{"id":1843,"date":"2023-06-25T16:06:12","date_gmt":"2023-06-25T16:06:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/eng\/?p=1843"},"modified":"2026-04-05T20:23:34","modified_gmt":"2026-04-05T18:23:34","slug":"resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/","title":{"rendered":"Resurrection of Jesus: Historical Evidence Explored"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection.webp\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter  wp-image-61533\" src=\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection.webp\" alt=\"evidence proofs of the resurrection\" width=\"600\" height=\"315\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection.webp 1200w, https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection-300x158.webp 300w, https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection-1024x538.webp 1024w, https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection-768x403.webp 768w, https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection-100x53.webp 100w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>What is the <strong>evidence for the resurrection<\/strong>? Through careful analysis and citing <mark>leading international scholars<\/mark>, we list 10 compelling proofs and arguments that confirm the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.<\/i><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Can the <strong><mark>resurrection of Jesus<\/mark><\/strong> be considered a historical event?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Or is it merely a matter of faith? Or perhaps an invented myth? Did the disciples truly find the <strong>empty tomb<\/strong>? What if they simply made it all up? Are there naturalistic explanations? Were the appearances of the risen Jesus hallucinations or psychological projections?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>In this constantly updated dossier<\/strong>, we have extensively consulted <strong>leading international scholars<\/strong> (both believers and non-believers) of Christian origins, and cited numerous publications, compiling a pool of arguments in favor of the historicity of the resurrection. Furthermore, we have addressed and counter-responded to the <strong>main objections<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">We emphasize that it is crucial to consider the <strong>cumulative strength<\/strong> of all the presented arguments (rather than each argument in isolation). We recommend using the following menu to navigate through the different sections efficiently.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<br \/>\n<a name=\"tmenu\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div id=\"toc\" class=\"toc\" style=\"width: auto; padding: 5px; border: 1px solid #aaa; background-color: #f9f9f9; font-size: 95%;\">\n<div id=\"toctitle\" style=\"text-align: center; font-size: 15px;\"><strong>Indice<\/strong><\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-1\"><strong>1.<\/strong> <a href=\"#burial\"><span class=\"toctext\"><b>THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS&#8217; BURIAL<\/b><\/span><br \/>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-1.1\">1.1 <a href=\"#individual_burial\">Objection: No individual burial for the condemned.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-2\"><strong>2.<\/strong> <a href=\"#tomb\"><span class=\"toctext\"><b>THE HISTORICITY OF THE EMPTY TOMB<\/b><\/span><br \/>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-2.1\">2.1 <a href=\"#sanhedrin\">Objection: Jewish authorities disposed of Jesus&#8217; body.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-2.2\">2.2 <a href=\"#stole\">Objection: Disciples stole Jesus&#8217; body.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-2.3\">2.3 <a href=\"#apparent_death\">Objection: Jesus&#8217; apparent death.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-3\"><strong>3.<\/strong> <a href=\"#fonti\"><span class=\"toctext\"><b>THE ANTIQUITY OF SOURCES ON THE RESURRECTION<\/b><\/span><br \/>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-3.1\">3.1 <a href=\"#1cor\">The ancient pre-Pauline source (32 AD).<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-3.2\">3.2 <a href=\"#source\">The pre-Markan source (37 AD).<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-3.3\">3.3 <a href=\"#acts\">The tradition included in the Acts of the Apostles (30-35 AD).<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-3.4\">3.4 <a href=\"#thessalonians\">The First Letter to the Thessalonians (49 AD).<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-3.5\">3.5 <a href=\"#exception\">No other ancient event has such close historical sources.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-3.6\">3.6 <a href=\"#paul\">Objection: St. Paul does not mention the discovery of the empty tomb.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-3.7\">3.7 <a href=\"#impartial\">Objection: Christian sources are biased.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-4\"><strong>4.<\/strong> <a href=\"#women\"><span class=\"toctext\"><b>WOMEN AS WITNESSES OF THE RESURRECTION<\/b><\/span><br \/>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-4.1\">4.1 <a href=\"#wrong_tomb\">Objection: The women went to the wrong tomb.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-5\"><strong>5.<\/strong> <a href=\"#risky\"><span class=\"toctext\"><b>RISKY DETAILS, NO THEOLOGICAL EMBELLISHMENT<\/b><\/span><br \/>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-5.1\">5.1 <a href=\"#denial\">Risky details and no fear of contradiction.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-5.2\">5.2 <a href=\"#theophanies\">Absence of theological interpretations.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-5.3\">5.3 <a href=\"#invention\">Objection: Jesus&#8217; disciples invented everything.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-6\"><strong>6.<\/strong> <a href=\"#alternatives\"><span class=\"toctext\"><b>NO PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE VERSION<\/b><\/span><\/a>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-6.1\">6.1 <a href=\"#miracles\">Objection: Miracles cannot happen.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-6.2\">6.2 <a href=\"#scholars\">Objection: Scholars are all Christians.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-7\"><strong>7.<\/strong> <a href=\"#impossible\"><span class=\"toctext\"><b>THE JEWS COULD NOT HAVE INVENTED THE RESURRECTION<\/b><\/span><\/a>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-7.1\">7.1 <a href=\"#plagiarism\">Objection: The Gospels copied from pagan gods of death and rebirth.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-8\"><strong>8.<\/strong> <a href=\"#apparitions\"><span class=\"toctext\"><b>HISTORICAL ATTESTATION OF JESUS&#8217; APPEARANCES<\/b><\/span><\/a>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-8.1\">8.1 <a href=\"#mark\">Objection: The evangelist Mark does not mention Jesus&#8217; appearances.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-8.2\">8.2 <a href=\"#hallucinations\">Objection: The disciples had hallucinations.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-8.3\">8.3 <a href=\"#visions\">Objection: It was the religious fervor of the disciples that produced the visions.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-9\"><strong>9.<\/strong> <a href=\"#changes\"><span class=\"toctext\"><b>UNEXPLAINABLE CHANGES AFTER JESUS&#8217; DEATH<\/b><\/span><\/a>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-9.1\">9.1 <a href=\"#judgment\">Challenge to the Sanhedrin (i.e., God&#8217;s judgment).<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-9.2\">9.2 <a href=\"#creed\">Challenge to the Jewish creed and the law of Moses.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-9.2\">9.3 <a href=\"#james\">The transformation of the skeptical disciple James.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-9.3\">9.4 <a href=\"#martyrdom\">No personal gain, willing to undergo martyrdom.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-10\"><strong>10.<\/strong> <a href=\"#contradictions\"><span class=\"toctext\"><b>CONTRADICTIONS AMONG THE GOSPELS<\/b><\/span><\/a>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-10.1\">10.1 <a href=\"#solution\">Proposed solutions to contradictions.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-10.2\">10.2 <a href=\"#minor\">Contradictions do not alter the narrative.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-10.3\">10.3 <a href=\"#errors\">Errors and alterations are common in ancient testimonies.<\/a><\/li>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-10.4\">10.4 <a href=\"#authenticity\">Contradictions are an indication of authenticity.<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-11\"><b>11.<\/b> <a href=\"#important\"><span class=\"toctext\"><b>HOW IMPORTANT IS HISTORICAL STUDY FOR CHRISTIAN FAITH?<\/b><\/span><\/a>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-11.1\">11.1 <a href=\"#proven\">Can the resurrection of Jesus be historically proven?<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"toclevel-1 tocsection-12\"><strong>12.<\/strong> <a href=\"#conclusion\"><span class=\"toctext\"><b>CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a name=\"burial\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#burial\">1. <u>THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS&#8217; BURIAL<\/a><\/u><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The first argument that contributes to the final judgment regarding the historicity of the resurrection is the historicity of the <strong>burial<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It is evident that if Jesus of Nazareth was not <strong>buried<\/strong>, it would be impossible to give credence to the Christian texts when they speak of the discovery of the empty tomb, and it would be very difficult to consider the Easter accounts reliable in general.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">But what does the <strong>academic community<\/strong> say about the burial of Jesus? Is it unanimously attested as historical in the same way as the trial, crucifixion, and death on the cross are considered to have occurred? Yes, although in this case, there is a minority of scholars who do not actually regard it as historical for certain reasons (which we will address).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to the Gospel of Mark, it was <strong>Joseph of Arimathea<\/strong>, a respected member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, who requested and obtained permission from Pontius Pilate to take custody of Jesus&#8217; body and bury it in a tomb (cf. Mk 15:42-47), likely one that he owned. This account is confirmed by three other independent sources, with some minor additional details: the evangelists Matthew (Mt 27:57-66), Luke (Lk 23:50-53), and John (Jn 19:38-42).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As we will show in more detail later on, the most important scholar of the Markan text, <strong>Rudolf Pesch<\/strong>, has dated the pre-Markan source on which the evangelist relies for the account of the Passion to 37 AD, thus <i>\u00abin close proximity to the events narrated within the first Aramaic-speaking community in Jerusalem\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"1\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-1\">1<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-1\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"1\"><b>R. Pesch<\/b>, <i>Il vangelo di Marco<\/i>, Paideia 1982, Vol. 2, p. 46, 45<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Among the majority of contemporary scholars and historians, there are few doubts that the burial of Jesus of Nazareth is an event that actually took place. <strong>Jacob Kremer<\/strong>, professor of New Testament Biblical Studies at the University of Vienna, certifies that <i>\u00abmost exegetes firmly consider the biblical statements regarding the empty tomb to be reliable\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"2\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-2\">2<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-2\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"2\"><b>J. Kremer<\/b>, <i>Die OsterevangelienGeschichten um Geschichte<\/i>, Katholisches Bibelwerk 1977, p. 49-50<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The eminent <strong>Raymond E. Brown<\/strong>, professor emeritus at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, regards it as a story that is <i>\u00abvery likely historical\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"3\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-3\">3<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-3\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"3\"><b>R.E. Brown<\/b>, <i>The Death of the Messiah<\/i>, 2 vols., Garden City 1994, p. 1240<\/span>, based on the fact that the account satisfies three of the <strong>historical criteria<\/strong> through which scholars analyze ancient narratives.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The &#8220;criterion of <strong>multiple attestation<\/strong>&#8221; is satisfied as the account is consistently supported by four independent sources, which certainly cite earlier sources (pre-evangelical); the &#8220;<strong>criterion of dissimilarity<\/strong>&#8221; is also met as the figure of Joseph of Arimathea is surprisingly dissimilar to the prevailing attitude of the early Christians towards the Sanhedrin; and the &#8220;<strong>criterion of embarrassment<\/strong>&#8221; is fulfilled as it is embarrassing for members of the early church to have valorized a prominent figure from the Jewish authorities, who were morally responsible for Jesus&#8217; death.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The presence of <strong>Joseph of Arimathea<\/strong>, confirmed by all Christian sources, is what makes the account truly plausible: if the evangelists had invented Jesus&#8217; burial, they would have never included such a specific figure as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, as the fabrication would have been immediately refuted by the Jewish authorities.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abAlthough high probability does not equate certainty\u00bb<\/i>, concluded <strong>Raymond E. Brown<\/strong>, <i>\u00abthere is nothing in the pre-evangelical account of Joseph&#8217;s burial of Jesus that cannot plausibly be considered historical\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"4\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-4\">4<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-4\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"4\"><b>R.E. Brown<\/b>, <i>The Death of the Messiah<\/i>, 2 vols., Garden City 1994, p. 1240-1241<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Taking into consideration that the Gospel of Mark is citing a very ancient <strong>pre-Markan source<\/strong> that attests to the burial (which we will discuss later), <strong>John A. T. Robinson<\/strong>, Emeritus Dean of Trinity College, University of Cambridge, even concluded that it is <i>\u00abone of the oldest and best attested facts about Jesus\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"5\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-5\">5<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-5\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"5\"><b>J.A.T. Robinson<\/b>, <i>The Human Face of God<\/i>, Westminster 1973, p. 131<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even the skeptical theologian <b>Gerd Ludemann<\/b>, one of the main proponents of alternative objections to the resurrection, admits that denying the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea and the burial of Jesus would be <em>\u00abgoing too far\u00bb<\/em><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"6\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-6\">6<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-6\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"6\"><b>G. Ludemann<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus<\/i>, Fortress Press 1994, p. 207<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Many scholars, furthermore, have argued that the reference to <strong>Arimathea<\/strong>, a little-known city with no theological or historical significance, lends further historical credibility to the figure of Joseph.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">One of the most significant <strong>consequences<\/strong> of the historicity of the burial account, apart from harmonizing and making the subsequent story (starting from the empty tomb) coherent, is that the <strong>location<\/strong> of Jesus&#8217; tomb was known to the Jews and Christians in Jerusalem. Certainly, the historical presence of a member of the Sanhedrin, like Joseph of Arimathea, makes it plausible that the Jewish authorities had information about the tomb.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"individual_burial\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>1.1 <u><a href=\"#individual_burial\">Objection: There was no individual burial for the condemned<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As mentioned, not all scholars agree on the historicity of Jesus&#8217; burial.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The most popular objection, at least until the mid-19th century, was that referring to an <strong>individual burial<\/strong> demonstrated ignorance of <strong>Jewish customs<\/strong>, suggesting that the Gospel authors were Greeks from the second or third generation of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The most prominent scholar to support this view was the historian <b>John Dominic Crossan<\/b>, who argued that Jesus was likely never buried because crucifixion victims were typically <strong>left on the cross<\/strong> to be eaten by wild animals or buried in shallow graves<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"7\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-7\">7<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-7\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"7\"><b>J.D. Crossan<\/b>, <i>Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography<\/i>, HarperSanFrancisco 1994, pp. 123-26<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This refers to Jewish rules according to which those sentenced to death were given a <strong>common burial<\/strong>, as <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/mishanah.png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">indeed stated<\/a><\/strong> in the <i>Mishnah Sanhedrin<\/i> (found in the Mishnah and the Talmud).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">However, <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Yehohanan_ben_Hagkol.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">archaeological excavations<\/a><\/strong> carried out in Jerusalem in 1968 revealed an ossuary in a Jewish tomb containing the remains of a crucified man contemporary to Jesus or dating back to the early years of Christianity (probably the late 20s AD).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/b>, director of the Chair of Theology at the Complutense University, reported that this discovery is evidence that <i>\u00abnot always were the condemned to death buried in a common grave\u00bb<\/i> and that <i>\u00abif their families or friends requested the bodies, a dignified burial could be granted to them\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"8\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-8\">8<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-8\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"8\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 278<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Since this discovery, no specialist has raised objections to the individual burial of Jesus as described in the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, Professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, and <b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, Professor of New Testament at the Acadia Divinity College, after studying ancient Jewish literature (such as the Babylonian <em>Talmud<\/em>), have directly challenged the notion that Jewish customs never allowed for a <strong>dignified burial<\/strong> even for those who died by crucifixion.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Jews, on the contrary, it was a duty to grant the dead a proper burial, even concerning <i>\u00abJews executed by pagan authorities\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"9\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-9\">9<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-9\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"9\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 58<\/span>, a tradition attested in one of the Qumran scrolls11QT 64,7-13a. In it, as the two scholars write, <i>\u00abthe requirement to bury the executed <strong>on the same day<\/strong> of their death\u00bb<\/i> is emphasized to avoid the desecration of the land since the man put to death is cursed by God<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"10\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-10\">10<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-10\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"10\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 59<\/span>. However, the Roman authorities did not always comply with Jewish customs.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In another text found at <strong>Qumran<\/strong>, the <i>Temple Scroll<\/i>11QT 48,10-14, it is confirmed that <i>\u00abeven in the case of a criminal put to death, a proper burial was provided\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"11\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-11\">11<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-11\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"11\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 59<\/span>. Thus, the two scholars concluded: <i>\u00abThe commandments of Scripture, considered together with traditions concerning piety (as exemplified in the book of Tobit), corporeal impurity, and the obligation not to desecrate the land, undoubtedly suggest that under normal circumstances (i.e., in peacetime) <strong>no corpse<\/strong> should remain unburied: neither Jew, nor pagan, neither innocent nor guilty. All should be buried\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"12\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-12\">12<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-12\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"12\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 61<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even <strong>Raymond E. Brown<\/strong>, Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary in New York, clarified that Roman policy often aligned with Jewish religious practices regarding burial and allowed for the possibility of <strong>individual burial<\/strong> for some crucifixion victims<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"13\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-13\">13<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-13\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"13\"><b>R.E. Brown<\/b>, <i>The Death of the Messiah<\/i>, Doubleday 1994, Vol. II, p. 1205<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Finally, archaeologist and biblical scholar <strong>Jodi Magness<\/strong>, President of the Archaeological Institute of America, also commented on the matter, confirming: <i>\u00abThe Gospel accounts of Jesus&#8217; burial appear to be largely <strong>consistent<\/strong> with the archaeological evidence\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"14\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-14\">14<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-14\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"14\"><b>Jodi Magness<\/b>, <i>Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus<\/i>, Eerdmans 2011, p. 170<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a name=\"tomb\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#tomb\">2. <u>THE HISTORICITY OF THE EMPTY TOMB<\/a><\/u><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Prior to the 1950s, the idea of the empty tomb was considered \u00aban offense\u00bb to intelligence and an embarrassment for Christian theology.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">However, starting from the mid-20th century, with the decline of Bultmann&#8217;s influence and the beginning of the modern phase of the quest for the historical Jesus, German historian <strong>Hans von Campenhausen<\/strong> was one of the first to defend its historical credibility. This was followed by so many publications that the academic orientation on this topic was literally \u00abreversed\u00bb.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">First and foremost, the account satisfies the historical criterion of \u00abmultiple attestation\u00bb, being substantially confirmed in an identical manner by <strong>six<\/strong> ancient sources considered independent: the four canonical Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2:29; 13:36), and implicitly, Paul&#8217;s First Letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:4). In particular, the latter will be examined as separate evidence in the next chapter.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The renowned New Testament scholar <strong>Klaus Berger<\/strong>, professor at the University of Heidelberg, has emphasized that <i>\u00abthe accounts of the empty tomb are reported by all four Gospels (and other writings of early Christianity) in an independent form from one another [&#8230;]. We have a great <strong>abundance<\/strong> of accounts\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"15\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-15\">15<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-15\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"15\"><b>K. Berger<\/b>, <i>Ostern f\u00e4llt nicht aus! Zum Streit um das &#8216;kritischste Buch \u00fcber die Auferstehung&#8217;<\/i>, Idea Spektrum 1994, p. 21-22<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Based on this starting point, many scholars in recent decades have indirectly demonstrated the reliability of the account by presenting serious arguments that are now shared by the majority of researchers.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This was demonstrated by <strong>Gary Habermas<\/strong>, President of the Department of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University, who analyzed over <strong>2,000 specialized publications<\/strong> by leading international scholars of Christian origins. He concluded: <i>\u00abThe <strong>majority<\/strong> of critical scholars (75%) agree that Jesus&#8217; tomb was actually found empty\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"16\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-16\">16<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-16\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"16\"><b>G. Habermas<\/b>, <i>Experiences of the Risen Jesus. The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection<\/i>, Journal of Theology 2006, Vol. 45. p. 288-297<\/span>. It is impossible to cite them all, so let&#8217;s limit ourselves to a few.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>James Dunn<\/strong>, a distinguished professor emeritus of New Testament studies at the University of Durham, wrote, for example: <i>\u00abI must state clearly: the probability is on the side of the tomb being empty. Apart from historical reconstruction, the <strong>weight of evidence<\/strong> strongly indicates this conclusion [&#8230;]. There are no possible alternative explanations\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"17\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-17\">17<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-17\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"17\"><b>J.D.G. Dunn<\/b>, <i>The Evidence for Jesus<\/i>, Westminster 1985, p. 68<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Wolfhart Pannenberg<\/strong>, a theology professor at the University of Munich, wrote: <i>\u00abCan you imagine how the disciples of Jesus could have proclaimed His resurrection in Jerusalem if they could have been <strong>constantly contradicted<\/strong> by looking at the tomb where Jesus&#8217; body had been laid? Their announcement would not have withstood even a day, not even an hour, if the empty tomb had not been an established fact\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"18\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-18\">18<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-18\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"18\">cited in H. Staudinger, <i>Credibilit\u00e0 storica dei Vangeli<\/i>, EDB 1991, p. 115<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In turn, British historian and classicist <strong>Michael Grant<\/strong> concluded: <i>\u00abThe historian [&#8230;] <strong>cannot reasonably deny<\/strong> the empty tomb in any way\u00bb<\/i>. The application of the historical criteria normally used by scholars indicates that <i>\u00abthe evidence is sufficiently solid and plausible to necessitate the conclusion that the <strong>tomb<\/strong> was indeed found empty\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"19\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-19\">19<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-19\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"19\"><b>M. Grant<\/b>, <i>Jesus: An Historian\u2019s Review of the Gospels<\/i>, Collier 1992, p. 176<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The eminent Austrian biblical scholar <strong>Jacob Kremer<\/strong>, professor of New Testament biblical studies at the University of Vienna, wrote: <i>\u00abBy far the <strong>majority<\/strong> of scholars consider the biblical statements regarding the empty tomb to be <strong>reliable<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"20\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-20\">20<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-20\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"20\"><b>J. Kremer<\/b>, <i>Die Osterevangelien\u2013Geschichten um Geschichte<\/i>, Katholisches Bibelwerk 1977, pp. 49-50<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the empty tomb was indirectly confirmed by <strong>Jewish authorities<\/strong> themselves when they began accusing the Christians of stealing the body of Christ (without explaining how they would have done it).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This controversy also found expression in <strong>dissident Jewish works<\/strong> towards Christians, such as the <i><strong>Toledot Yeshu<\/strong><\/i>, whose Aramaic core may contain an ancient oral tradition dating back to the 1st century. In these works, there is the unintentional admission that <i>\u00abthe body was not found after burial\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"21\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-21\">21<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-21\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"21\"><b>R. Calimani<\/b>, <i>Ges\u00f9 ebreo<\/i>, Mondadori 2001, pp. 174, 175<\/span>, as noted by the historian of Judaism <strong>Riccardo Calimani<\/strong>. The explanation they gave is that the body was taken by a gardener, but this would have been impossible to write if the Jews were aware that the tomb was not empty.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Spanish specialist <strong>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/strong> also emphasized that <i>\u00abduring the entire time they sought to prevent the spread of Christianity, <strong>members of the Sanhedrin<\/strong> did not deny the fact of the empty tomb; they simply explained it by appealing to rumors of the theft of Jesus&#8217; body by the apostles\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"22\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-22\">22<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-22\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"22\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, pp. 279-280<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In <strong>Matthew 28:11-15<\/strong>, it is reported that the chief priests paid the soldiers to declare that the disciples stole the body while the guards were sleeping. Some believe that this detail is <strong>not<\/strong> historical but an addition by the evangelist Matthew<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"23\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-23\">23<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-23\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"23\"><b>D.J. Harrington<\/b>, <i>The Gospel of Matthew<\/i>, Liturgical Press 1991, p. 407<\/span>. However, it has been argued that it would have served the purposes of apologetic propaganda only if the guards <strong>had remained awake<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The accusation by the <strong>Jewish authorities<\/strong> logically presupposes that the body of Christ was not found in the tomb. Nowhere in contemporary Jewish or pagan literature about the events in Jerusalem do we find <strong>denials<\/strong> of the empty tomb (nor alternative explanatory theories). There are no competing burial traditions either.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another argument is that the tomb must have been empty because, otherwise, the preaching of Christianity itself would have <strong>failed<\/strong>. <strong>E. Earle Ellis<\/strong>, Emeritus Professor of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, and founder of the Institute for Biblical Research, even assuming that the disciples could have invented a bodily resurrection out of thin air, wrote that <i>\u00abit is doubtful that they would have generated any following. A bodily resurrection <strong>without an empty tomb<\/strong> would have been as meaningful as a square circle\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"24\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-24\">24<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-24\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"24\">cited in W.L. Craig, <i>Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ<\/i>, Truth 1985, Vol. 1, pp. 89-95<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If the early Christian community gained followers, both among Jews and Gentiles, it implies that <strong>no one could produce<\/strong> the corpse of Christ in the tomb or anywhere else.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If they could have, the Jewish or Roman authorities would certainly have <strong>quickly suppressed<\/strong> that troublesome Christian movement that caused turmoil in Jerusalem; all they had to do was point to Jesus&#8217; body in the tomb, and the disciples would have had nothing to testify about anymore. The fact that they couldn&#8217;t do that indicates that the tomb was indeed empty.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"sanhedrin\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>2.1 <u><a href=\"#sanhedrin\">Objection: The Jewish authorities disposed of Jesus&#8217; body.<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even the most skeptical scholars have had to <strong>admit<\/strong> that the Gospel account of the empty tomb is historically unassailable. Therefore, they have resorted to <strong>alternative explanations<\/strong> without attempting to cast doubt on the historicity of the empty tomb.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The specialist <strong>Gerd L\u00fcdemann<\/strong>, Professor of Theology at the University of G\u00f6ttingen, is one of the many secular scholars who have confirmed the lack of substantial objections to the historicity of the discovery of the empty tomb. However, he argues that it was the <strong>Jewish authorities<\/strong> who disposed of Jesus&#8217; body to prevent excessive veneration of the mortal remains of that troublesome 1st-century revolutionary.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It is easy to counter-argue (as many of his colleagues have done) that it is frankly unlikely that the members of the Sanhedrin and the Jewish authorities suffered from collective amnesia. When the early Christian community suddenly began proclaiming that Jesus had bodily risen, why didn&#8217;t they silence them by simply revealing <strong>where they had deposited the body<\/strong>?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">L\u00fcdemann himself, on the other hand, has acknowledged that <i>\u00abthe Jews showed interest in the place where the body of Jesus was laid and, of course, in the proclamation of Jesus as the Risen One [&#8230;]. This raised questions about the fate of his body on the part of opponents or non-believers\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"25\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-25\">25<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-25\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"25\"><b>G. L\u00fcdemann<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus<\/i>, Fortress Press 1994, p. 116<\/span>. Furthermore, the Jewish and Roman authorities would have had <strong>all the power<\/strong> to refute the Christians by producing Jesus&#8217; corpse or publicly announcing what they had done with it (perhaps citing eyewitnesses). Yet, they accused the Christians of stealing it.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If they could have, the Jewish Sanhedrin would have presented the <strong>body of Jesus<\/strong> on one of the many occasions when Jerusalem was in turmoil due to the sermons of the apostles about Christ&#8217;s resurrection. But <strong>in no ancient<\/strong> Jewish or pagan source are the early Christians refuted by pointing out the corpse or the occupied tomb.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">After considering the arguments in favor and against in a comprehensive and organic manner, <b>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/b>, Director of the Chair of Theology at the Complutense University of Madrid, concluded: <i>\u00abAll the mentioned characteristics oblige us to conclude that historical criticism <strong>cannot deny<\/strong> the authenticity of the discovery of the empty tomb\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"26\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-26\">26<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-26\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"26\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 281<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"stole\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>2.2 <u><a href=\"#stole\">Objection: The disciples stole Jesus&#8217; body<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">With few doubts about the historical reality of the empty tomb and the implausibility of the Jewish authorities disposing of Jesus&#8217; body, the objection remains that the disciples stole the body, hiding or burying it somewhere unknown.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Indeed, it was the <strong>first and immediate reaction<\/strong> of the members of the Sanhedrin (and this, as mentioned, implies that the tomb was empty). The controversy is reflected in the Gospels themselves, such as in Matthew 28:11-15. This theory was later taken up in the form of a conspiracy by 18th-century deists.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Today, <strong>contemporary scholars<\/strong> have no problem dismissing this objection, which largely survives in popular media and anti-religious blogs. <i>\u00abI do not consider deliberate <strong>fraud<\/strong> to be a plausible explanation. Many of the people who claimed this would have spent the rest of their lives proclaiming that they had seen the Lord risen, and many of them would have been martyred for this\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"27\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-27\">27<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-27\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"27\"><b>E.P. Sanders<\/b>, <i>The Historical Figure of Jesus<\/i>, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 279-280<\/span>, wrote <b>E.P. Sanders<\/b>, an eminent New Testament scholar at Duke University.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Typically, specialists <strong>reject<\/strong> this hypothesis with several decisive considerations, of which we highlight only <strong>four<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>1)<\/b> First and foremost, apart from simple accusations, there is no <strong>documentary basis<\/strong> or historical sources to support it. It is not enough to hypothesize that the followers of Jesus (a small group of fishermen, tax collectors, and a few women) would have been psychologically predisposed to such a criminal scheme, so well organized that they could deceive their contemporaries, the Jewish and Roman authorities. In the New Testament, there is <strong>no evidence<\/strong> to support a criminal psycho-biography of the disciples.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the Christian writings, the <strong>opposite<\/strong> is actually narrated: at the time of the crucifixion, the disciples were confused, disorganized, fearful, doubtful, and burdened with grief. They were certainly not mentally motivated, coordinated, or equipped to plan a thriller-like operation. They fled, denied (Peter did so three times), and abandoned Jesus. Only two women and one disciple remained at the foot of the cross.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>2)<\/b> Secondly, even assuming the theft of the body from a sealed tomb, possibly guarded by armed soldiers (cf. Matthew 28:11-15 and Matthew 27:62-66), <strong>what would they have done with the body<\/strong>? Their Master could not have been buried in an anonymous grave; they would have found an extremely dignified burial, which would inevitably have become the <strong>object of visits<\/strong>, prayers, and more or less clandestine veneration. All of this without anyone among the Jews and pagans of Jerusalem noticing (including relatives and acquaintances of the disciples). Needless to say, the tomb of Jesus, a destination for <strong>inevitable pilgrimages<\/strong>, would have inevitably left <strong>archaeological traces<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, if they were so skilled and organized to carry out such an operation, why did they forget to fabricate <strong>an alibi<\/strong> to escape the obvious accusation of being the perpetrators of the body&#8217;s disappearance? The more seriously we take this objection, the more it collapses under its own weight.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>3)<\/b> The third issue is the <strong>impossibility<\/strong> for a 1st-century Jew to invent an individual bodily resurrection before the end of times, which was totally foreign and repugnant to their belief (we will discuss this further below). So, after planning the theft and hiding of the body, would they have invented an inconceivable (for themselves, first and foremost) bodily resurrection of their Master, <strong>contrary to the Scriptures<\/strong>? Whom did they hope to convince?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As the biblical scholar <b>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/b> wrote, <i>\u00abIf the disciples really stole Jesus&#8217; body, to explain its disappearance, they would not have had to resort to the difficult hypothesis of resurrection; they could have relied on the Jewish concept of <strong>bodily ascension<\/strong> to heaven, as Jewish tradition claims in the case of some of its characters\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"28\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-28\">28<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-28\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"28\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 280<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It would have been more natural to argue that Jesus was bodily taken up, as happened to Enoch, Elijah, Ezra, and Baruch in the Old Testament. <i>\u00abNevertheless\u00bb<\/i>, the Spanish exegete continued, <i>\u00abthe apostles insistently affirmed that Jesus&#8217; body had disappeared from the tomb because of the resurrection from the dead\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"29\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-29\">29<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-29\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"29\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 280<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If they wanted to convince someone, why did they deviate so heavily from Jewish tradition? If after stealing the body, they wanted to assert that Jesus was the Messiah, the one who <strong>fulfilled the biblical prophecies<\/strong>, why invent a resurrection that was completely unknown and foreign to the Old Testament?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, has observed that such invention by the disciples <i>\u00abpresupposes that they would have expected other Jews to be open to the conviction that an individual could rise from the dead. But none of this was possible. The people of that time would have considered bodily resurrection <strong>impossible<\/strong>, just as many people in our time do, albeit for different reasons\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"30\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-30\">30<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-30\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"30\"><b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Jesus, the final days<\/i>, Westminster John Knox Press 2010, p. 99<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>4)<\/b> Finally, there is a <strong>lack of motive<\/strong>. They did all of this, invented absurd things according to the mindset of the time, for what purpose? They <strong>gained nothing<\/strong>, they lost everything, they ended up being persecuted, <strong>scourged<\/strong>, imprisoned for over ten years, and ultimately martyred. No one subjected to such pressures would have continued to uphold a lie, and yet there is no trace of surrender, confession, or betrayal by the companions.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThis is not how one invents\u00bb<\/i> even the Enlightenment philosopher <strong>Jean-Jacques Rousseau<\/strong> wrote.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"apparent_death\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>2.3 <u><a href=\"#apparent_death\">Objection: The Apparent Death of Jesus<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Incredibly, several German rationalists between the late 18th and early 19th centuries supported the hypothesis of <strong>apparent death<\/strong> (or fainting) on the cross, a thesis also embraced by the idealist <strong>Friedrich Schleiermacher<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to this theory, Jesus did not die on the cross but somehow <strong>survived<\/strong>. He was placed alive in the tomb, where he revived and escaped, convincing his disciples that he had risen from the dead. Needless to say, today this theory is <strong>abandoned by everyone<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Apart from the inexplicability of surviving physical torture and crucifixion, it is truly difficult to imagine how a dying man could have opened the tomb from the inside, confronted the guards (if they even existed), reached the disciples, and somehow convinced them that he had bodily risen, eliciting worship and becoming the one who conquered death. The only convincing thing in that state would have been the need for urgent <strong>medical care<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">And then? What would have happened next? Would he have gotten married and given the rights to his biography to <strong>Dan Brown<\/strong>? <i>&#8220;Only <strong>ignorance<\/strong> or ignominy can create an invention so far from reality,&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"31\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-31\">31<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-31\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"31\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>The Protagonist of History: Birth and Nature of Christianity<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 280<\/span>, commented indignantly <b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, Professor of New Testament at the Complutense University of Madrid.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The crucifixion <strong>death<\/strong> of Jesus is beyond discussion for scholars. <i>&#8220;The fact of Jesus&#8217; death as a result of crucifixion is <strong>indisputable<\/strong>, despite the hypotheses of a pseudo-death or deceit that are sometimes put forth. There is no need to further discuss it,&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"32\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-32\">32<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-32\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"32\"><b>G. Ludemann<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A Historical Inquiry<\/i>, Prometheus 2004, p. 50<\/span>, even responded the German scholar <strong>Gerd Ludemann<\/strong>, one of the few academics accustomed to controversial theses.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another secular scholar, the eminent <strong>John Dominic Crossan<\/strong>, commented: <i>&#8220;The death of Jesus by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is more certain <strong>than any other historical fact<\/strong>. Even if no follower of Jesus had written about it in the hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know it from two authors unrelated to his followers. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus,&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"33\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-33\">33<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-33\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"33\"><b>J.D. Crossan<\/b>, <i>Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography<\/i>, HarperSanFrancisco 1994, p. 45<\/span>, who reported, as we have shown in <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/2015\/04\/19\/le-testimonianze-extrabibliche-su-gesu-di-nazareth\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">another report<\/a><\/strong> in Italian language, about the life of Jesus of Nazareth.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a name=\"sources\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#sources\">3. <u>SOURCES DATED CLOSE TO THE EVENTS<\/a><\/u><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The third argument in favor of the historical hypothesis of the resurrection is the <strong>absolutely early dating<\/strong> of the historical sources.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If the principle holds that the closer a source is to the events narrated, the <strong>greater the likelihood<\/strong> of it telling the truth about historical facts, then the Christian sources reach the <strong>maximum<\/strong> probability of reporting the truth.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The early dating of the Christian sources is evidence that has been widely accepted in the academic world and has definitively put an end to common speculations in past centuries about the <strong>late creation<\/strong> of the Easter accounts.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For decades, it was argued that the Gospel accounts were formed as a result of the psychological impact of Jesus&#8217; death and the simultaneous acquisition of a gradual conviction and spiritual awareness that his mission did not end with death. Thus, Christian communities would have progressively begun to <strong>explore the Scriptures<\/strong> and use the language of resurrection to articulate their experience. Finally, towards the end of the 1st century, some would have begun to <strong>invent<\/strong> stories about an actual resurrection.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This interpretation is no longer sustainable today. The first reason is precisely the <strong>near-contemporaneity<\/strong> of the early Christian sources to the events. Here are the sources:<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"1cor\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>3.1 <u><a href=\"#1cor\">The ancient pre-Pauline source (32 AD)<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The first useful source is the one written by <strong>Paul of Tarsus<\/strong>, a Jewish persecutor of Christians who suddenly converted in 32 (or 33) AD.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"34\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-34\">34<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-34\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"34\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 132<\/span> He went to Jerusalem to meet the apostles Peter and James in 35 (or 36) AD.<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"35\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-35\">35<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-35\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"35\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 132<\/span> and stayed there for fifteen days (Gal 1:18-20). It is here that Paul received the information that he later included in his letters, starting with the <strong>First Epistle to the Corinthians<\/strong> (generally dated to 50-55 AD).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Within this letter, historians (firstly <strong>Joachim Jeremias<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"36\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-36\">36<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-36\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"36\"><b>J. Jeremias<\/b>, <i>Easter: The Earliest Tradition and the Earliest Interpretation<\/i>, New Testament Theology 1971, p. 306<\/span>) have identified for decades certain verses (cf. <strong>1 Corinthians 15:3-7<\/strong>) in which Paul uses words that are not his own (including terms such as &#8220;appearance,&#8221; &#8220;for our sins,&#8221; &#8220;according to the Scriptures,&#8221; &#8220;the Twelve,&#8221; etc.) and he does not repeat them in his other lengthy letters, which is evidence that he is quoting something that was passed on to him and predates him.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Here is what is written<\/strong> in this ancient pre-Pauline passage:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abFor I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was <strong>raised<\/strong> on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he <strong>appeared<\/strong> to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he <strong>appeared<\/strong> to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. After that he <strong>appeared<\/strong> to James, then to all the apostles\u00bb<\/i> (1 Corinthians 15:3-7).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The author <strong>summarizes<\/strong> in a few lines the main events that will later be detailed in all the Gospels, including the resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, he states that he wants to pass on to the readers what he has <strong>received<\/strong> (<em>\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9<\/em>) directly from the disciples.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">When can we date this pre-Pauline formula? <b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, Professor of New Testament at the University of North Carolina, believes that it <i>\u00abprobably goes back to a couple of years after Jesus&#8217; death\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"37\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-37\">37<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-37\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"37\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 132<\/span>, which is around <strong>32 AD<\/strong>, almost contemporaneous with the events (only 24 months after the crucifixion of Christ).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Indeed, after his conversion, Paul came into contact with <i>\u00abinformants who spoke from <strong>direct knowledge<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><b>R. Bauckham<\/b>, <i>Jesus and the Eyewitnesses<\/i>, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 2006.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to <b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>\u00abIt strains credulity to think that Paul spent more than two weeks with Jesus&#8217;s closest companion without learning anything about him (for example, that he had lived)\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"38\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-38\">38<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-38\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"38\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 146<\/span>. Ehrman further acknowledges that Jesus had <strong>risen and appeared<\/strong> to multiple individuals (the agnostic Ehrman understandably feels uncomfortable acknowledging that this ancient Christian formula also speaks of Jesus&#8217;s resurrection and appearances).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, <strong>Bart D. Ehrman<\/strong> clarifies: <i>\u00abPaul must have met Cephas and James three years after his conversion, receiving the traditions he reported in his letters, around the mid-30s, let&#8217;s say 35 or 36. The traditions he inherited were, of course, older and probably dated back to <strong>around 2 years after<\/strong> Jesus&#8217;s death [&#8230;]. It is evidence that faith in the crucified messiah goes back to a very short time after Jesus&#8217;s death\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"39\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-39\">39<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-39\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"39\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 132, 166<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Ehrman<\/strong>, who is famously agnostic, appropriately uses the pre-Pauline source as evidence of an <strong>immediate<\/strong> faith &#8220;in the crucified messiah.&#8221; However, his non-religious <strong>bias<\/strong> leads him to overlook that in addition to the crucifixion, this ancient source also reports Jesus&#8217;s resurrection and post-mortem appearances. He should have written: &#8220;It is evidence that faith in the crucified and risen messiah goes back to a very short time after Jesus&#8217;s death!&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">More accurately, in a subsequent passage, <b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b> concludes: <i>\u00abWe do not have to wait for the Gospel of Mark, dated around 70 CE, to hear about the historical Jesus. The evidence we derive from Paul&#8217;s writings <strong>perfectly coincides<\/strong> with the data provided by the Gospel traditions, whose oral sources almost certainly go back to Roman Palestine of the <strong>1930s of the first century<\/strong>. Paul demonstrates that just a few years after the time when Jesus lived, his followers were discussing what the Jewish Palestinian teacher had said, done, and lived. It is an extraordinary <strong>convergence of evidence<\/strong>: the Gospel sources and the accounts of our earliest Christian author\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"40\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-40\">40<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-40\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"40\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 132, 133<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even another prominent non-believing scholar, <strong>Gerd L\u00fcdemann<\/strong>, professor at the University of G\u00f6ttingen, recognizes: <i>\u00abThe elements of the tradition cited by Paul must be dated <strong>within the first 2 years<\/strong> after Jesus&#8217;s crucifixion, no later than 3 years. The formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 falls between 30 and 33 CE\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"41\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-41\">41<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-41\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"41\"><b>G. L\u00fcdemann<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A Historical Inquiry<\/i>, Prometheus 2004, p. 38<\/span>. As observed, L\u00fcdemann does not share Ehrman&#8217;s personal reservations in mentioning Jesus&#8217;s appearances (although he &#8220;forgets&#8221; to mention the resurrection).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>John Dominic Crossan<\/strong>, eminent scholar (also famously skeptical) of early Christianity and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, states: <i>\u00abPaul wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus in the early 50s CE. But at the moment, the most probable source for the ancient tradition contained within it comes from Jerusalem <strong>in the early 30s<\/strong> when he went to visit Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him for fifteen days\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"42\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-42\">42<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-42\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"42\"><b>J.D. Crossan<\/b>, <b>J.L. Reed<\/b>, <i>Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2001, p. 254<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The dating of the pre-Pauline formula cited by Paul to 32-33 CE is an opinion shared by multiple scholars of caliber such as <strong>E.P. Sanders<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"43\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-43\">43<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-43\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"43\"><b>E.P. Sanders<\/b>, <i>The Historical Figure of Jesus<\/i>, Penguin 1993, p. 277<\/span>, <b>John Kloppenborg<\/b><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"44\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-44\">44<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-44\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"44\"><b>J. Kloppenborg<\/b>, <i>An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula in 1 Cor 15:3b-5 in Light of Some Recent Literature<\/i>, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 1978, Vol. 40, p. 351, 360<\/span>, <strong>Jerome Murphy-O&#8217;Connor<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"45\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-45\">45<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-45\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"45\"><b>J.M. O&#8217;Connor<\/b>, <i>Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3-7<\/i>, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 1981, Vol. 43, p. 582-589<\/span>, <strong>J.P Meier<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"46\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-46\">46<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-46\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"46\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus<\/i>, Doubleday 2001, Vol. 2, p. 139<\/span>, <b>Peter Stuhlmacher<\/b><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"47\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-47\">47<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-47\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"47\"><b>P. Stuhlmacher<\/b>, <i>Jesus of Nazareth: Christ of Faith<\/i>, Hendrickson 1993, p. 8<\/span>, <b>C.E.B. Cranfield<\/b><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"48\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-48\">48<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-48\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"48\"><b>C.E.B. Cranfield<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus Christ<\/i>, Expository Times 1990, Vol. 101, p. 169<\/span>, <b>James Dunn<\/b><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"49\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-49\">49<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-49\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"49\"><b>J.D.G. Dunn<\/b>, <i>The Evidence for Jesus<\/i>, Westminster 1985, p. 70<\/span>, and <strong>Pinchas Lapide<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"50\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-50\">50<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-50\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"50\"><b>P. Lapide<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective<\/i>, Wipf and Stock 2004, p. 90<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In 2006, the eminent scholar <strong>Gary Habermas<\/strong> compiled in a peer-reviewed article the conclusions of the main scholars (including critics, agnostics, or non-believers) on the First Letter to the Corinthians. Here is the conclusion:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abContemporary scholars agree that the apostle Paul is the <strong>primary witness<\/strong> of the early resurrection experiences. An ex-opponent, Paul, claims that the risen Jesus appeared to him personally. The academic consensus is well attested, and few other conclusions are more widely recognized than the fact that in <strong>1 Corinthians 15:3-7<\/strong>, Paul records an ancient oral tradition. This pre-Pauline account summarizes the central content of the Gospels, namely, that Christ died for the sins of men, was buried, resurrected from the dead, and then appeared to many witnesses, both individuals and groups\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"51\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-51\">51<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-51\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"51\"><b>G. Habermas<\/b>, <i>Experiences of the Risen Jesus. The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection<\/i>, Journal of Theology 2006, Vol. 45, p. 288-297<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Among the scholars mentioned by Habermas, we highlight the papyrologist <strong>Ulrich Wilckens<\/strong>, Emeritus Professor of New Testament at the University of Berlin, for whom <i>\u00abundoubtedly, the first letter of Paul dates back to the <strong>earliest phase<\/strong> in the history of early Christianity\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"52\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-52\">52<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-52\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"52\"><b>U. Wilckens<\/b>, <i>Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation<\/i>, St. Andrew 1977, p. 2<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">While <strong>Walter Kasper<\/strong>, a renowned scholar of early Christianity, optimistically suggests that 1 Corinthians 15:2-7 was already <i>\u00abin use by the end of 30 AD.\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"53\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-53\">53<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-53\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"53\"><b>W. Kasper<\/b>, <i>Jesus the Christ<\/i>, Paulist 1976, p. 125<\/span>, the biblical scholar and humanist from the University of Birmingham, <strong>Michael Goulder<\/strong>, believes that the passage <i>\u00abdates to what Paul received when he was converted, <strong>a couple of years after<\/strong> the crucifixion\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"54\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-54\">54<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-54\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"54\"><b>M. Goulder<\/b>, <i>The Baseless Fabric of a Vision<\/i>, Oneworld 1996, p. 48<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As already mentioned, the near contemporaneity of the first written Christian source to the events contradicts the thesis of a <strong>later theological construction<\/strong> by the early Christian community. There was no time to develop legends, imaginative lies, or create a &#8220;retrospective justification&#8221; of the supposed divinity, as has always been argued by the theologian <strong>Rudolf Bultmann<\/strong> and the so-called &#8220;form criticism&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe belief in the resurrection of Jesus\u00bb<\/i>, wrote Robert Funk, a non-believing biblical scholar and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar and the Westar Institute, <i>\u00abhad already taken root by the time Paul converted around 33 AD. Since Jesus died around 30 AD, the time for their development was therefore <strong>no more than two or three years<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"55\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-55\">55<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-55\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"55\"><b>R. Funk<\/b>, <i>What Did Jesus Really Do?<\/i>, Polebridge Press 1996, p. 466<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">When Paul wrote down 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, moreover, all the participants in the events (Jews and Christians, friends and enemies) <strong>were still alive<\/strong>, with the possibility of a dramatic refutation in case of false information. This is why he wanted to ensure the truthfulness of his message by making a second trip to Jerusalem (cf. Galatians 2:1-10) to further verify what he had been told by eyewitnesses (cf. Galatians 2:2) and to ensure doctrinal accuracy in the early church.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If Paul had reported falsehoods, he would have been immediately contradicted. Howard Clark Kee, an emeritus professor of biblical studies at the Boston University School of Theology and the Pennsylvania University, concluded that Paul&#8217;s investigation <i>\u00abcan be critically examined and compared with other <strong>eyewitness testimonies<\/strong> of Jesus, just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic context\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"56\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-56\">56<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-56\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"56\"><b>H.C. Kee<\/b>, <i>What Can We Know about Jesus?<\/i>, Cambridge University Press 1990, pp. 1-2<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Clement of Rome (died 99 AD) and Polycarp (69-155) most likely had direct knowledge of the apostles <strong>Peter and John and refer to Paul<\/strong> (and Peter) as <i>\u00abthe greatest and most righteous pillars\u00bb<\/i> (1 Clement 5:1) and <i>\u00abthe good apostles\u00bb<\/i> (1 Clement 5:3), acknowledging the <i>\u00abwisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul\u00bb<\/i>, who <i>\u00abtaught with accuracy and certainty the word of truth\u00bb<\/i> (Letter to the Philippians).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">These observations, noted by Licona, <i>\u00abare not what we would expect if Paul had taught a message essentially <strong>different<\/strong> from that of Peter and John; they would not surprise us, however, if Paul was <strong>honest<\/strong> in saying that he was preaching the same message as the apostles of Jerusalem\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"57\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-57\">57<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-57\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"57\"><b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, <i>What are the Primary Sources for Jesus\u2019 Resurrection?<\/i>, HBU 03\/06\/2016<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u00abThe letters of Paul\u00bb, concluded M.R. Licona, <i>\u00abare <strong>the voice of the apostles<\/strong> of Jerusalem on the subject, they are <strong>primary sources<\/strong> for the resurrection of Jesus\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"58\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-58\">58<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-58\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"58\"><b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, <i>What are the Primary Sources for Jesus\u2019 Resurrection?<\/i>, HBU 03\/06\/2016<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"source\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>3.2 <u><a href=\"#source\">The Pre-Markan Source (37 AD)<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In addition to the ancient pre-Pauline tradition, historians identify <strong>a source<\/strong> that predates him, which was used by the evangelist Mark. While his Gospel is dated no later than 70 AD, the source he used dates back to <strong>37 AD<\/strong>, only 7 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This view is particularly supported by <strong>Rudolf Pesch<\/strong>, the leading international scholar of the Markan text, who has emphasized the presence of <i>\u00ablinguistic and content details\u00bb<\/i> that are more <i>\u00abconnected to the concrete situation rather than adapted to a post-Easter Christology\u00bb<\/i> and indicate <i>\u00abthe <strong>ancient origin<\/strong> of the text\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"59\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-59\">59<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-59\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"59\"><b>R. Pesch<\/b>, <i>The Gospel of Mark<\/i>, Paideia 1982, Vol. 2, p. 649<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It is complicated to list here all the elements gathered by Pesch; we will mention just one more. Surprisingly, the evangelist Mark never refers to the <strong>High Priest<\/strong> by name, assuming that <i>\u00abthe hearers of the passion story were familiar with the local situation, and this leads us to the almost inevitable deduction that <strong>Caiaphas<\/strong> was still functioning as the high priest when the pre-Markan passion story was composed and narrated for the first time\u00bb<\/i>. Considering that Caiaphas served from 18 to 37 AD, the maximum limit <i>\u00abfor the origin of the pre-Markan passion story is consequently indicated as <strong>37 AD<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"60\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-60\">60<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-60\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"60\"><b>R. Pesch<\/b>, <i>The Gospel of Mark<\/i>, Paideia 1982, Vol. 2, p. 44, 45<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">After discussing many other reasons, Pesch concludes that <i>\u00aboverall, <strong>all these indications<\/strong> clearly point to the pre-Markan passion story having its origin <strong>in close proximity<\/strong> to the events narrated within the first Aramaic-speaking community in Jerusalem\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"61\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-61\">61<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-61\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"61\"><b>R. Pesch<\/b>, <i>The Gospel of Mark<\/i>, Paideia 1982, Vol. 2, p. 46, 45<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Confirmation of the antiquity of the pre-Markan source has come from several other scholars who suggest, for example, that the texts of the other canonical Gospels indicate that Mark&#8217;s account was not their only source but that they used additional sources for the narratives of the burial and the discovery of the empty tomb.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Marcus Borg<\/strong>, Professor of New Testament at Oregon State University, explained that this multiplicity of independent sources is important because <i>\u00abif a tradition appears in one ancient source and in another independent source, then not only is it certainly <strong>early<\/strong>, but it is also unlikely to have been invented\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"62\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-62\">62<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-62\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"62\"><b>M.J. Borg<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>The Meaning of Jesus<\/i>, Harper Collins 1999, p. 12<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"hechos\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>3.3 <u><a href=\"#hechos\">The Tradition Included in the Acts of the Apostles (30-35 AD)<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A third very ancient source that attests to the risen Jesus is found in the <strong>early tradition<\/strong> (Acts 13:29-31; Acts 13:36-37) contained in the <strong>Acts of the Apostles<\/strong>, another book of the New Testament.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Craig Keener<\/strong>, Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary and author of a monumental work on the historicity of the Acts of the Apostles (comprising 4 volumes and over 4,000 pages), has concluded<b>C. Keener<\/b>, <i>Acts: An Exegetical Commentary<\/i>, Baker Academic 2012 that the author of the Acts of the Apostles is the same as that of the <strong>Gospel of Luke<\/strong> and was a traveling companion of Paul. From this, it is deduced that he was able to report as an eyewitness the content of Paul&#8217;s preaching, having familiarity with the early apostolic proclamation (thus, the Acts of the Apostles are also considered <strong>a primary source<\/strong>).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Acts of the Apostles is dated around <strong>80 AD<\/strong>, but some scholars argue for an <strong>earlier dating<\/strong> shortly after <strong>60 AD<\/strong>, particularly noting its abrupt ending after a lengthy account of Paul&#8217;s second imprisonment and his anticipation of his appearance (around 63 AD). If the Acts of the Apostles were composed later, they would certainly not have omitted the execution and martyrdom of Paul (which occurred in 66 AD)<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"63\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-63\">63<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-63\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"63\"><b>J. Carmignac<\/b>, <i>The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels<\/i>, Edizioni Paoline 1986, p. 71<\/span>. The earlier dating has also been supported by the rationalist and historian of Christianity <b>Adolf von Harnack<\/b><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"64\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-64\">64<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-64\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"64\"><b>A. Harnack<\/b>, <i>The Acts of the Apostles<\/i>, Leipzig 1908, p. 72, note 24<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">However, it is not so much the dating of the Acts of the Apostles that is of interest here, but rather <strong>the ancient formula<\/strong> within it. The tradition about the Easter events contained in the Acts of the Apostles also has a high <strong>antiquity<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">While <strong>Gerald O&#8217;Collins<\/strong> of the Pontifical Gregorian University believes that the text <i>\u00abincorporates resurrection formulas that date back to the <strong>thirties<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"65\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-65\">65<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-65\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"65\"><b>G. O&#8217;Collins<\/b>, <i>Interpreting Jesus<\/i>, Chapman 1983, p. 109-110<\/span>, Scottish theologian <strong>John Drane<\/strong> concludes that this material <i>\u00abalmost certainly goes back to the time <strong>immediately following<\/strong> the presumed resurrection\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"66\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-66\">66<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-66\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"66\"><b>J. Drane<\/b>, <i>Introducing the New Testament<\/i>, Harper and Row 1986, p. 99<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Although there is not the same unanimity of judgment among specialists in this case, however, <i>\u00abthe <strong>majority of scholars<\/strong> concludes that some of these passages reflect the early proclamation of the Gospel message\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"67\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-67\">67<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-67\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"67\"><b>G. Habermas<\/b>, <i>Experiences of the Risen Jesus. The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection<\/i>, Journal of Theology 2006, Vol. 45, p. 288-297<\/span>, reports <b>Gary Habermas<\/b>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>B.D. Ehrman<\/strong>, Professor of New Testament at the University of North Carolina, first acknowledges that <i>\u00abthe book of Acts represents an <strong>independent tradition<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"68\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-68\">68<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-68\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"68\"><strong>B.D. Ehrman<\/strong>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, pp. 108, 109<\/span> from the Gospels. Furthermore, it <i>\u00abrecords traditions that date back at least half a century earlier, to the <strong>early<\/strong> Christian community in Palestine\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"69\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-69\">69<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-69\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"69\"><strong>B.D. Ehrman<\/strong>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 108<\/span>, even <i>\u00abconsiderably earlier than that of the Gospels\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"70\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-70\">70<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-70\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"70\"><strong>B.D. Ehrman<\/strong>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 124<\/span>, especially regarding the accounts of Easter.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In general, the entire text contained in the Acts of the Apostles has been the subject of <strong>thorough studies<\/strong> over the years. In particular, the Anglo-Saxon school has compared the historical, geographical, political, and religious data described in this text with known ancient sources and has found that the information it contains is <strong>consistent<\/strong>. Furthermore, comparative studies between Acts and Hellenistic authors demonstrate that Luke adheres to all the <strong>parameters of historiography<\/strong> of the time, and many of his exclusive pieces of information have been corroborated by archaeological and papyrological findings.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For this reason, the archaeologist <strong>William M. Ramsay<\/strong> exclaimed, <i>\u00abLuke is a first-rate historian!\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"71\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-71\">71<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-71\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"71\"><strong>W.M. Ramsay<\/strong>, <i>The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament<\/i>, Forgotten Books 2018, p. 222<\/span>, while <strong>L.T. Johnson<\/strong>, Professor of Early Christianity at the Candler School of Theology, reported that <i>\u00abLuke, according to the standards of Hellenistic historiography, is <strong>precise<\/strong> in what he affirms\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"72\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-72\">72<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-72\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"72\"><strong>L.T. Johnson<\/strong>, <i>The Gospel of Luke: Sacra Pagina<\/i>, Michael Glazier 2006, p. 406<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For further exploration on this topic, we particularly recommend the studies of <strong>A.N. Sherwin-White<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"73\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-73\">73<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-73\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"73\"><strong>A.N. Sherwin-White<\/strong>, <i>Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament<\/i>, Oxford University Press 1962<\/span>, <strong>Edward Plumacher<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"74\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-74\">74<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-74\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"74\"><strong>E. Plumacher<\/strong>, <i>Lukas als hellenisticher Schriftseller. Studien zur Apostelgeschichte<\/i>, Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht 1972<\/span>, <strong>Martin Hengel<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"75\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-75\">75<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-75\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"75\"><strong>M. Hengel<\/strong>, <i>Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity<\/i>, Wipf &amp; Stock Pub 2003<\/span>, <strong>Colin J Hemer<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"76\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-76\">76<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-76\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"76\"><strong>C.J. Hemer<\/strong>, <i>The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History<\/i>, Coronet Books 1989<\/span>, and <strong>William Mitchell Ramsay<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"77\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-77\">77<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-77\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"77\"><strong>W.M. Ramsay<\/strong>, <i>The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament<\/i>, Forgotten Books 2018<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"thessalonians\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>3.4 <u><a href=\"#thessalonians\">The First Letter to the Thessalonians (49 AD)<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A fourth very ancient source is another letter by Paul, the <strong>First Letter to the Thessalonians<\/strong>. In it, it is clearly stated that God <i>\u00abraised Jesus from the dead\u00bb<\/i> (1 Thessalonians 1:10), also referred to as <i>\u00abHis Son\u00bb<\/i> (1 Thessalonians 1:10).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This writing only <strong>confirms<\/strong> what is contained in the previously mentioned pre-Pauline source, which dates back to just 2 years after the events described. However, it is still important to cite this second letter in order to complete the coherence of the earliest sources.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The scholar <strong>B.D. Ehrman<\/strong>, Professor of New Testament and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, has reported that the Pauline passage <i>\u00abwas written around <strong>49 AD<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"78\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-78\">78<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-78\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"78\"><strong>B.D. Ehrman<\/strong>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 124<\/span>, just <strong>19 years<\/strong> after the narrated events.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In another work, he argued that the First Letter to the Thessalonians can <i>\u00abplausibly be situated in the early Christian movement of the <strong>40s and 50s<\/strong> of the common era, when Paul was active as an apostle and missionary\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"79\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-79\">79<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-79\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"79\"><strong>B.D. Ehrman<\/strong>, <i>The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings<\/i>, Oxford University Press 2011, p. 288<\/span>. This dating is also confirmed by <strong>J.M. Garcia<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"80\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-80\">80<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-80\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"80\"><strong>J.M. Garcia<\/strong>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 396<\/span>, a Spanish theologian at the Complutense University of Madrid.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The American scholar has also rejected, with compelling arguments, the minority thesis of <strong>later interpolation<\/strong>: <i>\u00abI believe that it was Paul who wrote that paragraph of the letter to the Thessalonians. It is <strong>certainly in his own hand<\/strong> up to the sixteenth verse\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"81\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-81\">81<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-81\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"81\"><strong>B.D. Ehrman<\/strong>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 125<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"exception\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>3.5 <u><a href=\"#exception\">No other ancient event boasts historical sources so close<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Therefore, there are <strong>4 very ancient sources<\/strong> that consistently reflect the preaching of the earliest Christian community immediately after the death of Jesus. The core of this tradition is the <strong>resurrection<\/strong> of Jesus and His appearances to some disciples.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This does not <i>directly<\/i> prove that the resurrection must have historically occurred, but rather that it was <strong>certainly<\/strong> what the first apostles suddenly proclaimed after the discovery of the empty tomb, even though they did not expect such a thing and, like no other contemporary Jews, did not consider it <strong>conceivable<\/strong> (we will see this later).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Secondly, the antiquity of the sources also disproves a <strong>later and tardy theological construction<\/strong> of the Easter events. If they contain the same information that will later be included in the Gospels, there is <strong>no legendary fiction<\/strong> as argued by David Friedrich Strauss and the liberal theology of past centuries (led by Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann) until the second half of the 20th century.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thirdly, it should be emphasized that historical sources so close to the events are <strong>an extremely rare exception<\/strong> in all ancient literature. Some examples: the first mention of <strong>Herodotus<\/strong> comes from Aristotle <strong>100 years<\/strong> after his death; the deeds of <strong>Augustus<\/strong> are narrated <strong>105 years<\/strong> after his death by Suetonius; the first <strong>history of Rome<\/strong> was written in Greek by the Roman senator Fabius Pictor around 200 BC, approximately <strong>300 years<\/strong> after the birth of the republican form of government in Rome; the main information about <strong>Alexander the Great<\/strong> comes from Plutarch and was written <strong>260 years<\/strong> after his death, and the most reliable source is over <strong>370 years<\/strong> removed. Yet historians have little doubt in considering these accounts credible and historical.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Therefore, the renowned scholar <strong>John A.T. Robinson<\/strong> stated that the New Testament is <i>\u00abby far the best attested book of any writing from the ancient world\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"82\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-82\">82<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-82\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"82\"><strong>J.A.T. Robinson<\/strong>, <i>Can we Trust the New Testament?<\/i>, Eerdmans 1977, p. 36<\/span>, a statement confirmed by the skeptic <strong>Helmut Koester<\/strong> of the Harvard Divinity School when he attests that <i>\u00abthe textual criticism of the New Testament has a much more advantageous basis than that for the textual criticism of classical authors\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"83\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-83\">83<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-83\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"83\"><strong>H. Koester<\/strong>, <i>History and Literature of Early Christianity<\/i>, Fortress 1982, Vol. 2, p. 16-17<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It is enlightening how <strong>A.N. Sherwin-White<\/strong>, President of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies and one of the most important contemporary historians of the Roman and Greek era, explained that <strong>Roman sources<\/strong> are generally biased and composed at least <strong>one or two generations<\/strong> or even centuries after the events they narrate. Yet, he observes, scholars have no qualms about using them to confidently reconstruct what really happened<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"84\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-84\">84<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-84\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"84\"><strong>A. N. Sherwin-White<\/strong>, <i>Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament<\/i>, Oxford University Press 1963<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thus, in his famous study, the eminent historian criticized the critics of the New Testament, accusing them of not understanding the invaluable <strong>historical sources<\/strong> that the Gospels are, a multiple independent attestation written shortly after the events and containing traditions dating back to almost contemporary times. If the <strong>&#8220;rate of legendary accumulation&#8221;<\/strong> is invoked when several generations pass between the events and their first account, it is precisely the opposite of what happened with the New Testament. <i>\u00abSimply, there was <strong>not enough time<\/strong> to accumulate a significant legend at the time the Gospels were composed\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"85\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-85\">85<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-85\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"85\"><strong>A. N. Sherwin-White<\/strong>, <i>Roman Law and Roman Society and the New Testament<\/i>, Oxford University Press 1963<\/span>, he concluded.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"paul\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>3.6 <u><a href=\"#paul\">Objection: St. Paul does not mention the empty tomb<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Scholar <strong>Gary Habermas<\/strong>, Chair of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University, conducted a study of over 2,000 academic publications on the resurrection of Jesus published between 1975 and 2005 in French, German, and English. He concluded that a <i>&#8220;minority position&#8221;<\/i> of scholars (25%) <i>&#8220;accepted one or more reasons against the historicity of the empty tomb&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"86\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-86\">86<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-86\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"86\"><strong>G. Habermas<\/strong>, <i>Experiences of the Risen Jesus. The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection<\/i>, Journal of Theology 2006, Vol. 45, p. 288-297<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">One of the most commonly cited opposing arguments is the lack of mention of the discovery of the empty tomb in the ancient <strong>pre-Pauline source<\/strong> (dated, as mentioned earlier, 2 to 3 years after the events) found in the First Letter to the Corinthians. Indeed, the author writes: <i>&#8220;&#8230;he was buried, and he was raised on the third day&#8221;<\/i> (1 Corinthians 15:3-7).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">However, it is quite implicit that burial in a tomb and subsequent bodily resurrection <strong>imply<\/strong> something in between, namely, that the tomb was found empty. A first-century Jew would not have thought otherwise, even though they might have found it incomprehensible and contrary to Jewish thought.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>&#8220;There is no doubt that both Paul and the early Christian formula he cites <strong>presuppose<\/strong> the existence of the empty tomb&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"87\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-87\">87<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-87\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"87\"><strong>W.L. Craig<\/strong>, <i>Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ<\/i>, Truth 1985, Vol. 1, p. 89-95<\/span>, wrote philosopher <strong>William Lane Craig<\/strong> of Houston Baptist University.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Since Paul wrote letters instead of an organic narrative, it is understandable that he did not go into details about the resurrection of Jesus. The pre-Pauline formula is <strong>a brief summary<\/strong> of what will be recounted in more detail in the Acts of the Apostles (see Acts 13:28-31) and in the Gospel of Mark (see Mark 15:37-16), in a completely consistent and corresponding manner. Please refer to the comparison we have <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/comparison.png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">created graphically<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Finally, the pre-Pauline source reports that Jesus rose <strong>&#8220;on the third day&#8221;<\/strong>: since no one witnessed Jesus&#8217; resurrection, how did the Christians date the resurrection &#8220;on the third day&#8221;? The third day <strong>coincided<\/strong> with the discovery of the empty tomb by the women followers of Jesus, so the resurrection itself was dated on that day. This shows that when Paul quotes the ancient Christian formula spread by the early Jerusalem community, he was aware of the discovery of the empty tomb.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"impartial\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>3.7 <u><a href=\"#impartial\">Objection: Christian sources are biased<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">An objection that primarily comes from anti-religious and non-academic circles argues that Christian sources are not reliable <strong>because they are Christian<\/strong> and therefore biased. They say, <em>&#8220;You can&#8217;t use the Bible to prove the Bible!&#8221;<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Those who make this claim simply do not understand the <strong>methods of critical analysis<\/strong> of texts. Historians are well aware that all sources are &#8220;biased,&#8221; and they themselves have non-impartial interests and personal opinions. Yet, they have no problem separating the truth of a text from the <strong>apologetics<\/strong> when they do not align.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Scholars employ <strong>the same critical analysis<\/strong> (in many cases, even more stringent) when dealing with Christian sources as they do with all ancient texts. They seek to understand: who are the authors? What is the date of composition? What might have been their sources? For whom were they written? For what purpose? In what context? What was the author&#8217;s objective? What biases might they have had? This is <strong>the critical and forensic examination<\/strong> of texts, which is also applied to the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The fact that other Christians, long after the authors&#8217; deaths, placed the Gospel texts in the <strong>canon<\/strong> known as the New Testament has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the accounts.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The evangelists recounted and described <strong>a historical event<\/strong>, albeit one that was unprecedented, difficult to believe, and completely implausible for their contemporaries. They did not set out to create sacred texts for a religion, although that is what happened later. This &#8220;claim&#8221; is taken seriously in all major universities around the world in their New Testament studies.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, if we were to consider only <strong>impartial sources<\/strong>, ones that are neutral and disinterested in the content they convey, we would have to eliminate <strong>all works<\/strong> from antiquity. Even texts that oppose Christianity, both ancient and modern (blogs, articles, popular books), being biased sources, would be deemed unreliable a priori. The same individuals who reject the Gospels as unreliable are <strong>far from impartial<\/strong> themselves. Are we sure we want to proceed in this manner?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even the Roman historian <strong>Tacitus<\/strong> was not impartial when he wrote the <i>Agricola<\/i> in 98 AD, narrating the exploits of his father-in-law, Julius Agricola. It is a work of blatant favoritism. The <strong>history of Rome<\/strong> was written by Titus Livius in 9 AD, who admits to wanting to praise the glorious actions of the greatest people on Earth, the Romans. The <strong>war accounts<\/strong> that scholars work on are predominantly written by the &#8220;victors&#8221; (such as the American War of Independence). Would we consider all of them unreliable because they are biased?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abFor the same reason, one should also doubt the biographical data of <strong>Socrates<\/strong> transmitted by his disciples Xenophon and Plato\u00bb<\/i>, commented <b>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/b> of the Complutense University of Madrid. <i>\u00abWhat about the veracity of the deeds performed by <strong>Caesar<\/strong>, as narrated by the emperor himself, given that this information comes from biased witnesses? <strong>No serious scholar<\/strong> has questioned the value of these sources for reconstructing historical events\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"88\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-88\">88<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-88\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"88\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 18<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even <b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, weighed in on the matter, stating:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe stories about Jesus told by the evangelists carry <strong>no more or less weight<\/strong> than the writings of any other ancient biographer (such as Suetonius or Plutarch), or perhaps, to make a more appropriate comparison, anyone who has written a biography of a religious figure, like Philostratus and his account of the life of Apollonius of Tyana. We do not discard the earliest accounts of the <strong>War of Independence<\/strong> because they were written by Americans. We acknowledge their bias but do not refuse to use them as historical sources. Otherwise, it means sacrificing our main access to the past, and for <strong>ideological<\/strong>, not historical reasons. Regardless of whether they are considered inspired historical sources, the Gospels can be regarded and used as important <strong>historical sources<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"89\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-89\">89<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-89\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"89\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, pp. 74, 75<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">With his proverbial irony, the French philosopher <b>Jean Guitton<\/b> highlighted the absurdity of this objection: <i>\u00abThe unbelievers deny that the Gospels are historical documents because, they say, they are written by believers, that is, by men who did not believe before the events but <strong>changed their opinion<\/strong> because the events they narrate led them to modify their initial state of mind. The unbelievers are difficult; what do they require in order to consider us honest in their eyes? They demand documents written by witnesses who, having seen the same events, <strong>do not attribute<\/strong> any significance to them. It is contradictory\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"90\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-90\">90<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-90\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"90\"><b>J. Guitton<\/b>, <i>Ges\u00f9<\/i>, Elledici 1997, p. 134<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, let&#8217;s observe that at the beginning of his gospel, <strong>Luke<\/strong> writes that he published it so that <strong>Theophilus<\/strong> (the person to whom he addresses his text) may <i>\u00abknow the truth concerning the things about which you have been informed\u00bb<\/i> (Luke 1:4). What&#8217;s the issue? It was normal and customary to transparently declare the thesis one <strong>wanted to defend<\/strong> right from the beginning of the work, and the evangelist was in good company with all the ancient and Roman historians.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Finally, we should note again that the <strong>dating of Christian sources<\/strong> in proximity to the events is a unique exception compared to all the previously mentioned ancient works. From AD 48 to AD 70 (thus 18 to 40 years after the death of Christ), Paul of Tarsus wrote 13 letters (of which 6 can certainly be attributed to him) that fully confirm the content of the Gospels, and both these letters and the evangelists include even older traditions, almost contemporary to the events. No other <strong>biography from antiquity<\/strong> is better attested than that of Jesus of Nazareth.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, we have already highlighted that in the <em>First Letter to the Corinthians<\/em>, Paul cites an ancient formula (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) that historians date to only <strong>2-3 years<\/strong> after the events (around 32 or 33 AD) and that includes the resurrection and post-mortem appearances. Moreover, from AD 70 to 90 (thus 20 to 70 years after the events), the evangelists write their accounts in perfect coherence with Paul&#8217;s letters, using <strong>pre-gospel sources<\/strong> that have a very early dating, going back to the first twenty years after the narrated events.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If the cardinal principle of historical investigation is that <strong>the closer the texts are to the narrated events<\/strong> (and the more texts agree with each other), the higher the probability that they narrate genuinely historical events, then the Christian texts fully satisfy this principle. Their early dating rules out any possibility of subsequent theological creation and the development of an invented legend.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a name=\"women\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#women\">4. <u>WOMEN AS WITNESSES OF THE RESURRECTION<\/a><\/u><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A fourth argument used by scholars strongly undermines the possibility of a <strong>literary fiction<\/strong> of the Easter events. The early Christian community maintained that it was <strong>women<\/strong> who discovered the empty tomb and witnessed the first appearance of the risen Jesus.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Mary Magdalene<\/strong>, in particular, is identified by all four evangelists as a <strong>key witness<\/strong> to the crucifixion and burial of Jesus (cf. Mark 15:40-41) and as one of the witnesses to the empty tomb (cf. Mark 16:1-8). The traditions in Matthew and John even present her as the recipient of an appearance of the risen Jesus <strong>prior<\/strong> to his manifestation to the group of male disciples (cf. Matthew 28:8-10; John 20:11-18). The significant role of women is also confirmed in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Acts 2:29 and 13:29).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">However, it is well known that in the Judaism of that time, <strong>women had little value<\/strong>. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote that <i>\u00abwoman is inferior to everything. Therefore, she must obey, not in order to be humiliated, but to be guided\u00bb<\/i><b>Flavius Josephus<\/b>, <i>Antiquities of the Jews 2, 199-203<\/i>. Women were not even allowed to testify in Jewish courts because their testimony was deemed insignificant and had no value.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abWhether one likes it or not\u00bb<\/i>, write <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, and <b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, <i>\u00abwomen in the ancient world were not considered valid eyewitnesses\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"91\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-91\">91<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-91\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"91\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 105<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Who would be foolish enough to entrust <strong>the heart of the Gospel message<\/strong> to witnesses who, by definition, were not considered credible? Furthermore, if it had been possible to manipulate the Gospel texts at a later time, this detail would have been immediately <strong>erased<\/strong> or modified (including male eyewitnesses). Even if we assume that the apostles managed to steal Jesus&#8217; body, deceiving everyone, how is it possible that they would <strong>sabotage everything<\/strong> by entrusting the eyewitness testimony to women? Moreover, one of them being a former demon-possessed woman like Mary Magdalene.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The distinguished American biblical scholar <b>J.B. Meier<\/b>, after emphasizing that the prominence of women in the Easter events is inevitably historical and satisfies the historical criterion of multiple attestation (as already mentioned), focuses on the criterion of embarrassment: <i>\u00abIt seems <strong>improbable<\/strong> that early Christian tradition would have gone out of its way to <strong>cast doubt<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i> on the accounts of the resurrection and the first appearance of Jesus by <i>\u00abunmotivatedly\u00bb<\/i> entrusting the testimony to a woman. <i>\u00abFor what purpose would such an invention have served? The <strong>vulnerability<\/strong> of a female witness, who was a former demoniac, did not escape the notice of male critics of the Gospels, from Celsus in the 2nd century to Ernest Renan in the 20th\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"92\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-92\">92<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-92\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"92\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>Un ebreo marginale<\/i>, Queriniana 2008, Vol. 2, p. 785<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Indeed, the Greek philosopher <strong>Celsus<\/strong> wrote a pamphlet mocking the Christians: <i>\u00abThe Galileans believe in a resurrection witnessed only by some <strong>hysterical women<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"93\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-93\">93<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-93\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"93\"><b>Celsus<\/b>, <i>Il discorso vero<\/i>, Adelphi 1987<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Ben Witherington III<\/strong>, a well-known biblical scholar and prominent member of the Society for the Study of the New Testament, also commented that <i>\u00abit is difficult to believe that the earliest Christians would have made up the story that Jesus appeared first to some women. In the patriarchal world in which those Christians lived, frankly, it is <strong>not credible<\/strong> that a group with such a mentality would have invented such a story\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"94\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-94\">94<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-94\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"94\"><b>B. Witherington<\/b>, <i>Una reposicion de la resurreccion<\/i>, in P. Copan, <i>Un sepulcro vacio<\/i>, Voz de Papel 2008, p. 183-184<\/span>. There is no doubt that if the episode had been invented, the witnesses would have been men.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/lohfink.png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">In 2020<\/a><\/strong>, even <b>Gerhard Lohfink<\/b>, professor of New Testament at the University of T\u00fcbingen, remarked: <i>\u00abIn the story of the empty tomb, there is also an observation that presents itself as a sort of \u201chistorical corroboration\u201d: it is discovered by women whose names are mentioned. If this story were fictitious, it would not have involved women but men. After all, the testimony of women did not carry much weight in the world of that time. For the historian, this is an indication that the account cannot simply be dismissed historically\u00bb<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The scholar <strong>Raymund Schwager<\/strong>, dean of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Innsbruck, confirmed the customary practice among specialists to positively evaluate the <strong>historicity<\/strong> of the account regarding the role of women at the crucifixion and on Easter morning<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"95\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-95\">95<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-95\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"95\"><b>R. Schwager<\/b>, <i>Die heutige Theologie and das leere Grab Jesu<\/i>, Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Katholische Theologie 1993, p. 436<\/span>. Even the (skeptical) specialist <b>Gerd L\u00fcdemann<\/b> defines it as <i>\u00abhistorically certain\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"96\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-96\">96<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-96\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"96\"><b>G. L\u00fcdemann<\/b>, <i>What Really Happened To Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection<\/i>, Westminster John Knox Press 1995, p. 66<\/span> that it was the women who found the empty tomb.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another related argument is presented by <b>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/b>, director of the Chair of Theology at the Complutense University of Madrid. <i>\u00abIt is certainly surprising that such Christians try to offer as <strong>evidence of the resurrection<\/strong> something that is not even sufficient proof for themselves\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"97\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-97\">97<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-97\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"97\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 277<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the Gospel accounts, neither the women nor the apostles interpret the phenomenon of the empty tomb as &#8220;proof of the resurrection&#8221; (in fact, Mary Magdalene thought that Jesus&#8217; body had been stolen, cf. Jn 20:2). <i>\u00abIf it is stated that it was the women who found the empty tomb on the morning they went to visit it\u00bb<\/i>, concluded <b>Garcia<\/b>, <i>\u00abit is because it actually happened that way\u00bb<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The early Christian community and the evangelists reported what actually happened, without worrying about the <strong>more embarrassing<\/strong> and counterproductive aspects of the account. This adds plausibility to the historical foundation of the Easter events.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"wrong_tomb\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>4.1 <u><a href=\"#wrong_tomb\">Objection: The women went to the wrong tomb<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The skeptical scholar <b>Gerd L\u00fcdemann<\/b>, who is always very active in proposing alternatives, while acknowledging that the role of women in the resurrection accounts refutes the hypothesis of a hypothetical forger, has argued that the women simply <strong>went to the wrong tomb<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"98\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-98\">98<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-98\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"98\"><b>G. L\u00fcdemann<\/b>, <i>Die Auferstehung Jesu<\/i>, in A. Bommarius, <i>Fand die Auferstehung wirklich statt?<\/i>, Parega Verlag 1995, p. 21<\/span>. This is actually a thesis that was already put forward by <strong>Kirsopp Lake<\/strong>, an eminent New Testament scholar at the Harvard Divinity School.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to Lake, the women did indeed find an empty tomb (that cannot be denied!), but it <strong>was not the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth<\/strong>. Furthermore, they also misunderstood (perhaps due to shock?) the words of a young man inside the tomb who tried to assist them (cf. Mk 16:5-7), and they hurried away and reported this strange experience to the disciples. The disciples, even more confused, drew the conclusion from this account that Jesus had risen from the dead.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It is worth noting, first of all, that Lake <strong>did not have much belief<\/strong> in this hypothesis and mentioned it only once in his numerous books on the historical Jesus. He also never considered it as an argument to doubt the Easter accounts. Finally, Lake&#8217;s hypothesis has generated <strong>no significant following<\/strong> (except for Ludemann, to some extent) among specialists in the field.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This objection fails to consider the fact that if the women had indeed gone to the wrong tomb, the <strong>Jewish authorities<\/strong> would have been all too happy to publicly point it out when the disciples began preaching the resurrection. They could have simply <strong>indicated the true tomb of Jesus<\/strong>, with His body inside.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, the hypothesis of the wrong tomb needs to <strong>assume as true<\/strong> other unverified hypotheses: that the women didn&#8217;t notice the mistake, didn&#8217;t understand the words of the risen Jesus, the disciples misunderstood and translated the women&#8217;s account into a (for them inexplicable) bodily resurrection, and the Jewish authorities did not publicly highlight the error. The more an hypothesis requires adopting additional hypotheses, the less <strong>credible<\/strong> it becomes.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The idea of the wrong tomb is a comical objection, <strong>devoid<\/strong> of any logical context. It holds the same value as someone hypothesizing that the soldiers guarding the tomb made Jesus&#8217; body disappear as a retaliation against the Roman authorities for their low wages. Without the <strong>guarantee of historical and documentary support<\/strong>, anyone can propose the most bizarre objections.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a name=\"risky\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#risky\">5. <u>RISKY DETAILS AND ABSENCE OF THEOLOGICAL EMBELLISHMENTS<\/a><\/u><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If the central role of women as eyewitnesses has been considered as a separate argument, it is not the only highly <strong>&#8220;risky&#8221;<\/strong> element of the account regarding its credibility.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, related to this, we should also consider that the Easter narratives are (almost) entirely <strong>devoid of theophanies and theological embellishments<\/strong>, as one would expect in a late account that allowed time for theological and scriptural interpretation.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"denial\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>5.1 <u><a href=\"#denial\">Risky Details and No Fear of Refutations<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Those who preached the resurrection of Jesus <strong>did not fear refutations<\/strong> and included specific details and references. In contrast, when a legend is created retrospectively, one tends to avoid referring too specifically to facts, places, and people in order to prevent being contradicted.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">We must remember that the earliest sources of the resurrection are <strong>very close to the narrated events<\/strong> (dated from 2 to 19 years after the events). Almost all the eyewitnesses were still alive, not only the disciples but also the Jewish authorities and pagan opponents of early Christianity. It would have been impossible to invent or add false details.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For example, the Spanish exegete <b>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/b> has observed that the evangelist Mark mentions the role of <strong>Joseph of Arimathea<\/strong>, <i>&#8220;an influential member of the Sanhedrin&#8221;<\/i> (Mk 15:42-47), in the burial of Jesus. <i>\u00abIf it were a story invented at a later time, it is surprising that such a <strong>specific detail<\/strong> is offered. Fiction would necessarily require imprecise information, which would be difficult to objectively contest\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"99\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-99\">99<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-99\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"99\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, pp. 277, 278<\/span>. If the Gospels had invented such a specific figure as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, they would not have been able to withstand immediate refutation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another detail reported by the evangelists is the discovery of the empty tomb <strong>after three days<\/strong>. It is a risky and precise temporal reference that <strong>identifies exactly<\/strong> the day of the discovery (Sunday). A forger would have remained vague. Some have tried to explain it by referring to <strong>formulas from the Old Testament<\/strong>, according to which the people of Israel would be regenerated and God would <i>&#8220;revive us after two days; on the third day, he will raise us up, that we may live in his presence&#8221;<\/i> (Hos 6:2).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">However, biblical scholars easily counter that the passage alludes to Israel&#8217;s spiritual regeneration, not to a bodily resurrection that would occur on the third day. The same rabbinic tradition interprets the passage in this way<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"100\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-100\">100<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-100\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"100\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 279<\/span>. The evangelists speak of the &#8220;third day&#8221; simply because that was when the women actually found the empty tomb.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even the <b>500 people<\/b> mentioned in the ancient pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor 15:3-7) as witnesses of the resurrected Jesus can be seen as a risky detail, especially if we are close to the actual events. Were they perhaps the listeners of the early speeches of the early church? Some are known to Paul himself (who received the information from the first apostles), as he knows that they had died in the meantime. The apostles <strong>did not fear refutations<\/strong> from anyone.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The French philosopher <b>Jean Guitton<\/b> observed in this regard that <i>\u00abit was not a myth told vaguely by folk singers, but a story that was <strong>immediately preached in public<\/strong>, at the same time, in the same places, under the same circumstances. If this preaching was able to take place without being immediately rejected and proven false, it was because there had truly occurred in those same places and <strong>before the eyes of contemporaries<\/strong> some strange and unexplainable event, undeniable by its evidence, which had imposed itself on both friends and adversaries\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"101\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-101\">101<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-101\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"101\"><b>J. Guitton<\/b>, <i>Ges\u00f9<\/i>, Elledici 1996, p. 96<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"theophanies\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>5.2 <u><a href=\"#theophanies\">Absence of Theological Interpretations<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another relevant observation often mentioned by biblical scholars and scholars of early Christianity is the absence of any <strong>theological embellishment or coloring<\/strong> in the Easter accounts.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even in the preceding accounts of Jesus&#8217; arrest, trial, and crucifixion, there are various <strong>references to the Old Testament<\/strong>, theological quotations, and allusions. Yet, the academic community has <strong>no doubt<\/strong> that these were events that certainly took place in history, being able to distinguish the facts from the theological interpretations of the authors.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even more so, this is even truer in the Easter accounts, where (surprisingly) <strong>every trace<\/strong> of theophanies and theological embellishments disappears, leaving only the raw chronological sequence of events.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>&#8220;In the Easter accounts, we notice the strange absence of Scripture. What happened to all those scriptural allusions?&#8221;<\/i>, wondered <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, Professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, and <b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College. <i>\u00abNo mention of specific passages or even the faintest echo of the Old Testament\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"102\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-102\">102<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-102\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"102\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 104<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The most likely explanation for the two scholars is that these accounts, once again, <i>\u00abreflect the very earliest <strong>eyewitness testimony<\/strong> and developed at a time when <strong>there was not yet any concern<\/strong> about whether that unusual chain of events fulfilled any of the Scriptures. They were perhaps too eager to tell their friends, neighbors, and family members the extraordinary things they had seen and heard. Therefore, let us consider the absence of scriptural references as a kind of <strong>supporting evidence<\/strong> indicating that the stories should be traced back to the very earliest oral tradition\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"103\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-103\">103<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-103\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"103\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, pp. 104, 105<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The <strong>apologetic elements<\/strong> are abundant in the late and legendary accounts of ancient literature, while in the Gospels, the resurrection is not even described\u2014no direct witnesses, no theological reflection on Jesus&#8217; triumph over sin and death, no use of christological titles or <strong>fulfilled biblical prophecies<\/strong>, no description of the risen Lord.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The only hint of theological interpretation is when two out of the four evangelists (Matthew and Luke) mention <strong>an angelic figure<\/strong> (or two figures, in Luke) communicating to the women who went to the tomb what had happened (Mark, on the other hand, mentions the presence of a &#8220;young man,&#8221; cf. Mk 16:5-7, while John does not report any messenger, cf. Jn 20:1-10). Some scholars consider it a <em>literary device<\/em> to provide the readers with a <strong>minimal<\/strong> interpretation of the empty tomb. But in general, the narration is decidedly unadorned, further dispelling any suspicion of a legend created afterward.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b> and <b>N.T. Wright<\/b> also point out the absence of <strong>future Christian hope<\/strong>. <i>\u00abAlmost anywhere else in the New Testament\u00bb<\/i> as seen in writings composed toward the end of the 1st century, <i>\u00abwhere people speak of Jesus&#8217; resurrection, they also speak of the future resurrection and the ultimate hope that one day everyone will rise like Jesus. However, the Gospels <strong>say nothing<\/strong> like: &#8216;Jesus has risen, therefore there is life after death&#8217;; or: &#8216;Jesus has risen, therefore we will go to heaven when we die.&#8217; Or even: &#8216;Jesus has risen, therefore we will rise in the end.&#8217; No, as far as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are concerned, the event has no other meaning than that it is a past event\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"104\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-104\">104<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-104\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"104\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, pp. 109, 108<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">One only needs to compare these sober Gospel accounts with the evidently legendary ones found in the <strong>apocryphal gospels<\/strong> of the 2nd century. For example, in the <strong>Gospel of Peter<\/strong> (dated by the more cautious scholars to the first half of the 2nd century<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"105\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-105\">105<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-105\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"105\"><b>G. Barbaglio<\/b>, <i>Ges\u00f9 ebreo di galilea<\/i>, EDB 2002, p. 68<\/span>), it is written:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe soldiers saw <strong>the heavens open<\/strong> and two men descending, clothed in great splendor, approaching the tomb. The stone that had been placed against the door, rolling away by itself, moved aside, and the tomb opened, and both young men entered. As they saw this, the soldiers woke up the centurion and the elders, for they too were standing guard. And while they were explaining to them what they had seen, they see three men coming out of the tomb again, and the two were supporting the other <strong>and a cross followed them<\/strong>. The heads of the first two reached <strong>up to the heavens<\/strong>, while the head of the one they were leading by the hand went beyond the heavens\u00bb<\/i> (GosP 35-40).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It is precisely by referring to the <strong>evidently legendary nature<\/strong> of these accounts (in contrast to those of the canonical Gospels) that the controversial Italian ufologist <strong>Mauro Biglino<\/strong> can support his fantasy theories of an alien Jesus!<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, professor of New Testament at the University of Notre Dame, wrote: <i>\u00abThe event of Jesus rising from the dead is never narrated directly. In this, the canonical Gospels diverge significantly in their sobriety from the later apocryphal Gospels, such as the Gospel of Peter, from the 2nd century AD.\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"106\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-106\">106<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-106\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"106\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>Un ebreo marginale<\/i>, Queriniana 2003, Vol. 2, p. 917<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"invention\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>5.3 <u><a href=\"#invention\">Objection: The disciples of Jesus made it all up<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Outside the academic world, many people don&#8217;t even consider the possibility that the Gospel accounts say something true. It doesn&#8217;t matter the ancient dating of the primary sources, it doesn&#8217;t matter that they are an exception compared to historical texts from the past. <strong>Prejudicially<\/strong>, they would all be legendary inventions. This is the hypothesis of <strong>deliberate fraud<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This hypothesis finds <strong>no credibility among historians<\/strong> and professional scholars of Christian origins, whether they are Christians, atheists, Jews, or agnostics. We will still offer a brief response, even though we are aware that those who raise this objection are already biased without a serious commitment to further investigation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even those unfamiliar with history and critical analysis agree that people lie or invent for <strong>personal gain<\/strong> (financial gain, gain in relationships, gain of power). No one is willing to continue telling falsehoods if they are losing everything because of it, including their life. Well, the early Christians had everything to lose (and lost everything!) by claiming the resurrection of Christ.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Almost all members of the early Christian communities suffered <strong>persecution, stoning, public floggings, humiliation, social dishonor, and imprisonment for over ten years<\/strong>. They were rejected by their families, thrown to the lions for public entertainment (confirmed in 2018 for the Colosseum in Rome), lost their social status, their jobs, their wages, and ultimately, almost all of them were <strong>martyred<\/strong>, one after another.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Despite this, <strong>there is no record<\/strong> of anyone surrendering and saying, &#8220;Okay, it&#8217;s all false, we made it all up, now leave us alone.&#8221; There is no other group in ancient history that, while being completely peaceful, was persecuted so much and for so long because of such a deeply held belief. It is impossible to believe they were lying about everything.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abI do not regard <strong>deliberate fraud<\/strong> as a useful explanation\u00bb<\/i>, concluded <strong>E.P. Sanders<\/strong>, renowned professor of New Testament at Duke University. <i>\u00abMany of the people who claimed this would have spent the rest of their lives proclaiming the resurrection, and many of them would have <strong>died<\/strong> because of it\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"107\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-107\">107<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-107\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"107\"><strong>E.P. Sanders<\/strong>, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 279-280<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Secondly, no Jew would have ever invented something like the resurrection of Jesus. As we will see, what that small group of (probably illiterate) Jewish fishermen began to proclaim after the death of Jesus was an idea <strong>unknown and foreign<\/strong> to Jewish and Old Testament culture. Where did they get it from? If they wanted to convince their contemporaries, why invent such a legend, especially one that included even more counterproductive and highly risky details? Neither pagan literature nor Jewish Scriptures could be used as a source of inspiration.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">There were other things they could have said, in accordance with the Scriptures. Here&#8217;s how <strong>N.T. Wright<\/strong>, professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, and <strong>C.A. Evans<\/strong>, professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, explain it:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abOne might have expected them to imagine the risen Jesus shining like a star: that is, after all, what the popular text of <strong>Daniel 12<\/strong> says about the people who rise from the dead. But the Christians did not do that; none of the resurrection accounts hints at such a thing. On the contrary, Jesus appears as a human being with a body like any other: he can be mistaken for a gardener (Jn 20:15) or a fellow traveler on the road (Lk 24:13-35). No one would have invented this way of telling the story; such a narrative is unparalleled. <strong>No biblical text<\/strong> predicted that resurrection would have to do with this category of body. No speculative theology charted such a path that the evangelists might have followed\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"108\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-108\">108<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-108\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"108\"><strong>C.A. Evans<\/strong>, <strong>N.T. Wright<\/strong>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 107<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to some, the Gospels of Luke and John were written at the end of the 1st century to counter <strong>docetism<\/strong>, the heresy that claimed Jesus was not a true human but only appeared to be. Certainly, they include descriptions of Christ that are very &#8220;human,&#8221; such as eating a roasted fish on the beach and inviting Thomas to touch the nail wounds, but these accounts <i>\u00abare the very ones in which Jesus appears and disappears, transcends materiality, and finally ascends to heaven. Those stories are so extremely peculiar, and the kind of peculiarity they possess <strong>cannot be invented<\/strong>. It almost seems as if the Gospel authors were struggling to describe a reality for which they felt they had <strong>no adequate language<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"109\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-109\">109<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-109\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"109\"><strong>C.A. Evans<\/strong>, <strong>N.T. Wright<\/strong>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, pp. 107, 108<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Finally, the Gospel accounts of the Easter events contain <strong>numerous contradictions<\/strong>, as we will see in the appropriate paragraph. If they had conspired to invent such a story or copied from one another, they certainly would not have contradicted each other, raising even more doubts about authenticity. Contradiction is precisely what <strong>one should avoid when inventing<\/strong>. Furthermore, it is better to remain vague without enriching the story with details and historical references that can easily be disproven. In this case as well, the Gospel writers did the opposite.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a name=\"alternative\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#alternative\">6. <u>NO PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE VERSION<\/a><\/u><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Throughout history, various alternative explanations for the Easter events have been proposed (the most plausible ones are mentioned in this dossier), such as conspiracy theories, the theory of apparent death, the theory of hallucinations, and so on. However, all these different versions have been <strong>rejected<\/strong> by contemporary scholars.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This can be argued as evidence in favor of the historicity of the <strong>original version of the Easter events<\/strong> by following the principle that the more one option fails, the more likely the others become. And the more convincing one option is, the less likely the others are.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The historical criterion of <strong>&#8220;superiority over rival hypotheses&#8221;<\/strong> is taken very seriously by scholars investigating the historicity of a narrative compared to alternative versions. None of the many alternative explanations to the resurrection proposed throughout history has ever reached an acceptable level of plausibility, and currently, there is no other explanation truly <strong>in competition<\/strong> with the one presented by the primary sources.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Despite skepticism, <b>Stephen T. Davis<\/b>, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College, identifies the critics&#8217; inability to provide a possible naturalistic explanation for the sequence of Easter events as one of the proofs that the resurrection of Jesus is <i>\u00abthe most plausible explanation of these facts\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"110\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-110\">110<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-110\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"110\"><b>S.T. Davis<\/b>, <i>Faith and Philosophy<\/i>, Vol. 2, No.3, 06\/1985, p. 152, 153<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, there are no <strong>alternative Christian versions<\/strong> either. That is, ancient sources written by Christians in a period more or less contemporaneous with the original ones that contain alternative, different, and competing testimonies. As <b>William L. Craig<\/b>, Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in Los Angeles, has pointed out, <i>\u00abnowhere do conflicting traditions appear\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"111\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-111\">111<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-111\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"111\"><b>W.L. Craig<\/b>, <b>J.P. Moreland<\/b>, <i>Jesus Under Fire<\/i>, Zondervan 1995, p. 149<\/span>. For example, there are no competing burial traditions (whether Christian, Jewish, or pagan).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Yet, <strong>all ancient accounts<\/strong> concerning, for example, pagan deities, besides being blatantly legendary and lacking events considered historical (not even by the authors themselves), have been transmitted with many alternative versions contradicting one another. In contrast, there is no conflicting account from any disciple of Jesus, family member, eyewitness (including antagonists, both Jewish and pagan) regarding the Easter narratives. The only known variations are the <strong>apocryphal Gospels<\/strong>, clearly dependent on the canonical Gospels, not contemporary to the primary sources and undoubtedly legendary.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">There were no <strong>&#8220;different Christianities&#8221;<\/strong> either, where each community contradicted the other, as one would expect if everything had originated from fables or legends invented in Jerusalem. One of the leading contemporary biblical scholars, <b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, Professor of New Testament at the University of Notre Dame, has explained that <i>&#8220;<strong>there was no<\/strong> period in which parts of the tradition about Jesus circulated in a church lacking the larger grid constituted by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"112\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-112\">112<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-112\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"112\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>Un ebreo marginale<\/i>, Queriniana 2008, Vol. 1, p. 118<\/span>, based on the texts of the New Testament.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Finally, even the <strong>rejection of the supernatural<\/strong> is not a valid alternative explanation. These accounts are on the same level as the account of the crucifixion, for example. Any historian, as a historian, can ask the question: <em>&#8220;What happened to the body of Jesus of Nazareth?&#8221;<\/em>, with the same simplicity as asking: <em>&#8220;How did Jesus of Nazareth die?&#8221;<\/em>. If the <strong>cumulative evidence<\/strong> for the burial of Jesus, the discovery of the empty tomb (and the testimonies of the risen Jesus) is rejected, then equally convincing evidence of alternative theories is required.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"miracles\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>6.1 <u><a href=\"#miracles\">Objection: Miracles cannot happen<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This objection is more related to <strong>methodological naturalism<\/strong> than historical inquiry. Miraculous events <strong>cannot occur<\/strong>, so there must be an alternative natural explanation for the resurrection of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This is a <strong>philosophical assertion<\/strong> that even the prominent (agnostic) scholar <b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b> stumbled upon when he wrote, <i>\u00abThere is a common misunderstanding about <strong>my viewpoint<\/strong>. What I say about the resurrection of Jesus or his other miracles, or anyone else&#8217;s miracles (such as Apollonius of Tyana or Elijah), is the same as what I had when I was a Christian, when I believed in God, when I believed that miracles could happen. Now I have the same viewpoint as I did then, so it is not an atheistic viewpoint. My view is that even if miracles did happen in the past &#8211; let&#8217;s just grant that they did happen &#8211; <strong>there is no way to establish<\/strong> whether they happened using the historical disciplines\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"113\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-113\">113<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-113\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"113\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, in <i>Ehrman-Licona Dialogue on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament<\/i>, <i>The Best Schools<\/i> 2016<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">While what Ehrman reports is correct, the problem with these objections to miracles is that they fail to grasp that we are evaluating the hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead <strong>in a supernatural manner<\/strong>, not a natural one! There is no reason to consider it improbable that God could have raised Jesus from the dead. The real objection is not the impossibility of miracles, but rather the impossibility or improbability of the <strong>existence of a Creator<\/strong> of the Universe. If God exists, miracles exist.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This has been elegantly explained by <strong>Richard Swinburne<\/strong>, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abIf there is no God, then the ultimate determinant of what happens in the world are the <strong>laws of nature<\/strong>, and someone dead for 36 hours coming back to life is a clear violation of those laws, and is therefore impossible. But if there is a God of the traditional sort, then the laws of nature operate only because He makes them operate and has the power to suspend them for a moment or forever. Therefore, if Jesus has risen from the dead, God raised him\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"114\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-114\">114<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-114\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"114\"><b>R. Swinburne<\/b>, <i>The Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus<\/i>, Philosophia Christi 2013, Vol. 15, p. 11.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Considering that the hypothesis of the existence of God is neither impossible nor improbable (even today, it raises curiosity when someone staunchly claims the opposite), it is not possible to affirm that the resurrection of Jesus is impossible or improbable from a strictly philosophical point of view.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It should also be noted that the debate is not focused on the probability of resurrection in and of itself, without any evidence, but rather on a <strong>series of historical facts<\/strong> that imply the hypothesis of resurrection as the <strong>best explanation<\/strong> (which is what we are doing in this dossier).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The renowned theologian <b>Michel R. Licona<\/b> argues that the resurrection can be investigated as a hypothesis even <strong>from a historical perspective<\/strong>, without crossing the boundaries between history and theology: <i>\u00abIf the Resurrection hypothesis <strong>is better<\/strong> at satisfying historical criteria than alternative hypotheses, the historian can affirm that Jesus rose from the dead, without being able to claim that God was the cause of Jesus&#8217; miraculous rebirth to life (although the historian may still suggest that the God hypothesis is the best candidate for the cause). Thus, one is free to suggest that there is not enough evidence to confirm that Jesus rose from the dead, or that there is <strong>a better hypothesis<\/strong> to explain his resurrection. But, in principle, there is no good reason why historians cannot investigate a claim of miracle\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"115\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-115\">115<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-115\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"115\"><b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, in <i>Ehrman-Licona Dialogue on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament<\/i>, <i>The Best Schools<\/i> 2016<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Clearly, the debate among philosophers and historians <strong>remains open<\/strong> on this topic. Let&#8217;s present a third position.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It was articulated by <b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, one of the leading contemporary biblical scholars and a professor of New Testament at the University of Notre Dame: <i>\u00abSuch questions, like whether miracles can happen, are legitimate in philosophical and theological contexts, but they are illegitimate or at least <strong>unsolvable<\/strong> within a historical investigation that aims to limit itself to empirical documentation and the rational deductions that can be drawn from that documentation\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"116\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-116\">116<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-116\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"116\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>A Marginal Jew<\/i>, vol. 2, Queriniana 2003, p. 600<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to Meier, it is wrong both to pursue an apologetic purpose in favor of miracles aprioristically and to <i>\u00abpursue a critical approach to history\u00bb<\/i> that is absolutely naturalistic, for which <i>\u00abmiracles cannot happen <strong>and therefore do not happen<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"117\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-117\">117<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-117\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"117\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>A Marginal Jew<\/i>, vol. 2, Queriniana 2003, p. 600, 601<\/span>. In fact, <i>\u00ab<strong>the judgment of an atheist<\/strong> is just as philosophical and theological as that of a believer, determined by a particular worldview and not a judgment simply, solely, and necessarily derived from the analysis of the documentation&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"118\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-118\">118<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-118\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"118\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>A Marginal Jew<\/i>, vol. 2, Queriniana 2003, p. 607<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">How far can a historian go? The answer given by <b>J.P. Meier<\/b> is not far from that of <b>Licona<\/b>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>&#8220;The historian can determine whether an extraordinary event took place in a religious context, whether someone claimed it was a miracle, and &#8211; assuming there is sufficient documentation &#8211; whether human initiative, physical forces of the universe, or error of perception, illusion, or fraud can explain the episode. If all these explanations are <strong>excluded<\/strong>, the historian can conclude that an event, which some claim to be a miracle, <strong>has no reasonable explanation<\/strong> or adequate cause in any human activity or physical force. To go beyond this judgment and affirm either that God directly acted to bring about this surprising event or that God did not, is to go <strong>beyond<\/strong> what any historian can assert in his or her capacity as a historian and to enter the realm of philosophy and theology&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"119\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-119\">119<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-119\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"119\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>Un ebreo marginale<\/i>, Queriniana 2008, Vol. 1, p. 608<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">These three scholars, whose positions are not necessarily incompatible with each other, nevertheless agree in maintaining that both in the philosophical and purely historical spheres, <strong>the possibility of the existence of miracles cannot be denied aprioristically<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another problem with the &#8220;anti-miracle&#8221; objection (already mentioned by Meier) is that it is extremely <strong>dogmatic<\/strong> and cannot be reconciled with an unbiased historical investigation. Naturalists <strong>a priori exclude<\/strong> the possibility of supernatural explanations as hypothetical options in the <em>pool<\/em> of various possibilities to be investigated, thus violating the standard research criteria that require <strong>not excluding any hypothesis a priori<\/strong>, regardless of how uncomfortable or unacceptable it may be for the subjective view of the researcher and the dominant cultural orientation in which they live.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Moreover, numerous <strong>philosophers<\/strong> in general have rejected the denial of the possibility of the existence of miracles, such as <strong>Rodney D. Holder<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"120\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-120\">120<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-120\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"120\"><b>R.D. Holder<\/b>, <i>Hume on Miracles: Bayesian Interpretation, Multiple Testimony, and the Existence of God<\/i>, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1998, Vol. 49, p. 60-62<\/span>, Director of the Faraday Institute in Cambridge; <strong>George N. Schlesinger<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"121\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-121\">121<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-121\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"121\"><b>G.N. Schlesinger<\/b>, <i>Miracles and Probabilities<\/i> 1987, Vol. 21, p. 219-232<\/span>, Philosophy Professor at the University of North Carolina; <strong>John Earman<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"122\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-122\">122<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-122\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"122\"><b>J. Earman<\/b>, <i>Bayes, Hume, and Miracles<\/i>, Faith and Philosophy 1993, Vol. 10, p. 293, 305-306<\/span>, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh; <strong>Richard Otte<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"123\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-123\">123<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-123\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"123\"><b>R. Otte<\/b>, <i>Schlesinger and Miracles<\/i>, Faith and Philosophy 1993, Vol. 10, p. 93, 97<\/span>, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Finally, it is worth noting that those who appeal to methodological naturalism usually invoke the ancient assertions of <strong>David Hume<\/strong> and <strong>Immanuel Kant<\/strong>. However, as explained by <strong>Thomas V. Morris<\/strong>, former professor at the University of Notre Dame, <i>\u00abin the references theologians make to Kant or Hume, most of the time we find these philosophers <strong>simply mentioned<\/strong>. Rarely, if ever, do we see an account of what arguments are supposed to have been used for the alleged demolition of miracles\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"124\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-124\">124<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-124\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"124\"><b>T.V. Morris<\/b>, <i>Philosophy and the Christian Faith<\/i>, University of Notre Dame Press 1988, p. 34<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Stephen T. Davis<\/b>, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College, while rejecting the resurrection for philosophical reasons (though he considers it <i>\u00abthe most plausible explanation\u00bb<\/i> historically)<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"125\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-125\">125<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-125\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"125\"><b>S.T. Davis<\/b>, <i>Faith and Philosophy<\/i>, Vol. 2, No.3, 06\/1985, p. 152, 153<\/span>, acknowledges that <i>\u00abit is generally recognized that Hume <strong>overstates his case<\/strong>. The possibility of miracles cannot be a priori excluded\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"126\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-126\">126<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-126\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"126\"><b>S.T. Davis<\/b>, <i>Faith and Philosophy<\/i>, Vol. 2, No.3, 06\/1985, p. 148<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Indeed, although it is well-known that the general rule is that the dead remain dead, this <strong>does not automatically exclude<\/strong> a specific case if there is compelling evidence in defense of such an exception.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">By the way, <strong>David Hume&#8217;s argument<\/strong> against miracles was already refuted in the 18th century by Gottfried Less and George Campbell, and numerous contemporary philosophers reject it as fallacious, including <strong>Richard Swinburne<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"127\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-127\">127<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-127\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"127\"><b>R. Swinburne<\/b>, <i>The Concept of Miracle<\/i>, Macmillan 1970<\/span>, <strong>John Earman<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"128\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-128\">128<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-128\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"128\"><b>J. Earman<\/b>, <i>Bayes, Hume, and Miracles<\/i>, Faith and Philosophy 1993<\/span>, <strong>George Mavrodes<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"129\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-129\">129<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-129\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"129\"><b>G. Mavrodes<\/b>, <i>Miracles and the Laws of Nature<\/i>, Faith and Philosophy 1985<\/span>, <strong>Antony Flew<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"130\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-130\">130<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-130\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"130\"><b>A. Flew<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Rise from the Dead<\/i>, Harper &amp; Row 1987<\/span>, and <strong>William Alston<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"131\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-131\">131<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-131\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"131\"><b>W. Alston<\/b>, <i>God&#8217;s Action in the World<\/i>, Cornell University Press 1989<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"scholars\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>6.2 <u><a href=\"#scholars\">Objection: Scholars are all Christians<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">An even more superficial objection often circulates on social media and the web in general: <strong>university professors<\/strong> and <strong>researchers<\/strong> specialized in Christian origins, biblical and New Testament studies, and Christian sources, are supposedly Christians themselves. Therefore, their conclusions would lack <strong>meaning<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Those who raise this opinion demonstrate a lack of understanding of the system of <strong>academic publication<\/strong>, which abhors the <strong>appeal to authority<\/strong> and is based on the objective and rational demonstration (or argumentation) of theses before the scientific community. The personal <strong>orientation<\/strong> of the individual counts for nothing in strictly scientific contexts (popularizations are another matter); authority in academic circles is solely based on the technical validity of the content and the general consensus of one&#8217;s theses among scholars.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, it is false that <strong>all<\/strong> historians of Christianity are Christians. <b>Gary Habermas<\/b>, author of an impressive review study of thousands of specialized publications from the last fifty years, has clarified that <i>\u00ab<strong>traditional Christians<\/strong> constitute only a small percentage of scholars\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"132\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-132\">132<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-132\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"132\"><b>G. Habermas<\/b>, <i>Experiences of the Risen Jesus. The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection<\/i>, Journal of Theology 2006, Vol. 45, p. 288-297<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Among the leading specialists in the study of early Christian sources, there are <strong>scholars of every belief<\/strong> (with various faith perspectives): progressives, Protestants, Jews, evangelicals, agnostics, Catholics, atheists, skeptics, nominal Christians, and hyper-traditionalists. And yet, <i>\u00abeven the <strong>majority<\/strong> of non-believing scholars\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"133\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-133\">133<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-133\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"133\"><b>G. Habermas<\/b>, <b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, <i>The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus<\/i>, Kregel Publications 2004, p. 149<\/span>, as Habermas reports (citing names, surnames, and works), accept a significant portion of the conclusions on the historicity of the Easter events, stopping somewhere before the supernatural hypothesis. Some of them are also mentioned <strong>in this dossier<\/strong> (Geza Vermes, Michael Goulder, Gerd L\u00fcdemann, John Dominic Crossan, B.D. Ehrman, Pieter F. Craffert, Dale Allison, etc.).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Moreover, if we consider <b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, an agnostic and professor of New Testament at the University of North Carolina, we have already highlighted his reluctance to mention that the ancient pre-Pauline source (dated to 2 years after the events) also includes the resurrection of Jesus. On another occasion, he wrote, <i>\u00abIn all the traditions that have come down to us, Cephas and James are always on the same side. They are two Jews who <strong>believe in the resurrection<\/strong> of Jesus and actively lead the ecclesial community in their city\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"134\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-134\">134<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-134\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"134\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 152<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A few pages earlier, he stated, <i>&#8220;Simon Peter and James are two great people to know if you want to know something about the <strong>historical Jesus<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"135\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-135\">135<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-135\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"135\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 145<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In this latter case, <b>Ehrman<\/b> recognized Peter and James as reliable sources for knowing the historical Jesus, emphasizing that Peter is the source of Paul when the latter speaks of the resurrection of Jesus. However, <strong>for personal reasons<\/strong>, he chooses to suspend judgment (or give a negative one) on the reality of the historicity of the resurrection. Until the discovery of the empty tomb, however, he agrees with the Christian scholars&#8217; theses.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a name=\"impossible\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#impossible\">7. <u>THE JEWS COULD NOT HAVE INVENTED THE RESURRECTION<\/a><\/u><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">One of the arguments considered to be &#8220;strong&#8221; and statistically most cited in favor of the historicity of Jesus&#8217; resurrection emerges from the study of <strong>Jewish thought<\/strong> in the 1st century.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For a 1st-century Jew, it would have been <strong>impossible to invent<\/strong> the resurrection of Jesus due to the Jewish background; they wouldn&#8217;t have even understood it. Neither they nor the people they addressed. Moreover, <strong>no one<\/strong> even expected that the long-awaited Messiah of Israel could be crucified and cursed by God on the cross, let alone resurrect corporally before the end of time.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Sometimes it is taken for granted that the concept of resurrection in the 1st century was as <strong>familiar<\/strong> as it is for us today, and it is forgotten that the early Christians were not Jerusalem rabbis, theologians, Old Testament exegetes, or Jewish authorities, but a small group of <strong>humble Jewish fishermen<\/strong>, tax collectors, and a few women from the small and poor villages of Galilee. They were probably even illiterate.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">No one would have invented something so <strong>unprecedented<\/strong> for Judaism and the Scriptures themselves as the resurrection of Jesus. And even if they could have come up with it, who would they have <strong>hoped to convince<\/strong>? As if that weren&#8217;t enough, as we have seen, they also added details to increase doubts (such as the central role of women).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abFor the Jews, that claim &#8211; at the heart of the Christian profession of faith &#8211; was <strong>absurd<\/strong>, <strong>offensive<\/strong>, and potentially <strong>blasphemous<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i>, wrote American scholar <b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>. <i>\u00abYet that&#8217;s precisely what a small group of Christians was saying about Jesus just before the year 32. It is almost impossible to explain such a claim in that place, at that time, among those people\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"136\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-136\">136<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-136\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"136\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 172<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Joachim Jeremias<\/strong>, professor of New Testament at the University of G\u00f6ttingen, extensively examined ancient Jewish literature and concluded: <i>\u00abIn ancient Judaism, there was no expectation of a resurrection as an event in history. Certainly, resurrections of the dead were known, but these were simply resuscitations for a return to earthly life. Nowhere in Jewish literature is there anything <strong>comparable<\/strong> to the resurrection of Jesus\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"137\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-137\">137<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-137\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"137\"><b>J. Jeremias<\/b>, <i>Die \u00e4lteste Schicht der Oster\u00fcberlieferungen<\/i>, in <i>Resurrexit<\/i>, Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1974, p. 194<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This was also confirmed by <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, a distinguished professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews and one of the leading experts in the Anglo-Saxon world. He is also the author of an extensive study on the thinking of the Jewish people in the 1st century:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abUnlike the Greeks and Romans, death was not seen by the Jews as liberation from the material world but as a tragedy. According to Jewish teaching, there would be a bodily resurrection of <strong>all the righteous<\/strong> at the moment when God would renew the entire world and remove all suffering and death. However, resurrection was only part of the complete renewal of the world, and the idea of an individual resurrected in the middle of history while the rest of the world continued to be burdened by disease, decay, and death was inconceivable. If someone had said to a first-century Jew, &#8220;He has been raised from the dead!&#8221; the response would have been, &#8220;<strong>Are you crazy?<\/strong> How can that be? Has disease and death disappeared? Has true justice been restored throughout the world? Has the wolf made peace with the lamb? Ridiculous!&#8221; The very idea of an individual resurrection would have been <strong>literally unimaginable<\/strong> to both a Jew and a Greek\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"138\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-138\">138<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-138\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"138\"><b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Jesus, the final days<\/i>, Westminster John Knox Press 2010, p. 99<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Jews, the Messiah would have defeated the enemies of Israel, rebuilt the temple, restored the throne of David, and fulfilled the Jewish prophecies. He would not have been shamefully executed as a <strong>&#8220;curse from God&#8221;<\/strong> by the Jewish court.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The ignominious execution of Jesus was a <strong>resounding denial<\/strong> in the eyes of the Jews that he was the expected Messiah of Israel. He was simply another failed pretender, not a novelty for those times (think of Simon Bar Giora). Usually, the followers only had <strong>two alternatives<\/strong>: either renounce or find a new Messiah.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Some Jewish groups, when their leader was killed, simply found <strong>a new Messiah<\/strong>, <i>\u00abperhaps his brother, cousin, nephew, or son&#8221;<\/i>, explained <b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, a professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College. <i>&#8220;The most authoritative leader in the early Church was <strong>James<\/strong>, the brother of the Lord. He was a highly respected figure among Christians and Jewish authorities, a man of prayer, an excellent teacher. Everyone knew he was one of Jesus&#8217; relatives, yet no one dreamed of saying that he was the Messiah. According to custom, they should have done so, but if they did not, there is a very good reason: they believed that Jesus was truly the Messiah, and <strong>the only valid reason<\/strong> to believe such a thing about someone who had been crucified was that he had truly risen from the dead\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"139\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-139\">139<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-139\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"139\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 102<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The very notion of considering the crucified Jesus <strong>as the Messiah<\/strong> was absurd. <i>\u00abJesus was so different from <strong>the expectations<\/strong> of all Jews regarding the Son of David that his own disciples found it almost impossible to apply the idea of the Messiah to him\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"140\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-140\">140<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-140\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"140\"><b>M. Burrows<\/b>, <i>More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls<\/i>, Viking Press 1958, p. 68<\/span>, wrote <strong>Millar Burrows<\/strong>, one of the leading authorities on the Dead Sea Scrolls and a professor emeritus at Yale Divinity School.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Similarly, <strong>Donald Juel<\/strong>, a professor of New Testament at Luther Seminary in Saint Paul and a member of the Society for the Study of the New Testament, emphasized that <i>\u00abthe idea of a crucified Messiah is not only <strong>unprecedented<\/strong> in Jewish tradition; it is so contrary to the entire biblical narrative of liberation through the line of David, so incongruent with the constellation of biblical texts, that terms like <strong>&#8216;scandal&#8217;<\/strong> and <strong>&#8216;folly&#8217;<\/strong> are the only appropriate responses. Irony is the only means of telling such a story because it turns out to be counterintuitive\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"141\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-141\">141<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-141\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"141\"><b>D.H. Juel<\/b>, <i>The Trial and Death of the Historical Jesus<\/i>, Word and World Luther Seminary 1997, p. 105<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even Paul acknowledged that the preaching of the expected Messiah as Jesus, crucified and resurrected, was <i>&#8220;a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles&#8221;<\/i> (1 Cor. 1:21-22). Not only the <strong>Jews<\/strong> but also the Gentiles completely rejected the idea of bodily resurrection. <i>\u00abAncient paganism encompasses all kinds of theories\u00bb<\/i>, declared <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>\u00abbut when resurrection is mentioned, the response is firmly negative: we know that it doesn&#8217;t happen\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"142\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-142\">142<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-142\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"142\"><b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Conference titled &#8220;James Gregory Lecture&#8221;<\/i>, University of Durham 2007<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On this matter, <strong>Ben Witherington III<\/strong>, a professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, was surprised by the language used by the early Christians: <i>\u00abWhy would a community that <strong>seeks to attract Gentiles<\/strong> construct a story of resurrection, emphasizing even a bodily resurrection of Jesus? This notion was not part of the regular pagan lexicon of the afterlife. In fact, as Acts 17 suggests, pagans were more likely to <strong>ridicule<\/strong> such an idea\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"143\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-143\">143<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-143\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"143\"><b>B. Witherington<\/b>, <i>New Testament History<\/i>, Baker Academic 2001, p. 165<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Historians know that that group of fishermen Jews could never have created or drawn from <strong>previous literature<\/strong>, whether pagan or Jewish, any inspiration for the resurrection of Jesus. As stated by <b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, a professor of New Testament and the director of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe death and resurrection of Jesus are <strong>a unique event<\/strong>; among the ancient deities of the Near East, there is nothing similar. Anyone who thinks that Jesus was shaped by patterning him after such deities must produce some kind of evidence \u2014of any kind\u2014 that the Palestinian Jews were influenced\u00bb<\/i> by those tales. In any case, <i>\u00abthe differences between Jesus and the gods of death and resurrection show that <strong>Jesus was not fashioned<\/strong> after them, even if there were people in his time who talked about those deities&#8230; The death and resurrection of Jesus should be considered a unique event. Moreover, death was seen as a substitute for the atonement of sins. Among the ancient deities of the Near East, there is <strong>nothing similar<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"144\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-144\">144<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-144\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"144\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 228, 234<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even <b>Mariano Herranz Marco<\/b>, professor of New Testament Exegesis and Semitic and Oriental Languages at the Madrid Seminary and a prominent figure in the Spanish exegetical school, observed that in Judaism, <i>\u00abthe resurrection from the dead was expected as an event that would take place <strong>at the end of time<\/strong>; resurrection from the dead and the end of the world were closely interconnected\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"145\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-145\">145<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-145\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"145\"><b>M.H. Marco<\/b>, <i>Los evangelios y la critica historica<\/i>, Ediciones Cristiandad 1978, p. 180-181<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In contrast, shortly after Jesus&#8217; death, the apostles began proclaiming something <strong>radically different<\/strong>: that <i>\u00abthe world continues as before, and yet these men proclaim that the resurrection from the dead has begun, that in the risen Jesus the end of the world and the new creation have already begun\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"146\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-146\">146<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-146\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"146\"><b>M.H. Marco<\/b>, <i>Los evangelios y la critica historica<\/i>, Ediciones Cristiandad 1978, p. 180-181<\/span>. In ancient literature, <i>\u00abwe do have accounts of resurrections from the dead, in which the deceased person returns to the life that death had interrupted, but the resurrection of Jesus proclaimed by the apostles is <strong>radically different<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"147\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-147\">147<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-147\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"147\"><b>M.H. Marco<\/b>, <i>Los evangelios y la critica historica<\/i>, Ediciones Cristiandad 1978, p. 180-181<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If the German biblical scholar <b>Ben Witherington III<\/b> believes that <i>&#8220;there are no valid reasons to think that these accounts of the appearances originated in the Old Testament, which <strong>hardly<\/strong> mentions the concept of resurrection from the dead&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"148\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-148\">148<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-148\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"148\"><b>B. Witherington<\/b>, <i>Una reposicion de la resurreccion<\/i>, in P. Copan, <i>Un sepulcro vacio<\/i>, Voz de Papel 2008, p. 294<\/span>, even the theologian (layperson) <strong>Gerd L\u00fcdemann<\/strong> acknowledges that <i>\u00abhistorical analysis leads to a <strong>sharp origin<\/strong> of the Easter faith of the disciples\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"149\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-149\">149<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-149\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"149\"><b>G. L\u00fcdemann<\/b>, <i>Zwischen Karfreitag und Ostern in Osterglaube ohne Auferstehung?<\/i>, Freiburg: Herder 1995, p. 27<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Some references to resurrection in the Old Testament have been identified by <strong>John Dominic Crossan<\/strong>, emeritus professor of religious studies at DePaul University, in <strong>Jewish exaltation<\/strong>: <i>\u00abWithin the Jewish tradition, there were certainly holy people who ascended to heaven rather than being consigned to an earthly tomb, for example, <strong>Enoch<\/strong> among the Patriarchs or <strong>Elijah<\/strong> among the prophets. The Greek-Roman equivalent was <strong>apotheosis<\/strong>: the Augustan coins showed the spirit of Julius Caesar ascending like a star upward, taking his place among the heavenly deities. Those were individual cases only, with no connection to the fate of all the others. If the disciples had meant this about Jesus, they would have used the specific terms of exaltation, ascension, apotheosis. Not resurrection\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"150\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-150\">150<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-150\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"150\"><b>J.D. Crossan<\/b>, <b>J.L. Reed<\/b>, <i>Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2001, p. 259-260<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">We unusually quote the words of an important mathematician, <b>John C. Lennox<\/b>, emeritus professor at the University of Oxford. After extensive research on this topic, he reported that <i>\u00abthe early Christians were not <strong>a group of gullible individuals<\/strong>, ignorant of the laws of nature and therefore ready to believe any miraculous story. The first opposition to the Christian message of the resurrection of Jesus Christ came not from atheists but from the high priest Sadducees of Judaism\u00bb<\/i>. These devout Jews, Lennox continued, <i>\u00abwhen they first heard the assertion that Jesus had risen, <strong>did not believe it<\/strong>. They had embraced a worldview that denied the possibility of the physical resurrection of anyone, let alone that of Jesus Christ\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"151\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-151\">151<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-151\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"151\"><b>J.C. Lennox<\/b>, <i>Fede e scienza<\/i>, Arsenia 2009, p. 249<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another confirmation comes from <strong>Ulrich Wilckens<\/strong>, an important New Testament scholar at the University of Berlin: <i>\u00abNowhere in the <strong>Hebrew texts<\/strong> do we find mention of the resurrection of an individual occurring before the final resurrection of the righteous; <strong>nowhere<\/strong> does the participation of the righteous in salvation depend on their belonging to the Messiah, who would have been resurrected prematurely as the &#8216;first fruits of those who have died&#8217; (1 Cor 15:20)\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"152\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-152\">152<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-152\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"152\">cited in W.L Craig, <i>Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ<\/i>, Truth 1985, Vol. 1, p. 89-95<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Jews, resurrection would have been <strong>spiritual<\/strong> and would have occurred <strong>after the end of the world<\/strong> and <strong>for all<\/strong> members of the people of Israel. God would have raised the righteous from death and received them into His Kingdom. On the contrary, the resurrection of Jesus proclaimed by His Jewish followers was physical, in history, and for a single person.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">One of Rudolf Bultmann&#8217;s students, <strong>Heinrich Schlier<\/strong>, a professor of New Testament at the University of Bonn, abandoned his teacher&#8217;s skeptical views to firmly adhere to the divinity of Christ. He wrote, <i>\u00abThe account given by the New Testament of the resurrection\u00bb<\/i>, he wrote, <i>\u00abhas no mythological character, and no valid parallel can be drawn from ancient religions and mythology. Furthermore, it is not presented as a miracle. Instead, it is described as a real event sui generis of unusual power and significance\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"153\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-153\">153<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-153\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"153\"><b>H. Schlier<\/b>, <i>Breve rendiconto. Il racconto autobiografico della conversione al cattolicesimo di uno dei pi\u00f9 grandi esegeti del XX secolo<\/i>, 30 giorni 1999, pp. 51, 52<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Someone objects that Jesus of Nazareth himself raised the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5:22-24), the son of the widow of Nain (Lk 7:11-15), and <strong>Lazarus<\/strong> (Jn 11:1-44) from the dead. So, it would not have been an unknown occurrence. <strong>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/strong>, a specialist in the New Testament, responded that the gospel account <i>\u00abclearly states that it is a return to temporal life, therefore subject to death\u00bb<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even Lazarus&#8217; sister Martha responded this way when Jesus announced the resurrection of her brother: <i>&#8220;I know that he will rise <strong>in the resurrection on the last day<\/strong>&#8220;<\/i> (Jn 11:24). She had no idea that her brother was about to be brought back to life at that moment. When Jesus announced to his disciples that he would rise from the dead, they thought he meant at the end of the world (cf. Mk 9:9-13). This is what the Jews believed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even <strong>J.P. Meier<\/strong>, a renowned American biblical scholar, emphasized the uniqueness of the phenomenon: <i>\u00abThe specific resurrection of Jesus is fundamentally different <strong>in content<\/strong>: it is not conceived in terms of a &#8216;return&#8217; to earthly life. In this regard, the Gospels agree with Paul: &#8216;Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him&#8217; (Rom 6:9-10) [&#8230;]. Furthermore, during his public ministry, Jesus himself was the agent who raised some from the dead. Instead, the New Testament attributes Jesus&#8217; resurrection to the action of God the Father\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"154\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-154\">154<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-154\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"154\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>Un ebreo marginale<\/i>, vol. 2, Queriniana 2003, p. 916<\/span>. And even the <strong>literary form<\/strong> is different: <i>\u00abSurprisingly, there is absolutely no account of Jesus&#8217; resurrection; the event is never narrated directly. In this respect, the canonical Gospels differ markedly in their <strong>sobriety<\/strong> from the later apocryphal Gospels\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"155\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-155\">155<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-155\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"155\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>Un ebreo marginale<\/i>, vol. 2, Queriniana 2003, p. 917<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Italian scholar <strong>Mauro Pesce<\/strong>, an anthropologist and professor of History of Christianity at the University of Bologna, also observed that <i>\u00abfrom a historical, religious, or anthropological point of view, it is clear that the seer <strong>&#8216;sees&#8217; only what<\/strong> his cultural schemas allow him to see\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"156\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-156\">156<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-156\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"156\"><b>C. Augias<\/b>, <b>M. Pesce<\/b>, <i>Inchiesta su Ges\u00f9<\/i>, Mondadori 2006, p. 58<\/span>. The <strong>Jewish cultural schemas<\/strong> of the disciples could not produce what they proclaimed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A century after the events, <strong>Tertullian<\/strong> wrote about the resurrection of Christ: <i>&#8220;I believe it because it is <strong>absurd<\/strong>&#8220;<\/i>. He employed a classical argumentative form of Aristotelianism, according to which the more improbable an event is, the less likely it is for anyone to believe it without strong evidence.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The philosopher of science <strong>David C. Lindberg<\/strong>, former president of the History of Science Society, explained in this regard that <i>\u00abin other words, the resurrection of the dead is such an <strong>improbable<\/strong> event that the apostles would not have believed in the resurrection of Christ unless they had encountered <strong>such undeniable evidence<\/strong> that, in this particular case, the improbable had occurred. This truth makes Christ&#8217;s Resurrection <strong>more probable<\/strong> than some other event whose reality has been accepted merely on the basis of general plausibility\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"157\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-157\">157<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-157\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"157\"><b>D.C. Lindberg<\/b>, <b>R.L. Numbers<\/b>, <i>Dio e natura. Saggi storici sul rapporto tra cristianesimo e scienza<\/i>, La Nuova Italia 1994, p. 14<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In line with this, <strong>N.T. Wright<\/strong>, professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, and <strong>C.A. Evans<\/strong>, professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, explained:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abAfter the execution of Jesus of Nazareth, no one would have ever claimed that <strong>he was the Messiah<\/strong> after two days, three days, three weeks, or even three years <strong>unless<\/strong> something extraordinary had happened: something that would convince them that God had redeemed him; something more significant than simply going to heaven in some state of glorious exaltation. This is what they believed happened to martyrs, and there were many different ways to speak of it. They would have almost certainly said that Jesus would rise from the dead in the future, <strong>but never<\/strong> that such a thing had already occurred\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"158\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-158\">158<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-158\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"158\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 102<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It is also worth quoting in full the words of the philosopher <strong>Wiliiam Lane Craig<\/strong>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abAmong the facts about Jesus generally accepted by historical scholars is the sudden and sincere conviction of the disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead despite <strong>their predisposition to the contrary<\/strong> and despite Jewish beliefs about the afterlife that <strong>precluded<\/strong> anyone from rising to glory and immortality prior to the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. Neither the story of the transfiguration nor the biblical story of the witch of Endor are accounts of resurrection from the dead. Since this is exactly what the earliest disciples came to believe, the question arises as to what could have induced them to believe something so <strong>un-Jewish<\/strong> and highly eccentric. Why not simply report that he appeared to them in glory, just like Elijah and Moses?\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"159\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-159\">159<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-159\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"159\"><b>W.L. Craig<\/b>, <i>Resurrections prior to the World\u2019s End?<\/i>, Reasonable Faith 12\/02\/2017<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">After the death of Jesus, the disciples were preparing to <strong>await the final day<\/strong> when all the righteous of Israel would be raised by God to glory. In the meantime, they would likely have carefully preserved the tomb of their Master as a sanctuary where his mortal remains could rest. <strong>No one had any idea<\/strong> or could remotely imagine that he would bodily rise again after three days.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"plagiarism\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>7.1 <u><a href=\"#plagiarism\">Objection: The Gospels copied from pagan gods of death and resurrection<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The activity of the so-called mythicists, the supporters of the <i>Christ myth<\/i>, in citing alleged <strong>parallels<\/strong> between Jesus and numerous pagan <strong>deities<\/strong> from Egypt, Greece, and Rome, is well-known.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">No mythicist is a professional historian; they are primarily writers, <strong>bloggers<\/strong>, spiritualists, militant atheists, and self-taught individuals. One of the most notable mythicists in recent decades was <strong>Dorothy Murdock<\/strong> (also known by the pseudonym <i>Acharya S<\/i>). Many of their books rely on the writings of a 19th-century spiritualist named <strong>Gerald Massey<\/strong>. The gap between mythicists and serious scholars is similar to that between biblical creationists and the scientific community.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The most cited <strong>deities of &#8220;death and resurrection&#8221;<\/strong> from the ancient Near East by mythicists are <strong>Horus<\/strong>, <strong>Mithras<\/strong>, Dionysus, <strong>Apollonius of Tyana<\/strong>, Krishna, and Choni. They are said to have been born on December 25 in a cave from a virgin mother, performed miracles, taught publicly, had twelve apostles, died by crucifixion, and rose from the dead. Each mythicist advocates their own parallelism between Jesus and a particular deity while criticizing the parallelism of another mythicist with a different deity.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">We will soon dedicate a dossier to each pagan deity used by mythicists as a source of inspiration for the story of Jesus. For now, let us mention a few <strong>serious scholars<\/strong> who have analyzed these alleged parallels.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For example, <b>Tryggve Mettinger<\/b>, professor of Hebrew Bible at Lund University (Sweden), wrote the following at the end of his monumental comparative study on pre-Christian deities and myths:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe <strong>deities of death and resurrection<\/strong> were closely tied to the seasonal cycle, and their death and return were seen as reflections of changes in plant life. The death and resurrection of Jesus, however, are <strong>a unique event<\/strong>, not repeated and not related to seasonal changes. The death of Jesus is presented in the sources as an atoning act for sins, while <strong>there is no evidence<\/strong> of this for dying and rising gods. There is, as far as I know, no evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus are a mythological construct drawing on the myths and rituals of dying and rising gods in the ancient world. Faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its <strong>unique character<\/strong> in the history of religions. The enigma remains\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"160\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-160\">160<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-160\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"160\"><b>T.N.D. Mettinger<\/b>, <i>The Riddle of Resurrection. Dying and Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East<\/i>, Wiksell International 2001, p. 220, 221<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">One of the prominent scholars who has recently addressed mythicists is <b>Bart D. Ehrman<\/b>, an agnostic scholar of the origins of Christianity and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. After responding to various parallels between Jesus of Nazareth and numerous pagan deities, he concluded:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abOne of the most recurring theses in mythicist literature is that Jesus was invented by the early Christians, who were deeply influenced by the prevalent concept of the <strong>death and resurrection<\/strong> god that was widespread in the pagan religions of the ancient world. Jesus would be the Jewish version. There are <strong>serious doubts<\/strong> about whether there were actually deities of death and resurrection in the pagan world, and if so, whether they had anything in common with the death and resurrection of Jesus. The once commonly held view that death and resurrection gods were widespread in the ancient pagan world has <strong>fallen out of favor<\/strong> among scholars [&#8230;]. One of the reasons why scholars do not believe that Jesus was shaped with the characteristics of one of those deities is also the lack of evidence to support the claim that any of his followers were aware of their existence at the time and place where Jesus would have been invented. The death and resurrection of Jesus are <strong>a unique event<\/strong>; there is nothing similar among the ancient deities of the Near East. Anyone who believes that Jesus was shaped by modeling those deities must provide some proof &#8211; of any kind &#8211; that Palestinian Jews were influenced. The differences between Jesus and the death and resurrection gods demonstrate that Jesus was <strong>not shaped<\/strong> with their characteristics, even in the case that there were people at his time who spoke of those deities\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"161\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-161\">161<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-161\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"161\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, pp. 225-235<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a name=\"apparitions\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#apparitions\">8. <u>HISTORICAL ATTESTATION OF THE APPARITIONS OF JESUS<\/a><\/u><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The substantially unanimous verdict of contemporary scholars of Christian origins, despite significant disagreements in other areas, is that it is <strong>historically reliable<\/strong> that the disciples of Jesus were absolutely <strong>convinced<\/strong> that Jesus was alive, resurrected from the dead, and appeared to them (this does not automatically mean asserting that he <i>actually<\/i> appeared to them, as it would not be directly demonstrable as a transcendent event).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even better, <i>\u00aball critical scholars agree that these convictions of the disciples are completely historical\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"162\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-162\">162<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-162\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"162\"><b>G. Habermas<\/b>, <i>Experiences of the Risen Jesus. The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection<\/i>, Journal of Theology 2006, Vol. 45. p. 288-297<\/span>, explained the American scholar <b>Gary Habermas<\/b>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">One of the clearest conclusions on this matter is from <b>E.P. Sanders<\/b>, renowned professor of New Testament at Duke University:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThat the followers of Jesus (and then Paul himself) had <strong>appearances of the Risen One<\/strong> is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know. I do not consider deliberate fraud a useful explanation. Many of the people who claimed this had nothing to gain and a great deal to lose. Moreover, a calculated deception should have produced great unanimity. Instead, there seem to have been <strong>competitors<\/strong>: &#8216;I saw him first!&#8217; &#8216;No! I did!&#8217; Paul&#8217;s tradition that 500 people saw Jesus at the same time has led some to suggest mass hysteria. But mass hysteria does not explain the other traditions [&#8230;]. After his death, his followers experienced what they described as the &#8216;resurrection&#8217;: the appearance of a living but transformed person after his death. They believed this, they lived it, and they <strong>died<\/strong> for it\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"163\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-163\">163<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-163\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"163\"><b>E.P. Sanders<\/b>, <i>The Historical Figure of Jesus<\/i>, Penguin Books, 1993, p. 279-280<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even the agnostic scholar <strong>Bart D. Ehrman<\/strong>, professor of New Testament at the University of North Carolina, has admitted:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abWhy did some of the disciples claim to have seen Jesus alive after his crucifixion? <strong>I don&#8217;t doubt<\/strong> at all that some disciples claimed this. We don&#8217;t have any of their written testimonies, but Paul, writing about twenty-five years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and <strong>I don&#8217;t think he&#8217;s making it up<\/strong>. And he knew at least a couple of them, whom he met just three years after the events (Gal. 1:18-19) [&#8230;]. So, for the historian, Christianity begins after the death of Jesus, not with the resurrection itself, but with the belief in the resurrection\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"164\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-164\">164<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-164\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"164\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings<\/i>, Oxford University Press 2004, p. 276, 282<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In another work, <b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b> (although opting as an agnostic for naturalistic rather than supernatural explanations) acknowledged: <i>\u00abWe can say with <strong>absolute certainty<\/strong> that some of his disciples maintained that they had seen Jesus raised from the dead\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"165\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-165\">165<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-165\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"165\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium<\/i>, Oxford University Press 1999, p. 230<\/span>. He then added: <i>\u00abHistorians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus&#8217; resurrection, since this is a matter of public record\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"166\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-166\">166<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-166\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"166\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium<\/i>, Oxford University Press 1999, p. 231<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Finally, in 2014, <b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b> concluded that personally, he believes that <i>\u00abit was the visions, and nothing else, that led the earliest disciples to believe in the resurrection\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"167\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-167\">167<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-167\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"167\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee<\/i>, Harper One 2014, p. 183-184<\/span>. At the same time as his book, a popular volume written by some of his direct colleagues<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"168\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-168\">168<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-168\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"168\"><b>M.F. Bird<\/b>, <b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>S. Gathercole<\/b>, <b>C.H. Hill<\/b>, <i>How God Bevened Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus&#8217; Divine Nature. A Response to Bart D. Ehrman<\/i>, Zondervan Academic 2014<\/span>, analyzed and <strong>countered<\/strong> point by point his conclusions.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The accounts of the apparitions satisfy some of the <strong>historical criteria<\/strong> used by scholars in analyzing the narratives, starting with the &#8220;criteria of <b>multiple attestation<\/b>&#8220;: the appearance to Peter is attested independently by Paul and Luke (1 Cor 15:5; Lk. 24:34); the appearance to the twelve by Paul, Luke, and John (1 Cor 15:5; Lk. 24:36-43; Jn. 20:19-20); the appearance to the disciples by Matthew and John (Mt. 28:9-10; Jn. 20:11-17); and the appearances to the disciples in Galilee by Mark, Matthew, and John (Mk 16:7; Mt. 28:16-17; Jn. 21).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Regarding the <strong>&#8220;criterion of embarrassment&#8221;<\/strong>, we have already mentioned that the first eyewitnesses were women, a category of people considered less credible at that time.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Historians cannot conclude that the origin of those testimonies was a truly <strong>supernatural<\/strong> manifestation of the risen Jesus. However, the academic community believes that something <strong>important<\/strong>, <strong>sudden<\/strong>, and <strong>completely unexpected<\/strong> happened to the disciples and transformed them. They had no doubt that they had seen the risen Jesus, even though they could not conceive an individual bodily resurrection <i>within<\/i> history (as we have seen).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As written by <strong>Luke Johnson<\/strong>, an important scholar of the New Testament and Christian origins at the Candler School of Theology, <i>\u00absome kind of <strong>powerful transformative experience<\/strong> is necessary to generate the kind of movement that was early Christianity and the kind of literature that is the New Testament\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"169\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-169\">169<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-169\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"169\"><b>L. Johnson<\/b>, <i>The Real Jesus<\/i>, Harper San Francisco 1996, p. 136<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Likewise, <strong>James Dunn<\/strong>, emeritus professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Durham, wrote: <i>\u00abToday it is almost <strong>impossible to dispute<\/strong> that some form of visionary experiences lies behind the historical origins of Christianity, that the early Christians did have visions of Jesus as risen from the dead\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"170\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-170\">170<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-170\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"170\">cited in M.R. Licona, <i>Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection<\/i>, Baker Pub Group 2006, p. 121<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Gary Habermas<\/strong>, Chair of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University, has done commendable work by collecting over <strong>2,000 contributions<\/strong> from leading scholars and historians of early Christianity (both believers and non-believers) on the attestations of the appearances of Jesus<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"171\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-171\">171<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-171\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"171\"><b>G. Habermas<\/b>, <i>Experiences of the Risen Jesus. The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection<\/i>, Journal of Theology 2006, Vol. 45, p. 288-297<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Here are some of the most significant ones:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Reginald H. Fuller<\/b>, Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria, refers to the disciples&#8217; faith in the resurrection of Jesus as <i>\u00abone of the most <strong>indisputable<\/strong> facts of history&#8221;<\/i>, convinced that the disciples had <strong>real experiences<\/strong> characterized as appearances or visions of the risen Jesus, <i>&#8220;regardless of whether these experiences can be explained in a <strong>natural or supernatural<\/strong> way\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"172\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-172\">172<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-172\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"172\"><b>R. Fuller<\/b>, <i>The Foundations of New Testament Christology<\/i>, Scribner&#8217;s 1965, p. 142<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In his important work, the eminent Lutheran theologian <strong>Wolfhart Pannenberg<\/strong> examined attempts to ground the New Testament Christology in the pre-Easter claims of Jesus, concluding that the only foundation for the Christology presented by the evangelists is the resurrection of Jesus. It also gives meaning to the mission to the Gentiles as an expression of Jewish eschatology. Finally, he concluded that the attestations of the appearances of the risen Jesus and the empty tomb <strong>arose independently<\/strong> and complement each other, considering the resurrection <i>\u00abhistorically very probable, and to be assumed until contrary evidence appears\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"173\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-173\">173<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-173\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"173\"><b>W. Pannenberg<\/b>, <i>Jesus. God and Man<\/i> Priebe 1968, p. 105<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">After transcribing the ancient pre-Pauline formula (1 Cor. 15:3-7), dating back to around 32 AD, <strong>Paul<\/strong> affirms that the resurrected Jesus appeared personally to him as well (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; also mentioned in Gal. 1:16). There is broad consensus among scholars that the former persecutor of Christians truly had a vision (real? Hallucinogenic?).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even <strong>Michael Martin<\/strong>, a (atheist) philosopher at Boston University, recognized this when he wrote: <i>\u00abWe have only a contemporary account of an eyewitness to a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus, namely that of Paul\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"174\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-174\">174<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-174\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"174\"><b>M. Martin<\/b>, <i>The Case Against Christianity<\/i>, Temple University 1991, p. 81<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Regardless of the nature of these appearances (natural, hallucinogenic, subjective projections, or supernatural), the fact that the disciples reported and were completely convinced that they had seen the risen Jesus <i>\u00abis something on which both the believer and the non-believer can agree\u00bb<\/i>, wrote <strong>Reginald H. Fuller<\/strong>, emeritus professor of New Testament at Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria, United States. <i>\u00abEven the most <strong>skeptical<\/strong> historian can propose an explanation different from the one given by the disciples themselves to account for their experiences, and, of course, both natural and supernatural options have been proposed\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"175\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-175\">175<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-175\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"175\"><b>R. Fuller<\/b>, <i>The Foundations of New Testament Christology<\/i>, Scribner&#8217;s 1965, pp. 142, 181<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The conviction that Jesus was <i>seen<\/i> alive after his crucifixion can be considered historically established. <strong>Helmut Koester<\/strong>, professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School, wrote that the appearances of Jesus <i>\u00abcannot be called into question in a convincing manner\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"176\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-176\">176<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-176\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"176\"><b>H. Koester<\/b>, <i>Introduction to the New Testament<\/i>, Fortress 1982, Vol. 2, p. 84<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even <strong>Traugott Holtz<\/strong>, a scholar of New Testament at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, confirmed that <i>\u00abthe resurrection experience of the disciples [&#8230;] is indeed an <strong>undeniable<\/strong> historical event\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"177\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-177\">177<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-177\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"177\"><b>T. Holtz<\/b>, <i>Kenntnis von Jesus und Kenntnis Jesu: Eine Skizze zum Verhaltnis zwischen historisch-philologischer Erkenntnis und historisch-theologischem Verstandnis<\/i>, Theologische Literaturzeitung 1979, Vol. 104, p. 10<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even the skeptical scholar <strong>Gerd Ludemann<\/strong>, professor of New Testament at the University of G\u00f6ttingen, acknowledged that <i>\u00abit can be considered <strong>historically certain<\/strong> that Peter and the disciples had experiences after the death of Jesus in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"178\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-178\">178<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-178\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"178\"><b>G. Ludemann<\/b>, <i>What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection<\/i>, Westminster John Knox 1995, p. 80<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Regarding the impossibility of dismissing the appearances as legendary, even <strong>Norman Perrin<\/strong>, a renowned scholar of the New Testament at the University of Chicago, wrote: <i>\u00abThe more we study the tradition concerning the appearances, the more <strong>solid<\/strong> the rock on which they stand appears\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"179\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-179\">179<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-179\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"179\">quoted in W.L. Craig, <i>Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ<\/i>, Truth 1985, Vol. 1, p. 89-95<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">An interesting comment comes from the Jewish scholar <strong>Paula Fredriksen<\/strong>, emeritus professor of Scripture at Boston University.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abI know that in their terms, what they saw was the resurrected Jesus. That&#8217;s what the disciples say. <strong>All the historical evidence<\/strong> we have afterwards attests to their conviction that this is what they saw. I&#8217;m not saying that they actually saw the resurrected Jesus. I wasn&#8217;t there; I don&#8217;t know what they saw. But as a historian, <strong>I know they must have seen something<\/strong>. The disciples&#8217; belief in seeing the risen Christ [&#8230;] has historical foundations, undoubtedly known facts of the early community after Jesus&#8217; death\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"180\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-180\">180<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-180\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"180\"><b>P. Fredriksen<\/b>, <i>Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews<\/i>, Vintage 2000<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In 2018, another scholar (secular), <strong>Giorgio Jossa<\/strong>, professor of History of Christianity and Ancient Church History at the University of Naples, took a position regarding the post-mortem appearances of Jesus, pushing <strong>to the limit permitted<\/strong> by historical objectivity: <i>\u00abFor the believer, Jesus is resurrected. The historian cannot affirm it. They can say: the disciples had <strong>an extraordinary experience<\/strong>; an event occurred that gave meaning to their mission\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"181\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-181\">181<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-181\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"181\"><b>G. Jossa<\/b>, <i>Voi chi dite che io sia? Storia di un profeta ebreo di nome Ges\u00f9<\/i>, Paideia 2018<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another argument presented by scholars in favor of the credibility of the accounts of the appearances is the conversion of the apostle James, described as <strong>skeptical<\/strong> of Jesus himself before his crucifixion (cf. Mk. 3:21, 31-35; Mk. 6:3; Jn. 7:5). Not long after, James becomes one of the leaders of the church in Jerusalem and is encountered by Paul of Tarsus during his two visits (Gal 1:18-19; Gal 2:1-10; Acts 15:13-21). He died a martyr because of his faith in Christ, as reported by the Jewish historian <strong>Flavius Josephus<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As we explained in the paragraph dedicated to the sudden changes that occurred, James&#8217; skepticism is <strong>historically founded<\/strong> and meets the historical criteria of multiple attestation, embarrassment, and coherence. How can we explain this conversion if not in accordance with what is mentioned in the ancient pre-Pauline declaration: <i>\u00ab&#8230;then he appeared to James\u00bb<\/i> (1 Cor 15:7)?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">After analyzing the major historical publications on Jesus, <strong>Gary Habermas<\/strong> wrote:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abNo critical scholar doubts that the disciples&#8217; convictions regarding the risen Jesus <strong>caused<\/strong> their <strong>radical transformation<\/strong>, leading them to be willing to die for them. Their sudden change does not in itself demonstrate the reality of the appearances of the risen Jesus, but it is a <strong>clear indication<\/strong> that the disciples genuinely believed they had experienced the risen Jesus\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"182\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-182\">182<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-182\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"182\"><b>G. Habermas<\/b>, <i>Experiences of the Risen Jesus. The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection<\/i>, Journal of Theology 2006, Vol. 45, p. 288-297<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Alternative explanations must <strong>account for<\/strong> this deeply rooted, sudden, and historically well-attested conviction.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"mark\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>8.1 <u><a href=\"#mark\">Objection: The evangelist Mark does not mention the appearances of Jesus<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This objection is true, as the Gospel of Mark (the oldest) <strong>does not mention<\/strong> the appearances of Jesus after his death and the discovery of the empty tomb. We have also highlighted this in the section dedicated to the contradictions among the evangelists.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Scholars are convinced that the <strong>authentic text<\/strong> of Mark concludes with verse 16:8, and the subsequent passages that mention the appearances of the risen Jesus are <strong>later additions<\/strong> (this indicates that specialists can accurately identify and separate the authentic text from later interpolations!).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">However, no one claims that Mark <strong>was unaware<\/strong> of the appearances. Instead, the common opinion is that the evangelist did not intend to end his account so <strong>abruptly<\/strong>, but was unable to complete it, possibly due to illness, imprisonment, or death. Another highly credited hypothesis is that the ending of Mark has been lost.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Commenting on the <strong>Jerusalem Bible<\/strong>, the Italian Bishops&#8217; Conference added <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/marco.png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">the following note<\/a><\/strong>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abBetween verse 8 and verse 9, there is a <strong>break in the narrative<\/strong>. Moreover, it is difficult to accept that the second Gospel in its initial composition abruptly ends at verse 8. Hence, the supposition that the original ending has <strong>disappeared<\/strong> due to an unknown cause, and the current ending was redacted to fill the gap. It presents itself as a summary of the appearances of the risen Christ, with a redaction that is significantly different from Mark&#8217;s usual concrete and picturesque style. Nevertheless, the current ending has been known since the second century, as attested by Tatian and Irenaeus, and it has found its place in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts and translations of the early centuries. While it cannot be proven that Mark was the author, it remains, according to the words of Henry Barclay Swete, an authentic relic <strong>of the early Christian community<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In his well-known study, <strong>N. Clayton Croy<\/strong>, a professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary, even argued that <strong>the beginning<\/strong>, as well as the ending, has been lost from the original Gospel of Mark<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"183\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-183\">183<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-183\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"183\"><b>N.C. Croy<\/b>, <i>The Mutilation of Mark&#8217;s Gospel<\/i>, Abingdon 2003<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Michael R. Licona<\/strong>, a theology professor at Houston Baptist University, has observed<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"184\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-184\">184<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-184\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"184\"><b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, in <i>Ehrman\u2013Licona Dialogue on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament<\/i>, <i>The Best Schools<\/i> 2016<\/span> that in the text certainly attributable to the evangelist Mark, there is a <strong>hint<\/strong> at what will be the subsequent appearances of Jesus. Specifically, when the risen Jesus, in the form of a young man, announces to the women who came to the tomb about the resurrection and invites them to go and tell the disciples, saying, &#8220;<i>There you will see him, just as he told you<\/i>&#8221; (Mark 16:7).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even though Mark does not mention the appearances, abruptly interrupting the narrative for some reason, the <strong>pre-Pauline source<\/strong> (1 Corinthians 15:3-7) that predates Mark already reports them within 2 years of the events.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For this reason, the American scholar <strong>Michael R. Licona<\/strong> concluded:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe traditions of the appearances appear very early <strong>in the letters of Paul<\/strong>, and they can be traced back to the disciples of Jesus with a good degree of certainty. Paul probably wrote before Mark, and if the Acts of the Apostles are reliable (see chapters 12 and 15)\u00bb<\/i>, and most scholars consider them reliable<b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, <i>What are the Primary Sources for Jesus\u2019 Resurrection?<\/i>, HBU 03\/06\/2016, <i>\u00abMark knew Paul and traveled with him on one of his missionary journeys. It is therefore very likely that he was familiar enough with the traditions that Paul mentions. So, <strong>why doesn&#8217;t Mark mention them<\/strong>? It is difficult to provide an answer, although I suspect that the ending of his gospel has been lost. We cannot know for sure. But to claim that Mark was unaware of the appearances is entirely <strong>speculative<\/strong> and, in my opinion, a mistaken idea\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"185\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-185\">185<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-185\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"185\"><b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, in <i>Ehrman\u2013Licona Dialogue on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament<\/i>, <i>The Best Schools<\/i> 2016.<br \/><br \/><\/blockquote>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p><a name=\"hallucinations\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>8.1 <u><a href=\"#hallucinations\">Objection: The disciples had hallucinations<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If contemporary historians consider the accounts of Jesus&#8217; appearances to be <strong>historically reliable<\/strong>, meaning that the group of Jesus&#8217; followers actually proclaimed his resurrection starting from 30 AD, what was the <strong>nature<\/strong> of these appearances?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Many scholars say, &#8220;Yes, it is true that the disciples&#8217; accounts of Jesus&#8217; appearances are authentically historical, but this does not mean that they <em>actually<\/em> had supernatural visions,&#8221; despite their conviction to the contrary. The hypotheses put forward by skeptical scholars, <i>\u00abwhose attempts reached their peak in the nineteenth century\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"186\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-186\">186<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-186\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"186\"><b>G. Habermas<\/b>, <i>Experiences of the Risen Jesus. The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection<\/i>, Journal of Theology 2006, Vol. 45. p. 288-297<\/span>, revolve around a series of <strong>naturalistic theories<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">First, they accept the undeniable historicity of the accounts of Jesus&#8217; appearances, and then they turn in a <strong>naturalistic direction<\/strong> to explain their nature, as an alternative to resurrection<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"187\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-187\">187<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-187\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"187\"><b>H.C. Kee<\/b>, <i>What Can We Know about Jesus?<\/i>, Cambridge University Press 1990, p. 1-2<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The most cited naturalistic hypothesis is that of <strong>hallucinations<\/strong> (individual or group) experienced by the disciples. This was a popular theory in the nineteenth century but gradually declined in the first half of the twentieth century. Today, it is a minority view in academic circles.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The most well-known contemporary scholars openly advocating the naturalistic explanation are <strong>Gerd Ludemann<\/strong><b>G, Ludemann<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus<\/i>, Fortress 1994, <strong>Michael Goulder<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"188\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-188\">188<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-188\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"188\"><b>M. Goulder<\/b>, <i>The Baseless Fabric of a Vision<\/i>, in G. D\u2019Costa, <i>Resurrection Reconsidered<\/i>, Oneworld 1996, p. 48<\/span> e <strong>Jack Kent<\/strong><b>J. Kent<\/b>, <i>The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth<\/i>, Open Gate Press 1999. More agnostically, <strong>Bart D. Ehrman<\/strong> has not taken a definitive position, generally asserting the improbability of miracles<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"189\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-189\">189<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-189\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"189\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, in <i>Ehrman\u2013Licona Dialogue on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament<\/i>, <i>The Best Schools<\/i> 2016<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The non-believing theologian <strong>Gerd Ludemann<\/strong>, while not doubting the historicity of the accounts of the appearances, believes that it all began with the apostle Peter, who, <strong>consumed by guilt<\/strong> over his denial of Jesus, found psychological relief by projecting a vision of Jesus, believing him to have risen from the dead and asking for forgiveness<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"190\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-190\">190<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-190\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"190\"><b>G. Ludemann<\/b>, <i>Die Auferstehung Jesu<\/i>, in A. Bommarius, <i>Fand die Auferstehung wirklich statt?<\/i>, Parega Verlag 1995, p. 25<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Peter&#8217;s experience would then <strong>spread<\/strong> to all the other disciples, who, although not sharing his trauma, also had hallucinations of the risen Lord. Only when the Jewish authorities opposed them and asked where Jesus&#8217; body was, <i>\u00abit would immediately be reported that the women had found the <strong>empty tomb<\/strong> and later that Jesus had appeared to them as well\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"191\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-191\">191<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-191\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"191\"><b>G. Ludemann<\/b>, <i>Die Auferstehung Jesu<\/i>, in A. Bommarius, <i>Fand die Auferstehung wirklich statt?<\/i>, Parega Verlag 1995, p. 174, 175<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Meanwhile, even <strong>Paul of Tarsus<\/strong> would have struggled internally with remorse for persecuting Christians, which generated in him a secret <strong>attraction<\/strong> to the Christian message. According to L\u00fcdemann, <i>\u00abif one had been able to visit Paul before his appearance near Damascus, the analyst would probably have detected a strong <strong>inclination<\/strong> towards Christ in his subconscious; in fact, the assumption that he was unconsciously Christian is not so implausible\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"192\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-192\">192<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-192\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"192\"><b>G. Ludemann<\/b>, <i>Die Auferstehung Jesu<\/i>, in A. Bommarius, <i>Fand die Auferstehung wirklich statt?<\/i>, Parega Verlag 1995, p. 26<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On the <strong>road to Damascus<\/strong>, the repressed struggle would have exploded into <strong>a hallucination of Jesus<\/strong>, leading him to convert to the faith he once persecuted. <i>\u00abThe <strong>guilt complex<\/strong> that arose from the persecution was resolved through the certainty of being in Christ\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"193\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-193\">193<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-193\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"193\"><b>G. Ludemann<\/b>, <i>Die Auferstehung Jesu<\/i>, in A. Bommarius, <i>Fand die Auferstehung wirklich statt?<\/i>, Parega Verlag 1995, p. 26, 27<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It is important to underline the <strong>courage<\/strong> and <strong>determination<\/strong> of Gerd Ludemann in proudly supporting such theories alone. This reconstruction was already in vogue in the 1920s with Emmanuel Hirsch, <strong>Klaus Berger<\/strong> has commented on Ludemann&#8217;s work, arguing that it contains almost exclusively old theories resurrected and reheated, the same ones that dominated the <strong>Bultmann school<\/strong> for over 50 years<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"194\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-194\">194<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-194\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"194\"><b>K. Berger<\/b>, <i>Ostern f\u00e4llt nicht aus! Zum Streit um das &#8216;kritischste Buch \u00fcber die Auferstehung&#8217;<\/i>, Idea Spektrum 1994, p. 21<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Analyzing this objection, it can be observed that it does not satisfy the criteria used by historians to assess the credibility of a hypothesis. It lacks sufficient <strong><i>explanatory power<\/i><\/strong>, as it obliges one to <strong>multiply<\/strong> the formulation of other hypotheses, seeking an uncritical connection between them to justify the initial assumption of Peter&#8217;s hallucination. A theory is all the more <strong>artificial<\/strong> in proportion to the number of additional hypotheses it requires to adopt. Furthermore, it offers no explanation for the discovery of the empty tomb.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The hypothesis does not even satisfy the criterion of <strong><i>plausibility<\/i><\/strong>. Despite the lack of sufficient data, Ludemann improvises as a psychoanalyst (but historians reject the writing of psycho-biographies!) and theorizes about Peter and Paul&#8217;s alleged guilt complex. While Paul only provides a few autobiographical passages in his letters, information about Peter&#8217;s psyche is, according to Ludemann himself, <i>&#8220;incomparably worse&#8221;<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">These are therefore imaginative conjectures about their psyche, also criticized by the historian of early Christianity, <strong>Martin Hengel<\/strong>: <i>\u00abLudemann [&#8230;] does not recognize the limits of the historian\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"195\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-195\">195<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-195\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"195\"><b>M. Hengel<\/b>, <b>A.M. Schwemer<\/b>, <i>Paul between Damascus and Antioch<\/i>, John Knox Press 1997, p. 342<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another limitation of the guilt complex thesis is that, according to the texts, Peter did not feel that he had disappointed the Lord but rather <strong>that he had been disappointed<\/strong> by Him! Ludemann struggles to enter into the mindset of a first-century Jew who witnessed the messianic claim of his leader fail, ignobly dying on the cross and therefore being cursed by God.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As Hans Grass, a theologian at the University of Marburg, wrote, <i>\u00abone of the major weaknesses of the hypothesis of <strong>subjective vision<\/strong> in hallucinations is that it fails to take seriously what a <strong>catastrophe<\/strong> the crucifixion was for the disciples&#8217; faith in Jesus\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"196\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-196\">196<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-196\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"196\"><b>H. Grasse<\/b>, <i>Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte<\/i>, Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht 1970, p. 233-243<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Peter was not struggling with his own guilt but with the disappointed messianic expectations, and, as already mentioned, there was <strong>no belief<\/strong> among Jews of the 1st century in a bodily resurrection after death, neither regarding the Messiah nor regarding an individual.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Regarding Ludemann&#8217;s claim about the &#8220;unconscious Christian devotion&#8221; of <strong>Paul of Tarsus<\/strong> (a classic Freudian reference), he perceives it in Romans 7:7-25. However, this interpretation has been <strong>rejected<\/strong> by all contemporary Pauline scholars and the German theologian himself has had to admit that his thesis is <i>\u00abalmost universally rejected\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"197\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-197\">197<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-197\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"197\"><b>G. Ludemann<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus<\/i>, Fortress Press 1994, p. 80<\/span>. Furthermore, Ludemann completely overlooks the testimony of Paul himself when he states that he had <strong>no remorse<\/strong> when he was a zealous persecutor of Christians (<i>&#8220;to me it was a gain&#8221;<\/i>, Philippians 3:4-14).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Christopher Bryan<\/strong>, Professor of New Testament at the University of the South in Sewanee, wrote:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abEven if one were to grant that the visions described by Ludemann were common in antiquity (and, in a sense, the more common they were, the stronger this objection becomes), <strong>neither then nor now<\/strong> are they normally considered evidence of resurrection. On the contrary, they are considered at worst hallucinations and at best authentic communications of comfort from the dead. But in no case are they considered or were they considered statements that the dead person had been raised from the dead\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"198\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-198\">198<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-198\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"198\"><b>C. Bryan<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of the Messiah<\/i>, Oxford University Press 2011, p. 163-164<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even <strong>Raymond Edward Brown<\/strong>, Professor Emeritus at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, refers to these hypotheses as <i>\u00abbaseless accusations\u00bb<\/i> and highlights their superficiality<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"199\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-199\">199<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-199\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"199\"><b>R.E. Brown<\/b>, <i>An Introduction to New Testament Christology<\/i>, Paulist, 1994, p. 163<\/span>, while <strong>James Dunn<\/strong>, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at the University of Durham, argues that these <i>\u00abalternative interpretations do not provide a more satisfactory explanation\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"200\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-200\">200<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-200\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"200\"><b>J.D.G. Dunn<\/b>, <i>The Evidence for Jesus<\/i>, Westminster 1985, p. 76<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another argument against the hallucination objection is to refer to what the <strong>scientific literature<\/strong> says on the matter. Hallucinations are associated with mental illnesses or drugs, but in the case of the disciples, there seems to be a lack of prior psychobiological <strong>predisposition<\/strong>. Furthermore, being <strong>projections of one&#8217;s own mind<\/strong>, hallucinations cannot contain anything that is not already known in some way. And, as mentioned before, the resurrection of Jesus <strong>completely differed<\/strong> from the Jewish disciples&#8217; understanding.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Considering their Jewish background, they could have psychologically projected a glorified Jesus <strong>&#8220;in the bosom of Abraham&#8221;<\/strong>, the place where, according to the Old Testament, the righteous of Israel would rest until their final eschatological resurrection. But none of them reported such visions. The inference \u00abhe has risen from the dead,&#8221; which sounds natural to our ears, would have been completely <strong>unnatural<\/strong> for a first-century Jew. Let alone being the object of a hallucination. <i>&#8220;It is not necessary to demonstrate that this faith and mentality were not the appropriate predisposition for the proclamation made by the apostles\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"201\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-201\">201<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-201\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"201\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 292<\/span>, explained <strong>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The biblical scholar <b>Ben Witherington III<\/b> has also addressed the objection of hallucinations:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe theories that the apostles had <strong>hallucinations<\/strong> or visions present certain misleading aspects. Firstly, in all the accounts, the disciples doubted, abandoned, and eventually denied Jesus, except probably for some of his followers. It is hard to believe that they were in <strong>psychological conditions<\/strong> that would create fantasies about a risen Jesus. Their hopes had vanished in less than three days due to his crucifixion. Secondly, there is no need to allude to a mass hallucination since all the traditions at our disposal indicate that Jesus appeared at different times and places, the last being Paul. I know <strong>no valid evidence<\/strong> that suggests contagious hallucinations\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"202\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-202\">202<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-202\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"202\"><b>B. Witherington<\/b>, <i>Una reposicion de la resurreccion<\/i>, in P. Copan, <i>Un sepulcro vacio<\/i>, Voz de Papel 2008, p. 181<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the <b><a href=\"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/habermasbergeron.png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">study<\/a><\/b> conducted by <strong>J.W. Bergeron<\/strong> and <strong>G.R. Habermas<\/strong>, assisted by psychologists and psychiatrists <strong>C.J. Dietzen<\/strong>, <strong>S.L. Marlow<\/strong>, and <strong>G.A. Sibcy<\/strong>, the &#8220;psychiatric hypothesis&#8221; as an explanation for the appearances of Jesus was directly refuted.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">By studying the behavioral traits emerging from the Gospel texts, the authors <strong>disproved<\/strong> the hypotheses of hallucinations, conversion disorder, and grief-related visions. These theses, the researchers wrote, are supported <i>\u00abmainly by people who do not have medical expertise. Consequently, the analysis of possible psychological causes for these hallucinatory symptoms is generally <strong>flawed<\/strong> and often absent. From a comprehensive search of Pubmed for medical literature from 1918 to 2012 on this topic, there are no scientific articles on hypotheses that would support hallucinatory symptoms regarding the appearances\u00bb<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The scientific literature <i>\u00abcannot explain the <strong>simultaneous group encounters<\/strong> of the disciples with the risen Jesus\u00bb<\/i>, wrote <strong>Gary A. Sibcy<\/strong>, psychiatrist at the Piedmont Psychiatric Center. <i>\u00abI have examined professional literature (journal articles and peer-reviewed books) written by psychologists, psychiatrists, and other healthcare professionals over the past two decades and have <strong>not found<\/strong> a single documented case of a group hallucination.&#8221;<\/i> Lastly, the investigation also rejected the etiology of pain and <strong>grief<\/strong>, which would be incompatible, among other things, with <i>&#8220;launching a widespread public campaign proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus based on such grief illusions\u00bb<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The authors of the study <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/habermasbergeron.png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">concluded<\/a><\/strong>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe disciples were certain that Jesus had risen after his death by crucifixion. Their experiences were personal and had a clear effect on their psyche; however, these experiences of the risen Jesus cannot be reduced to <strong>purely psychological phenomena<\/strong>. The hallucinatory hypotheses for the biblical account of Jesus&#8217; resurrection are <strong>inconsistent<\/strong> with the various neuro-psychiatric pathologies underlying hallucinatory symptoms. Furthermore, it is <strong>incompatible<\/strong> with the current psychiatric understanding that personal hallucinations can be experienced identically within a group. The psychiatric hypotheses do not provide acceptable explanations for the individual or simultaneous group encounters of the disciples with the risen Jesus. Therefore, we must conclude that attempting to explain the disciples&#8217; relationships with the risen Jesus is a <strong>clinically implausible<\/strong> and historically unconvincing action\u00bb<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The nature of the appearances was so varied that it cannot be explained by a <strong>single<\/strong> natural cause. <i>\u00abThe Pauline tradition, according to which 500 people saw Jesus simultaneously, has led some to suggest <strong>mass hysteria<\/strong><\/i> commented <strong>E.P. Sanders<\/strong>, renowned New Testament professor at Duke University. <i>\u00abBut mass hysteria does not explain the other traditions\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"203\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-203\">203<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-203\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"203\"><b>E.P. Sanders<\/b>, <em>The Historical Figure of Jesus<\/em>, Penguin Books, 1993, p. 279-280<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The scholar and Jewish rabbi <b>Pinchas Lapide<\/b> strongly doubted the natural hypotheses, writing: <i>\u00abIf that terrified band of apostles could suddenly change overnight into a missionary enterprise full of confidence&#8230; then <strong>no vision or hallucination<\/strong> is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"204\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-204\">204<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-204\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"204\"><b>P. Lapide<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective<\/i>, Fortress Press 1988, p. 125<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, and <b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, professor of New Testament at the Acadia Divinity College, have reflected on this objection:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abSuppose, hypothetically, that the disciples saw &#8211; or thought they saw &#8211; someone whom they mistook for Jesus. That in itself <strong>would not have given rise to the stories<\/strong> we possess today: in the ancient world, everyone took it for granted that strange experiences of encountering the dead could occur; they knew at least as much as we do about visions, ghosts, and dreams; they also knew that when someone mourns a recently deceased person, they can sometimes quickly catch sight of an apparition resembling the departed individual. This is by no means a modern discovery: ancient literature is full of it. There was a specific language for this category of phenomena, and it <strong>did not mention &#8216;resurrection&#8217;<\/strong>: rather, it described these situations as a type of angelic experience (cf. Acts 12). Without an empty tomb, people would have been ready to say that it was his &#8216;angel.&#8217; And yet they did not: on the contrary, they said that he had risen from the dead &#8211; he was not dead anymore, but alive\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"205\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-205\">205<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-205\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"205\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 109, 110<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><a name=\"visions\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>8.3 <u><a href=\"#visions\">Objection: It was the religious fervor of the disciples that produced the visions<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The main work of responding to the naturalistic objections put forth by skeptical scholars of the 19th century was carried out <strong>by other skeptical scholars<\/strong>, as each proponent of naturalistic theories criticized the &#8220;alternative&#8221; theories of others.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThere is a different naturalistic explanation for every skeptic who seeks to explain the origins of Christianity\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"206\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-206\">206<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-206\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"206\"><b>D.B. Wallace<\/b>, <i>Fact Checking Dan Barker: From our Recent Debate on June 6, 2015<\/i>, www.danielbwallace.com, 01\/08\/2015<\/span>, ironically commented <b>D.B. Wallace<\/b>, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Several skeptical scholars reject the explanation of Christ&#8217;s resurrection and also the hallucinatory thesis, stating that the appearances of the risen Jesus were rather <strong>subjective projections<\/strong> of the subconscious mind, arising from the unwavering faith and desire of the disciples to refuse to believe that everything ended with the death of their Master.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This is the famous view advocated by the French historian <strong>Charles Guignebert<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"207\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-207\">207<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-207\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"207\"><b>G. Guignebert<\/b>, <i>J\u00e9sus<\/i>, Paris 1933<\/span> and, before him, by <strong>Ernest Renan<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"208\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-208\">208<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-208\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"208\"><b>E. Renan<\/b>, <i>Vie de J\u00e9sus<\/i>, Feltrinelli 1989<\/span> in the mid-18th century, convinced of the <strong>self-suggestion<\/strong> of the disciples caused by affection and mythologization. Did faith give rise to the appearances, or did the appearances give rise to the disciples&#8217; faith in Christ?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even in this case, very few true specialists in the study of Christian origins support such hypotheses. On the other hand, the primary Christian sources depict the disciples, immediately after Jesus&#8217; death, in a state <strong>completely opposite<\/strong> to people convinced of his victory over death.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/b>, a professor of New Testament at the Complutense University of Madrid, wrote: <i>\u00abThe Gospel accounts describe the disciples as overwhelmed and <strong>dejected<\/strong> due to Jesus&#8217; condemnation and death; full of fear, they lock themselves in the upper room where they celebrated the Last Supper. It is the appearances of Jesus that <strong>gave birth to the faith<\/strong> in his followers\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"209\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-209\">209<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-209\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"209\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 291<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even the eminent German biblical scholar <strong>Gerhard Lohfink<\/strong>, a professor of New Testament at the University of T\u00fcbingen, observed:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abAll these reconstructions agree in stating that faith wells up in the souls of the disciples, and faith produces the visions. But, on the contrary, the New Testament says just the <strong>opposite<\/strong>: only the appearances of the Risen One gave birth to faith in the resurrection. It is inconceivable that a serious historian could distort such a clear statement from the sources\u2014especially the personal testimony of St. Paul\u2014to read the exact opposite into it\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"210\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-210\">210<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-210\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"210\"><b>G. Lohfink<\/b>, <i>Die Auferstehung Jesu und die historische Kritik<\/i>, BibLeb 1968, p. 49<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Furthermore, how can one explain through the projection of faith the conversion and the appearance experienced by <strong>Paul of Tarsus<\/strong>, a notorious <strong>persecutor<\/strong> of the early Christian community? What predisposition to &#8220;faith-generated visions&#8221; did he have? Trained in the school of Rabbi Gamaliel, he detested Jesus and the Christians as public blasphemers, yet he inexplicably converted and suddenly stopped fighting them, sacrificing everything, enduring persecutions, tirelessly preaching the Gospel from city to city until he reached Rome, where he was imprisoned and <strong>died as a martyr<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Italian television commentator <strong>Corrado Augias<\/strong>, citing the thoughts of Viennese theologian Adolf Holl, even went so far as to argue that the <i>\u00abmost extreme and least institutional form of <strong>religious fervor<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i> would manifest in very vivid and collective visions. Thus, the disciples would have convinced and exalted each other, <i>\u00absometimes <strong>aided by herbs or fumes<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i>, and <i>\u00abthey would materialize a figure, human or supernatural, effectively managing to see it among themselves. It could be an explanation\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"211\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-211\">211<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-211\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"211\"><b>C. Augias<\/b>, <b>M. Pesce<\/b>, <i>Inchiesta su Ges\u00f9<\/i>, Mondadori 2006, p. 57<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The level of argumentation significantly diminishes. We will just emphasize that there is no evidence in scientific literature that <strong>&#8220;religious fervor&#8221;<\/strong> would produce supernatural visions, both because\u2014once again\u2014these were claimed by individuals who were <strong>skeptical<\/strong> of Jesus&#8217; divinity (James), <strong>antagonistic<\/strong> toward Christians (Paul), and generally devout Jews who were in no way predisposed to seeing the risen Jesus in that manner due to their <strong>Jewish background<\/strong> (all the disciples).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Italian scholar <strong>Mauro Pesce<\/strong>, an anthropologist and professor of History of Christianity at the University of Bologna, usually a proponent of controversial theses, in this case, merely admitted: <i>\u00abIt has been hypothesized that the appearance to Mary Magdalene may have occurred as a result of a crisis or unbearable pain. There are <strong>no elements<\/strong> to support this hypothesis\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"212\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-212\">212<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-212\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"212\"><b>C. Augias<\/b>, <b>M. Pesce<\/b>, <i>Inchiesta su Ges\u00f9<\/i>, Mondadori 2006, p. 58<\/span>. And further: <i>\u00abFrom a historical, religious, or anthropological point of view, it is clear that the seer <strong>&#8220;sees&#8221; only what<\/strong> his cultural patterns allow him to see\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"213\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-213\">213<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-213\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"213\"><b>C. Augias<\/b>, <b>M. Pesce<\/b>, <i>Inchiesta su Ges\u00f9<\/i>, Mondadori 2006, p. 58<\/span>. It is indeed correct that the <strong>Jewish cultural patterns<\/strong> of the disciples could not have produced visions of Jesus, inconceivably (for them and for all their contemporaries) risen from the dead.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In a 2020 <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/lohfink.png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">interview<\/a><\/strong>, scholar <strong>Gerhard Lohfink<\/strong>, a professor at the University of T\u00fcbingen, responded to the objection of subjective visions by fully accepting the challenge:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abAre there psychogenic elements in the Easter appearances? In other words, is it believed that in the souls, deep in the souls of the disciples, images and words arose that showed them Jesus as the Risen One. <strong>I could not exclude it at all!<\/strong> Theologians say that when God acts, He always acts through &#8220;secondary causes,&#8221; that is, through creation, the forces, and structures of the world. It could then be presumed that He revealed the risen Jesus through the inner powers of the souls of the Easter witnesses without violating the laws of creation. <strong>I have no problem<\/strong> considering the inner processes of the soul in the Easter experiences of the disciples. What is decisive is that God Himself acts through these processes in the soul and reveals the Risen One\u00bb<\/i>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Two other international authorities on the origins of Christianity, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, a professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, and <b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, a professor of New Testament at the Acadia Divinity College, concluded:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe disciples would have been so disturbed by the catastrophic defeat and death of Jesus that they ended up longing for the resurrection as a way to <strong>cope with their bitterness<\/strong>. The hypothesis is not at all plausible as a historical account of something that happened in the 1st century. We are aware of several other movements whose leader\u2014on whom everyone had placed their hopes\u2014had been killed: in no case did such movements suffer from that blessed 20th-century ailment called <strong>&#8220;cognitive dissonance&#8221;<\/strong>, which would have led them to proclaim stories about something glorious solely to come to terms with their affliction. That is not how history is made\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"214\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-214\">214<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-214\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"214\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 111<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The two specialists refer to liberal theologians such as <strong>Rudolf Bultmann<\/strong> and <strong>Edward Schillebeeckx<\/strong>, for whom the minds of the disciples in front of the tomb were so <strong>filled with light<\/strong> that it didn&#8217;t matter if there was a body or not. <i>\u00abAt that moment, Schillebeeckx ceased to be a historian of the 1st century and became a <strong>20th-century fantasy writer<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i>, commented <strong>C.A. Evans<\/strong> and <strong>N.T. Wright<\/strong>. <i>\u00abPeople in the 1st century knew quite a bit about minds filled with light, and so on. They had specific language to talk about it. But all this has <strong>nothing to do<\/strong> with saying that someone rose from the dead\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"215\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-215\">215<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-215\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"215\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 112<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even the (secular) scholar <strong>John Dominic Crossan<\/strong>, Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies at DePaul University and former President of the Society of Biblical Literature, explained that even if we were to admit the hypothesis of a <strong>subjective vision<\/strong>, it would still be fundamentally <strong>different<\/strong> from the concept of resurrection as affirmed by the early Christians:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abResurrection <strong>is not<\/strong> the same as appearance. The question is not whether appearances or visions occur because this was normal in the ancient world; for example, Hector appears to his father Anchises at the end of the Trojan War and at the beginning of Virgil&#8217;s Aeneid. It also happens in the modern world: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV does not consider them as mental disorders but as common characteristics of <strong>grief<\/strong>. This could happen after the death or sudden, tragic, or terrible disappearance of a loved one. Therefore, even if no Christian text mentioned appearances or visions of Jesus after His crucifixion, we could safely hypothesize their occurrence. But, this is the real point, the appearance is <strong>not the same thing<\/strong> as the resurrection, nor is it anything remotely similar\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"216\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-216\">216<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-216\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"216\"><b>J.D. Crossan<\/b>, <b>J.L. Reed<\/b>, <i>Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2001, p. 259-260<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Stephen T. Davis<\/strong>, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College, in response to the naturalistic theses put forth by the (atheist) philosopher Michael Martin, concluded that <i>\u00aball alternative hypotheses that I know of are <strong>historically weak<\/strong>; some are so weak that they collapse under their own weight once articulated [&#8230;]. The alternative theories that have been proposed are not only weaker but much weaker in explaining the available historical evidence\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"217\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-217\">217<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-217\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"217\"><b>S.T. Davis<\/b>, <i>Is Belief in the Resurrection Rational? A Response to Michael Martin<\/i>, Philo 1999, Vol. 2, p. 57-58<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Asserting the naturalistic thesis with conviction, contrary to expectations, has proven to be <strong>much more difficult<\/strong> than anticipated, and this also explains why <i>\u00abthe vast majority of critical scholars reject this option\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"218\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-218\">218<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-218\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"218\"><b>G. Habermas<\/b>, <i>Experiences of the Risen Jesus. The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection<\/i>, Journal of Theology 2006, Vol. 45, p. 288-297<\/span>. Many scholars have concluded that every proposed naturalistic option <strong>generates more problems<\/strong> than it seeks to solve.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thus, theologian <strong>Hans K\u00fcng<\/strong>, Emeritus Professor at the University of T\u00fcbingen, concluded: <i>\u00abIt was not the faith of the disciples that resurrected Jesus, but it was the resurrected Jesus who led them to faith\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"219\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-219\">219<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-219\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"219\"><b>H. K\u00fcng<\/b>, <i>On Being a Christian<\/i>, Collins 1976, p. 368<\/span>. <strong>John A.T. Robinson<\/strong>, Emeritus Fellow of Trinity College, University of Cambridge, wrote: <i>\u00abIt is indeed very difficult to ignore the appearances of Jesus and still find a credible explanation\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"220\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-220\">220<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-220\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"220\"><b>J.A.T. Robinson<\/b>, <i>Can We Trust the New Testament?<\/i>, Eerdmans 1977, p. 124<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a name=\"changes\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#changes\">9. <u>UNEXPLAINABLE CHANGES AFTER THE DEATH OF JESUS<\/u><\/a><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another argument that leads to considering the event of resurrection as the most plausible is the otherwise unexplainable nature of the <strong>sudden and radical changes<\/strong> that occurred in the behavior of the disciples who followed Jesus until his arrest in the garden of Gethsemane.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Primary sources describe the followers of Jesus as disillusioned, <strong>fearful<\/strong> of being captured and executed themselves, which is why they quickly disappear and do not even appear at the foot of the cross (except for &#8220;the beloved disciple,&#8221; Jn 19:26, traditionally identified as John). Even the most charismatic apostle, Peter (also known as Cephas), <strong>denied<\/strong> knowing Jesus three times.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This description is considered by historians to be <strong>certainly historical<\/strong> because it is embarrassing for the disciples themselves to be portrayed in this way. If it were not true, it would never have been written.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">However, just a few days after the burial of Jesus, these devoted Jews suddenly <strong>questioned<\/strong> long-standing Jewish customs, challenged the <strong>judgment of the Sanhedrin<\/strong> (the voice of God, for the Jews), changed the previously followed Jewish doctrine, and dared to contradict the <strong>laws of Moses<\/strong> regarding the sacred day (from Saturday to Sunday), all publicly and openly.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">They say that the resurrection of Jesus changed the course of history and repeat this <strong>without gaining anything in return<\/strong>, enduring persecution, stoning, imprisonment, and ultimately martyrdom for decades. How else can such a <strong>transformation<\/strong> be explained?<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"judgment\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>9.1 <u><a href=\"#judgment\">Challenge to the Sanhedrin (i.e., the judgment of God)<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abFor every faithful Jew\u00bb<\/i>, recalled <b>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/b>, Professor of New Testament at the Complutense University of Madrid, <i>\u00abthe condemnation of the Sanhedrin represented the <strong>judgment of God<\/strong>. And this judgment determined that Jesus was a blasphemer, an unbeliever, cursed by God\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"221\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-221\">221<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-221\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"221\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 274<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">But then, <i>\u00abhow is it possible that some Jews did not accept the judgment of the Sanhedrin as definitive?\u00bb<\/i>, the scholar asked. <i>\u00abAnd furthermore, how is it possible that those men, immediately after the death of their Master, <strong>dared to preach<\/strong> that the fullness of human life is granted to the followers of Jesus? In other words, how can we explain the fact that they publicly recognized this condemned man from the supreme Jewish court as the savior of humanity?\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"222\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-222\">222<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-222\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"222\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 274<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to the law of the Old Testament (followed by the Jews, including the disciples), anyone who is condemned and hung on a tree is <strong>accursed by God<\/strong> (cf. Deut. 21:23), and the Jews applied this verdict even to those condemned to crucifixion. Seen through the eyes of a first-century Jewish follower of Jesus, the crucifixion was not the death of their beloved Master but a true <strong>catastrophe<\/strong>. It meant that, far from being the Anointed One of God, Jesus of Nazareth had been <strong>rejected by God<\/strong>. They had followed the wrong man whom God Himself had unequivocally rejected.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abToday it is difficult to understand how offensive the idea of a <strong>crucified Messiah<\/strong> was for the majority of Jews in the 1st century\u00bb<\/i>, wrote <b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, a New Testament professor at the University of North Carolina. <i>\u00abIf it is difficult to think that the Jews invented the idea of a crucified Messiah, where does it come from? From historical reality\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"223\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-223\">223<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-223\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"223\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 165<\/span>. And furthermore: <i>\u00abHis death radically contradicted everything his followers had thought and hoped for because, evidently, Jesus was anything but the Messiah. But then something else happened\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"224\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-224\">224<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-224\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"224\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, <i>Did Jesus Exist?<\/i>, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 165<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the first century, there were many other &#8220;revolutionaries&#8221; who were executed and crucified, but, as written by <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, an eminent New Testament professor at the University of St. Andrews, <i>\u00abdespite the disappointment, their followers never claimed that their hero had been resurrected from the dead. <strong>The resurrection was inconceivable<\/strong> as a private event. The Jewish revolutionaries whose leader had been killed by the authorities and who managed to escape arrest had only two options: to give up the revolution or find another leader. Asserting that the leader had come back to life simply was not a reasonable option. Unless, of course, it had really happened that way\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"225\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-225\">225<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-225\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"225\"><b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Jesus, the final days<\/i>, Westminster John Knox Press 2010, p. 100-108<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe astonishing fact of the resurrection\u00bb<\/i>, added the Spanish exegete <b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>\u00abis the only truly explanatory reason for the existence of Christian preaching\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"226\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-226\">226<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-226\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"226\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 275<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Cardinal <strong>Joseph Ratzinger<\/strong>, also a distinguished scholar of historical Jesus, observed that <i>\u00abthe disciples were overwhelmed by a phenomenon that appeared to them as an unexpected reality, initially incomprehensible, and faith in the resurrection arose from this overwhelming experience, an event that preceded their thinking and willing, and in fact, <strong>reversed it<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"227\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-227\">227<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-227\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"227\"><b>J. Ratzinger<\/b>, in H. Schlier, <i>Sulla risurrezione di Ges\u00f9 Cristo<\/i>, Morcelliana 1971<\/span>. This led them to question even the judgment of the supreme Jewish court.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"creed\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>9.2 <u><a href=\"#creed\">Challenge to Jewish faith and the law of Moses<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another sudden change, testified by primary sources from the early days after Jesus&#8217; death, is the surprising <strong>celebration of Sunday<\/strong> as the &#8220;Lord&#8217;s Day&#8221; by the early members of the Church (cf. Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If we still consider it a day of rest today, it is because suddenly some Jews of the 1st century claimed that Jesus had risen on Sunday, while <i>&#8220;for the Jews, the sacred day is the <strong>Sabbath<\/strong>, as established by the Mosaic law&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"228\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-228\">228<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-228\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"228\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 276<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Setting aside the event of the resurrection, observed Spanish scholar <b>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/b>, <i>&#8220;the change in the celebration of the <strong>sacred day<\/strong> would have no explanation. However, it is understandable if the change is due to the day when the empty tomb was found and the appearances began, namely when they had tangible proof of Jesus&#8217; resurrection&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"229\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-229\">229<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-229\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"229\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 277<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Richard Swinburne<\/strong>, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, also emphasized that Christian communities spread rapidly beyond Jerusalem within three or four years of the Passion events and <i>&#8220;brought their customs with them, including the <strong>celebration of the Eucharist<\/strong>. All the evidence we have suggests that there was a universal custom of celebrating the Eucharist on <strong>Sunday<\/strong>, the first day of the week. This must have predated the spread; otherwise, we would have heard of disputes about when to celebrate it and instructions given from above (similarly to the disputes about circumcision and the consumption of meat, resolved by the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15)&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"230\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-230\">230<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-230\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"230\"><b>R. Swinburne<\/b>, <i>The Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus<\/i>, Philosophia Christi 2013, Vol. 15, p. 21<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If Jesus had not risen and the disciples had invented everything or wanted to remember his deeds, <i>\u00abthere would have been <strong>other days<\/strong> on which it would have been more natural to celebrate the Eucharist, for example, on the day of the original Last Supper, which was probably a Thursday and certainly not a Sunday\u00bb<\/i>, Swinburne continued. <i>\u00abThere is no plausible origin of the sacredness of Sunday outside of Christianity. There is only a simple explanation for this universal custom, and it derives at the latest from the first two or three years after the Resurrection. The Eucharist was celebrated on Sunday from the early years of Christianity because Christians believed that the central Christian event of the <strong>Resurrection<\/strong> had occurred on Sunday\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"231\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-231\">231<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-231\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"231\"><b>R. Swinburne<\/b>, <i>The Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus<\/i>, Philosophia Christi 2013, Vol. 15, p. 21<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The followers of Jesus <strong>were not theologians<\/strong>, exegetes, or prominent figures in Judaism. Suddenly and without adequate reason, this group of humble fishermen challenged the Sanhedrin (and thus God&#8217;s judgment) and dared to correct the Mosaic law regarding the Sabbath. The same ones who had fled in fear, denied Jesus, and dispersed in bitterness and disappointment. <i>&#8220;The analysis of testimonies and events can lead to the conclusion that without the real fact of the resurrection, many things would remain unexplained&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"232\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-232\">232<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-232\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"232\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, BUR 2008, p. 274<\/span>, concluded Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia of the Complutense University of Madrid.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The eminent scholar <strong>Larry Hurtado<\/strong>, Professor of Early Christianity and Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature, and Theology at the University of Edinburgh, also observed that <i>\u00abin the early Christian circles, Jesus is the object of devotional expressions that are exclusively <strong>reserved only for God<\/strong> and that, simply put, have <strong>no analogy<\/strong> in the Jewish tradition of the Second Temple period. In other words, this cult of the risen Jesus was a radical innovation in the monotheistic Jewish religion\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"233\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-233\">233<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-233\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"233\"><b>L. Hurtado<\/b>, <i>How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus<\/i>, Grand Rapids 2005, pp. 47-48<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Specialists <strong>Craig A. Evans<\/strong>, Professor of New Testament and Director of the Graduate Program at Acadia Divinity College, and <strong>N.T. Wright<\/strong>, Professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, also emphasized the sudden <strong>centrality<\/strong> of the resurrection in apostolic preaching, contrary to the marginality in which the final and eschatological resurrection has always been considered in Jewish thought. In the Jewish texts of Second Temple Judaism (597 BCE &#8211; 70 CE), there is indeed a certain belief in the final resurrection of the people of God (completely different from the one claimed by the apostles), but it is still <i>\u00abnot such an important belief\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"234\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-234\">234<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-234\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"234\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 93<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The authors of the <strong>Qumran scrolls<\/strong> did not even believe in any kind of final resurrection or it was <strong>not a significant theme<\/strong>, and the space dedicated to it in their texts is by no means comparable to <i>&#8220;the space assigned to other themes&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"235\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-235\">235<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-235\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"235\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 93<\/span>. On the contrary, suddenly from 30 AD, for a small group of devout Jews, the resurrection of a man and <i>in<\/i> history becomes incredibly <strong>the focus<\/strong> of everything.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This mutation is also an <strong>anthropological<\/strong> mystery because <i>&#8220;beliefs about life after death are notoriously among the things in a culture that most <strong>resist change<\/strong>&#8220;<\/i>, reflect the two scholars. <i>\u00abPeople may change their minds about their creed, but what they believe about death tends to remain virtually unchanged\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"236\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-236\">236<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-236\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"236\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 114<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abIf you try to <strong>remove<\/strong> the resurrection &#8211; the bodily resurrection &#8211; from the New Testament, you realize how all the other arguments, one after another, <strong>collapse<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"237\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-237\">237<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-237\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"237\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 94<\/span>, concluded the two scholars. <i>\u00abThe empty tomb and the encounters with Jesus are solidly grounded as historical data. They are <strong>the only possible explanation<\/strong> for the Easter accounts and for those mutations of the Jewish Creed that developed so rapidly\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"238\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-238\">238<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-238\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"238\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 114<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"james\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>9.2 <u><a href=\"#james\">The transformation of the skeptical disciple James<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Some scholars have also extensively examined the remarkable transformation of <strong>James<\/strong>, described in the Gospels as highly <strong>skeptical<\/strong> towards Jesus during his public ministry (cf. Mk 3:21, 31-35; Mk 6:3; Jn 7:5). Yet, not long after Jesus&#8217; crucifixion, the same James, brother of Jesus, becomes one of the leaders of the early Christian community in Jerusalem and is encountered by Paul of Tarsus during his two visits (cf. Gal 1:18-19; Gal 2:1-10; Acts 15:13-21). The Jewish historian <strong>Flavius Josephus<\/strong> also reports that James was martyred for his faith in Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to the American biblical scholar <b>John P. Meier<\/b>, <strong>James&#8217; disbelief<\/strong> is a <strong>historical fact<\/strong> as it satisfies both the criterion of multiple attestation from independent sources and the criterion of embarrassment, since it was embarrassing for the early church to be led by a relative of Jesus who made <i>&#8220;deeply offensive&#8221;<\/i> claims about Jesus himself. To a lesser extent, Meier concludes, it also fulfills the criterion of coherence with Jesus&#8217; frequent call to put God before one&#8217;s own family<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"239\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-239\">239<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-239\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"239\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus<\/i>, Doubleday 2001, Vol. 2, p. 68-71<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Although James was a <strong>close relative<\/strong> of Jesus (&#8220;brother&#8221; or &#8220;cousin&#8221; of Jesus, <i>&#8220;there is no absolute certainty [&#8230;]&#8221;<\/i>, but <i>&#8220;the most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were true siblings&#8221;<\/i>, although <i>&#8220;the idea that they were relatives or kinsmen in a broader sense is certainly not excluded&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"240\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-240\">240<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-240\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"240\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>A Marginal Jew<\/i>, Queriniana 2008, p. 324-325<\/span> <sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"241\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-241\">241<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-241\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"241\"><b>J.A. Fitzmyer<\/b>, <i>A Christological Catechism. New Testament Answers<\/i>, Paulist Press International 1981, p. 73<\/span>), James was not even present at the <strong>foot of the cross<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>How can we explain<\/strong> this radical transformation if not by what is reported in the ancient pre-Pauline formula: <i>&#8220;&#8230;then he appeared to James&#8221;<\/i> (1 Cor 15:7)?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Surprisingly, <b>Reginald H. Fuller<\/b>, Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria (United States), stated that if the Christian writings had not referred to James&#8217; resurrection appearance, <i>\u00abwe would have had to invent one ourselves\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"242\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-242\">242<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-242\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"242\"><strong>R. Fuller<\/strong>, <i>The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives<\/i>, Macmillan 1980, p. 10<\/span> to adequately account for his <strong>sudden conversion<\/strong> and his promotion to a leadership position in the church of Jerusalem!<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe <strong>majority<\/strong> of contemporary scholars\u00bb<\/i>, certified <strong>Gary Habermas<\/strong>, <i>\u00abincluding many rather skeptical ones\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"243\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-243\">243<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-243\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"243\"><b>G. Habermas<\/b>, <i>Experiences of the Risen Jesus. The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection<\/i>, Journal of Theology 2006, Vol. 45, p. 288-297<\/span>, have no doubts about the historicity of James&#8217; conversion and consider the personal appearance of Jesus as the most plausible explanation. See, for example, <strong>Helmut Koester<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"244\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-244\">244<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-244\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"244\"><b>H. Koester<\/b>, <i>Introduction to the New Testament<\/i>, Fortress 1982, Vol. 2, p. 84<\/span>, <strong>Robert Funk<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"245\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-245\">245<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-245\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"245\"><b>R. Funk<\/b>, <i>Honest to Jesus<\/i>, Harper Collins 1996, p. 33<\/span>, <strong>Peter Stuhlmacher<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"246\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-246\">246<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-246\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"246\"><b>P. Stuhlmacher<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Dead<\/i>, Ex Auditu 1993, Vol. 9, p. 49<\/span>, and <strong>E.P. Sanders<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"247\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-247\">247<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-247\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"247\"><b>E.P. Sanders<\/b>, <i>But Did it Happen?<\/i>, The Spectator 1996, Vol. 276, p. 17<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"martyrdom\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>9.3 <u><a href=\"#martyrdom\">No personal gain, willingness to martyrdom<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even if we were to hypothesize that the disciples somehow invented the resurrection of Jesus, they could have sustained it only for a short period. But why subject themselves to persecution and <strong>death for a lie<\/strong>? Without any personal gain. This is another fact that lacks justification for those who deny the historicity of the resurrection.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Why leave their families, jobs, possessions, and land to go around telling <strong>&#8220;artificially invented tales&#8221;<\/strong>? Moreover, they supported completely blasphemous and absurd claims, both for themselves and for the people they addressed, filled with details that only fueled doubts (such as the testimony of women).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Why continue with these preachings for decades, repeating the same lies that caused the disciples nothing but a life of hell, secrecy, persecution, imprisonment, stonings, social disdain, loneliness, excruciating suffering, and ultimately the torment of <strong>martyrdom<\/strong>? Their <i>\u00abtrue, human, and comfortable interest would have been to remain silent\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"248\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-248\">248<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-248\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"248\"><b>G. Siri<\/b>, <i>La Rivelazione<\/i>, Studium 1940, p. 91<\/span>, rightly wrote Cardinal <strong>Giuseppe Siri<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Italian writer <strong>Antonio Socci<\/strong> also rightly observed:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abIf Jesus had simply died &#8211; and his was the death of criminals, of the accursed, a death to be ashamed of &#8211; certainly he could no longer give them anything except trouble: the only sensible thing to do would have been to avoid ending up in the crosshairs themselves, turn the page, and protect themselves. And, as terrified as they were that Friday (out of fear, they had abandoned Jesus from his arrest until Calvary), they were actually only thinking of hiding and waiting for the right moment to flee Jerusalem and return to Galilee. <strong>What happened that was so shocking<\/strong> as to transform poor terrified individuals, who felt pursued, into daring individuals who openly challenged authorities in the squares, without fear of anything, ready for anything? What did they experience that was so enormous as to reverse their fear into ardent courage? What occurred to produce such a sudden and astounding change in them, making them all ready to undergo, with simplicity and determination, <strong>martyrdom<\/strong>? The only plausible hypothesis is that Jesus truly returned, alive, resurrected among them. This is the only fact that can explain such a sudden and astonishing change. If they never wanted to deny what they claimed to have seen and touched with their own hands, if they did not take it back even in the face of torment by their executioners, it means that they must have been absolutely certain and that it must have been all true\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"249\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-249\">249<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-249\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"249\"><b>A. Socci<\/b>, <i>Indagine su Ges\u00f9<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 269<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">From frightened disciples of a failed Master, crucified, humiliated, and cursed by God on the cross, to <strong>lions<\/strong> ready for martyrdom, unwilling to deny what their eyes had seen. Can this be explained without hypothesizing the occurrence of something <strong>imposing and overwhelming<\/strong>?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This is how the eminent British scholar <b>N.T. Wright<\/b> concluded: <i>\u00abThis is why, as a historian, <strong>I cannot explain<\/strong> the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"250\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-250\">250<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-250\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"250\"><b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>The New Unimproved Jesus<\/i>, Christianity Today, 13\/09\/1993<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The American jurist <strong>Simon Greenleaf<\/strong> (who converted from skepticism to the Christian faith by studying the historical sources of the resurrection), founder of the Harvard Law School, emphasized the uniqueness of these events in history:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abBy propagating this new faith, even in the most peaceful and harmless manner, [the early Christians received] mockery, opposition&#8230; to the cruel death. Yet, they zealously propagated this faith and <strong>endured all those sufferings<\/strong> without hesitation, rather with joy. As one after another was barbarously put to death, the survivors [continued] simply their work with increased vigor and determination [&#8230;]. The chronicles of military wars <strong>scarcely provide<\/strong> an example of such heroic constancy and patience and such invincible courage [&#8230;]. Even if it were morally possible that they were mistaken in this matter, every human motivation cooperated in leading them to reflect and recognize their error. There is no escape from these [considerations] except in the perfect conviction and admission that they were honest men, testifying to what they had carefully observed&#8230; and that they knew it to be the <strong>truth<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"251\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-251\">251<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-251\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"251\"><b>S. Greenleaf<\/b>, <i>The Testimony of the Evangelists<\/i>, Kregel 1995, pp. 31, 32<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe indispensable foundation of the Christian community is the <strong>risen Jesus<\/strong>, his living presence\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"252\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-252\">252<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-252\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"252\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 281<\/span>, observed <b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Because of this, and without gaining anything in return, they endured all sorts of persecution. <i>\u00abThe writings of the New Testament show us that the nascent Church is a building <strong>sustained by the resurrection<\/strong> as an indispensable principle\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"253\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-253\">253<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-253\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"253\"><b>M.H. Marco<\/b>, <i>Los evangelios y la critica historica<\/i>, Ediciones Cristiandad 1978, p. 16<\/span>, concluded the important exegete of the Madrid school, <b>Mariano Herranz Marco<\/b>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>C.F.D. Moule<\/strong>, New Testament professor at the University of Cambridge, finally observed: <i>\u00abIf the birth of the Nazarenes, an undeniably attested phenomenon in the New Testament, tears <strong>a big hole in history<\/strong>, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to explain it? The birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church remains <strong>an unresolved enigma<\/strong> for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"254\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-254\">254<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-254\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"254\">cited in W.L. Craig, <i>Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ<\/i>, Truth 1985, Vol. 1, p. 89-95<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a name=\"contradictions\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#contradictions\">10. <u>CONTRADICTIONS AMONG THE EVANGELISTS<\/u><\/a><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The last argument in favor of the historicity of the Easter accounts in the Gospels is paradoxically used by many scholars <strong>against<\/strong> their historical reliability.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Indeed, there are <strong>differences and contradictions<\/strong> among the four evangelists regarding the narrative of events that occurred after the death of Jesus. <i>\u00abReader, you who are serious and a lover of truth, tell me before God: could you accept as unanimous and sincere a testimony that so frequently and clearly contradicts itself regarding people, time, place, manner, purpose, words, and narrative, in relation to <strong>such an important matter<\/strong>?\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"255\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-255\">255<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-255\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"255\">cited in C.H. Talbert, <i>Reimarus: Fragment<\/i>, Wipf &amp; Stock Pub 1971, p. 197<\/span>, wrote the Enlightenment philosopher <b>Hermann Samuel Reimarus<\/b>, based precisely on the discrepancies among the four Gospels.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">More recently, <strong>Bart D. Ehrman<\/strong>, a New Testament professor at the University of North Carolina, has assumed a leading role among the main scholars who point to these discrepancies to <strong>cast doubt<\/strong> on their historical reliability.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Especially in the passages that speak of the empty tomb and the appearances of the risen Jesus (much more so than in the other accounts of the Passion, which reflect a more fixed and coherent pattern), the evangelists present <strong>discordant<\/strong> data and details that are difficult to harmonize. Let&#8217;s summarize them briefly:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>a)<\/b> According to Mark, the empty tomb was discovered by Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mk 16:1). According to Matthew, it was discovered by Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Mt 28:1). According to Luke, it was discovered by three women (Lk 24:10). According to John, only Mary Magdalene discovered it (Jn 20:1-2).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>b)<\/b> Who appeared to the women who went to the tomb and announced the resurrection? A young man, as written by Mark (Mk 16:5), an angel, as reported by Matthew (Mt 28:2-3), or two angels, according to Luke (Lk 24:4) and John (Jn 20:12)?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>c)<\/b> Did the women say nothing to anyone, as written by Mark (Mk 16:8), or did they say something, as reported by the other evangelists (Mt 28:8; Lk 24:22-24)? It is evident that according to subsequent events, the apostles were informed by the women themselves.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>d)<\/b> Were there guards at the tomb, as written by Matthew (Mt 27:62-66)? Why do the other evangelists not mention anything about it?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>e)<\/b> There are also minor discrepancies, such as the time of discovering the empty tomb, the purpose of the women&#8217;s visit, and how the stone rolled away from the entrance of the tomb.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>f)<\/b> According to the pre-Pauline source (1 Cor 15:1-8), the recipients of Jesus&#8217; post-resurrection appearances were Peter, the twelve apostles, 500 brothers at once, James, and Paul. However, Mark abruptly concludes his account without mentioning any appearance (some <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/2016\/05\/27\/nel-vangelo-di-marco-perche-non-si-parla-delle-apparizioni-del-gesu-risorto\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">explanations<\/a><\/strong> have been proposed); Matthew recounts the appearances to the women at the tomb (Mt 28:9-10) and to the eleven apostles (excluding Judas) on a mountain in Galilee (Mt 28:16-20); Luke narrates the appearance to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-35), to the eleven apostles (excluding Judas) in the upper room (Lk 24:36-49), and alludes to an appearance granted to Peter (Lk 24:24-34); John reports an appearance to Mary Magdalene at the tomb (Jn 20:11-18), to the disciples without Thomas (Jn 20:18-19), another to the disciples with Thomas present (Jn 20:24-29), and an appearance to some disciples by the Sea of Tiberias (Jn 21:1-14).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In light of these facts, some critics argue that these <strong>discrepancies<\/strong> are a clear sign that the testimonies are unreliable and that they are narratives of faith rather than an actual historical account.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"solutions\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>10.1 <u><a href=\"#solutions\">Proposed Solutions to the Contradictions<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">There are <strong>many explanations<\/strong> that resolve many of these contradictions and, above all, argue that their presence actually <strong>supports the historicity<\/strong> of the events and counters the hypothesis of invention by the evangelists.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Entire books have been published on the study of these discrepancies. We will mention just one example that resolves the enigma of who found the empty tomb. While Mark, Matthew, and Luke mention <strong>two or three women<\/strong> (although not always agreeing on their names), John, in contrast, mentions <strong>only<\/strong> Mary Magdalene (Jn 20:1).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">American theologian <b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, a professor at Houston Baptist University, has provided an explanation, suggesting that John&#8217;s choice is a <i>\u00ab<strong>literary device<\/strong> also used by Plutarch, which focuses the spotlight on a particular character. In his account of the resurrection, I think John is highlighting Mary Magdalene while still being <strong>aware<\/strong> of the presence of other women\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"256\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-256\">256<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-256\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"256\"><b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, in <i>Ehrman\u2013Licona Dialogue on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament<\/i>, <i>The Best Schools<\/i> 2016<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Indeed, the scholar explained that it is sufficient to turn to the next verse (<strong><a href=\"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/jn_20-1.png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Jn 20:2<\/a><\/strong>) to read that Mary runs to the disciples and says, <i>&#8220;They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and <strong>we do not know<\/strong> where they have laid him!&#8221;<\/i> Who is she referring to with that &#8220;we&#8221;? Most likely, the <strong>other women<\/strong> who were present with her but not mentioned by John (though mentioned by the other evangelists).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Several years ago, a radical solution hypothesis was also proposed, which, however, divided the scientific community. The important exegetical school in Madrid supported the <strong>Semitic substrate (Aramaic)<\/strong> underlying the Gospels, the language spoken by Jesus and the apostles. The contradictions would be the result of simple <strong>translation errors<\/strong> that disappear when rendered in their original Aramaic. This also applies to certain incomprehensible statements contained in the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Spanish exegetes, by correcting errors in the Greek translation, have, for example, resolved the (apparently) incomprehensible injunctions of silence regarding Jesus&#8217; divine nature (cf. Mk 5:40 and Mk 8:30). Why would he have ordered silence? It seems contradictory. Or the terror of the women who find the tomb empty and flee, as reported by the evangelist Mark. What are they running away from or what would they have been afraid of?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It is impossible in this context to extensively review the contents of their publications and the solutions (often enlightening!) they offer. We direct readers directly to them, recommending, in Italian, <i>La nascita dei Vangeli sinottici<\/i> (San Paolo 2009) by J. Carmignac and <i>La vita di Ges\u00f9 nel testo aramaico dei Vangeli<\/i> (Rizzoli 2005) by J.M. Garc\u00eda.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For example, the Jewish theologian and historian <strong>Pinchas Lapide<\/strong>, by applying this thesis, seems to have brilliantly solved the enigma of Jesus&#8217; metaphor about a <strong>&#8220;camel&#8221;<\/strong> passing through the <strong>&#8220;eye of a needle&#8221;<\/strong> (Mt 19:24). It seemingly appears as an excessive hyperbole: what does a camel have to do with a needle? Lapide discovered that the original Semitic text spoke of a <strong>gomena<\/strong> (a thick rope used by fishermen) and not a camel, but <i>\u00abdue to a mistaken consonant in the original Hebrew text, the gomena (gamta) of the parable becomes a camel (gamal)\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"257\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-257\">257<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-257\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"257\"><b>P. Lapide<\/b>, <i>Bibbia tradotta, Bibbia tradita<\/i>, EDB 1999<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abTo find an explanation for these anomalies and <strong>inconsistencies<\/strong>, it is necessary to resort to the Aramaic substrate of the Gospel tradition\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"258\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-258\">258<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-258\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"258\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Il protagonista della storia. Nascita e natura del cristianesimo<\/i>, Rizzoli 2008, p. 296<\/span>, explained <b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, one of the representatives of the exegetical school in Madrid.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This thesis has encountered <strong>significant opposition<\/strong> within the scientific community, and today the tendency is to consider it an unverified or contradicted hypothesis. However, it is challenging to evaluate the genuineness of such surprisingly fierce opposition towards a dignified alternative scientific hypothesis. Many suspect that a substantial group of opponents (few of whom are truly experts in Semitic languages) is uncomfortable with one of the consequences of accepting this thesis: the <strong>redating<\/strong> of the Gospels themselves, now commonly placed between 60 and 90 AD.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Semitic substrate, in fact, would immediately place them in close proximity to the described events, accrediting the evangelists as contemporaries of the protagonists or even eyewitnesses. According to <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/cdm.png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Stefano Alberto<\/a><\/strong>, professor of Theology at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, this is precisely the reason for the vehement and prejudiced <i>&#8220;hostility&#8221;<\/i> of a part of the academic world towards this hypothesis.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to <b>Jos\u00e9 Miguel Garcia<\/b>, a professor at the Complutense University of Madrid, the scarcity of contemporary publications on the Semitic substrate compared to the past <i>\u00abis partly due to the <strong>decline<\/strong> of humanistic and philological studies, but also to ideological reasons. Acknowledging the Semitic substrate of the Gospels and other books of the New Testament <strong>challenges<\/strong> certain existing frameworks regarding the evolution and development of early Christian tradition. Certainly, the neglect of this data fosters the persistence of certain schemes and clich\u00e9s of exegetical interpretation but above all hinders the living understanding of sacred texts. Incorrect translations have introduced not only obscurity or strangeness but have sometimes <strong>obscured<\/strong> significant and beautiful aspects of real life or theology, which remained buried beneath the debris of incorrect translations\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"259\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-259\">259<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-259\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"259\"><b>J.M. Garcia<\/b>, <i>Per la storicit\u00e0 dei vangeli: Ges\u00f9 Figlio di Dio nel Vangelo di Marco<\/i>, Centro Culturale di Milano 03\/10\/2002<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Many experts have embraced the thesis of the <strong>Semitic substrate<\/strong> of the Gospels. For example, <strong>Charles Cutler Torrey<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"260\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-260\">260<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-260\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"260\"><b>C.C. Torrey<\/b>, <i>The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels<\/i>, 1912<\/span>, professor of Semitic languages at Yale University; <b>Maurice Casey<\/b><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"261\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-261\">261<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-261\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"261\"><b>M. Casey<\/b>, <i>Aramaic Sources of Mark&#8217;s Gospel<\/i>, Cambridge University Press 1999<\/span>, emeritus professor of New Testament at the University of Nottingham; <b>Claude Tresmontant<\/b>, philosopher at the Sorbonne in Paris; <b>Jean H\u00e9ring<\/b>, biblical scholar at the Faculty of Theology in Strasbourg<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"262\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-262\">262<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-262\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"262\"><b>J. Hering<\/b>, <i>Remarques sur les bases aram\u00e8ennes et h\u00e9braiques des \u00e9vangiles synoptoques<\/i>, 1966<\/span>; <b>J. de Zwaan<\/b>, author of <i>John Wrote in Aramaic<\/i> published in the <i>Journal of Biblical Literature<\/i>; <b>David Flusser<\/b>, historian of early Christianity at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and others.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In Italy, Professor <strong>Paolo Sacchi<\/strong>, an expert in biblical philology and Judaic studies at the University of Turin, has supported the view that <i>\u00abit is simply obvious that the Greek text derives from a Hebrew translation. Knowing Greek and Hebrew is enough to realize it\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"263\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-263\">263<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-263\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"263\"><b>P. Sacchi<\/b>, interview by A. Socci, <i>Vangeli, parla cos\u00ec la storia<\/i>, Rizzoli 1995<\/span>. There are also numerous studies conducted by Jewish scholars that confirm this perspective, such as <strong>Zwi Perez Chajes<\/strong>, a biblical scholar and rabbi in Vienna and Trieste<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"264\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-264\">264<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-264\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"264\"><b>Z.H.P. Chajes<\/b>, <i>Judisches in den Evangelien<\/i>, Moritz Rosenfeld ed. 1919<\/span>, and the aforementioned <strong>Pinchas Lapide<\/strong><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"265\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-265\">265<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-265\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"265\"><b>P. Lapide<\/b>, <i>Bibbia tradotta, Bibbia tradita<\/i>, EDB 1999<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On the other hand, many other scholars believe that it was the <strong>pre-evangelical sources<\/strong> (not the Gospels themselves) that were written in Aramaic and then translated (often with errors) into Greek by the evangelists<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"266\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-266\">266<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-266\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"266\"><b>Helmut Heinrich Koester<\/b>, <i>Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development<\/i>, Trinity Press 1990<\/span>. The leading contemporary biblical scholar, Professor <strong>J.P. Meier<\/strong>, who teaches New Testament at the University of Notre Dame, has acknowledged that the Aramaic substratum is <em>\u00abreflected in the four Gospels,\u00bb to the extent that several sayings are \u00abtruly alien to Hebrew and Greek\u00bb<\/em><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"267\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-267\">267<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-267\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"267\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>Un ebreo marginale<\/i>, Queriniana 2006, vol. 1, pp. 261-263<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"menor\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>10.2 <u><a href=\"#menor\">Contradictions do not alter the narrative<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Not all contradictions are resolved by scholars, and the hypothesis of a Semitic substratum has not been fully verified. But what is the true &#8220;weight&#8221; of the contradictions within the narrative? Do they truly alter the narrative?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">No, the discrepancies among the evangelists occur on more or less superficial <strong>details<\/strong>, without compromising the coherence of the events. On the contrary, the evangelists are entirely in agreement regarding the skeleton of the narrative, the main and salient facts, although they may vary in certain <strong>particulars<\/strong> depending on the primary testimonies they drew upon.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even <b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, who is highly critical about this, admits that it largely consists of <em>\u00absmall, <strong>small differences<\/strong> [&#8230;]. I know that some of you are reading these instances of discrepancies and are not at all impressed by them\u00bb<\/em><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"268\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-268\">268<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-268\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"268\"><b>B.D. Ehrman<\/b>, in <i>Ehrman\u2013Licona Dialogue on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament<\/i>, <i>The Best Schools<\/i> 2016<\/span>. Indeed, the difficulties of the Greek text do not represent, in themselves, a substantial objection; rather, they serve as a provocation and intellectual challenge for researchers.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The theologian <strong>Michael R. Licona<\/strong> has also confirmed:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThere are indeed some discrepancies that have no explanation, but they too <strong>do not alter<\/strong> the overall substance of the stories in which they appear [&#8230;]. We have reason to believe that the evangelists present <strong>a similar portrayal<\/strong> of Jesus as the unique and divine Son of God, who came to bring the kingdom of God, offer salvation, was crucified, and defeated death.\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"269\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-269\">269<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-269\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"269\"><b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, in <i>Ehrman\u2013Licona Dialogue on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament<\/i>, <i>The Best Schools<\/i> 2016<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For example, no one questions <strong>the sinking of the Titanic<\/strong>, yet the survivors contradicted each other. Some reported seeing the ship break in two before sinking, while others said it went down intact.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abHow could they be mistaken?\u00bb<\/i>, rhetorically questioned <strong>Licona<\/strong>, imitating those who are astonished by the discrepancies of the evangelists regarding the events of Easter. <i>\u00abIt was the most <strong>terrifying<\/strong> night of their lives, they were intensely watching an 800-foot-long ship and hearing the screams of those still on board, friends, family, and colleagues. I don&#8217;t know how they could be mistaken, but no one cited the contradictory testimonies concluding that the Titanic didn&#8217;t sink! The difference concerned a <strong>peripheral detail<\/strong> that doesn&#8217;t change the essence of the story, and those who listened to their testimonies learned <strong>the accurate core<\/strong> of what happened as a whole. Likewise, practically all the differences in the Gospels concern peripheral details. There are no Gospels that report that Jesus was not crucified or that the tomb was occupied by Jesus&#8217; corpse or that he did not rise.\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"270\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-270\">270<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-270\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"270\"><b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, in <i>Ehrman\u2013Licona Dialogue on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament<\/i>, <i>The Best Schools<\/i> 2016<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"errors\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>10.3 <u><a href=\"#errors\">Errors and Manipulations are Common in Ancient Testimonies<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If we were to consider a document &#8220;historically reliable&#8221; only if it is free from errors, then we would have to discard all ancient literature (and not just that).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Michael R. Licona<\/strong>, a theology professor at Houston Baptist University, observed, for example, that Roman historians <strong>Sallust<\/strong> and <strong>Tacitus<\/strong> have <i>\u00abmoved events from their original context, transplanting them to another <strong>in order to highlight<\/strong> a particular aspect\u00bb<\/i>, but without <i>\u00abintentionally distorting the &#8220;truth&#8221; of the facts\u00bb<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even <strong>Suetonius<\/strong>, considered one of the best historians of Rome, in his historically reliable <i>Life of the Caesars<\/i>, sometimes used sources indiscriminately and inserted legendary stories.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">These were common literary practices of the time, also present in the Gospels. For example, it is known that the evangelist <strong>John<\/strong> intentionally manipulated the date and time of the crucifixion to <strong>theologically emphasize<\/strong> that Jesus is the Passover lamb. Firstly, this demonstrates that historians can recognize and highlight interpolations in the Gospel texts and <strong>take them into account<\/strong> in their analysis of historicity.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Secondly, what John did is <i>\u00abone of the most common literary devices of the time\u00bb<\/i>, reports <b>Licona<\/b>, <i>\u00abalso used by Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"271\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-271\">271<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-271\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"271\"><b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, in <i>Ehrman\u2013Licona Dialogue on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament<\/i>, <i>The Best Schools<\/i> 2016<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A similar approach was also used by the director of the film <strong>Apollo 13<\/strong> (1995), a film usually praised for its historical accuracy. For cinematic purposes, the astronauts&#8217; lives were made much more difficult than they actually were, and even lines were spoken by the characters that were never actually said (like the famous phrase: <em>&#8220;Failure is not an option!&#8221;<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Those who demand that the Gospel accounts be devoid of any compositional license that alters the details should then <i>\u00abexclude not only the Gospels, but <strong>all ancient historical<\/strong> literature, but this renders the term &#8220;historically reliable&#8221; meaningless\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"272\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-272\">272<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-272\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"272\"><b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, in <i>Ehrman\u2013Licona Dialogue on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament<\/i>, <i>The Best Schools<\/i> 2016<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>M.R. Licona<\/b> then concluded:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abGiven that in 1,000 years there will be <strong>a different way of writing<\/strong> and telling stories, it would be unfair for future historians to consider the history of the early 21st century unreliable simply because we do not have the same writing standards they will have. Therefore, historical reliability needs to be understood in light of the literary conventions belonging to <strong>the historical genre of the time<\/strong> in which it was written, and not through modern conventions that demand almost forensic precision. Of course, this does not mean that the author did not include a small number of <strong>legendary stories<\/strong>, but rather that a large majority of what is reported is true. Naturally, artistic license has its limits, and some authors have gone so far that we deem what they have written unreliable. If we read the Gospels from the perspective of compositional devices used by some of the finest historical biographers of that period, most of the <strong>contradictions among the evangelists<\/strong> dissolve. The question is not whether the Gospels are of &#8220;divine inspiration,&#8221; &#8220;infallible,&#8221; or &#8220;without any error,&#8221; but whether they are historically reliable regarding the life, teachings, and resurrection of Jesus. Historical reliability <strong>does not require<\/strong> that everything reported by the authors occurred exactly as described, nor that the authors did not include a small number of legendary stories, theophanies, or errors. &#8220;Historical reliability&#8221; means that a large majority of what is reported is true to the extent that readers obtain an accurate understanding of what happened. The Gospels, being in line with this, are historically reliable\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"273\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-273\">273<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-273\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"273\"><b>M.R. Licona<\/b>, in <i>Ehrman\u2013Licona Dialogue on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament<\/i>, <i>The Best Schools<\/i> 2016<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><a name=\"authenticity\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>10.4 <u><a href=\"#authenticity\">Contradictions are indicators of authenticity<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">After pointing out which Gospel contradictions pose problems for authenticity critics and explaining the error in believing that they undermine the reliability of the account, we emphasize why, on the contrary, their presence is <strong>in favor of historicity<\/strong> of the events narrated.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Why would hypothetical forgers, so finely organized to invent the Easter accounts without receiving any refutations, stumble upon a story with contradictory details?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abA calculated deception would have had to produce <strong>a great unanimity<\/strong>\u00bb<\/i>, wrote <strong>E.P. Sanders<\/strong>, renowned professor of New Testament at Duke University. <i>\u00abInstead, it seems that there were competitors: &#8220;I saw him first!&#8221; &#8220;No! I saw him first&#8221;\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"274\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-274\">274<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-274\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"274\"><b>E.P. Sanders<\/b>, <i>The Historical Figure of Jesus<\/i>, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 279-280<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In other words, if the disciples of Jesus (or the evangelists who recorded their eyewitness testimony) had wanted to invent a common legend about the resurrection of Christ, <strong>they would not have contradicted themselves<\/strong>. Even less so if one evangelist had invented it and the others had copied it.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">First of all, they would have told <strong>a plausible myth<\/strong> understandable to the eyes of their listeners whom they hoped to convince (not a bodily resurrection unrelated to the Scriptures!). Secondly, the story would have been <strong>devoid of counterproductive details<\/strong> (consider the role of women), without precise details and easily refutable historical references, and finally, it would have been in perfect <strong>coherence<\/strong> with one another, accompanied by theological embellishments and the fulfillment of prophecies. The evangelists did exactly the opposite!<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">There are many scholars who have argued that the presence of contradictions (even if superficial and not impacting the overall coherence of the account) is an argument <strong>in favor of the genuineness and historicity<\/strong> of the narrated events.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Craig A. Evans<\/b>, professor of New Testament and director of the graduate program at Acadia Divinity College, and <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, have written, for example: <i>\u00abAs any good lawyer should know, when exciting and dramatic things often happen, eyewitnesses do not agree on them. This does not mean that nothing happened; rather, <strong>the opposite is true<\/strong>. In our opinion, this is what we should conclude\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"275\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-275\">275<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-275\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"275\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>The Final Days of Jesus<\/i>, SPCK Publishing, 2010, p. 89<\/span> in response to the various discrepancies among the Easter accounts.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Even <strong>Mauro Pesce<\/strong>, professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Bologna, has observed: <i>\u00abMy opinion is that these discrepancies rather <strong>support<\/strong> their genuineness\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"276\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-276\">276<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-276\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"276\"><b>C. Augias<\/b>, <b>M. Pesce<\/b>, <i>Inchiesta su Ges\u00f9<\/i>, Mondadori, 2006, p. 58<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a name=\"important\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#important\">11. <u>HOW IMPORTANT IS HISTORICITY FOR CHRISTIAN FAITH?<\/u><\/a><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">After presenting the ten &#8220;evidences&#8221; of the resurrection, we emphasize that even among Christians there is doubt about whether faith needs to be based on rational proofs and arguments.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">We find the response given by <strong>Ben Witherington III<\/strong>, professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary and prominent member of the Society for the Study of the New Testament, to be very appropriate:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abA person who abandons the historical foundations of faith is <strong>renouncing<\/strong> the possibility of a real continuity between their own faith and that of Peter, Paul, James, John, Mary Magdalene, or Priscilla. The early Christian community had a strong interest in historical reality, particularly the historical reality of Jesus and His resurrection. It was rooted in it\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"277\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-277\">277<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-277\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"277\"><b>B. Witherington<\/b>, <i>New Testament History<\/i>, Baker Academic, 2001, p. 167<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The study of the authenticity of Christian sources is truly <strong>essential<\/strong> to the Christian faith, especially regarding the &#8220;Easter narratives,&#8221; which describe the resurrection of Jesus. It is true that the Gospels are also books of faith, but that does not mean their testimony is not historical.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In fact, Christian faith primarily consists of the proclamation of a singular fact: the incarnation of God in the humanity of Jesus, which is essentially a historical faith. Therefore, the study of the historicity of the Gospels arises precisely from the need for the <strong>rationality of faith<\/strong>, to avoid reducing it to a generic belief or sentimentalism.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/lohfink.png\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Gerhard Lohfink<\/a><\/strong>, professor of New Testament at the University of T\u00fcbingen, responded, <i>\u00abfaith always has something to do with reason and reasonable cognition. The proofs of the resurrection of Jesus are important so that my convictions do not become irrational\u00bb<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"proven\"><\/a><br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>11.1 <u><a href=\"#proven\">Can the Resurrection of Jesus be Historically Proven?<\/a><\/u><\/h3>\n<p><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">But can the resurrection of Christ be <strong>historically proven<\/strong> by historians? No supernatural or transcendent event by its nature can be the <i>direct<\/i> object of historical (or scientific) research; that falls within the realm of philosophy and theology.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The event of the resurrection, unlike the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be proven <strong>using the same tools<\/strong>; it goes beyond the means commonly employed by historians. Therefore, rather than &#8220;proofs,&#8221; it is more appropriate to speak of &#8220;arguments.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The eminent biblical scholar <b>J.P. Meier<\/b> wrote on this matter: <i>\u00abAlthough it is a <strong>real<\/strong> event that happened to Jesus Christ, the event of the resurrection <strong>did not<\/strong> occur in time and space and therefore should not be called historical\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"278\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-278\">278<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-278\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"278\"><b>J.P. Meier<\/b>, <i>Un ebreo marginale<\/i>, vol. 1, Queriniana 2008, p. 186<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Nevertheless, since this event would have happened to a man, it has inevitably left visible and accessible <strong>traces<\/strong> for historians. In fact, as <b>Mariano Herranz Marco<\/b>, a prominent figure in the Spanish exegetical school, wrote, <i>\u00abIn a sense, the historian can demonstrate the event of the resurrection of Jesus: his analysis of the testimonies and events can lead to the conclusion that without the real fact of the resurrection, many things would remain unexplained\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"279\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-279\">279<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-279\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"279\"><b>M.H. Marco<\/b>, <i>Los evangelios y la critica historica<\/i>, Ediciones Cristiandad, 1978, p. 164<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In other words, the hypothesis of the resurrection becomes <strong>historically plausible<\/strong> to the extent that it adequately justifies those historical traces (established as historical), much more so than alternative explanations.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a name=\"conclusion\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"#conclusion\">12. <u>CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE<\/u><\/a><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><small>[<a href=\"#tmenu\">return to menu<\/a>]<\/small><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">We have presented <strong>ten arguments<\/strong>, which we consider the most compelling in favor of the historicity of the resurrection. Furthermore, a detailed response has been provided to all the major objections raised throughout history by skeptical scholars.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Just like in a courtroom, it is the <strong>cumulative strength<\/strong> of all the evidence, not any single piece of evidence, that forms the basis of the verdict. No individual piece of evidence is sufficient to reach a verdict, but the overall strength of all the arguments can be enough to confidently justify a judgment beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As philosopher <strong>William Lane Craig<\/strong> <a href=\"http:\/\/new.uccronline.it\/2014\/11\/01\/esiste-una-prova-storica-della-resurrezione-di-gesu\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">emphasized<\/a>: <i>\u00abThese proofs themselves are not inaccessible to the historian; they are not miraculous. It is the resurrection of Jesus that is the best explanation of these proofs\u00bb<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The debate focuses not on the probability of the resurrection in itself and without any evidence, but rather on <strong>a series of historical facts<\/strong> that imply the hypothesis of resurrection as the best explanation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In this interpretive framework, we are confronted with events that boast <strong>a substantial body of &#8220;evidence&#8221;<\/strong> unmatched by any other historical event in antiquity.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><u>Let&#8217;s summarize<\/u><\/strong>, grouping them together:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8211; The <strong>earliest independent historical sources<\/strong> of the events date back to 2-7 years after the narrated facts (1 Corinthians 15:2-7, pre-Markan source and formula included in the Acts of the Apostles), ruling out a late creation: no other ancient historical event boasts a better attestation;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8211; The discovery of the <strong>empty tomb<\/strong> is highly historically reliable according to contemporary scholars (and the unsustainability of alternative naturalistic explanations);<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8211; The disciples&#8217; <strong>conviction<\/strong> of having seen the risen Jesus is considered historically real: they certainly saw something (alternative naturalistic explanations lack plausibility);<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8211; The study of Jewish thought has ruled out any possibility that the resurrection of Christ could have been <strong>invented by Jews<\/strong>, inspired by Scriptures, or influenced by Egyptian or pagan deities;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8211; The accounts include <strong>counterproductive details<\/strong> (central role of women), precise geographical-temporal references, and <strong>contradictions<\/strong> among the various evangelists regarding the details of the narrative: no forger would have invented such things;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8211; The resurrection accounts are devoid of theological embellishments and <strong>biblical interpretation<\/strong>, as is common in the creation of myths and legends (see apocryphal gospels);<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8211; Currently, there is <strong>no convincing objection<\/strong> or adequate alternative explanation to account for the complexity of the events considered historical. The hypothesis of resurrection is significantly superior to rival hypotheses;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8211; The sudden <strong>conversion of Paul of Tarsus<\/strong>, a well-known persecutor of Christians who later became an eyewitness of the risen Jesus, is considered historically certain;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8211; The <strong>testimony of Paul of Tarsus<\/strong> regarding the belief in the risen Jesus of the early Christian community is considered historically certain, as he interviewed the eyewitnesses of the events on two occasions;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&#8211; Without the hypothesis of resurrection, <strong>sudden changes<\/strong> that occurred immediately after the death of Jesus remain inexplicable: the rapid conversion of the apostle James, from disbelief to leadership in the early church; the surprising and sudden transformation of the disciples, from fearful deniers of Jesus to tireless promoters of the resurrection and the appearances of the risen Jesus, even unto martyrdom; the sudden authority of the disciples in challenging longstanding Jewish customs, including the biblical judgment of the Sanhedrin, the biblical law of Moses regarding the sanctity of the Sabbath, and placing the resurrection at the center of their faith (a theme that was little or not at all considered in Jewish thought and viewed entirely differently).<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Faced with all this, the eminent scholar <b>Gary Habermas<\/b> inevitably concluded that it <i>&#8220;produces a line of evidence that is simply <strong>astounding<\/strong> and interconnected, almost unknown in ancient documents&#8221;<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"280\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-280\">280<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-280\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"280\"><b>G. Habermas<\/b>, <i>Experiences of the Risen Jesus. The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection<\/i>, Journal of Theology 2006, Vol. 45, pp. 288-297<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abThe hypothesis that Jesus bodily rose from the dead possesses an unparalleled capacity to <strong>explain the events<\/strong> that lie at the very heart of early Christianity\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"281\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-281\">281<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-281\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"281\"><b>C.A. Evans<\/b>, <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, <i>Gli ultimi giorni di Ges\u00f9<\/i>, San Paolo 2010, p. 114<\/span>, wrote <strong>Craig A. Evans<\/strong>, Professor of New Testament and Director of the graduate program at Acadia Divinity College, and <b>N.T. Wright<\/b>, Professor of New Testament at the University of St. Andrews.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Similarly, the prominent American biblical scholar <strong>Daniel B. Wallace<\/strong>, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and founder of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, has acknowledged that <i>\u00abthe resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is <strong>the only explanation<\/strong> that adequately accounts for all the data, and every <strong>alternative naturalistic explanation<\/strong> has died a thousand deaths in the past 200 years. I see no alternative naturalistic explanation\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"282\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-282\">282<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-282\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"282\"><b>D.B. Wallace<\/b>, <i>Fact Checking Dan Barker: From our Recent Debate on June 6, 2015<\/i>, www.danielbwallace.com, 08\/01\/2015<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In addition to these &#8220;arguments,&#8221; the German theologian <strong>Wolfhart Pannenberg<\/strong>, Professor at the University of Munich, observed: <i>\u00abThe resurrection of Jesus takes on an even more decisive significance, not only because someone was raised from the dead, but because <strong>that someone was Jesus of Nazareth<\/strong>, whose execution was instigated by the Jews because he had blasphemed against God. Jesus&#8217; authoritative claim to be God was blasphemous in Jewish ears\u00bb<\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"283\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-283\">283<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-283\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"283\"><b>W. Pannenberg<\/b>, <i>Jesus \u2014 God and Man<\/i>, Priebe 1968, p. 67<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In other words, everything said so far is <strong>further amplified<\/strong> when considering that the protagonist of this resurrection was not just any man, but Jesus of Nazareth. He was the only historically known man who claimed to be the Son of God, whose words have shaped history, and whose teachings (prior to the resurrection) remain mysteriously relevant in every era for believers and non-believers alike.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>A final reflection.<\/strong> Even if someone had been able to capture on an unquestionable video the moment of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, it <strong>would not have changed<\/strong> the lives of the people who have believed in Him until today. It would not have persuaded, fascinated, attracted, or dispelled the sadness in the world.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For those who believe, indeed, it is <strong>only His permanent presence<\/strong>, mysterious throughout history, that can inspire enthusiasm and provide ultimate meaning to people&#8217;s lives.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This is evident in the life of Jewish scholar <strong>Pinchas Lapide<\/strong> who, at the end of his studies, came to the conclusion that the historical evidence strongly suggests the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth<sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"284\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-284\">284<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-284\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"284\"><b>P. Lapide<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus. A Jewish Perspective<\/i>, Augsburg 1983, p. 130<\/span>. However, this did not change his <strong>worldview,<\/strong> and he remained skeptical about the incarnation and Jesus being the Messiah. Although he did not convert, he allowed the historical evidence to somehow alter his perspective and move away from the Sadducean Jewish current (while the Pharisees believed in a final resurrection on the day of Judgment). He wrote:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><i>\u00abAs for the future resurrection of the dead, I am and remain a Pharisee. As for the resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday, I was a Sadducee for decades. Now, <strong>I am no longer\u00bb<\/strong><\/i><sup class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote \" data-mfn=\"285\" data-mfn-post-scope=\"00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843\"><a href=\"javascript:void(0)\"  role=\"button\" aria-pressed=\"false\" aria-describedby=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-285\">285<\/a><\/sup><span id=\"mfn-content-00000000000031d40000000000000000_1843-285\" role=\"tooltip\" class=\"modern-footnotes-footnote__note\" tabindex=\"0\" data-mfn=\"285\"><b>P. Lapide<\/b>, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus. A Jewish Perspective<\/i>, Augsburg 1983, p. 125<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Explore the historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Discover the significance and impact of Jesus&#8217; resurrection. Uncover compelling proofs and testimonies supporting the reality of the resurrection event, affirming the historicity and transformative power of Jesus&#8217; triumph over death.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":61533,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":315,"footnotes":""},"categories":[49,8],"tags":[1495,1491,1494,1492,1489,1493,1496,1498,1488,1497,1490],"class_list":["post-1843","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-faith-and-historicity","category-notizieno","tag-biblical-resurrection","tag-evidence-of-resurrection","tag-historical-evidence","tag-historicity-of-resurrection","tag-jesus-has-risen","tag-jesus-is-risen","tag-resurrection-analysis","tag-resurrection-event","tag-resurrection-of-jesus","tag-resurrection-testimonies","tag-the-resurrection"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Resurrection of Jesus: Historical Evidence Explored - UCCR<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"What is the evidence for the resurrection?We list 10 compelling proofs that confirm the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Resurrection of Jesus: Historical Evidence Explored - UCCR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"What is the evidence for the resurrection?We list 10 compelling proofs that confirm the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"UCCR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/uccronlineng\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-06-25T16:06:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-05T18:23:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Simone\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Simone\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"138 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/\",\"name\":\"Resurrection of Jesus: Historical Evidence Explored - UCCR\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-06-25T16:06:12+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-05T18:23:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/#\/schema\/person\/4532086d8bfbd5d026fa22701599d109\"},\"description\":\"What is the evidence for the resurrection?We list 10 compelling proofs that confirm the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection.webp\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":630,\"caption\":\"evidence proofs of the resurrection\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Resurrection of Jesus: Historical Evidence Explored\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/\",\"name\":\"UCCR\",\"description\":\"Union of Catholic Christian Rationalists\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/#\/schema\/person\/4532086d8bfbd5d026fa22701599d109\",\"name\":\"Simone\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/author\/simone\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Resurrection of Jesus: Historical Evidence Explored - UCCR","description":"What is the evidence for the resurrection?We list 10 compelling proofs that confirm the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Resurrection of Jesus: Historical Evidence Explored - UCCR","og_description":"What is the evidence for the resurrection?We list 10 compelling proofs that confirm the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/","og_site_name":"UCCR","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/uccronlineng\/","article_published_time":"2023-06-25T16:06:12+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-05T18:23:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":630,"url":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Simone","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simone","Est. reading time":"138 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/","url":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/","name":"Resurrection of Jesus: Historical Evidence Explored - UCCR","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection.webp","datePublished":"2023-06-25T16:06:12+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-05T18:23:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/#\/schema\/person\/4532086d8bfbd5d026fa22701599d109"},"description":"What is the evidence for the resurrection?We list 10 compelling proofs that confirm the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/proofs_resurrection.webp","width":1200,"height":630,"caption":"evidence proofs of the resurrection"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2023\/06\/25\/resurrection-of-jesus-historical-evidence-explored\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Resurrection of Jesus: Historical Evidence Explored"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/","name":"UCCR","description":"Union of Catholic Christian Rationalists","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/#\/schema\/person\/4532086d8bfbd5d026fa22701599d109","name":"Simone","url":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/author\/simone\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1843"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1843"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1843\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62600,"href":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1843\/revisions\/62600"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/61533"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}