The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University of Cape Town JESUS'RESURRECTION: A mSTORY OF ITS INTERPRETATION FROM REIMARUS TO THE PRESENT MICHAEL AGGETT AGGMICOOI ape Town A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award ofthe degree of Master of Arts in Jewish Studies sity of C Faculty of the Humanities UniverUniversity of Cape Town 2006 This work has not been previously submitted in whole, or in part, for the award of any degree. It is my own work. Each significant contribution to, and quotation in, this dissertation from the work, or works, of other people has been attributed, and has been cited and referenced. Signature: Date: /") ABSTRACT JESUS' RESURRECTION: A mSTORY OF ITS INTERPRETATION FROM REIMARUS TO THE PRESENT This dissertation looks at the scholarly interpretation of Jesus' resurrection from the time of Reimarus's work in the mid-eighteenth century to the present by examining the work often scholars representing different periods. Seven scholars considered in this dissertation are deceased: Hermann Reimarus (rationalism and scepticism); Heinrich Paulus (extreme rationalism); Friedrich Schleiermacher (close of rationalism); David Strauss (mythical interpretation); Johannes Weiss (apocalyptic interpretation); Rudolph Bultmann (history of religions, kerygma, demythologising and existentialism) and Karl Barth (centrality of Jesus Christ). Three contemporary scholars are included: Wolfhart Pannenberg (diligent truth seeking); John Dominic Crossan (radical textual criticism) and N.T. 'Tom' Wright (traditional Christian interpretation). The historicity of Jesus; the early Church's resurrection belief recorded in its ancient creeds; the advent of the Enlightenment following the Church Fathers, the Dark Ages, the Renaissance and the Reformation, and the earliest attempts to portray the historical Jesus are outlined in the Introduction. ape Town Each scholar is then placed in his own time period, and discussed individually: roughly, an opening paragraph outlines his general importance to scholarship, then his major contribution(s) to the understanding of Jesus' resurrection is indicated. A short biographical sketch is followed by a description of his major general theological and philosophical convictions. The individual's interpretation of Jesus' resurrection is then outlined, more or less subdivided into five: Jesus' death, his burial, Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, his ascension, and Paul's Damascus roadsity experience. of Scholarly C criticisms, past and present, positive and negative, are noted before the chapter is closed with my own criticism, and a short recapitulation. (The chapter on Strauss has been arranged somewhat differently: it is written chronologically to help illustrate the way his views changed significantly over time). Salient issues encounteredUniver in the body of the dissertation are summarized in the Conclusion. Then, recent research undertaken by Gary Habermas is presented, suggesting that contemporary scholarship from the English, French and German-speaking world presently favours a traditional, bodily interpretation of Jesus' resurrection. Michael John Aggett 9, Griselda Place SOMERSET WEST 7130 SOUTH AFRICA Tele/fax (021) 8513457 e-mail [email protected] ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I am indebted to the following people for their assistance and support: my supervisors, Professor C.A. (Chuck) Wanamaker who, guiding me from start to fmish, taught me the rudiments of academic thinking and writing and Professor Milton Shain who encouraged me to keep going; the librarians of the Chancellor Oppenheimer Library, University of Cape Town and the J.S. Gericke and Theological School Libraries, University of Stellen bosch who so cheerfully helped me with my research; Mavis, my wife, for ongoing unselfish care and, not least, Tim for computer trouble-shooting. ape Town sityDEDICATION: of C These efforts are dedicatedUniver to my family: Mavis, David, Stephen, Jonathan, Simon, Timothy and my recently deceased parents, Aubrey and Joy. iii 'In any case, in talking about the past we lie apewith every Town breath we draw' William Maxwell in So Long, See You Tomorrow sity of C Univer iv Scriptural quotations unless otherwise indicated are taken from the New Revised Standard Versionape of the Bible. Town sity of C Univer v CONTENTS TITLE PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and DEDICATION ii CONTENTS v PREFACE vi 1 INTRODUCTION 1 la Early Christian belief 1b Towards the Age of Enlightenment 2 REIMARUS 5 3 PAULUS 13 4 SCHLEIERMACHER ape Town20 5 STRAUSS 28 6 WEISS 38 7 BULTMANN 48 8 BARm sity of C 59 9 PANNENBERG 67 10 CROSSAN 79 11 WRIGHT Univer 91 12 CONCLUSION 104 13 WORKS CITED 107 vi PREFACE In 1966, as a second-year medical student, I faced the claims of traditional Christianity. I investigated and concluded that Christianity stood or fell over the question of Jesus' resurrection. In could satisfy myself that Jesus had 'risen physically from the dead' I would accept the Christian position as essentially true. I examined, therefore, the resurrection claim in some detail: How reliable were the Gospel records? Had Jesus' corpse been stolen; who might have profited thereby? Why did the authorities (Roman or Jewish) never produce his body and terminate the growing belief that Jesus was alive? How likely was it that the women were unable to relocate Jesus' burial place and, coming to a similar empty tomb, hallucinated? Similarly, were Jesus' followers likely hallucination candidates? How plausible was the 'Swoon Theory'? Whence the disciples' newly-found courage? How likely was it that several (traditionally eleven) of the twelve apostles, dispersed around the known world preaching the resurrection, would die martyrs' deaths for falsehood? Was the resurrection deliberate lie, myth or legend? I found the evidence for Jesus' resurrection compelling and, after reflection, allied myself with the local believing Christian community. This understanding, furthermore, had, authenticated for apeme the reality Town of God, the Old Testament and Judaism, and I concurred with Sir Norman Anderson, formerly Professor of Oriental Laws and Director ofthe Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London, who wrote: Easter is not primarily a comfort, but a challenge. Its message is either the supreme fact in history or else a gigantic hoax ... [w]e ourselves find it hard to see the issue so clear-cut, for ours is a tolerant age and one suspicious of all fanaticism. Most people sityhave not the of slightest C desire to attack the Easter message; and yet they only half believe it. To them it is a beautiful story, full of spiritual meaning: why worry, then, whether it is literal fact? But we miss the point. Either it is infinitely more than a beautiful story, or else it is infinitelyUniver less. If [the physical resurrection of Jesus] is true, then it is the supreme fact of history; and to fail to adjust one's life to its implications means irreparable loss. But if it is not true, if Christ be not risen, then the whole of Christianity is a fraud, foisted on the world by a company of consummate liars, or, at best, deluded simpletons. St. Paul himself realized this when he wrote, 'If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching meaningless, and your faith worthless. More, we ourselves are found to be false witnesses' [1 Cor. 15: 14,15]. So that is the issue, and it is vital for us to come to a decision about it one way or the other (Anderson 1950, I with my highlights). In January 2001, I registered for a post-graduate degree in the Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, University of Cape Town. For my Master's thesis I had hoped to research the lives of the twelve Apostles, because I supposed their stories and fate would help me understand what they knew and believed concerning the resurrection. Very little reliable information, however, is available on the Apostles and I was advised it would not be a vii suitable dissertation topic. I decided, therefore, to re-evaluate the resurrection from an academic perspective: Why do so many individuals and scholars (Christian and non-Christian) minimize and even deny outright Jesus' resurrection? What new insights has modem scholarship provided? How should the several inconsistencies and contradictions between the four resurrection accounts be explained? Was Jesus' body, post-crucifixion, thrown into an unknown grave with other executed criminals? What did and do Jesus' contemporaries, the early disciples, the Gospel writers, Church historians and secular scholars understand by the term 'resurrection'? Has the meaning of the word changed over time? Did cultural perspectives concerning 'resurrection' during New Testament times differ significantly from our own? What was Paul's actual experience of the resurrected Jesus? Did he see a physical Jesus; was it a vision or a spiritual experience? Did Paul and the eleven have different experiences of the resurrected Jesus? Were the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection influenced by Gnostic teaching? What contributions do the early secular historians and the extra-canonical writings make to our understanding of the resurrection? Is there historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection? Can the resurrection