Liberty University

DigitalCommons@Liberty
University

Liberty University

Faculty Publications and Presentations.

 Tbe Case for Cbrist's Resurrection 181

they had seen appearances of the risen Jesus after his death. But how
11 do we move from our certainty that the early disciples believed that they
had seen appearances of Jesus to their really seeing Jesus? In other
THE CASE FOR CHRIST'S words, how do we move from their convictions to a historical resurrec-
tion? It is my contention that this is the single most crucial aspect of an
RESURRECTION argument for the historical resurrection appearances of Jesus.
Second, religious and political transformations are common in our
Gary R. Habermas
world during recent decades. Whether one studies the histOlY of com-
munism, Muslim suicide strategies, missionalY activity or particular news
events such as Jonestown, David Koresh or the Heaven's Gate UFO
group, it is increasingly obvious that many individuals, both Christians
and non-Christians, are willing to give their lives for what they believe.
So what makes the transformations of Jesus' disciples, even to the point
of being willing to die for their faith, so unique? How can this aspect of
THE CASE FOR TIlE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST IS CERTAINLY MULTIFACETED.
Few New Testament topics involve more details or are treated so seri- early Christianity be such an important component of most arguments
ously by recent critical scholars. Due to the hundreds of studies on this for the resurrection, if it is nowhere near unique?
topic, this chapter must frequently rely on a summarized format that sim-
THE DISCIPLES' EXPERIENCES OF THE RISEN JESUS
ply lists some of the many conclusions that have emerged in contempo-
In contemporalY studies of the historical Jesus, some items are sup-
ralY research.
Throughout, we will cite chiefly those data to which the vast majority ported by a broad scholarly consensus. That Jesus' proclamation of the
of recent researchers agree, regardless of their prior theological posi- kingdom of God was his central message and that Jesus died by cruci-
tions. Even more crucial is that these critical scholars agree with these fixion are two of the most readily agreed-upon events in Jesus' ·life.
data precisely because they are well supported on factual grounds, often Ranking with these two is the substantially unanimous verdict of con-
for multiple reasons. I have argued the details for my conclusions else- temporalY critical scholars that Jesus' early disCiples at least thought that
where, as have others. So the sources cited in the notes will provide ad- they had seen the risen Jesus. Prominent historian E. P Sanders, who
ditional background information, argumentation, as well as other details calls himself a liberal,l signifies this agreement. He declares that the
for those who wish to consult them. The author is employing the results "equally secure facts" include that Jesus' disciples "saw him (in what
of his recent study of fourteen hundred sources on this subject, pub- sense is not certain) after his death. . . . Thereafter his followers saw
him."z
lished since 1975 in German, French and English.
In addition to furnishing some of these summarized conclusions, I Supportfor the disciples' experiences. It is certainly noteworthy
will concentrate in this chapter on just two major topics that are seldom that the vast majority of scholars, representing many viewpoints, in spite
discussed in detail. Both are crucial components in a historical case for of extensive disagreements in other areas, recognizes that the disciples

the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

1
First, for a variety of reasons, it is the virtually unanimous conclusion ,E. P. Sanders, Jesus andJudaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 324.
of contemporalY scholars that Jesus' early followers at least thought that T P. Sanders, The Historical Figure o)Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), pp. 11, 13.
182 To EVERYONE AN ANSWER Tbe Case for Cbrist's Resurrection 183

actually had real experiences of some sort. It seems equally clear that scholarly agreement here: "It is almost universally agreed today that Paul
this recognition is due to the presence of a rather inipressive number of is here citing tradition.,,4
strong reasons for holding this conclusion. Even a brief listing of these So Paul provides a straightfOIward explanation that he delivered to his
reasons may be instructive. audience what he had first received from others (1 Cor 15:3), which are
1. In contempormy critical studies, the apostle Paul is almost always the equivalent terms for passing rabbinic tradition to others (d. 1 Cor
thought to be the best witness among the New Testament writers. A 11:23). Besides this clear declaration of his actions, there are many other
former opponent of this message, Paul clearly points out that the risen indications that this is exactly what happened. The sentence structure,
Jesus appeared personally to him. Paul makes this claim more than once diction, verbal parallelism, the threefold sequence of "and that," as well
(1 Cor 9:1; 15:8; Gal 1:16). We also have corroboration of Paul's testi- as the presence of several non-Pauline words, the proper names of
mony from another New Testament author, who retells the story three Cephas (d. Lk 24:34) and James, and indications that there may have
times (Acts 9:1-8; 22:3-11; 26:9-18). been an Aramaic original all point clearly to this tradition being pre-
The data behind the fact of Paul's conversion from being an enemy Pauline. Critical scholars agree that Paul received it from others. s
of the church are recognized by all. But there needs to be a reason for The most popular view among scholars is that Paul first received this
this brilliant young scholar being convinced against his former beliefs velY early material when he visited Jerusalem just three years after his
and persecution of believers, as he explains (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13-14; Phil conversion. He visited Peter and James, the brother ofjesus (Gal 1:18-19),
3:4-7). Paul's reason is very clear: he was persuaded that he had seen both of whom are listed as having seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:5, 7).
the risen Lord. Therefore Paul was obviously an eyewitness to his own Stronger evidence to support this conclusion comes from Paul's use
experience. The scholarly consensus here is attested by Michael Martin, of the verb historesai in Galatians 1: 18, which is usually not velY help-
a philosophical atheist who admits: "However, we have only one con- fully translated into English. The Greek term indicates that Paul visited
temporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Peter for the purpose of investigating a particular subject. The immediate
Jesus, namely Paul's.,,3 . context reveals that subject: Paul's topic for discussion was ascertaining
2. Beyond Paul's own experience, this apostle presents plenty of ad- the nature of the gospel message (Gal 1:11-2:10). And Jesus' resurrec-
ditional evidence for the claim that Jesus had appeared to his early fol- tion was the focus of the gospel message (1 Cor 15:3-4; Gal 1:11, 16).
lowers. Essentially all critical scholars today agree that in 1 Corinthians Without it, faith is vain (1 Cor 15:14, 17).
15:3-8, Paul records an ancient oral tradition(s) that summarizes the con- Critical scholars usually concede that this pre-Pauline tradition(s) orig-
tent of the Christian gospel. Jesus the Christ died for human sin, was bur- inated at an exceptionally early date. For Ulrich Wilckens, this content
ied and raised from the dead, afterwards appearing to both individuals "indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of prim-
as well as groups of witnesses. While Paul penned the words, he is clear itive Christianity.,,6 Walter Kasper even thinks that this "ancient text" was
that this material was not his own but that he had passed on to his lis-
"Reginald Fuller, T7Je Formation oftbe Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1980), p.
teners years before (1 Cor 15:1-2) what he had received from others, as 10.
the very heart of his message (1 Cor 15:3). If he were writing today, he 50 f the dozens of scholarly publications here, the following are among the more helpful
sources: Fuller, T7Je Formation oftbe Resurrection Narratives, pp. 10-11; Pinchas Lapide, TIle
might have footnoted his source! Thus this testimony is actually years Resurrection of jesus: A jewisb Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsberg, 1983), pp. 97-99; John
earlier than the book of 1 Corinthians. Reginald Fuller indicates the Kloppenborg, "An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula in 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5 in Light of
Some Recent Literature," Catbolic Biblical QUa/1erly 40 (1978), pp. 351, 360; John P. Meier, A
Marginaljew, vol. 2, Ment01; kIessage and Miracle (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p.139; Sand-
3 Mic hael Martin, TIle Case Agail1St Cbristiani()I (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), p. 81. ers, T7Je Histol1'cal Figure ofjesus, p. 277.
184 To EVERYONE AN ANSWER The Case/or Christ's Resurrectioll 185

possibly "in use by the end of 30 A.D.,,7 message, which centered on the resurrection. To do so, he made a sec-
Perhaps surprisingly, skeptics frequently even agree. Skeptic Gerd Ui- ond trip to Jemsalem specifically for the purpose of checking out his
demann asserts that "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the gospel preaching (Gal 2:1-10). Amazingly, he states his fear that perhaps
first two years after the cmcifixion of Jesus ... not later than three years. he had been teaching the wrong message (Gal 2:2). Some think that Acts
... Tbeformation oftbe appearance traditions mentioned in 1 Cor. 15,J- 15:1-35 describes an amazing third trip to Jemsalem to do the same.13
8falls into tbe time between 30 and 33 C.E.,,8 Philosopher Thomas Shee- Paul obviously desired to be absolutely positive of the gospel tmth! Fur-
han thinks that this pre-Pauline formula "probably goes back to at least ther, Paul was careful to ask his questions of the proper authorities-the
32-34 C.E., that is, to within two to four years of the cmcifixion.,,9 MiChael chief apostles. In his initial trip, he met with Peter and James, the brother
Goulder holds that this resurrection report "goes back at least to what of Jesus (Gal 1:18-20). On the second occasion, he met with these same
Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the cm- two men, plus the apostle John (Gal 2:9). Maltin Hengel points out that
cifixion." 10 "evidently the tradition of I Cor. 15.3 had been subjected to many tests"
Other skeptiCs are often not shy about expressing their agreement.]] by Paul. l4'
In fact, most of the critiCal scholars who date these events conclude that It is easy to overlook the significance of these meetings. The four men
Paul received this material within just a few years after Jesus' death, in who met together on the latter occasion were certainly the chief apostles
the early or mid 30S. 12 We will see how the existence and circumstances in the early church, and each one had been an eyewitness of Jesus' res-
at such an early date translate to additional eyewitness testimony be- urrection appearances (1 Cor 15:5-7). Therefore, when Paul received
sides Paul's. their confirmation that his gospel was correct (Gal 2:9; cf. Acts 15:23-35),
3. Paul was exceptionally careful to ascertain the content of the gospel we have their assurance that Paul's message of Jesus' resurrection ap-
pearances agreed with their own experiences. Certainly, if they thought
that Paul erred on the central fact of the gospel, this would have created
6Ulric h Wilckens, Resurrection: Biblical Testinwny to the ResUiTection: An Historical E."amina-
tion and Explanation (Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press, 1977), p. 2. grave problems, especially given the apostolic concern to insure doctri-
7Walter Kaspar, jesus the Cbrist, trans. V. Green (Mahwah, N.].: Paulist, 1976), p. 125. nal tmth in the early church.
8 Gerd Ludemann, 17Je ResUiTection o/jesus, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994),

p. 38 (Llidemann's emphasis). So Paul provides more than his own eyewitness testimony, as in (1)
9T homas Sheehan, 17Je First Coming: How the Kingdom 0/ God Became Christianity (New above. During his trips to inquire of the three senior apostles in Jerusa-
York: Random, 1986), p. 118; cf. pp. 110-11.
lOMichael Goulder, "The Baseless Fabric of a Vision," in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin lem, Paul passed their examination regarding his gospel proclamation.
D'Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), p. 48. Their blessings assume their own eyewitness testimony concerning
llFor just a few examples, see Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, 17Je Five
Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1993), p. 24; Jack Kent, 17Je Psycbological Origins o.lthe Res- Jesus' resurrection appearances, since they had also experienced the
UlTection Myth (London: Open Gate, 1999), pp. 16-17; A.]. M. Wedderburn, Beyond risen Jesus. Here we are but one step removed from additional eyewit-
reefion (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), p. 274 n. 265; G. A. Wells, Didjesus Exist? (Lon-
don: Pemberton, 1986), p. 30. ness testimony.
"Some of the other scholars who agree here include: Fuller, 17Je Formation o.l tbe Resurrection 4. Not only did the other apostles confirm Paul's gospel message, but
Narratives, pp. 10, 14,48; Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and BodiZV Resurrection
o.ljesus (New York: Paulist, 1973), p. 81; ]. A. Fitzmyer, "The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Ac- we also have the reverse testimony. After repOlting a list of Jesus' resur-
cording to the New Testament," TIle Month, SNS, 20 (987), p. 409; ]. D. G. Dunn, 17Je Evi- rection appearances, Paul explains that he knew what the other apostles
dence/orjesus (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster, 1985), p. 70; C. E. B. Cranfield, "The Resurrection
of Jesus Christ," E."posito/), Times 101 (990), p. 169; Peter Stuhlmacher, jeslls o.l Nazaretb---
Christ o.l Faith, trans. Siegfried S. Shatzmann (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), p. 8; Le- 1;Others hold that the account in Acts 15 confirms the same meeting as that in Gal 2:1-10.
ander E. Keck, W',/)o Isjesus? Histol)' in Pe/fect Tense (Columbia: University of South Carolina, "'Martin Hengel, Tbe Atonement: 17Je Origins o.ltbe Doctrine in the New Testament, trans. John
2000), p. 139; Meier, A Marginaljew, vol. 2, Mento/; Message and Miracle, p. 139. Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), p. 38.
186 To EVERYONE AN ANSWER The Case for Cbrist's Resurrection 187

were preaching on this subject and that it was the same as his teaching aId O'Collins concludes more specifically that Acts "incorporates resur-
about Jesus' appearances (1 Cor 15:11). Together, they proclaimed the rection formulae which stem from the thirties.,,18
risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:12, 15). So we have both the previous, more indi- 6. We have been discussing the earliest apostolic witness to Jesus'
rect apostolic confirmation of Paul's gospel message provided by the ap- resurrection appearances. It is seldom questioned by critical scholars
ostolic leadership, as well as Paul's firsthand, more direct approval of that James, Jesus' brother, was an unbeliever and probably a skeptic
their resurrection message. during his brother's public ministry (Mk 3:21-35; Jn 7:5). Then, just a
5. Insights into the earliest resurrection preaching are gleaned not few years later, James is the pastor of the Jerusalem church, where Paul
only from the pre-Pauline report in 1 Corinthians 15. Other early creedal finds him when he went for his two visits (Gal 1:18-19; 2:1-10; cf. Acts
texts found in the New Testament also provide spotlights on the apos- 15:13-21). In between, the early pre-Pauline creed in 1 Corinthians 15:7
tolic witness to the resurrection appearances. The book of Acts incorpo- states that James met the risen Jesus. One can only imagine what tran-
rates many of these early traditions, located in the sermons contained spired there!
there. IS Although not as unanimously as with the creed(s) in 1 Corin- While there may not seem at first look to be much textual data here,
thians 15:3-8, a majority of critical scholars still hold that at least some of critical scholars find at least three major reasons for concluding that
16
these snippets represent the earliest Christian gospel preaching. Like James was an unbeliever before he met the risen Jesus. John Meier states
other early traditions, they are identified by their brevity, lack of theo- the case well. James's unbelief is attested by multiple independent
logical complexity, and because the structure, style and/or diction reflect sources. 19 Further, the criterion of coherence is satisfied in that Jesus fre-
language patterns other than the author's. Crucially for our purposes, the quently demanded that his disciples be willing to leave their family be-
risen Jesus is the center of each of these traditions. hind and follow him, even if it engendered their wrath, as it did with
These Acts creeds could provide a window on the ancient world of Jesus' own family. The criterion of embarrassment probably provides the
apostolic preaching before a single New Testament book was written. strongest reason here, since it is highly unlikely that early church authors
John Drane thinks that these sermons in Acts are our "earliest evidence" would make such potentially "deeply offensive" comments regarding
for Jesus' resurrection and that this material "almost certainly goes back both an esteemed leader as well as Jesus' own brother, unless they
2o
to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have thought they were repOlting facts.
taken place .... But there can be no doubt that in the first few chapters Fuller concludes that even if the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Corinthians
of Acts its author has preserved material from vety early sources.,,17 Ger- 15:7 had never been recorded, "we should have to invent" an appear-
ance to James to justify both his conversion as well as his promotion to
15T he condensed creedal segments are found within a number of the sermons in Acts: Acts the pastorate in Jerusalem, the largest of the early churches!21 The ma-
1:21-22; 2:22-36; 3:13-16; 4:8-10; 5:29-32; 10:39-43; 13:28-31; 17:1-3; 17:30-31; cf. Lk 24:34. jority of scholars, including many skeptics, agree that James was con-
16For just a small sampling of these scholars, see Gerd LUdemann, Early Cbristiani(V According
10 the Traditions in Acts: A Commenta/Y, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), vetted by Jesus' appearance to him.n
pp. 47-49, 112-15; Hengel, Tbe Atonement, p. 34; pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament
Witness and ContemponllY Reflection (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984), pp. 90, 228-31;
Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christ%gy (Mahwah, N.].: Paulist, ls Gerald O'Collins, IlIfelpretingJesus (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983), pp. 109-10.

1994), pp. 112-13, 164; Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, pp. 44-45; I\lop- 19The Jesus Seminar even thinks that two independent sources indicate that a teaching may be
penborg, p. 361; Johnson, LivingJesus: Learning tbe Heart oftbe Gospel (San Francisco: Harper older than its source. See Funk, Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, 77Je Five Gospels, p. 26.
Collins, 1999), p. 34; although older, two of the better studies are C. H. Dodd, 77Je Apostolic 2°Meier, A MargillalJew, vol. 2, MeIltOI; Message and Miracle, pp. 68-71.
Preacbing and Its Developments (reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1980), pp. 17-31, and 21Fuller, Tbe Formatiol! C!ttbe Resurrection Narratives, p. 37.
Max Wilcox, 77Je Semitisms C!tActs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), esp. pp. 79-80, 164-65. "For instance, see LUdemann, The ReSllrrection C!fTeslls, p. 109; Helmut Koester, HistolY & Lit-
17Jo hn Drane, Introducing tbe New Testament (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986), p. 99. eralw'e Cbristiani(l', vol. 2 of Introduclion to the New Testament (Philadelphia: For-
188 To EVERYONE AN ANSWER The Case for Christ's Resurrection 189

7. IfJesus' burial tomb was later found empty, this does not prove that that Jesus was buried in a tomb, was raised and appeared.
a resurrection occurred. However, it adds some credibility to the disci- Not only did the Jewish leaders not dispute the empty tomb, but their
ples' claim to have seen the risen Jesus, since it both seriously compli- reported response even conceded it (Mt 28:11-15). So enemy attestation
cates the search for a naturalistic hypothesis, as well as indicating that also supports the empty tomb.
whatever happened most likely involved Jesus' body. While the empty tomb is not as unanimously held as are the other his-
There are well over a dozen reasons supporting Jesus' empty tomb, torical reasons that we have given for the disciples' experiences, most
only a few of which we will simply mention here. The Gospels are in critical scholars still think that the tomb where Jesus was buried was later
c
complete agreement that women were the earliest witnesses to the discovered to be empty.2 , ] . D. G. Dunn firmly states: "I have to say quite
empty tomb, a simply remarkable report since female testimony was forcefully: the probability is that the tomb was empty. As a matter of his-
generally disallowed in a law court for declarations on crucial topics. torical reconstruction, the weight of evidence points firmly to the con-
Thus, to fabricate this story with women as the central witnesses most clusion." The alternative explanations are all worse. 25 Historian Michael
likely would serve only to have the case dismissed without a hearing. Grant explains that "the historian ... cannot justifiably deny the empty
This rep0l1 only makes sense if it reflected what actually happened. Jeru- tomb" since normal historical criteria attest that, "the evidence is firm
salem is absolutely the last place on earth for Jesus' followers to proclaim and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was
that he had been raised, unless his grave was empty. Otherwise, a Sun- indeed found empty.,,26
day afternoon stroll would clearly indicate that the stone was still in 8. Last, there is no question that the disciples' belief that they had ac-
place, revealing their erroneous message. tually seen Jesus after his death led to a radical transformation in their
The empty tomb accounts are surprisingly attested by multiple lives, even to the point of being willing to die for their faith. But since
sources, being found in almost evelY Gospel source. Ancient historian the question regarding the degree of the uniqueness here is the chief
Paul Maier remarks, "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient concern of the second section of this chapter, we will not belabor the
source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the point here.
fact unimpeachable.,,23 We have listed eight different reasons that indicate why contemporary
The early pre-Pauline creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 at least implies an scholars almost without exception conclude that the disciples truly
empty tomb. The sequence involved in the triple "and that" phrases, es- thought that Jesus had appeared alive to them after he had died on the
pecially for a Jew, intimates that if Jesus died, was buried, rose and ap- cross. Paul's own eyewitness testimony, the exceptionally early date
peared, then what had been living was placed in the ground and later when he received the creed(s) recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, check-
emerged. In such a case, the tomb would have been vacated. What may ing his own gospel message at least twice with the chief apostles who
be another early creed (Acts 13:29-31, 36-37) even more clearly indicates were also witnesses, and his knowledge of their eyewitness teaching on
the resurrection appearances form a simply remarkable, interconnected

tress, 1982), p. 84; John Shelby Spong, The Easter MomeJlt (San Francisco: Harper and Row,
1987), p. 68; Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, p. 116; Funk, Honest toJesus (San Francisco: 2"My study of hundreds of scholarly sources on the resurrection, cited above, notes almost two
Harper Collins, 1996), p. 33; Meier, A Margina/Jew, vol. 2, lVientOl; Message and Miracle, pp. dozen arguments for the empty tomb. About 75 percent of the surveyed scholars embrace
70-71; Peter Stuhlmacher, "The Resurrection ofJesus and the Resurrection of the Dead," trans. one or more of the supporting arguments.
Jonathan M. Whitlock, ExAuditu 9 (1993), p. 49; E. P. Sanders, "But Did It Happen?" TheSpec- "Dunn, Tbe Euidence forJesus, p. 68.
tator 276 (1996), p. 17. }''Michael Grant, Jesus: All Historian's Reuiew oftbe Gospels (New York: Collier, 1992), p. 176.
23 Pau l Maier, In the Fulness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter and the Early An excellent treatment of additional arguments for the empty tomb is William Lane Craig,
Church (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991), p. 197. "The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus," New Testament Studies 31 (1985) 39-67.
190 To EVERYONE AN ANSWER The Case for Christ's Resurrection 191

trail of evidence that is virtually unheard of in ancient documents. Emi- much firmer ground with respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus
nent scholar Howard Clark Kee makes the astounding comment that and their effect." These appearances "cannot vety well be questioned.,,29
Paul's research "can be critically examined and compared with other tes- Bart Ehrman states that "we can say with complete certainty that some
timony from eyewitnesses of Jesus, just as one would evaluate evidence of his disciples at some later time insisted that he soon appeared to
in a modern court or academic setting. ,,27 them .... Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking
Further, other early creedal witnesses such as those in Acts, the con- about the belief in Jesus' resurrection, since it is a matter of public
version of James the skeptic, the empty tomb and the disciples' transfor- record. ,,30 Traugott Holtz concludes that the disciples' "experience of res-
mation all provide support that the disciples were utterly convinced that urrection ... is in fact an undeniable historical event. ,,31 Li.idemann even
they had seen the risen Jesus. Additional factors could be mentioned. For reminds us that Paul's resurrection language is the language of real sight:
example, the centrality of the resurrection message in the early church "active sensual perception .... Paul is claiming a visual side to the ap-
2
provided ample opportunity for believers who were prepared to die for pearance.,,3 Moreover, Paul was teaching that Jesus appeared in his
the message to repeatedly focus on its truth, but without refutation or "transformed spiritual resurrection corporeality.,,33
recanting, as far as we know. And the Jewish leaders particularly had It seems clear, then, that Jesus' disciples were utterly convinced that
both a motive and the power to oppose a message that threatened their he had appeared to them after his death. It is granted by virtually all crit-
existence and came up empty-handed. 28 ical scholars because the data are extraordinarily strong. But how do we
No other hypothesis is even a viable rival to the conclusion that the get from the disciples' resurrection conviction to the resurrection e'vent,
early disciples at least thought that they had witnessed Jesus' appear- namely, to real appearances of the risen Jesus?
ances after he had died. But can we somehow move from the recog- This may seem like a rather straightforward question, yet it can get a
nized historical fact that the disciples believed this to their actually hav- little slippety. Believers presumably would think that they were quite
ing seen the risen Jesus? To make this move could well be the most justified in their stance that reasons like those above establish their po-
crucial aspect of an historical argument for Jesus' resurrection appear- sition. After all, each of the evidences points to a visual event that
ances. changed the disciples' lives, which they were utterly convinced was an
From conviction to event. Each of the eight reasons above points to appearance of their best friend.
the belief that Jesus was seen again after his death. In other words, the Unbelievers would seemingly have to reply by severing the connec-
claim to which virtually all scholars agree is a visual claim. The disciples tion between what the disciples thought and what really happened. To
were sure that Jesus' person had impinged on their visual field. This is do this, they might move in two directions, by indirectly or directly re-
what Paul claimed. Peter agreed. So did Jesus' brother James. Further, plying to a case like that which we have outlined here.
the tomb was no longer occupied by his body. As a result, they were Initially, perhaps they might tty an indirect maneuver by posing vari-
changed forever.
Even recent skeptical scholars agree. Koester asserts that "We are on
29Koester, HistolJi and Literature, p. 84.
"JBart Ehrman, jesus: Apocalyptic Propbet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1999), pp. 230-31.
27Howard Clark Kee, What Can We Know about jesus? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 31My translation of the German text in Traugott Holtz, "Kenntnis von Jesus und Kenntnis Jesu,"
1990), pp. 1-2. Theologiscbe Literaturzeitung 104 (979)' p. 10.
1Rpor details on these two additional reasons, as well as much more information, including both 32Wdemann, The Resurrection ofjeslls, p. 50; cf. p. 37.
factual and scholarly agreement, regarding the previous eight arguments, see Gary R. Haber- 33Gerd Ludemann, What RealZv Happened to jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection,
mas, The Risenjeslls and Future Hope (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), chap. 1. with All' Ozen, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1995), p. 103.
192 To EVERYONE AN ANSWER The Case for Christ's Resurrectioll 193

ous a priori objections 34 that, whatever the data, Jesus was simply not are more than justified in holding their view in light of the many evi-
raised from the dead. These sorts of miraculous events just do not occur dences for this event.
in our world. These philosophical responses take us far beyond our Our major methodology is applicable to this agnostic position.
study of the resurrection of Jesus, especially in that such objections are Throughout, we have used data that are recognized by virtually all schol-
typically not concerned with this event at all. Usually, they make more ars. These same minimal historical facts that even agnostics accept
general inquiries regarding the background information or the nature of clearly indicate that more than an undefined something occurred to
35
the evidence, both areas where the resurrection excels. Jesus' disciples. We pointed out above that all the evidence supports a
Or, another indirect move is to respond with the agnostic plea that we visual claim-the disciples thought they saw Jesus after his death. By
do not know what occurred. The disciples indeed believed that they saw failing to account viably for the majority of the recognized facts that even
Jesus, but we cannot determine a cause. they generally accept, like the eight mentioned above, agnostics miss the
This fence-straddling approach is very difficult to maintain, since one cause of the disciples' experiences. But it is insufficient to simply stop
must dodge many factual considerations, when just one might cause the there and refuse to investigate further. What they fail to explain may be
thesis to topple. A few brief and general problems will have to suffice precisely the data that are capable of establishing the resurrection ap-
here. (1) The agnostic position smacks of rejecting the possibility of a pearances as the most likely explanation, as pointed out below. As Fuller
resurrection before following the evidence to its conclusion or even re- asserts, what we know "therefore requires that the historian postulate
senting that the discussion might lead to the truth of Christianity.36 (2) To some other event" besides the disciples' faith. We must ascertain "the
assert that we cannot discover a cause for the disciples' faith assumes its cause of the Easter faith ... outside of their belief.,,38
own burden of proof. But on what grounds should such an assertion be Precisely in order to address directly these facts, the more popular ap-
made? proach through the centuries has been to pose a naturalistic theOlY to
More crucially, (3) we have plenty of evidence already to decide the account for the data. Such a move basically attempts to allow for histor-
case, especially since we used only those data that virtually all critical ical facts where the evidence is the strongest, while veering off in a nat-
scholars accept. So critics must not reject or pull up short of the results ural direction before getting to the punch line involving the resurrection.
that are indicated by their own research!37 (4) The objection often does Here they need to propose an alternative scenario: "Jesus didn't really
not level complaints against this specific resurrection data, so believers rise from the dead. What really happened was (fill in the blank)."
However, this is probably the most difficult method of all. In fact,
when faced with this option, the vast majority of critical scholars opt out.
might be noted here that not all a priori questions are automatically ruled out as question
).i It

begging. Some ask by various means if it is possible to postulate in advance a reason for ques- They are often well aware that when an option is chosen, the weight of
tioning certain occurrences. the known historical facts comes crashing down against their proposal.
3'For distinctions between various sorts of a priori arguments, along with a detailed response
to several specific examples, see Gary R. Habermas and Michael Licona, 77Je Case for the Res- In fact, they are so well aware of this eventuality that only a few attempt
urrection jeslls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2004), chap. 9. For a more technical treat-
qt it. Even among scholars, it is generally conceded that none of these op-
ment, see Habermas, 77Je RiselljeslIs and Future Hope, esp. chap. 2.
36 For details on how Jesus.' resurrection and other relevant data lead to a case for the heart of tions work.
Christianity, see Habern;as, The Risen jesus and Future Hope, chaps. 1-6. A more popular ap- For instance, Raymond E. Brown calls these theses "gratuitous
proach is detailed in Gary R. Habermas, "Evidential Apologetics," in Five Views on Apologetics,
ed. Stephen B. Cowan (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondelvan, 2000). charges.,,39 Dunn concludes: "alternative interpretations of the data fail
7
3 For additional comments on how these methodological considerations used by critical schol-

ars lead to the historicity of the resurrection, see esp. Habermas, 77Je Risen jesus and Future
Hope, chap. 1. 3"Fuller, Tbe Formation qt tbe Resurrection Narratives, pp. 169, 181.
 To EVERYONE AN ANSWER Tbe Case for Cbrist's Res1lrrection 195
194
40
to provide a more satisfactOlY explanation" than the resurrection. Davis ciples' convictions to the historical resurrection appearances. The strong
responds: "All of the alternative hypotheses with which I am familiar are reasons for suppOlting the disciples' experiences of seeing Jesus, in con-
historically weak; some are so weak that they collapse of their own junction with the failure of alternative theses , even by critical standards ,
weight once spelled out .... The alternative theories that have been pro- indicates that by far the most likely scenario is that the disciples actually
posed are not only weaker but far weaker at explaining the available his- saw the risen Jesus. Further, the more thoroughly the natural hypotheses
torical evidence.',41 Robinson notes that "it is indeed veiY difficult to dis- fail, the more likely are the historical resurrection appearances. To state
miss !Jesus' appearances] and still find a credible explanation.,,42 this principle more briefly as a mock mathematical equation: given a rea-
Given that the skeptic would have to account for the disciples being sonable explanation, the disciples' experiences plus the failure of alterna-
sure that they had seen the risen Jesus, the most popular naturalistic re- tives equals the historical resurrection appearances of Jesus.
sponse (although still a real minority rejoinder) is to suggest that they This follows because, due to the failure of alternatives, the impressive
saw hallucinations. A detailed critique is impossible here, but we can evidences that make the case for the disciples' experiences as strong as
. 43
provide a list of some of the myriad problems with such a response. anything in the New Testament now become impressive evidences for
For example, (1) hallucinations are private experiences, while clearly the resurrection appearances themselves. In brief, the disciples' experi-
we have strong reasons to asseit that groups of people claimed to have ences are recognized for what they actually were: Jesus' postdeath ap-
seen Jesus. (2) The disciples' despair indicates that they were not in the pearances.
proper frame of mind to see hallucinations. (3) Perhaps the most serious
THE UNlQiJENESS OF THE DISCIPLES' TRANSFORMATIONS
problem is that there were far too many different times, places and per-
sonalities involved in the appearances. To believe that with each of these Today, many have been willing to die for their religious or even political
varying persons and circumstances a separate hallucination occurred convictions. From communists to Muslims to Christians, we are well-
borders on credulity. (4) Further, on this view, Jesus' body should still acquainted with examples. However, many throughout histOlY have also
have been located safely in the tomb! (5) Hallucinations veiY rarely propagated false beliefs. What separates Jesus' disciples from these latter
transform lives, but we have no records of any of the eyewitnesses re- cases? Is their transformation in any way unique?
canting their faith. Two huge problems are the conversions of both (6) Virtually no one disputes the disciples' radical transfonnations. Before
Paul and (7) James, neither of whom had a desire to see Jesus. These Jesus died, his followers abandoned and even denied him."5 In contrast,
are just a very few of the serious questions for this alternative view. All after the resurrection the remainder of their lives were undeniably and
44
other proposed natural hypotheses have similarly been disproven. radically altered. They were willing to die for their faith, and many were
Now we are ready to state a general principle for moving from the dis- martyred. 46 The disciples' metamorphoses are also visible from their eth-

39
+'In "Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection," I list nineteen different problems for various forms
Brown An 111troduction to New Testament Cbristology, p. 163; d. pp. 163-67. of the hallucination theory. Por a readable treatment of many other potential naturalistic re-
"oDunn, 'The Evidenceforjesus, p. 76. Another more recent and similar is that
T. Wright, "Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a HIS-
sponses, see the more than one hundred pages devoted to the topic in I-Iabermas and Licona,
Tbe Casefor tbe ResltlTectiol1 qlJesus, esp. chaps. 7-9.
torical Problem," Sewanee 17Jeological Review 41 (1998): 118-22.
'''Some examples are found in Mt 26:56,69-74; Mk 14:50, 66-72; Lk 22:55-72; Jn 18:25-27 .
.ilStephen T. Davis, "Is Belief in the Resurrection Rational?" Pbilo 2 (1999): 57-58. <!6 J. /,
.i2]. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust tbe New Testamel1f? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), See Acts 2:41-47; 4:1-4, 8-21,29-31; 5:17-32, 40-42. For their willingness to die, see Jn 21:18-
19; Acts 7:57-60; 12:1-3; 21:13; 25:11; Rom 14:8; 1 Cor 15:30-32; 2 Cor 4:7-14; 11:23-32; Phil
p.124. 1:20-24; d. 2 Pet 1:13-15. We have early references to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul
'>3
Por a treatment of the latest trends plus a detailed critique, see Gary R. Habermas, "Explaining (Clement of Rome Corintbians 5) ancl two accounts of the martyrdom of James, the brother
Away Jesus' Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories," Cbristian Researcb
ofjesus (Josephus Antiquities 20:9:1; I-Iegesippus in Eusebius Ecclesiastical Hist01J' 2:23). Eu-
joumal23 (2001), pp. 26-31, 47-49.
 To EVERYONE AN ANSWER Tbe Case for Christ's Resurrection 197
196

ics, evangelism and other teachings, reflected throughout the New Tes- they had actually seen the risen Jesus.
tament. Extrabiblical sources, both secular and Christian, also attest to Apart from their resurrection experiences, there would have been no
i7 transformations, for witl10ut this event their faith was vain (1 Cor. 15:14,
these changes:
What is responsible for the changes in the disciples? The New Testa- 17). As Paul argues, they actually saw Jesus (1 Cor 15:1-11), and this is
ment is unmistakably clear that Jesus' resurrection appearances were the what confirmed their eternal life, for if Jesus was raised, so they would
intervening events, the catalyst between their confusion and exaltation. be raised (1 Cor 15:17-20). Death had no more sting for them (1 Cor
Critical scholars are in total agreement here. Ben Meyer states it clearly: 15:53-55). Peter similarly but surprisingly declares that because Jesus'
"That it was the Easter experiences which affected [the disciples'] trans- resurrection secured heaven, even the serious struggles of life could be
formation is beyond reasonable doubt.,,48 Hugo Staudinger agrees: "Only faced with rejoicing (1 Pet 1:3-7).
the appearances of Jesus brought about a new change of mood in Think about it. If your eternity depended on Jesus being raised from
them.,,49 N. T. Wright declares: "the first generation of Christians ... an- the dead, which would you rather have-a strong conviction or your ac-
nounced and celebrated the victOlY of Jesus over evil. ... That was the tually having seen the risen Jesus along with an even stronger conviction
basis of their remarkable joy."so precisely because you did so? In other words, which circumstance would
Admittedly, life conversions have happened for untme causes. But I carry a greater conviction: your being convinced centuries later that you
would assert that there is a qualitative difference between what oc- ought to follow someone's teachings, or simply the knowledge that you
curred to the disciples and what we see today. Granted, there is the actually had been with that same person last night, however unusual the
often-acknowledged precept that those who are willing to die for a particulars? Now can you imagine the disciples' joy when they saw Jesus
cause genuinely believe in it. The disciples did suffer for their belief in alive-face to face, gazing straight into his eyes? In that moment when
a cause, like evetyone else. But here the main similarities between the they saw Jesus, heaven entered earth's realm and eternity burst upon
disciples and others stop. them. After all, what is a resurrection appearance of Jesus? When the dis-
Distinctly unlike the other cases, as we have seen in this chapter, the ciples saw the risen Jesus, they saw walking, talking, eternal life! No
disciples died for more than being sold out to a cause. They willingly wonder they were assured of heaven!S!
gave their lives preciseZv because they were absoluteZv convinced that So here is the chief difference between Jesus' disciples and others
they had seen the risen jesus. In short, their transformations were not who hold religious convictions. In addition to their fortified convictions ,
caused by an ideology, like the others, but their new outlook was ex- the disciples had an evidenced experience that no one else ever has be-
pressly based on a personal experience-their profound conviction that fore or since. 52 They saw heaven in the person of Jesus Christ. al-
though believers today have not seen Jesus (1 Pet 1:8), we have the next
best thing-vety powerful evidence that the disciples did!
sebius records that James the brother of John, Peter and Paul all died for their faith (Ecclesi-
astical His[OIY 2:9, 25).
.I7Secular references appear in Tacitus (Annals 15.44), josephus's disputed paragraph (Antiqui- CONCLUSION
ties 18.3.3) and in Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son (located in the British Museum). Chris-
tian testimonies are recorded by Clement of Rome (Corinthians 42), Ignatius (SmyrneaJ1s 3)
I contend that the most cmcial aspect of an argument for the historicity
and Barnabas (5).
""Ben Meyer, 17Je Aims ofjesus (London: SCM, 1979), p. 60.
.,9Hugo Staudinger, "The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Saving Event and as 'Object' of Histor-
"For an itemized argument from Jesus' resurrection to eternal life, see Habermas, 77.7e Risen
jesus and Future Hope, chaps. 1-7.
ical Research," Scottish journal of 17Jeology 36 (1983), p. 321.
"'N. T. Wright, jesus and the VictOl]! of God, vol. 2 of CiJristia}7 Origins and the Question qfGod "Gary R. Habermas, "Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions," Religiolls Studies 25
(989):167-77.
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), p. 659.
 To EVERYONE AN ANSWER
198

of Jesus' resurrection is that the disciples were totally convinced that PART 4
they had seen appearances of the risen Jesus. The community of critical
scholars holds that these experiences are thoroughly historical. These
same scholars nearly always recognize that natural alternative responses PHILOSOPHICAL AND
do not explain the data. Therefore, the impressive evidences that estab-
lish the disciples' experiences, especially in light of the failure of these
CULTURAL CHALLENGES
alternatives, now become impressive evidences for the resurrection ap- TO CHRISTIAN FAITH
pearances themselves.
Further, that these appearances were the reason for the disciples'
j. P. Moreland
transformations separates them from other religious and political meta-
morphoses. That the disciples actually saw the risen Jesus bases their
convictions of heaven on their foretaste of that reality, which they had
personally witnessed. Excitingly, although they have not seen the resur-
rected Jesus, believers today have the next best thing-very powerful
evidence that the disciples diel! The argument is firm and heaven still fol-
THE STRUCTURE OF THIS BOOK FOLLOWS A VERY CAREFULLY CRAFTED PROGRES-
lows!
sion of ideas. In part 1 we tackled the whole question of faith and reason
FOR FURTHER READING in order to defend the very practice of apologetics. Having given a ra-
Craig, William Lane, and John Dominic Crossan. Will the Realjeslls Please Stand tionale and some practical advice for its employment, parts 2 and 3 took
UP? Edited by Paul Copan. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998. on the task of providing a defense of the existence of God and the truth
Craig, William Lane, and Gerd Ludemann. jeslls' Resw'rection: Fact or Figment? of Christianity. Again, the order is important. If monotheism is true, then
Edited by Paul Copan and Ronald Tacelli. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity it is clearly possible that God could perform miracles in human history
Press, 2000. and reveal himself in ways consistent with his reality as known from the
Habermas, Gary R. T7Je Risenjesus and Future Hope. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & creation itself and the arguments for his existence. So understood, the
Littlefield, 2003. arguments of palt 2 do not merely provide grounds for God's reality;
___ . T7Je Historicaljesus: Ancient EvidenceJor tbe Life oJCbrist. Rev. ed. JoP-
they also provide some information about his nature (that he is wise, in-
lin, Mo.: College Press, 1996.
Habermas, Gary R., and Michael Licona. T7Je CaseJor tbe ResUlTection ofJesus.
telligent, good, powerful and excellent in all ways appropriate to being
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2004. a person). Part 3 captured the search to see if God has in fact revealed
Wright, N. T. T7Je Resurrection oj the Son oj God. Vol. 3 of Christian Origins and himself in a special way, and the case for the New Testament's depiction
the Question oj God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. of Christ and the credibility of miracles, especially the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus, constitute the appropriate end of that search.
However, no case is complete if it considers only evidence in its favor,
and the case for the Christian worldview is no exception to this rule. So
in pmts 4 and 5, we provide a statement and response to some important
philosophical, cultural and religious challenges frequently raised against