1. "That he [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can be." - skeptical scholar John Dominic Crossan (1)
In Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, famous New Testament bible scholar Bart Ehrman
backs up Habermas by reporting that "Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at [theological
seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges], none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubt that Jesus
existed." (2) He firmly Jesus that Jesus was really crucified, and founded faith in His disciples. Ehrman mentions
that we have multiple, independent lines of tradition that support Jesus: Mark, M and L (sources used for the gospels of
Matthew and Luke), Q (a lost record of some of Jesus' sayings), the gospel John (even though skeptical scholars believe
it has the most legend), Tacitus and Josephus (non-Christian Jewish and pagan historians), among others.
backs up Habermas by reporting that "Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at [theological
seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges], none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubt that Jesus
existed." (2) He firmly Jesus that Jesus was really crucified, and founded faith in His disciples. Ehrman mentions
that we have multiple, independent lines of tradition that support Jesus: Mark, M and L (sources used for the gospels of
Matthew and Luke), Q (a lost record of some of Jesus' sayings), the gospel John (even though skeptical scholars believe
it has the most legend), Tacitus and Josephus (non-Christian Jewish and pagan historians), among others.
2. "This is a historical report which makes no impression of being legendary, apart from the women who appear again
as witnesses in v. 47 and vs. 44, 45." - Rudolf Bultmann, labeled by Bart Ehrman "arguably the most influential scholar
of the twentieth century."(3)
as witnesses in v. 47 and vs. 44, 45." - Rudolf Bultmann, labeled by Bart Ehrman "arguably the most influential scholar
of the twentieth century."(3)
After His death, Jesus received an honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea. Now, Mark acknowledges that Joseph
was a member of the council that crucified Jesus, so it is unlikely that he would be invented as the one to bury
their Savior. Perhaps that is part of the reason the famous skeptic Rudolf Bultmann sees no legend in the story of
Jesus' burial. Likewise, late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University reported that the burial of Jesus is one
of the most certain facts about the historical Jesus(4).
was a member of the council that crucified Jesus, so it is unlikely that he would be invented as the one to bury
their Savior. Perhaps that is part of the reason the famous skeptic Rudolf Bultmann sees no legend in the story of
Jesus' burial. Likewise, late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University reported that the burial of Jesus is one
of the most certain facts about the historical Jesus(4).
3. "Gary Habermas's very recent study identified more than one hundred scholars who accept one or more
arguments in favor of the empty tomb versus thirty-five who accept one or more arguments against it. This is
about a 3:1 ratio." (5)
arguments in favor of the empty tomb versus thirty-five who accept one or more arguments against it. This is
about a 3:1 ratio." (5)
The evidence for the empty tomb isn't as strong as it is for the rest of Gary Habermas's minimal facts approach.
Indeed, only about 75% of the scholars he researched believed in it(6). However, that is still a large majority for
a religious claim! In The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, multiple skeptical scholars that believe in the empty
tomb for one reason or another were named(6).
Indeed, only about 75% of the scholars he researched believed in it(6). However, that is still a large majority for
a religious claim! In The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, multiple skeptical scholars that believe in the empty
tomb for one reason or another were named(6).
But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor 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, Antiquities 4.8.15) (7)
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, Antiquities 4.8.15) (7)
The testimony of a woman was incredibly lower than men back in first-century Palestine. It is implausible that
women would be the first invented witnesses to the empty tomb.
women would be the first invented witnesses to the empty tomb.
Or is it? Michael Goulder, professor of biblical studies at Emeritus University of Birmingham, suggests that of
course women would be the first witnesses because they were the only ones at the crucifixion(8). Atheist
philosopher Keith Parsons argues that the women naturally would be the first to see the risen Christ because
it was their responsibility to anoint the body(9). William Lane Craig does support that in the Mishna, women
would naturally come to the tomb (I am not up to the challenge to go through the entire Jesus' Resurrection:
Fact or Figment? to find the exact page number). But the response is that legend writers wouldn't stick so
faithfully to the facts. Sometimes critics lend the gospels the credibility they deserve only to support their beliefs.
There is no need to mention the women first - why not have the disciples waiting, or what about Joseph of
Arimathea? How about forgetting about the women entirely? When it comes to legend, just make something up.
Especially with the much earlier 1 Corinthians 15 creed that does not mention the women, there is no way that
they would be added in to strengthen belief. They are not necessary.
course women would be the first witnesses because they were the only ones at the crucifixion(8). Atheist
philosopher Keith Parsons argues that the women naturally would be the first to see the risen Christ because
it was their responsibility to anoint the body(9). William Lane Craig does support that in the Mishna, women
would naturally come to the tomb (I am not up to the challenge to go through the entire Jesus' Resurrection:
Fact or Figment? to find the exact page number). But the response is that legend writers wouldn't stick so
faithfully to the facts. Sometimes critics lend the gospels the credibility they deserve only to support their beliefs.
There is no need to mention the women first - why not have the disciples waiting, or what about Joseph of
Arimathea? How about forgetting about the women entirely? When it comes to legend, just make something up.
Especially with the much earlier 1 Corinthians 15 creed that does not mention the women, there is no way that
they would be added in to strengthen belief. They are not necessary.
A second point is that the empty-tomb story is included in all of the gospels. But every time, the stories are
(drastically?) different. But the historian is not going to see this as a problem. Why? The differences are all in
the secondary details: every time the tomb is empty, and women are first. Remember how John, Matthew,
and Luke have independent testimony from Mark? If they were just copying Mark, why is there things that, at
least at first glance, seem like a glaring discrepancies? We have multiple, independent traditions for the empty tomb.
(drastically?) different. But the historian is not going to see this as a problem. Why? The differences are all in
the secondary details: every time the tomb is empty, and women are first. Remember how John, Matthew,
and Luke have independent testimony from Mark? If they were just copying Mark, why is there things that, at
least at first glance, seem like a glaring discrepancies? We have multiple, independent traditions for the empty tomb.
Finally, the response given by the Jews is a tell-tale sign that they knew full well the tomb was empty. Some might
find it problematic that the Jewish response is only recorded in one gospel: Matthew 28:11-15. Yet, this story is the earliest
tradition regarding the Jews and the empty tomb, and more specifically, it was written by around approximately 80 AD (or
at least that's what Ehrman and other skeptics say). Since Jews were famous for their oral traditions (rabbis would become
famous for having the entire Old Testament memorized!), they would know what was false... especially since Matthew adds
that the story of the disciples stealing the body was still being circulated to that very moment, so he was welcoming people to
challenge that fact. Also, "The idea of a guard could only have been a Christian, not a Jewish development. At the next stage
there is no need for Christians to invent the bribing of the guard; it was sufficient to claim that the tomb was guarded. The bribe
arises only in response o the second stage of the polemic, the Jewish allegation that the guard fell asleep. This part of the story
could only have been a Jewish development, since it serves no purpose in the Christian polemic. At the final stage, the time of
Matthew's writing, the Christian answer is given that the guard was bribed." (7)
find it problematic that the Jewish response is only recorded in one gospel: Matthew 28:11-15. Yet, this story is the earliest
tradition regarding the Jews and the empty tomb, and more specifically, it was written by around approximately 80 AD (or
at least that's what Ehrman and other skeptics say). Since Jews were famous for their oral traditions (rabbis would become
famous for having the entire Old Testament memorized!), they would know what was false... especially since Matthew adds
that the story of the disciples stealing the body was still being circulated to that very moment, so he was welcoming people to
challenge that fact. Also, "The idea of a guard could only have been a Christian, not a Jewish development. At the next stage
there is no need for Christians to invent the bribing of the guard; it was sufficient to claim that the tomb was guarded. The bribe
arises only in response o the second stage of the polemic, the Jewish allegation that the guard fell asleep. This part of the story
could only have been a Jewish development, since it serves no purpose in the Christian polemic. At the final stage, the time of
Matthew's writing, the Christian answer is given that the guard was bribed." (7)
It is no wonder why Jacob Kremer, an Australian specialist in the resurrection, wrote "by far, most scholars hold firmly to the
reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb." (8)
reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb." (8)
4,5,6,7. "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experience after Jesus' death in which Jesus
appeared to them as the risen Christ." (9) - atheistic New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann
appeared to them as the risen Christ." (9) - atheistic New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann
Both Ehrman and Ludemann date at least the beginning of the early New Testament creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 to no later
than 2 years after the death of Jesus. Most scholars date it from 3 to 8 years after His death. And Ehrman mentions how
Christianity started in Jerusalem, early after Jesus' death. Hence, there is no time for legend to creep in to the
straightforward creed. The skeptic James, the enemy Paul, and the disciples thought Jesus appeared to them. Ludemann
mentions: "... I also know that many biblical scholars like Martin Hengel... are glad that we don't know anything about the
mental dynamics of Paul." (10) This shows that many biblical scholars believe in the conversion of Paul, and he was
mentions the mental dynamics of Paul to discuss the possibility that Paul could hallucinate a Jesus. He also goes so far as
to say that it is "certain" that James experienced a resurrection appearance of Jesus(11). Ehrman helps as well: "The
crucifixion of Jesus is the core of Paul's message and is attested abundantly in his writings as one of the - if not the - earliest
things that he knew about the man. ... Who would make up the idea of a crucified messiah? No Jew that we know of. ... A
crucified criminal? That's worse than being crazy. It's an offense against God, blasphemous. Or so thought Paul. And so he
persecuted this tiny sect of Jews and tried to destroy them." (12) The skeptical New Testament scholar Norman Perrin wrote:
"The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are
based." (13)
than 2 years after the death of Jesus. Most scholars date it from 3 to 8 years after His death. And Ehrman mentions how
Christianity started in Jerusalem, early after Jesus' death. Hence, there is no time for legend to creep in to the
straightforward creed. The skeptic James, the enemy Paul, and the disciples thought Jesus appeared to them. Ludemann
mentions: "... I also know that many biblical scholars like Martin Hengel... are glad that we don't know anything about the
mental dynamics of Paul." (10) This shows that many biblical scholars believe in the conversion of Paul, and he was
mentions the mental dynamics of Paul to discuss the possibility that Paul could hallucinate a Jesus. He also goes so far as
to say that it is "certain" that James experienced a resurrection appearance of Jesus(11). Ehrman helps as well: "The
crucifixion of Jesus is the core of Paul's message and is attested abundantly in his writings as one of the - if not the - earliest
things that he knew about the man. ... Who would make up the idea of a crucified messiah? No Jew that we know of. ... A
crucified criminal? That's worse than being crazy. It's an offense against God, blasphemous. Or so thought Paul. And so he
persecuted this tiny sect of Jews and tried to destroy them." (12) The skeptical New Testament scholar Norman Perrin wrote:
"The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are
based." (13)
Which gets us to the final piece of evidence: The disciples came to believe in the resurrection of a crucified messiah even though
this is contrary to Jewish belief on the matter.
this is contrary to Jewish belief on the matter.
Bart Ehrman presents the differing viewpoints on what the messiah would be like at the time of Jesus: an earthly human king to
overthrow the enemies of the Jews, an angelic cosmic being who would destroy the enemy, or a powerful priest with another
messiah. "In short, ancient Jews at the turn of the era held a variety of expectations of what the future messiah would be like. But
all these expectations had several things in common. In all of them the messiah would be a future ruler of the people of Israel,
leading a real kingdom here on earth. He would be visibly and openly known to be God's special emissary, the anointed one. And he
would be high and mighty, a figure of grandeur and power." (14) And Jesus was the polar opposite (Ehrman uses this as evidence that
Jesus really did exist and was crucified).
overthrow the enemies of the Jews, an angelic cosmic being who would destroy the enemy, or a powerful priest with another
messiah. "In short, ancient Jews at the turn of the era held a variety of expectations of what the future messiah would be like. But
all these expectations had several things in common. In all of them the messiah would be a future ruler of the people of Israel,
leading a real kingdom here on earth. He would be visibly and openly known to be God's special emissary, the anointed one. And he
would be high and mighty, a figure of grandeur and power." (14) And Jesus was the polar opposite (Ehrman uses this as evidence that
Jesus really did exist and was crucified).
Moreso, Ehrman mentions on page 158 how Jesus having been crucified would have placed Him under God's curse, according to
Deuteronomy 21:23, that Paul mentions in Galatians. Not only a dying messiah would not be invented, but a crucified messiah made the
matter all the worse.
Deuteronomy 21:23, that Paul mentions in Galatians. Not only a dying messiah would not be invented, but a crucified messiah made the
matter all the worse.
Final point: any belief in a resurrection that involved an empty tomb (a resurrection with a physical body) was not heard of, apart from the
resurrection at the last day. That was presented first in Daniel 12:2, and then multiple Jewish evidences present the persistent belief in it:
2 Maccabees 7:1-23; 1 Enoch 24:1-27:5; 2 Baruch 29:1-30:5; Sibylline Oracles 4:171-92; Testament of Abraham B7:16; Pseudo-Philo
Bibilcal Antiquities 3:10 (15). What was thought was than everyone would be resurrected and then judged at the end of the world. Yet the
Jewish messiah was individually resurrected. It would not be in the Jewish mind to hallucinate a individually resurrected messiah; rather,
how about Jesus appearing in the heavens in the bosom of Abraham?
resurrection at the last day. That was presented first in Daniel 12:2, and then multiple Jewish evidences present the persistent belief in it:
2 Maccabees 7:1-23; 1 Enoch 24:1-27:5; 2 Baruch 29:1-30:5; Sibylline Oracles 4:171-92; Testament of Abraham B7:16; Pseudo-Philo
Bibilcal Antiquities 3:10 (15). What was thought was than everyone would be resurrected and then judged at the end of the world. Yet the
Jewish messiah was individually resurrected. It would not be in the Jewish mind to hallucinate a individually resurrected messiah; rather,
how about Jesus appearing in the heavens in the bosom of Abraham?
Some people hold it plausible that there was room for believing in an individual resurrection. Bart Ehrman believes that the Christians
thought the world was ending soon, and so Jesus' resurrection was seen as a sign that it was coming. His information in Did Jesus Exist?
doesn't really contradict any of the evidence for Christ, though. He doesn't explain how they came to believe in a lone resurrection in the
first place.
thought the world was ending soon, and so Jesus' resurrection was seen as a sign that it was coming. His information in Did Jesus Exist?
doesn't really contradict any of the evidence for Christ, though. He doesn't explain how they came to believe in a lone resurrection in the
first place.
Roy W. Hoover presents an argument that Jews would be willing to believe new things about a resurrection, based on apocrypha(16) that
presents... no real new view on a resurrection. People just anticipated that the last day would happen sooner. If we can learn anything helpful
from these views, its that even in times of great distress, a new and unusual doctrine would not conveniently appear in their mind.
presents... no real new view on a resurrection. People just anticipated that the last day would happen sooner. If we can learn anything helpful
from these views, its that even in times of great distress, a new and unusual doctrine would not conveniently appear in their mind.
Michael Goulder also tries to defend that it isn't unlikely a belief that Jesus rose from the dead would appear in the disciples' minds. Craig
readily presents Goulder's opinion and presents his defense: "Similarly, Goulder's claim that Jewish beliefs about the afterlife were 'quite
various' is misleading. Jewish views on the afterlife were not monochromatic - some affirmed resurrection, some immortality of the soul, some
denied immortality completely - but they were all one in their conception of what was meant by resurrection of the dead. But, Goulder protests,
it was believed that although Moses had died, nevertheless he 'was around' and that Jeremiah 'was alive after his death and able to encourage
the Maccabees in their wars.' These examples are counterproductive for Goulder's claim. For as Grundy explains, the appearance of departed
figures like Moses and Elijah at Jesus' transfiguration had nothing to do with literal resurrection. Neither did Jeremiah's giving to Judas
Maccabaeus a golden sword 'with which you will strike down your adversaries' (2 Macc 15:16), for this was the content of a dream that Judas
related in order to rally his troops. ... Goulder thinks that Peter, as an uneducated man, may not have been sufficiently sophisticated to realize that
resurrections do not occur apart from the general resurrection at the world's end. But popular religious mentality, precisely because it is less nuanced,
will tend to accept standard religious categories. Everybody knew that the resurrection would occur when God raised the dead at the end of
the world." (17)
readily presents Goulder's opinion and presents his defense: "Similarly, Goulder's claim that Jewish beliefs about the afterlife were 'quite
various' is misleading. Jewish views on the afterlife were not monochromatic - some affirmed resurrection, some immortality of the soul, some
denied immortality completely - but they were all one in their conception of what was meant by resurrection of the dead. But, Goulder protests,
it was believed that although Moses had died, nevertheless he 'was around' and that Jeremiah 'was alive after his death and able to encourage
the Maccabees in their wars.' These examples are counterproductive for Goulder's claim. For as Grundy explains, the appearance of departed
figures like Moses and Elijah at Jesus' transfiguration had nothing to do with literal resurrection. Neither did Jeremiah's giving to Judas
Maccabaeus a golden sword 'with which you will strike down your adversaries' (2 Macc 15:16), for this was the content of a dream that Judas
related in order to rally his troops. ... Goulder thinks that Peter, as an uneducated man, may not have been sufficiently sophisticated to realize that
resurrections do not occur apart from the general resurrection at the world's end. But popular religious mentality, precisely because it is less nuanced,
will tend to accept standard religious categories. Everybody knew that the resurrection would occur when God raised the dead at the end of
the world." (17)
But at any rate, before you rise you have to die, and even the famous agnostic Bart Ehrman admits no one would expect the messiah to die, or worse,
die by crucifixion. As a matter of fact, with reflection on that, he writes: "It is hard today to understand just how offensive the idea of a crucified messiah
would have been to most first-century Jews. I try to illustrate it to my class by giving an analogy. What would you think if I tried to convince you that
David Koresh was God's chosen one through whom he is going to rule the earth? David Koresh? The leader of the Branch Davidians at Waco, who
stockpiled guns and abused children, who was killed by the FBI? He's God's chosen one? Yes, he is the Lord of all." (18) And what is the point of me citing
this? Nothing less than an appearance could convince James and Paul. Critical scholar Reginald Fuller explains that information inside and outside the
Bible is sufficient to establish that James was convinced Jesus appeared to him. Even without some evidence, "we should have to invent" such an
appearance in order to account for two things: James's conversion from skepticism and his elevation to the pastorate of the church in Jerusalem, the
center of ancient Christianity(19).
die by crucifixion. As a matter of fact, with reflection on that, he writes: "It is hard today to understand just how offensive the idea of a crucified messiah
would have been to most first-century Jews. I try to illustrate it to my class by giving an analogy. What would you think if I tried to convince you that
David Koresh was God's chosen one through whom he is going to rule the earth? David Koresh? The leader of the Branch Davidians at Waco, who
stockpiled guns and abused children, who was killed by the FBI? He's God's chosen one? Yes, he is the Lord of all." (18) And what is the point of me citing
this? Nothing less than an appearance could convince James and Paul. Critical scholar Reginald Fuller explains that information inside and outside the
Bible is sufficient to establish that James was convinced Jesus appeared to him. Even without some evidence, "we should have to invent" such an
appearance in order to account for two things: James's conversion from skepticism and his elevation to the pastorate of the church in Jerusalem, the
center of ancient Christianity(19).
Alternatives to the Resurrection
The evidence we have is this: 3 different men, Peter the follower, James the skeptic, and Paul the enemy, all thought they saw Christ. The disciples,
despite having every reason to not believe Jesus was the messiah (every other time a proclaimed messiah died, he would just be abandoned and the
followers would just follow someone else, why is it different for Jesus?), came to believe that He really did rise from the dead.
And finally, His tomb was empty.
despite having every reason to not believe Jesus was the messiah (every other time a proclaimed messiah died, he would just be abandoned and the
followers would just follow someone else, why is it different for Jesus?), came to believe that He really did rise from the dead.
And finally, His tomb was empty.
Even with a .80 probability of an alternative explanation happening, saaaaaay...
1. Peter hallucinated an appearance of Jesus.
2. The rest of the disciples managed to get talked into it, or more hallucinated Him, so the appearances were more convincing.
3. Paul hallucinated.
4. James hallucinated.
5. Jesus' followers went to the wrong tomb.
... that is a .8 x .8 x .8 x .8 x .8 probability, or 33%. But that is stretching things, to say the least. How likely is it that His followers would go to the
wrong tomb, considering that He was buried in a wealthy man's excellent burial spot? And Paul hallucinating? For an enemy to have a hallucination
that changes their minds is called a conversion disorder, or specifically in this case, a messiah complex.
wrong tomb, considering that He was buried in a wealthy man's excellent burial spot? And Paul hallucinating? For an enemy to have a hallucination
that changes their minds is called a conversion disorder, or specifically in this case, a messiah complex.
But Paul does not fit the profile of one who is likely to experience a conversion psychosis. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders: DSM-IV, the primary source used by professional psychologists and psychiatrists for diagnosing psychological conditions, women
are more likely that men to experience conversion psychosis by as much as a 5:1 ratio. Military persons in battle, adolescents, those of a low economic
status, and those with a low IQ are likewise more prone to experience the phenomenon(20). Paul does not fit into any of these categories.
Mental Disorders: DSM-IV, the primary source used by professional psychologists and psychiatrists for diagnosing psychological conditions, women
are more likely that men to experience conversion psychosis by as much as a 5:1 ratio. Military persons in battle, adolescents, those of a low economic
status, and those with a low IQ are likewise more prone to experience the phenomenon(20). Paul does not fit into any of these categories.
"In a nationally televised debate in April 2000 between atheist philosopher Antony Flew and Habermas, conversion disorder was one of Flew's main
objections to Jesus' resurrection. However, when Habermas brought up the above problems, Flew commented that he was glad to give up the objection
and never found it very helpful anyway." (21)
objections to Jesus' resurrection. However, when Habermas brought up the above problems, Flew commented that he was glad to give up the objection
and never found it very helpful anyway." (21)
So there you have it. Hallucinations are unlikely occurences anyway, and 3 different men? Everyone else falling for it, when it's more probable to believe
that Peter just, well, hallucinated than a dead crucified messiah actually having been risen from the dead? There was too much at stake to base your eternal
welfare on just one man's claim that he saw the risen Jesus. Henceforth, Jesus' literal supernatural resurrection happened instead of multiple other theories.
that Peter just, well, hallucinated than a dead crucified messiah actually having been risen from the dead? There was too much at stake to base your eternal
welfare on just one man's claim that he saw the risen Jesus. Henceforth, Jesus' literal supernatural resurrection happened instead of multiple other theories.
1. John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (HarperCollins: San Francisco, 1991), 145; see also 154, 196, 201.
2. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne: New York, NY. 2012), 2.
3. Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischon Tradition, 2d ed., Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten un Neuen Testaments 12 (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 296. Bart Ehrman mentions him in that way in Did Jesus Exist. Exact page too hard to find again. :P
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 296. Bart Ehrman mentions him in that way in Did Jesus Exist. Exact page too hard to find again. :P
4. John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), 131.
5. Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004), 287.
6. Michael R. Licona in conversation; see Lee Strobel, In Defense of Jesus: Investigating Attacks on the Identity of Christ (Zondervan: Grands Rapids, MI. 2007),
130. On page 287 of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus these scholars were cited: Blank, Blinzler, Bode, von Campenhausen, Delorme, Dhanis,
Grundmann, Hengel, Lehmann, Leon-Dufour, Lichtenstein, Manek, Martini, Mussner, Nauck, Rengstorff, Ruckstuhl, Schenke, Schmitt, Schubert, Schwank,
Schweizer, Seidensticker, Strobel, Stuhlmacher, Trilling, Vogtle, and Wilckens. These are listed by New Testament critic, Jacob Kremer, whose own name can
be added (Die Osterevangelien - Geschichten um Geschichte [Stuttgart, Germany: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977], 49-50).
130. On page 287 of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus these scholars were cited: Blank, Blinzler, Bode, von Campenhausen, Delorme, Dhanis,
Grundmann, Hengel, Lehmann, Leon-Dufour, Lichtenstein, Manek, Martini, Mussner, Nauck, Rengstorff, Ruckstuhl, Schenke, Schmitt, Schubert, Schwank,
Schweizer, Seidensticker, Strobel, Stuhlmacher, Trilling, Vogtle, and Wilckens. These are listed by New Testament critic, Jacob Kremer, whose own name can
be added (Die Osterevangelien - Geschichten um Geschichte [Stuttgart, Germany: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977], 49-50).
7. William Lane Craig speaking in, Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig & Gerd
Ludemann (InverVarsity Press: Downer's Grove, IL. 2000),179.
Ludemann (InverVarsity Press: Downer's Grove, IL. 2000),179.
8. Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien - Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 49-50. Kremer's Exegeten is rendered
"scholars" rather than "exegetes" for clarity's sake.
"scholars" rather than "exegetes" for clarity's sake.
9. Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, John Bowden, trans. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
1995), 80.
1995), 80.
10. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig & Gerd Ludemann (InverVarsity Press:
Downer's Grove, IL. 2000), 53-54.
Downer's Grove, IL. 2000), 53-54.
11. Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 109.
12. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne: New York, NY. 2012), 164.
13. Norman Perrin, The Resurrection According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 80.
14. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne: New York, NY. 2012), 162-163.
15. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig & Gerd Ludemann (InverVarsity Press:
Downer's Grove, IL. 2000), 111.
Downer's Grove, IL. 2000), 111.
16. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig & Gerd Ludemann (InverVarsity Press:
Downer's Grove, IL. 2000), 139-140.
Downer's Grove, IL. 2000), 139-140.
17. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig & Gerd Ludemann (InverVarsity Press:
Downer's Grove, IL. 2000), 184-185.
Downer's Grove, IL. 2000), 184-185.
18. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne: New York, NY. 2012), 163.
19. Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (Macmillan: New York, 1971), 37.
20. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
21. Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004), 115. Citation attached to: recorded in Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" (3 video tapes), The John Ankerberg Show, 2000.
Comments
Post a Comment