Cor. 15:23, 46; Heb 7:27 [cf. Lev. 9:7], Jas. 4:14; Lk.
16:7; Jn. 11:7), however it can also refer to something or someone who is next in position
(1 Cor. 12:28; Heb. 7:2; Jas. 3:17). The same holds true for εἶτα (“then”), which is also most often used in a chronological sense (1 Cor. 15:24; Jas. 1:15; Mk. 4:17, 28; 8:25; Lk.
8:12; Jn. 13:5; 19:27; 20:27; 1 Tim. 2:13; 3:10), although it does appear one singular time in a transitional sense (Heb. 12:9). However, this is a non-Pauline and non-Gospel authored occurrence. Paul anchors the summary of Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection and appearances by referring to himself as being the “last of all,” indicating that Paul also lists Jesus’ appearances in a chronological order.265 This listing is Paul’s way of
“[grounding] the appearances in history.”266
Dale Allison provides a chart of similarities between 1 Cor. 15:3-8 and the four
Gospels:267
Matthew Mark Luke John 1 Cor.
death 27:45-54 15:33-39 23:44-48 19:28-30 15:3 burial 27:56-61 15:42-47 23:50-55 19:38-42 15:4a resurrection on 28:1-8 16:1-8 24:1-8 20:1-10 15:4b
265 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 341. 266 Ibid., 320. 267 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 239.
118 third day appearance to 28:9-10 16:7 (?) 24:13-35 20:11-18 15:5a, 7a, 8 individuals appearance to 11 28:16:20 16:7 24:36-51 20:19-22 15:5b, 7b or 12 disciples/apostles
With this in mind, Allison comments that, “Although its distance268 from the canonical accounts is often emphasized…Paul is perhaps not so far removed from the Gospel traditions as sometimes implied.”269 Maybe we could say the same thing about the
Gospels? Although they were written a decade or two later than Paul (with the late dates), they are not so far removed from the early tradition we find in Paul’s letter to the
Corinthian church.
James D.G. Dunn also provides an extensive chart of the appearances of Jesus to the following people:270
To Whom Where When Matthew Mark Luke John 1 Cor.
1. Mary At tomb Sun. (16:9) 20:11-18
a.m.
2. Women Near Sun. 28:8-10
Tomb a.m.
3. Peter ? Sunday 24:34 15:5
268 1 Corinthians was composed around AD 54 and the Canonical Gospels possibly as late as AD 65-95. 269 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 239. 270 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 841.
119 4. Cleopas Emmaus Sun. (16:12- 24:13-35
p.m. 13)
5. Eleven Upper Sun. 24:36-49 20:19-23 15:5
room eve.
6. Eleven Upper + 7 20:26-29
room Days
7. 120? Jerusalem 40 Acts 1:3-
Days 11
8. Eleven Galilee ? 28:16-20 16:7 21:1-23
9. 500+ ? ? 15:6
10. James ? ? 15:7
11. ? ? 15:7
Apostles
12. Paul Damascus + 2 Acts 9. 15:8
Yrs? Maybe
23:11?271
5.8. First Corinthians 15:6
Although it is nearly impossible to defend this grandiose statement by Paul, regarding
Jesus’ appearance to more than five hundred brothers at the same time, we must not consider it a loosely based myth.272 Every other aspect of this early creed or tradition has
271 I want to acknowledge H. Danny Zacharias for providing this example. 272 Gerd Lüdemann believes that the reference to Jesus’ appearance to more than five hundred people at once can be derived from the event that underlies Acts 2. I find his argument quite weak. In Acts 2, the
120 been shown to have solid roots in other parts of the New Testament. Therefore, there is no good reason to assume that Paul or the early Christians from whom he received the tradition fabricated this detail. As we can see in the chart given by Dunn, Jesus appeared to multiple people over a period of 40 days following his death and resurrection including multiple attestation regarding Jesus’ appearances to Peter, the core group of disciples (the
Eleven or Twelve), as well as to Paul himself.
5.9. First Corinthians 15:7
As Ciampa and Rosner explain, this James mentioned by Paul is most likely the brother of Jesus, because James the brother of John and son of Zebedee, would most likely have been included in the Twelve (v. 5).273
One of the most interesting sections of Michael Licona’s recent book titled The
Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach is his discussion of the conversion of Jesus’ skeptical brother James. After doing extensive exegesis on Mark
3:20-35; 6:2-4, 6a; John 7:1-5; 15:18-19; 19:25b-27 (which are used to argue that James did not believe in Jesus before the resurrection), as well as showing that James believed in Jesus after the resurrection as demonstrated in Acts 1:14 and acted as the leading spokesman and maybe even the final authority in the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15:1-21;
21:17-26 and even earlier in Paul’s own Gal. 1:19; 2:1-10 and Paul’s mention of Jesus’ people heard the good news of Jesus in their own languages. There is nothing in the tradition that says the crowd had an encounter with the risen Jesus of Nazareth. Based on G. Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus Books, 2004), 73. That being said, a good number (120) of people were praying in the upper room prior to Pentecost. This could mean that those 120 people saw the risen Jesus before his ascension. Between Paul’s account (1 Cor. 15:6) of 500, and Luke’s account (Acts 1:15) of 120 people, we have a very large crowd mentioned in both accounts. It is possible that Paul and Luke are referring to the same event with a discrepancy in the numbers of people witnessing the risen Christ. On the other hand, the size of the discrepancy may stand in the way of it being authentic. 273 Ciampa and Rosner, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 750.
121 brothers as being believers in 1 Cor. 9:5), Licona asks how James went from being a skeptic to a believer. 1 Cor. 15:7 helps answer this question: if James did not become a believer before he saw his resurrected brother (which may well have happened; we simply do not have any additional information to support or deny this), he certainly would have become a believer after his brother appeared to him. 1 Cor. 15:7 may be the answer to the question of, how did James go from being a skeptic, to not only a believer, but a leading authority in the Jerusalem Church?
Licona provides a summary of his findings on the details concerning the movement of James from being a skeptic to a leader in the Church:274
• Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him during his ministry (Mk. 3:21, 33-35; 6:3; Jn. 7:1-10). • Jesus’ brothers taunted him (Mk. 6:3; Jn. 7:1-10). • Jesus’ brothers were apparently absent at Jesus’ crucifixion, where Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to one of his disciples, suggesting his brothers were nonbelievers at the time (Jn. 19:25-27). • Jesus’ brothers were in the upper room with Jesus’ disciples and mother after the resurrection (Acts 1:14). • James was an apostle and leader in the Jerusalem Church (Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12; Acts 12:17; 15:13). • Paul reported his activities to James (Acts 21:18). • It would appear that at least some of Jesus’ brothers became believers (1 Cor. 9:5). • James’ transformation from skeptic to believer is plausibly explained by his belief that Jesus had been raised and by a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to him (1 Cor. 15:7). • James believed that his brother Jesus appeared to him.
274 Ibid., 460.
122 With this information in mind, in the words of Michael Licona himself, “The best explanation for this change of heart is that James came to believe that his brother had risen from the dead.”275
5.10. First Corinthians 15:8
ἔσχατον is an adverb meaning ‘last.’ It appears 52 times in the New Testament, and more narrowly five times in Paul (all occurring in 1 Corinthians [4:9; 15:8, 26, 45, 52], Six times in Paul if you count 2 Tim. 3:1). J. Baumgarten explains how Paul:
understands himself as standing in the succession of the apostles; at the same time the succession of witnesses to Easter is concluded with him (15:3-10). He takes up the pre- Pauline confessional statement (probably up to v. 5) and extends the line of Easter witnesses up to himself “But last of all he appeared…also to me” (v. 8). Thus he designates himself as irrevocably the last in a series but at the same time disqualifies himself (cf. 4:14) as one who does not belong precisely in the series, but nevertheless stands at the end (15:8 “miscarriage”; v.9: “the least of the apostles”).276
ἐκτρώµατι is the neuter singular dative form of the Noun ἔκτρωµα, which means
“miscarriage.” P. von der Osten-Sacken points out that:
In 1 Cor 15:8 the translation “premature birth” is excluded because it would stand in contradiction to the preceding information, according to which Jesus appeared to Paul “last of all.”…The article before ἔκτρωµα thus does not demand the assumption that Paul has taken up a derogatory name from his opponents…Rather “it gives to the figure a relationship to that which precedes and designates Paul as the one who is ἔκτρωµα in relation to the ones who have already been named” (P. Bauchmann, Der erste Brief des
275 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 458-61. 276 “ἔσχατον,” in H.. Balz and G. Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 372.
123 Paulus an die Korinther [1921] 437). In this sense one may paraphrase: “(to me) as, so to speak, the miscarriage (among the apostles).277
Paul is implying that his conversion experience was sudden and that he is not qualified to be one of the apostles because of his traumatic conversion, but he is, nevertheless, because Jesus appeared to him. Paul roots his own apostolicity in the fact that Jesus appeared to him just like he did to all the others listed in the tradition he passes on to the Corinthian church. It is also important to add that Luke stresses the importance of Paul’s conversion three times in Acts 9, 22 and 26.
5.11. Applying Meier’s Criteria to First Corinthians 15:3-8
• 5.11.1. The Criterion of Embarrassment
1. Jesus’ siblings (including James) did not believe in him during his
earthly ministry: Mark 3:20-35, 6:2-4, 26:9; John 7:1-15, 15:18-19,
19:25-27. This coupled with the fact that James became the leader
of the Jerusalem church causes one to ask, “How did this happen?”
1 Cor. 15:7 may answer this question.
2. Paul’s omission of the women as eyewitnesses of the empty tomb
and the risen Jesus may be able to qualify as being listed under the
criterion of embarrassment. Maybe Paul was trying so hard to
demonstrate the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection that he didn’t
want to create doubts in the minds of those in the church of
Corinth who may have doubted the resurrection if the empty tomb
277 “ἔκτρωµα,” in H. Balz and G. Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 423.
124 relied on the eyewitness testimony of women. We have seen that
common women in the Greco-Roman world were not considered as
reliable witnesses on a regular basis.
• 5.11.2. The Criterion of Multiple Attestation
1. “On the third day” is attested in multiple books of the New
Testament as demonstrated above.
2. Jesus appears to Cephas/Peter: 1 Cor. 15:4; Luke 24:34.
3. Jesus appears to the Twelve: 1 Cor. 15:5; Matt. 28:16-20; Luke
24:36-49; John 20:12:23.
4. James is a believer in Jesus: Acts 1:14. He is the leader of the
Jerusalem church: Acts 15:1-21, 21:17-26; Gal. 1:19, 2:1-10; 1
Cor. 9:5. This multiply attested detail can plausibly be explained
by Jesus appearing to his brother James after his resurrection (1
Cor. 15:7).
5. Jesus appears to Paul: 1 Cor. 15:8; Acts 9:1, 23:3, 26:9.
• 5.11.3. The Criterion of Traces of Aramaic
1. Paul uses the Aramaic name Cephas when referring to Peter (1
Cor. 15:5). That being said, Paul uses the Aramaic form Cephas to
125 refer to Peter eight times: 1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5; Gal. 1:18,
2:9, 2:11, 14. Paul also uses “Peter” twice: Gal. 2:7, 8.
• 5.11.4. The Criterion of Palestinian Environment
1. Paul’s reference to handing on what he in turn received (1 Cor.
15:3) finds parallels in other ancient Jewish rabbinic writings (m.
’Abot 1:1, 3).
5.12. Conclusion
In conclusion, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 contains early material that can be plausibly dated to within a few months of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Paul passes a statement on to the church in Corinth, which helps him defend the belief in the general resurrection by using
Jesus’ resurrection, as proof that what happened to Jesus will happen to them as well.
Paul is not trying to defend the resurrection of Jesus apologetically. Rather, he is demonstrating that what happened to Jesus will also happen to them. Therefore, the
Christians in the church at Corinth as well as all Christians should believe in the general resurrection.
I have provided a detailed exegesis of this passage showing that Paul intended for his readers to understand that he is passing on an earlier tradition that he himself received. It has been shown that the receiving and passing on of tradition is well situated in a rabbinic Jewish background. Even though rabbinic Judaism as we know it is predominantly a post-temple movement, much of what shaped the movement surely must
126 go back to an earlier time. For this reason, Joachim Jeremias has demonstrated that Paul understood the rabbinic model of receiving and passing on important tradition.
I have also given a few possible dates for when Paul received this material, concluding that the most likely date is between three and six years of Jesus’ death and resurrection, which pushes the composition of the tradition even further back closer to the events it describes. Also, the simplicity of the statement shows that it is based on earlier tradition. We have also seen many parallels between the structure that we see in 1 Cor.
15:3-8 and the four New Testament Gospels. This strengthens the historical authenticity of the material we find within this ancient Creed.
As previously explained, the appearances should be considered as being listed in chronological order. These include multiply attested appearances to Peter/Cephas (1 Cor.
15:4; Luke 24:34), and the Twelve (1 Cor. 15:5; Matt. 28:16-20; Luke 24:36-49; John
20:12-23).
It is also quite possible that this passage contains the answer to the question of how Jesus’ brother James went from being a skeptic to not only a believer, but also the head of the Jerusalem church. The answer may be found in v. 7, which tells us of Jesus appearing to James after his resurrection. The fact that the criterion of multiple attestation and embarrassment can be applied to the historicity of Jesus’ siblings thinking he was out of his mind,278 and that multiple attestation can be applied to the fact that James later became the leader of the Jerusalem church,279 means something must have happened to cause James to have a change of opinion about his brother Jesus. Although we cannot be
278 Mark 3:20-35; 6:2-4; Matt. 26:9; John 7:1-5; 15:18-19; 19:25-27. 279 James as a believer: Acts 1:14; as head of Jerusalem Church: Acts 15:1-21; 21:17-26; Gal. 1:19; 2:1-10; 1 Cor. 9:5.
127 certain that James did not become a believer before the death and resurrection of Jesus, it makes sense that what we find in 1 Cor. 15:7 is the reason for this change of opinion.
Paul completes this early tradition about Jesus’ death and resurrection by adding that Jesus also appeared to him (1 Cor. 15:8), and although Paul does not feel eligible to be an apostle of Christ because of the life he once lived as a persecutor of the church, on- the-other-hand he explains that he is eligible because just like the other apostles, Jesus appeared to him too. The criterion of multiple attestation can be applied to the accounts of Jesus’ appearing to Paul. 280
This passage contains primitive material which dates back very closely to the time of Jesus, and it gives us a list of people to whom Jesus appeared following his resurrection. Some have argued that one cannot trust the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection because they are so late (36-65 years after the reputed events). 1 Corinthians
15:3-8 pre-dates the Gospels by at least 10-20 years and contains even earlier material that Paul received between three to six years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.
If the skeptic argues that the historical reliability of the resurrection of Jesus is untrustworthy because the reported events were written down much too late, 1
Corinthians 15:3-8 offers a formidable challenge to their argument. Material composed between a few months to three years of Jesus’ death and resurrection gives little to no time for legendary accretions to have been inserted into the tradition. Most of this early
Creed is also multiply attested in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. For all these reasons, it is clear that the burden of proof is on the skeptic to explain why we should not trust Paul!
280 1 Cor. 15:8; Acts 9:1; 22:3; 26:9.
128 Jesus’ Appearances Chart: by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz:.281
1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Narrative tradition
15:4f.: ὅτι Χριστὸς…ἐγήγερται…καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ (that Luke 24:34: λέγοντας ὅτι ὄντως ἠγέρθη ὁ κύριος καὶ ὤφθη Σίµωνι
Christ was raised and appeared to Cephas) (they said that the Lord had truly risen and appeared to Simon). Cf.
reflections of this appearance in Mark 8:26 (messianic confession);
Luke 5:1-11/John 21:1ff. (appearance on the fishing trip?); Luke
22:31f. Rival tradition: first appearance to Mary Magdalene: John
20:11-18; Matt:28:1, 9f.; Mark 16:9-11
15:5: εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα (then to the Twelve) Appearances containing a command: Matt. 28:16-20 (Galilee):
mission; Luke 24:36-49 (Jerusalem): mission John 20:19-23
(Jerusalem): foundation of the church
15:6: ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς No parallel?
ἐφάπαξ…(after that he appeared to more than 500 brothers Some conjecture that the Pentecost story (Acts 2) is a reworking of at once) this tradition (Theissen and Merz reference: E. von Dobschutz, Ostern und Pfingsten. Eine Studie zu 1 Kor 15, Leipzig 1903);
Sleeper, ‘Pentecost’; MacLean Gilmour, ‘Christophany’.)
15:7: ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ (then he appeared to James) Only attested very late in Gospel of Hebrews 7. (Theissen and
Merz believe that it this late account is dependent on 1 Cor. 15:7)
15:7: εἶτα τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν (then to all the apostles) – No parallel, unless ‘all the apostles’ is identical with ‘the Twelve’ without ἐφάπαξ and therefore in succession? and we have a doublet to 15:5 (which is improbable…Or is there a
parallel in Luke 24:13ff.; John 20:11ff.?)
15:8: ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώµατι ὤφθη κἀµοί Acts 9:1ff.; 22:3ff; 26:9ff.
(last of all he also appeared to be [=Paul] as one born out of due time)
No parallel The empty tomb (Mark 16:1-8 Par.; John 20:1-15)
No parallel, unless there is one in 15:7 ἀναγνώρισις – Appearances (Luke 24:13ff.; John 20:11-18)
281 Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 486.
129 Summary and Further Considerations
Chapter 1
In Chapter 1 we examined John Meier’s definition of a miracle and his reasons for concluding that the resurrection of Jesus would not qualify as one. I explained why I did not agree with Meier and demonstrated with the work of Michael Licona and William
Lane Craig that Meier’s definition of a miracle is cramped to begin with, and that his reasons for not considering the resurrection a miracle are unconvincing. After discussing why I believe historians can study the resurrection, I proceeded to give a brief testimonial of my own religious background so that the reader could gain a better perspective of the motivation for my research.
Chapter 2
We began Chapter 2 by discussing the key sources in the New Testament that would be used for this thesis: the four Canonical Gospels and 1 Corinthians. An examination into the issues pertaining to the dating and authorship of these sources was accomplished. It was concluded that the dates of the Gospels and 1 Corinthians are early enough that either eyewitnesses or those who could have made use of eyewitnesses of the ministry, life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was possible.
Chapter 3
Chapter 3 looked into the historicity of the burial of Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph of
Arimathea, who was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The historicity of Joseph of
Arimathea was discussed in detail, including a focus on the use of his last name
“Arimathea.” We recognized that the use of the last name was something done in
130 antiquity which demonstrated that the person being spoken about could be tracked down if information needed to be verified. Following this, we compared the four Gospel accounts and concluded that the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea was in essense historically reliable.
Chapter 4
With the historicity of the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea established as being historical, we moved into a detailed study of the historicity of the empty tomb as being discovered by multiple women on the first Easter Sunday. It was shown that common women were not considered to be reliable witnesses in antiquity and that the criterion of embarrassment helps to show why the early church would not have fabricated this story if it did not really happen. As well, the Apostle Paul’s lack of reference to the women as eyewitnesses of the burial, empty tomb and risen Jesus can be seen as an attempt to avoid the embarrassment of critics of this core Christian belief in the Greco-Roman world. All in all, it was concluded that the empty tomb being discovered by Jesus’ women followers is historically very reliable.
Chapter 5
This final chapter of the thesis focused on the early Creed contained within 1 Corinthians
15. It was pointed out that Paul received what we have as 1 Cor. 15:3-7 between three to six years after the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. This early Creed contains eyewitness testimony from Paul himself that Jesus appeared to him as well as to many others, including Peter and James as well as large groups of individuals on a number of occasions. Many of these appearances were shown to be preserved in multiple
131 independent sources from antiquity, strengthening the historicity of the appearances in question.
Chapter 5 concluded that it is historically certain that many people in the first third of the first-century claimed that Jesus of Nazareth appeared to them in a post- mortem state a few days after his death by crucifixion.
Summary
Having reviewed the five chapters which make up this thesis, we have observed that with the use of John Meier’s criteria for determining historically authentic material, that the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea, the empty tomb as witnessed by women on the first Easter Sunday, as well as the claims of many individuals in the early part of the first century had post-mortem appearances of the risen Jesus of Nazareth, to be historically reliable.
With this in mind, the historian can work with these established results and determine for him or herself how they will interpret the data. After interpreting the data in an honest and historically prudent manner, the historian should conclude that something did happen two thousand years ago, and that something needs to be big enough to explain the rise of the Christian church. This writer would conclude by saying that the best explanation for the rise of the Christian church is that Jesus of Nazareth historically rose from the dead on the first Easter Sunday, appearing to many people including at least one skeptic, Saul of Tarsus. The Christian should feel confident that their faith is well founded, very well founded!
132 Considerations For Future Work
Because of the scope of this thesis, it was impossible to examine every issue relevant for the question of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Allow me to provide a number of examples of areas that I feel would be important to research for future academic work. Firstly, the topic of dying-and-rising deities in non-Christian religions is still a topic worth studying and would be relevant to the study of the
Resurrection of Jesus in order to see if Christians may have been influenced by the pagan dying-and-rising stories which were written in the Greco-Roman world. This would include looking into the dying-and-rising myths relating to:282 Zalmoxis, Augustus,
Caesar, Theseus, Apollonius, Aristeas, Romulus, Alcestis, Protesilaus, Trophonius,
Odysseus, Rhampsinitus, Eurydice, Empedocles, Cleomenes, Aeneas, Heracles,
Cleomedes, Ganymedes, Aesculapius, Ariadne and Bacchus.
As well, further study could be done in the area of the reliability of eyewitness testimony in antiquity and how it relates to the resurrection narratives about Jesus. This would include looking into how well human beings can remember traumatic and exhilarating events, as well as their ability to pass on these traditions in a controlled and reliable manner.
More research could also be done on the dating and authorship of the Gospels themselves by examining the external and internal data pertaining to this question. If what we have in the Gospels was really composed much earlier than contemporary New
Testament scholars believe, then it would increase the likelihood that what we have in the
282 This list came from: M.R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010), 621.
133 Gospels are eyewitness testimonies, if not directly from the pen of an eyewitness. This would strengthen the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
134 Bibliography
Allison, D.C. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.
Allison, D.C., “Explaining the Resurrection: Conflicting Convictions.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3 (2005): 117-33.
Allison, D.C. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
Allison, D.C. Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters. New York: T&T Clark, 2005.
Anonymous. “Religion: Resurrection?” Time Magazine. 7 May 1979.
Balz, H., and G. Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Balz, H. and G. Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Balz, H., and G. Schneider. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Bauckham, R. Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Bauckham, R. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Bird, M.F., and J.G. Crossley. How Did Christianity Begin? A believer and non-believer examine the evidence. Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 2008.
Bock, D.L. Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Brown, R.E. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1997.
Brown, R.E. “The Burial of Jesus (Mark 15:42-47).” CBQ 50 (1998): 233-45.
135 Brown, R.E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Brown, R.E. “The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority.” NTS 33 (1987): 321- 343.
Bultmann, R. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.
Burge, G.M., and L.H. Cohick, and G.L. Green. The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament in its Cultural Contexts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
Casey, M. Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of his Life and Teaching. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.
Ciampa, R.E., and B.S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2010.
Cohick, L.H. Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd Ed. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.
Crossan, J.D. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.
Crossan, J.D. The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Crossan, J.D. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.
Crossley, J. The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity. JSNTSup 266. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2005.
Davis, S.T. Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Dunn, J.D.G. Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Ehrman, B.D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God – why the bible’s authors are not who we think they are. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2011.
Ehrman, B.D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
136 Ehrman, B.D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Ellis, E.E. The Gospel of Luke. New Century Bible. London: Nelson, 1966.
Evans, C.A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
Evans, C.A. Holman Quick Source Guide to The Dead Sea Scrolls. Nashville: Holman Reference. 2010.
Evans, C.A. Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. AGJU 25. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Evans, C.A., and N.T. Wright. Jesus the Final Days: What Really Happened. Ed. T.A. Miller. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.
Evans, C.A. Mark 8:27-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
Evans, C.A. “The East Talpiot Tomb in Context.” In Buried Hope or Risen Savior? The Search for the Jesus Tomb. Ed. Charles Quarles. Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2008. 51- 68.
Fee, G.D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. TNICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Ferguson, E. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2003.
Gibson, S. The Final Days Of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence. New York: HarperOne, 2009.
Goodacre, M. The Case Against Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2002.
Goodacre, M. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. New York: T&T Clark, 2001.
Gundry, R.H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Habermas, G.R. “Experience of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection,” Dialog 45 (2006): 292.
Habermas, G.R. and M.R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel Pub. 2004.
137 Habermas, G.R. “Tracing Jesus’ Resurrection to Its Earliest Eyewitness Accounts.” In W.L. Craig, ed., God is Good, God is Great. IVP Books. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009. 206-207.
Hagnar, D.A. “Gospel, Kingdom, and Resurrection in the Synoptic Gospels.” In Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Ed. R. N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. 120.
Hays, R.B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Hengel, M. Crucifixion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
Howard, G.E. The Gospel of Matthew According to Primitive Hebrew Text. Macon GA: Mercer Universitiy Press, 1987.
Jeremias, J. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971.
Jeremias, J. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. Trans. Norman Perrin. London: SCM Press, 1966.
Keener, C.S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Kendall, D., and G. O’Collins. “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?” Biblica 75 (1994): 235.
Kim, S. Paul and The New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Kloner, A. “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” Biblical Archaeology Review 25/5 (Sept/Oct 1999): 23.
Lake, K. The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Crown Theological Library. London: Williams & Norgate; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907. Reprint: BiblioBazaar, 2009.
Lapide, P. The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1982.
Leith, M.J.W. “Esther.” In The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Ed. Michael Coogan et al. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. 708HB.
Licona, M.R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010.
138 Longenecker, R.N. “Is there Development in Paul’s Resurrection Thought?” In Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Ed. R. N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. 187.
Louw, J.P., and Nida, E.A. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Accessed from Accordance Bible Software: OakTree Software, Inc., 2010.
Lüdemann, G. The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry. New York: Prometheus Books, 2004.
Magness, J. “Jesus’ Tomb: What Did it Look Like?” In Where Christianity Was Born: A Collection from the Biblical Archaeology Society. ed. Hershel Shanks, Washington , DC: Biblical Archaeological Society. (2006), 224.
Matheson, C.D., J.K. Vernon, A. Lahti, R. Fratpietro, M. Spigelman, S. Gibson, C.L. Greenblatt, and H.D. Donoghue. “Molecular Exploration of the First-Century Tomb of the Shroud in Akeldama, Jerusalem.” Posted on www.plosone.org Volume 4, Issue 12. (Dec. 2009). Accessed 2 December 2010.
McCane, B.R. “‘Where no one had yet been laid’: The Shame of Jesus’ Burial.” In B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans, eds. Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. NTTS 28.2. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998. 435.
McDonald, L.M., and S.E. Porter. Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000.
Meeks, W.A. First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. 2nd ed. New York: Yale University Press, 2003.
Meier, J. P. A Marginal Jew: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
Meier, J. P. A Marginal Jew: Mentor, Message, and Miracles. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Meier, J. P. A Marginal Jew: Companions and Competitors. Vol. 3. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Meier, J. P. A Marginal Jew: Law and Love. Vol. 4. New York: Doubleday, 2009.
Meier J. P. America Magazine. 7 March 1992.
Meier, J. P. “Finding the Historical Jesus: An Interview with John P. Meier.” Post on http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Dec1997/feature3.asp#F2. Cited 5 December 2010.
139
Mosley, A.W. “Historical Reporting in the Ancient World.” NTS 12 (1965): 10-26.
Naveh, J. “The Ossuary Inscriptions from Giv’at ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem,” IEJ 20 (1970): 33-37.
Neusner, J. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.
O’Collins, G.G. “Is the Resurrection an ‘Historical’ Event?” Heythrop Journal 8 (1967): 385.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus—God and Man. Trans. L.L. Wilkins and D.A. Priebe. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1974.
Ratzinger, J. Jesus of Nazareth—Part Two: Holy Week. From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011.
Robinson, J.A.T. Redating the New Testament. 2nd Ed. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2000.
Sanders, E.P., and M. Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.
Schiffman, L.H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their True Meaning for Judaism and Christianity. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Scholer, D.M. “Women.” In the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Ed. J.B. Green, S. McKnight, and I.H. Marshall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992. 883-83.
Stein, R.H. Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the life of Christ. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1996.
Stein, R.H. Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
Suetonius, G. The Twelve Caesars: Augustus 44. Trans. Robert Graves. New York: Penguin, 1989.
Tabor, J. The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006.
Theissen, G., and A. Merz. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
Trites, A.A. “Witness.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Ed. J.B. Green, S. McKnight, and I.H. Marshall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992. 877.
140 Trompf, G.W. “The First Resurrection Appearance and the Ending of Mark’s Gospel.” NTS 18 (1972): 317 n. 5.
Tuckett, C. “Sources and Methods.” In The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Ed. M. Bockmuehl. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 132-37.
Twelftree, G. “Sanhedrin.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Ed. J.B. Green, S. McKnight, and I.H. Marshall. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992. 729.
Van Daalen, D.H. The Real Resurrection. London: Collins, 1972.
VanderKam, J.C. An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
VanderKam, J.C., and P. Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002.
Vermes, G. The Resurrection. New York: Doubleday, 2008.
Wallace, D.W. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1996.
Wenham, J. Redating Matthew Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991.
Wise, M., and M. Abegg Jr., and E. Cook. A New Translation The Dead Sea Scrolls: A comprehensive translation of the controversial ancient scrolls, with material never before published or translated-including the most recently released texts. New York: HarperSanFransicso, 2005.
Witherington III, B. Women in the Earliest Churches. SNTSMS 59. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Whiston, W., trans. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Philadelphia: Jas. B. Smith and Co., 1854.
Wright, N.T. Paul: Fresh Perspectives. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
Zissu, B., S. Gibson, and J. Tavor. “Jerusalem Ben Hinnom Valley.” Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Israel Antiquities Authority (2000): 70-72.
Zlotnik, D. The Tractate “Mourning”. Yale Judaica Series 18. New York and London: Yale University Press, 1966.
141
142