THE RESURRECTION AND WESTERN CULTURE

___________________

A Thesis

Presented to

the Faculty of the Department of Theological Studies

Dallas Theological Seminary

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Theology

___________________

by

David Jonathan Graieg

May 2012

Turpin Library call number: BT873 .G73 2012

Accepted by the Faculty of the Dallas Theological Seminary in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Theology

Examining Committee

iii

ABSTRACT

THE RESURRECTION AND WESTERN CULTURE

David J. Graieg

Readers: Douglas K. Blount, Steve J. Strauss

The following thesis examines the evidence for and against the resurrection of

Jesus of Nazareth and considers three ways through which one can know the truthfulness

of the resurrection, namely, through the testimony of the Holy Spirit, the witness of the

Bible, and the historical evidence, including Jesus’ death, burial, the empty tomb, and the

early disciples’ belief that they had seen appearances of Jesus resulting in their change

from cowardice to martyrdom (i.e. Peter), the conversion of enemies such as Saul and the

conversion of non-believers such as James, the brother of Jesus. Various objections will

be considered including a denial of the burial accounts, women as a literary creation and

that the gospels were written too late. Several theories to explain these data are

considered including the apparent death hypothesis, the conspiracy theory, the

hallucination hypothesis, and the resurrection hypothesis. It is argued that there is

substantial support for the resurrection of Jesus being an actual historical event.

An analysis of western culture is then undertaken considering some of the

typical objections that are raised against the resurrection. Western culture is broken down

into pre-modern, modern, and postmodern with particular attention to relativism and

pluralism. In light of the findings, ways of presenting the case for the resurrection to an

individual from a western background will be suggested.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Need and Purpose for the Study

Ways One Can Know Whether the Resurrection Is True

The Testimony of the Holy Spirit

The Authority of the Bible

Historical Evidence

Criteria of Authenticity

2. THE RESSURECTION ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Evidence Related to the Resurrection

Jesus’ Death

Burial

Discovery of the Empty Tomb

Individuals Believed They Saw Jesus

Objections

Denial of the Burial Accounts

The Women as Literary Creation

Gospels Written Too Late

Criteria to Evaluate the Most Probable Theory

Various Theories to Explain the Data

The Apparent Death Hypothesis

The Conspiracy Hypothesis

The Hallucination Hypothesis

v

The Resurrection Hypothesis

Objections

Merely Metaphorical and Solely Spiritual

Significance

3. PRESENTING TO WESTERN CULTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

A Brief History of Western Cultures

Pre-modernism

Modernism

Post-modernism

Relativism

Pluralism

4. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Need and Purpose for the Study

The following study examines the Christian case for the resurrection of Jesus

amongst Western cultures. There are two major sections. The first is an examination of

the case for the resurrection. The second is a consideration of Western culture, how

Westerners would likely respond to the Christian case for the resurrection, and what is

the best way to present the case for the resurrection to such an audience.

The resurrection claim is that about 2000 years ago (either in the year AD30

or AD33) in Jerusalem, Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by the Romans under Pontius

Pilate. Jesus died and was buried, but three days later God raised him bodily from the

dead and he was seen by various people in different places. The resurrection is of chief

importance to the Christian faith. Paul writes that if Christ is not raised then the Christian

faith is for nothing (1 Cor 15:14). The resurrection if true, is vindication that Jesus was

not rightly crucified as a blasphemer but rather that God approved of all that Jesus said

and did.

Numerous works have been written for and against the historicity for the

resurrection. The humble goal of this thesis is not primarily to provide new insight into

the matter but to collect and evaluate the main points of the discussion.

Ways One Can Know Whether the Resurrection Is True

There are three proposed ways that an individual can know the historicity of

the resurrection, namely, through the testimony of the Holy Spirit, the witness of the

Bible, and by examining the historical evidence.

2

Testimony of the Holy Spirit

Perhaps the most common way that people throughout history have come to

know that Jesus’ resurrection is true, involves the witness of the Holy Spirit personally

and directly to them. Plantinga provides an epistemological defense of this.1 This

experience is external to one’s mind, which is to say that the Spirit is objectively

witnessing to the individual. A believer personally knows this to be the case and finds

this confirmed in scripture (such as Rom 8:9; 16; Heb 10:15; Gal 4:9; 1 John 5:6-10).

If someone asked, “how do you know that Jesus was raised from the dead?” It

is legitimate to say, “Because his Spirit dwells in me and I have a relationship with Him.”

Such an answer may not be very helpful to an atheist, but perhaps he (or she) will see that

God is personally real in one’s own life, not merely in theory. This highlights that there is

a difference between knowing something and showing something to be true. The

following will look at some ways to demonstrate this to others. The Christian is

warranted in believing solely based on the witness of the Spirit to him (or her) but

evidence will have to be mustered to show that the Spirit who does such testifying exists.

Therefore the question is, is there evidence for this? The following chapter will present

historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

What this means in terms of the role of argumentation and reason is that they

have a subsidy role. Luther stated that reason did not have a magisterial role standing

over and above the gospel judging it but rather reason had a ministerial role submitting to

the service of the gospel.2 If it had a magisterial role, then people would have an excuse

before God, but scripture indicates that men are without excuse (Rom 1:21). It should be

pointed out that in a hypothetically sin-free world in which we had access to all the

1 Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York, NY: Oxford University Press,

2000), 165-240.

2 Martin Luther, Werke, Weimar Ausgabe, vol. 42, 35.

3

evidence, it would always agree with the witness of the Spirit, but we are missing

information and so the evidence may not always line up, but fortunately the witness of

the Holy Spirit is sufficient and true.

The Authority of the Bible

Is it reasonable for a Christian to say, “I know Jesus rose from the dead

because the Bible says so?” An argument for this could be stated as follows:

(1) The Bible is true

(2) The Bible states that Jesus rose from the dead

(3) Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead

In regard to proposition (1), while much evidence can be brought forward to demonstrate,

on a passage-by-passage basis that the Bible is accurate, there are passages in the Bible,

that cannot be empirically verified.3 While showing the general reliability of the Bible

will make it more likely that one will be open to accepting other matters in the Bible, it is

logically possible that a source could be wrong about various matters and yet right about

other things. Hence, while it could be helpful it is not necessary to demonstrate that the

Bible is correct about other matters. What is of concern here is whether the Bible is

correct about the resurrection.

All that is needed is at least one text that accurately presents the main facts

concerning the resurrection. For instance, if one text could be found that accurately states

that individuals saw an appearance of the risen Jesus this would suffice to demonstrate

the truthfulness of such an event. Even if there were irreconcilable contradictions in

minor details of accounts, these do not necessarily annul the major point of a story. For

3 Examples of matters in the Bible that cannot be proven would include yet unfulfilled

prophecy. That is not to say there are no reasons that could be given that make the likelihood of such an

event probable. For instance if Jesus made predictions that he would be crucified and come back to life

again (such as in Matt 20:19) and this has been shown to be correct then it would be reasonable to believe

that Christ will return as prophesied (Acts 1:9-11). The point is that there are matters that from a mere

human point of view are uncertain.

4

instance, if a text stated that Jesus was first seen alive by Jack on Monday and another

text said that the same Jack first saw Jesus alive on Thursday, one would have to

conclude that Jack cannot have seen Jesus for the first time both on Monday and on

Thursday. While it is true that both texts could be false, the point here is that one text

could be false in regard to the day that Jack first saw Jesus but still accurate in affirming

that Jack did indeed see Jesus. That being said I do not think there are any contradictions

in the Bible, let alone in the resurrection accounts. As will be demonstrated below for the

resurrection accounts, all such alleged differences can be harmonized. The point here is

that the burden of proof merely requires that one text about the key fact of the

resurrection is required. Of course, an individual will be more reluctant to accept that key

point if there are many complications surrounding it. Therefore, it is a worthy task to

defend the general reliability of the Bible to bolster a cumulative case for the

resurrection.

Proposition (2) should be uncontroversial as passages asserting this abound

(Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, etc.). It could be objected that these passages do

not teach a literal bodily resurrection but mere visions or some kind of spiritual reality.

Such objections will be dealt with in the following chapter and serve to demonstrate the

lengths that individuals will go to avoid the conclusion.

Proposition (3) logically follows from (1) and (2).

Therefore, returning to the initial question – is one justified in believing the

resurrection merely on the basis of the authority of Scripture? It would seem that God

uses the occasion of a presentation of the Bible to convince many people, particularly

children, of the truth of the resurrection.

5

Historical Evidence

The third approach by which one can ascertain the truthfulness of the

resurrection of Jesus is by examining the historical evidences for and against it. Chapter

two shall undertake such a historical task based on the below criteria.

Criteria of Authenticity

The criteria of authenticity helps establish the reliability of a passage. The

criteria include multiple independent attestation, divergent patterns (or embarrassment),

double similarity and double dissimilarity, the impact of an event, Aramaic linguistic

features, and coherence with already established facts.4 Failure to meet these criteria is

not proof of it being inauthentic. That would require a separate criterion of falsifiability

(such as logical contradiction, unhistorical affirmations, etc.).5

Conclusion

This first chapter has examined three ways in which one can know whether

Jesus was raised from the dead, namely, through the witness of the Holy Spirit, the

testimony of Scripture, and by examining the historical evidence. The first two of these

methods has been shown to be a valid avenue of investigation; the third awaits the

following chapter for examination.

4 See Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods (Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 199-202.

5 See C. Stephen Evans, The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational

Narrative as History. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 321-55.

6

CHAPTER 2

THE RESURRECTION ARGUMENT

The following chapter will lay out the historical data that any theory will need

to explain and will consider various ways of interpreting the data.

The Evidence Related to the Resurrection

The facts concerning the resurrection can be divided up into four main

categories: (1) Jesus’ death; (2) burial; (3) discovery of the empty tomb; and (4)

appearances. The following is a portrayal of these events:

Jesus’ Death

The strife began with a late night in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt 26:36-

55; Mark 14:32-49) in which Jesus under extreme anguish sweated drops of blood (Luke

22:44). Jesus also experienced the emotional pain of being abandoned by his followers

(Matt 27:56; Mark 14:50-52) and being denied by Peter (Matt 27:75; Mark 14:66-72;

Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18, 25-27). This emotional pain is highlighted, for one’s

mental health will affect one’s physical health. Crucifixion was not merely bodily torture,

it was also a great public disgrace designed to bring shame upon the victim.

The Jewish guards struck Jesus in the face (Matt 26:67; Mark 14:65; Luke

22:64).1 While being punched in the face is no small thing, this was not likely jaw

breaking but nevertheless would have caused damage. Herod’s guard also mocked Jesus

1 John 18:22 states that one of the high priest’s officers struck Jesus on the face. This was

probably similar to a hard slap and different from the above mentioned account.

7

(Luke 23:11). Jesus was flogged (Matt 27:26; Mark 15:15).2 The term used φραγελλόω3

refers to a “scourge, a punishment inflicted on slaves and provincials after a sentence of

death had been pronounced on them.”4 The NET Bible states, “The victim was stripped of

his clothes and bound to a post with his hands fastened above him (or sometimes he was

thrown to the ground).”5 Roman guards whipped victims with a leather whip with pieces

of lead and bone affixed at the ends.6 Jewish custom allowed 40 lashes; however, the

Romans had no such limit and many people died from such beatings.7 The biblical

accounts portray Pilate as seeing Jesus as innocent but at the same time not wanting the

Jewish people to riot, and so it is likely that Pilate had Jesus flogged to awaken pity in the

crowd. In light of this, one could argue either that a harsher whipping was given so the

crowd would not see a further crucifixion as being necessary or that the whipping was

less severe since Pilate had pity toward Jesus. A crown of thorns was forced onto Jesus’

head (Matt 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2). Jesus was also repeatedly struck on the head

with a staff by the Roman guards (Matt 27:30; Mark 15:19; John 19:3).

Victims of crucifixion generally carried the crossbeam (not the whole cross)

to the place of crucifixion (the upright beam usually remaining in the ground) and the

2 Luke 23:16, 22 does not state that Jesus was whipped, but rather speaks of the whipping in

the future tense as something that will happen. In addition, Luke uses the term παιδεύω which can refer to

educating, or discipline, either verbally or physically through whipping (BDAG, 749).

3 John 19:1 uses the term μαστιγόω a lashing (BDAG, 620). There were three degrees if

whipping in Rome: “(1) fustigatio (beating), (2) flagellatio (flogging), and (3) verberatio (severe flogging,

scourging)” (NET Bible note 1 on John 19:1). Matthew and Mark clearly have in view the verberatio. John

is likely referring to that also.

4 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature, rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1064.

5 Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, 2006, note 35 on Matt 27:26.

6 Horst Robert Balz, and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol.

3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 437.

7 Carl Schneider, “μαστιγόω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard

Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, vol. 4, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.

Eerdmans, 1964), 515-19.

8

biblical account seems to indicate that Jesus was so injured and tired that he was unable

to complete the task and so Simon from Cyrene was forced to carry it the rest of the way

(Matt 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:36).

Jesus was crucified (Matt 27:35; Mark 15:25) at about nine in the morning.

Crucifixion was an excruciating form of punishment. Roman citizens were exempt from

it except under exceptional circumstances. It was reserved for the worst of crimes, such

as treason, and aimed at maximizing shame and pain over a prolonged period of time.

Roman historian Cicero called it “a cruel and disgusting penalty.”8 Josephus called it “a

most miserable death.”9 On the cross Jesus was mocked (Matt 27:39-44; Mark 15:29-32).

At about three in the afternoon Jesus died on the cross (Matt 27:50; Mark

15:33-37; Luke 23:44, 46; John 19:28-30).10 Hence, Jesus hung on the cross for about six

hours having already been whipped. John’s gospel records that the Roman soldiers were

going to break Jesus’ legs, but seeing that he was already dead, a soldier pierced his side

with a spear and blood and water flowed out (John 19:31-34).

Burial

A man named Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, went to Pilate

and requested the body of Jesus (Matt 27:57-58; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50-52; John

19:38). Joseph wrapped the body in linen and placed it in a new tomb with a stone rolled

across the entrance (Matt 27:59-60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:40). Jesus’ body

was wrapped with about 75 pounds of burial spices (John 19:39).11

8 Cicero, Against Verres 2.5.63-66 §§163-70.

9 Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson, 1996), J. W. 7.6.4 [7.203].

10 1 Cor 15:3 also states that Jesus died, but does not specify the details.

11 1 Cor 15:4 states that Jesus was buried, but does not specify the details.

9

Discovery of the Empty Tomb

On the first day of the week (that is, Sunday by the Jewish calendar), while

the sun was just beginning to rise, women came to the tomb to anoint the body (Mark

16:1; Luke 24:1) and found the stone of the tomb entrance rolled away (Matt 28:2; Mark

16:3-4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1). The women reported finding the tomb empty and

encountered an individual stating that Jesus had risen (Matt 28:2-7; Mark 16:5-7; Luke

24:3-7, 22-23). Peter upon hearing the report of the women, also went to the tomb and

found it empty (Luke 24:12; John 20:3).12 A group of unspecified people also found the

tomb empty on resurrection Sunday (Luke 24:24).

Individuals Believed They Saw Jesus

Various people, both individually and in groups, at different time and places

claimed to see Jesus alive after his death. The first individuals who believed they had

seen appearances of Jesus were the women who were returning from the tomb when they

saw him (Matt 28:9-10). After Peter and the other disciple had left the tomb Mary

Magdalene saw Jesus (John 20:10-18). She first mistook Jesus for the gardener but later

recognized his voice.

In the afternoon on resurrection Sunday Jesus walked alongside two disciples

(one named Cleopas) for part of the 7 mile journey from Jerusalem to Emmaus (Luke

24:13-18). As they journeyed they conversed (Luke 24:19-27). The two men were

divinely kept from recognizing Jesus (Luke 24:16) until Jesus served them bread to eat

(Luke 24:31), at which point Jesus vanished from their sight (Luke 24:31).

12 John records that another unnamed disciple also went and saw the empty tomb with Peter

John 20:3-8.

10

On resurrection Sunday Jesus appeared to Peter, but the details of this

appearance are not specified (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5). Why this account is not spelled

out is anybody’s guess. Perhaps it was just too emotional and personal for Peter.

In the evening on resurrection Sunday, Jesus appeared to the eleven apostles

(the two disciples who walked on the road to Emmaus were also present) (Luke 24:36;

John 20:19-23). In this appearance Jesus showed them the scars on his hands and the

marks on his feet, as well as the wound on his side (Luke 24:39-40), pointing out that he

was not a ghost but flesh and blood (Luke 24:37-38). Jesus ate a piece of fish in front of

them to help their disbelief and amazement (Luke 24:41-42). During this encounter Jesus

walked with them to Bethany (Luke 24:50).

Eight days after resurrection Sunday inside a house, Jesus appeared to the

disciples including Thomas (John 20:26-29). A later appearance occurred early in the

morning at the Sea of Tiberias (also known as the Sea of Galilee [John 6:1]) while Simon

Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples

were fishing (John 21:1). During this appearance Peter has a long conversation with Jesus

(John 21:15-22).

The only prearranged meeting occurred on the mountainside at Galilee, when

the eleven disciples were present (Matt 28:16-20). Acts 1:3 states that Jesus appeared to

the disciples over a period of forty days without specifying the details of these accounts.

Therefore, they could be the appearances mentioned above or they could be other

appearances. One of these was the appearance to James (1 Cor 15:7), though the

appearance to Paul (1 Cor 15:8; Acts 9:3-8) occurred after the forty day period.

Objections

Before considering the various theories to explain the data, we shall consider

some of the objections raised against the evidence as it has been presented above.

11

Denial of Burial Accounts

Crossan argues that Jesus’ body probably rotted or was eaten by animals or

thrown in a shallow mass grave.13 Segal argues that, by the time the gospels were written,

it would be too late to check for an empty tomb, since tombs in the first century were not

permanent burial places.14 After about a year, once the flesh having decayed, the bones

were either pushed to the back of the niche in the tomb (hence the later gospel’s claim

that Joseph of Arimathea volunteered a new tomb with no bones) or they were collected

in ossuaries.15

To those who deny the burial accounts (Mark 15:42-47; Matt 27:57-66; Luke

23:50-56; John 19:38-42), there is no textual reason to deny that Joseph of Arimathea, a

member of the Sanhedrin and a known figure, in a known place buried the body in a

Jewish manner. John 19:39-40 mentions spices, whereas Mark 15:46 does not, but this is

not a contradiction, it is an omission. The gospels portray Pilate as sympathetic to Jesus;

hence, it seems reasonable that he would give the body of a criminal to Joseph (a non-

family member). Deuteronomy 21:22-23, and first century practice,16 instructed the

Israelites not to leave a body hanging after sundown. Given how Joseph of Arimathea’s

colleagues would view him, his actions are more than mere pity. The Romans had

13 John Dominic Crossan, “The Resurrection: Historical Event or Theological Explanation? A

Dialogue,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert

B. Stewart (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 23-48.

14 Alan F. Segal, “The Resurrection: Faith or History?,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John

Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg

Fortress, 2006), 135.

15 Ibid.

16 “Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without

burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that

were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. “ (Josephus, J.W.

4.317).

12

particular mass graves for criminals (Josephus, J.W. 4.317, m. Sanh. 6.5).17 For Joseph to

give Jesus a new rock hewn tomb is thus special treatment (Matt 27:60, Luke 23:53).18

The early church was not particularly fond of the Sanhedrin since it was largely

responsible for having Jesus crucified, so it is unlikely that the early church would invent

Joseph as someone who is part of the Sanhedrin, unless it was historical.19

The Women as a Literary Creation

Ehrman states that Luke’s emphasis on the marginalized is why he attributes

the first appearances as being to women.20 Mark 16:1 has three women, Matthew 28:1 has

two women, Luke 24:10 has several women, and John 21:1 mentions only one woman,

but none of the texts say that there were exactly X; hence, the omission of others is not a

contradiction. Since women were not considered reliable witnesses in first century

Israel,21 there is no point in inventing details about what one first century skeptic called

“half frantic women” (Origen, Celsus 2.59). This suggests this is what actually took

place. Though there is a lot of similarity in the synoptics, here there is no list fixing

taking place, highlighting the vividness and importance of this event to the witnesses.

Mark 16:1 and Luke 24:1 state the women came to anoint, whereas Matthew

28:1 says they came to inspect the tomb. This is likely just a figure of speech used by

17 “I have known cases when on the eve of a holiday of this kind, people who have been

crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinsfolk, because it was thought well to

give them burial and allow them the ordinary rites.” (Philo, Flaccus 83).

18 A private tomb would provide a secure place for guards to watch. The seal on the tomb

indicates that it was Roman guards, not Jewish guards. The penalty for failing to guard property sealed by

Rome was being burnt alive.

19 For more information on the burial, see William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament

Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, 3rd ed. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity

16 (Toronto: Edwin Mellen, 2004), ch. 5 and appendix B.

20 William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman, The Craig-Ehrman Debate: Is There Historical

Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? (Worcester, MA: Holy Cross College), 2006.

21 “Let the words of the Law be burned rather than delivered to women” (Kiddushin 82b) and

“Blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female” (Sotah 19a).

13

Matthew. The women were not involved in the burial; rather they saw from afar what

Joseph did (Mark 15:47). Before the Sabbath began on Friday night, the women went to

buy spices (Luke 23:56) and, while it was acceptable to attend to the dead on a Sabbath,

(“They make ready [on the Sabbath] all that is needful for the dead, and anoint it and

wash it” (m. Sabb. 23:5)), they would not have been allowed to carry the materials

around on the Sabbath. Such preparations were acceptable only in one’s residence.

Hence, after the Sabbath, once daylight was coming, the women went to the tomb (Mark

16:1).

Gospels Written Too Late

Some object that the gospels were written too long after the events and that

legends had developed, paralleling near east mythical figures like Isis and Osiris. To this

it can be stated that the gospels internally bear accurate details suggesting eyewitness

accounts (archaeological discoveries have confirmed this).22 Quotations and the traditions

from the early church Fathers suggest a date around the 60’s.23 The failure to mention the

temple being destroyed suggests a composition before AD 70. Manuscripts have been

found from as early as the second century.24 A comparison of the later gospels, such as

the Gospel of Peter, reveals that the biblical gospels do not seem to be embellished

(Gospel of Peter 9.34-10:42). It should be pointed out that a historical investigation of the

22 I.e. the discovery of Caiaphas ossuary, the Erastus inscription, the Gallio inscription, etc.

See F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity

Press, 1981).

23 Papias, “Fragments of Papias 3.1-4,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic

Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe

(Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 153; Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 3.25, trans.

Kirsopp Lake, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925), 1.257.

24 Such as P52

and P90

.

14

scriptures does not require one to hold to inerrancy but uses the criteria of authenticity to

point to generally reliable texts.25

Criteria to Evaluate the Most Probable Theory

There may be several theories that explain the data. Which explanation should

one prefer? There are several criteria used to help make inferences to the best

explanation: explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, less ad hoc, and coherent

with existing understandings of truth.26

Various Theories to Explain the Data

The following examines various theories that have been put forward in order

to explain the data. These include the apparent death hypothesis, the conspiracy

hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and the resurrection hypothesis.

The Apparent Death Hypothesis

The apparent death hypothesis, also known as the swoon theory, argues that

the blood loss caused Jesus to faint on the cross. He lost consciousness and people

thought he had died. In the cold damp tomb, Jesus resuscitated either on his own, or

through the help of individuals such as Joseph of Arimathea who were not actually

anointing and wrapping the dead body, but treating and bandaging a wounded body.

First, it is highly unlikely that Jesus would have survived the crucifixion. The

whipping by the Romans was itself known to kill people (Mark 15:15; John 19:1).

25 This is not to say that I deny inerrancy, I do hold to it and for those interested, see: G. K.

Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority

(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).

26 C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1984), 19.

Inference to the best explanation is also known as abduction. See Douven, Igor,

“Abduction,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011), ed. Edward N. Zalta,

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/abduction/ (accessed March 10, 2012).

15

Further, hanging crucified on a cross for several hours would further weaken a person.

Finally, the spear to the side would have surely killed Jesus (John 19:34).27 It is important

to note that this was done by soldiers, who would be familiar with death and would not

squirm at the sight of blood.

This theory is a modern one. It was agreed upon by all in the first century

whether – Christian, Jewish, or Roman – that Jesus died. First century Jewish historian

Josephus states, “Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus.

… When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned

him to the cross.”28 Later Jewish sources state, “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was

hanged.” 29 First century Roman historian Tacitus states, “The author of this name, Christ,

during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate.”30 Such a

theory does not explain the rise of the church, for a badly wounded individual would

hardly inspire followers to say, “Death has been conquered.”

The Conspiracy Hypothesis

The conspiracy hypothesis argues that lies are hiding the truth that the Jews or

the disciples stole the body to start a hoax.31 At best the conspiracy theory takes into

account only one piece of the evidence – namely, the empty tomb. If it was the disciples

27 For more information see William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On

the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” in Journal of the American Medical Association (Chicago, IL:

American Medical Association, 1986), 255:1455-63.

28 Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson, 1996). Ant. 18.63-64.

29 Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods (Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 58; Israel Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino,

1935–48), b. Sanhedrin 43a.

30 Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 49; Cornelius Tacitus, Annales (Latin), ed. Charles

Dennis Fisher (Medford, MA: Perseus Digital Library, 1906), Annals 15.44.

31 Michael Baigent, The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History (New

York, NY: HarperOne, 2007); Hugh J. Schonfield, The Passover Plot (New York, NY: The Disinformation

Company, 2005).

16

who stole the body, why would they go on to die for a lie when they had nothing to gain?

This is made even more unlikely as the disciples were preaching a message of love and

honesty. Further it seems inconsistent with the disciples’ psychology both prior to and

after Easter morning. Specifically, Judas committed suicide from the guilt and Peter must

have felt similarly.

The Hallucination Hypothesis

Gerd Ludemann argues that Peter was depressed and had a hallucination of

Jesus.32 Following this, Willi Marxsen proposed that Peter’s enthusiasm persuaded the

others.33 This theory is highly improbable as there were multiple appearances at different

places to different people, including groups, and hallucinations are individual

experiences; one cannot share in another person’s hallucination. Further psychology has

shown that one only hallucinates about things that are already in one’s mind but a bodily

resurrection before the eschaton was not in the worldview of the disciples.34 At most the

disciples would have envisioned an exalted Jesus translated to heaven (Dan 7).

With the backdrop of Jewish views on the resurrection, even if the disciples

had some kind of visionary experience (i.e. Acts 8:55-56)35 at most they would have made

a shrine (i.e. 1 Macc 13:27-30) awaiting the resurrection at the end.36

32 Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection

(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 93-94.

33 Willi Marxsen, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1970).

34 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Downers

Grove, IL: Crossway, 2008), 384-87.

35 The worldview of first century Jews included seeing departed people (Acts 12:12-16), but

this was distinct from resurrection beliefs.

36 On tomb veneration, see Josephus J.W. 4.531-32; 5:506; Ant. 7.392; 13.249.

17

Jesus’ corporeal appearances show that the one who appeared as risen was the

one who had been crucified. This is demonstrated by the wounds on his hands, feet (Luke

24:39) and side (John 20:20). Further, Jesus eating fish (Luke 24:42-43; John 21:9, 12-

13) demonstrates he was not an incorporeal ghost.

The Resurrection Hypothesis

The resurrection hypothesis argues that God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts

3:26; 10:40; 13:33; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:15; 2 Cor 4:14; Rom 4:24; 6:4; 8:11; 10:9; Gal 1:1;

Eph 1:20; Phil 2:1; Col 2:12; 1 Thess 1:10; 1 Pet 1:21).

Objections

The following considers some of the objections raised against the resurrection

hypothesis. Segal thinks that this hypothesis violates the historical method. He states,

“No evidence at all would ever demonstrate that a unique resurrection took place. The

resurrection is neither probable nor improbable; it is impossible to confirm historically.

… Such a problem is not part of the world of scientific verification.”37 He goes on to

state, “I am suggesting that trying to prove the resurrection historically is the same as

trying to prove the Trinity historically or trying to prove Adam and Eve scientifically – a

category mistake.”38 Finally he writes, “It is one thing to conclude that the early

Christians took it as fact; it is another thing to propound that it can be demonstrated

historically. Such an endeavor is always bound to fail.”39 “Because historians can only

establish what probably happened and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable,”

37 Alan F. Segal, “The Resurrection: Faith or History?,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John

Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg

Fortress, 2006), 135.

38 Ibid., 137.

39 Ibid.

18

Ehrman writes, “the historian cannot say it probably occurred.”40 Following in the line of

Thomas Jefferson, who used scissors to cut all the supernatural elements out of the

gospels,41 the Jesus Seminar in the introduction of the Five Gospels list their seven pillars

of scholarly wisdom (which is their methodology). First, no supernatural causes should

be accepted, they write, “Strauss distinguished what he called the ‘mythical’ (defined as

anything legendary or supernatural) in the gospels from the historical.”42 Hence, they

consider all of the resurrection predictions and accounts to be mere legend.

First, the crucifixion of Jesus is a historical verifiable event, as is the burial by

Joseph of Arimathea. Second, the empty tomb and appearances to individuals, if they

happened, also took place in the space-time continuum and hence can be studied as

historical events. All this “evidence” is itself natural. The question is how all these

historical events can have happened, since the biblical accounts suggest a supernatural

link between them.

John Meier (who believes the resurrection occurred) thinks it falls outside the

historical method, he writes, “these wide-ranging questions are legitimate in the area of

philosophy or theology. But they are illegitimate or at least unanswerable in a historical

investigation that stubbornly restricts itself to empirical evidence and rational deductions

or inference from such evidence.”43

40 Bart, Ehrman, Historical Jesus, Part 2 (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company, 2000), 50.

41 The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was

Thomas Jefferson's (1743-1826) effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New

Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been

added by the Four Evangelists.

42 Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for

the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York, NY: MacMillian, 1993), 3.

43 John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Companions and Competitors, vol. 3: Rethinking the

Historical Jesus (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2001), 511.

19

Craig Keener, once an atheist but now a Christian, leaves this discussion to his

appendix, entitled “What Really Happened at the Tomb?” He states that the default

position should be open either way, “A ‘neutral,’ agnostic starting point should allow for

the possibility of divine activity without requiring it, and atheists and theists alike should

be ready to grant this exploration, at least on the level of dialogue, whatever their

personal convictions.”44

A miracle should not be defined as the breaking of a natural law by some

deistic being, but as “a less common kind of God’s activity.”45 Science is based on

observations and consequently descriptive, not prescriptive. Historical investigation

should be open to insights from philosophy as ultimately the search is for the truth. The

key question should not be whether it is a historically valid question whether Jesus rose

from the dead; the real question is whether Jesus did actually rise from the dead and

whether one has epistemological warrant in believing this. All avenues of learning

(history, philosophy, science, psychology, archaeology, theology, etc.) should be used

together in order to best interpret the evidence.

Douglas Geivett asks which of the following are historical claims:46

1) The earliest Christians believed Jesus rose bodily from the dead;

2) Jesus actually did rise bodily from the dead;

3) The earliest Christians believed Jesus was raised bodily from the dead by

God;

4) Jesus was actually raised bodily from the dead by God.

44 Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 382.

45 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 355.

46 Douglas Geivett, “The Epistemology of the Resurrection Belief,” in The Resurrection of

Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis,

Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 95.

20

Wright, Habermas, Licona, and Craig consider the first three historical. Crossan, Carrier,

and Ludemann consider only one and three historical. Number two is a historical

verifiable statement (was the man Jesus seen alive after the Passover Sabbath in AD

30/33). However, because it involves the occurrence of a supernatural event, it stands

outside the purview of current historical methodology so other approaches are needed to

bolster such a claim. A cumulative interdisciplinary case needs to be put forth.

To the objection that supernatural claims go beyond the historical method;

Geivett states,

In the end, historians must allow their extrahistorical knowledge to inform

their historical judgments whenever such knowledge is relevant to understanding

the data surrounding the events they investigate. … Disagreements will no doubt

arise about what counts as extrahistorical knowledge. We cannot expect historians

to agree about that when the content and scope of such knowledge are beyond the

special purview of historical analysis. But we should require the historian to set

forth without equivocation or false modesty his own metaphysical commitments

insofar as they inform his historical judgments. He should also be prepared to

present whatever evidence persuades him that his metaphysical perspective is

more plausible than its alternatives, for the epistemic status of his metaphysical

position will haunt his judgments about historical matters.47

Merely Metaphorical and Solely Spiritual

Crossan states that the resurrection was not literal but metaphorical.48 Segal

argues that in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is referring to a spiritual body, not a physical one.49 1

Corinthians 15:3-5 shows evidence of being an early Aramaic resurrection creed. “For I

delivered to you. … What I also received” (1 Cor 15:3) is technical Rabbinic

47 Ibid.

48 John Dominic Crossan, “The Resurrection: Historical Event or Theological Explanation? A

Dialogue,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert

B. Stewart (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 23-48.

49 Alan F. Segal, “The Resurrection: Faith or History?,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John

Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg

Fortress, 2006), 135.

21

terminology. Paul was probably informed of this tradition on his first trip to Jerusalem

(Acts 9:26-30) about 4 years after the crucifixion. The term “the twelve” is not frequently

used by Paul, who normally uses the term “the apostles.” Hence, this seems to reinforce

the idea that this is an early tradition that has been passed down.

While the gospels do not detail Jesus’ first appearance to Peter (Luke 24:34),

the event is affirmed. Osborne suggests that perhaps it was too intensely personal to

Peter.50 The omission of the appearances to the women might be because the creed had

apologetic value, which does not deny that the women had appearances; merely that it

was not the first thing the early Christians were telling unbelievers.

The appearance to the 500 provides strong evidence that it was not mere

hallucinations. For individuals who hallucinate, one cannot enter into another person’s

hallucinations. Further, a hallucination would not likely make one willing to die for this

belief. Crossan,51 Price,52 and Ludemann,53 understand the list as not about faith, but about

the power of the leaders; however, the appearance to the 500 goes against this. Further, if

it were a kind of power list, one would expect to have a listed appearances to Matthias or

Barnabas since if it was a requirement for an apostle to see Jesus (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor 9:1)

then they should have their names on the power list, but since this is not the case such a

theory fails to explain the data.

50 Grant R. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study, (Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker Publishing Group, 1984), 226-27.

51 John Dominic Crossan, “The Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection,” in The Search for

Jesus: Modern Scholarship Looks as the Gospels ed. Hershel Shanks (Washington, D.C.: Biblical

Archeological Society, 1994), 123-25.

52 Robert M. Price, “Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 As a post-Pauline

Interpolation,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grace, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery J. Lowder,

(Amherst, New York: Prometheus, 2005), 69-104.

53 Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (Amherst, New York:

Prometheus, 2004), 41.

22

James, the half-brother of Jesus was not a believer before the crucifixion

(Mark 3:21, 31-32; 6:4; John 7:5), so a critic must find a solid reason for this filial

conversion. Saul, an enemy to the faith, goes on to live a life of suffering and poverty –

how can one explain the complete reversal?

Taking into account Jewish afterlife beliefs, namely that a resurrection meant

a bodily event, indicates that the expression “buried and raised” (1 Cor 15:4) implies the

empty tomb. The term ὁράω “he appeared” does not refer to a beholding in a dream or

vision but a physical sighting.54 Contrary to those who suggest Paul’s experience was

merely spiritual and hence the others, the structure of the list suggests the reverse that

Paul’s experience was like the others – a physical appearance. Further, Acts 9:7, 22:9,

says those with Paul also experienced something. 1 Corinthians 15:20-58, is not

contrasting a material body versus the immaterial one, but rather an earthly one that is

mortal, dishonorable, weak and natural with a resurrection body that is immortal,

glorious, powerful and spiritual (Paul uses the terms in 1 Cor 2:14-15, clearly not

implying material and immaterial).

It needs to be remembered that one can use metaphorical language to describe

a concrete reality and doing so makes the event no less a solid reality. Clearly, the

disciples believed that God had bodily raised Jesus from the dead. They took this literally

and the case is not harmed if they use poetic language to rejoice in it.

Significance

What difference does the resurrection make? The context of Jesus’ life, a man

who claimed that “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even

if he dies” (John 11:25), a man who either cast out demons by Beelzebub or by God

54 BDAG, 719-20; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International

Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 728.

23

(Matt 12:22-29), and who was sentenced to death under the accusation of blasphemy for

claiming to be son of God (Matt 26:63-66). It would seem that Jesus died accursed of

God (Deut 21:23). With this backdrop, it is apparent that the resurrection of Jesus serves

as divine vindication by God. It is God’s stamp of approval on all that Jesus did and said,

showing him the one who will baptize with the Spirit (Luke 3:16), who disarmed Satan

(Col 2:15), who had authority to gather the twelve to himself, who showed God’s heart to

sinners, who was Lord of the Sabbath and the Christ, the coming King.

Therefore, the resurrection has significant theological implications including

Christ’s glorification (Phil 2). Whoever is in Christ is no longer under a curse for failing

to fulfill the law (Gal 3:13). There is forgiveness for sins (2 Cor 5:21), there is fullness of

life now with God through the Spirit (Rom 8). Jesus as the first fruits (1 Cor 15:20-21),

gives the believer assurance of more to come.

Conclusion

There are solid historical reasons for accepting that Jesus died on the cross

and was buried by Joseph of Armimathea, that three days later a group of women found

the tomb empty, and that appearances of Jesus were witnessed by various groups of

people in various places. While there are some honest questions to consider, there are no

solid objections to the evidence. The most probable explanation is that “God raised Jesus

from the dead.”

24

CHAPTER 3

PRESENTING TO WESTERN CULTURES

The following chapter investigates how individuals of a Western cultural

background would typically respond to the above outlined case for the resurrection and

how to progress the dialogue in light of this.

Western Culture

The term “western” can be used in many different ways. In the Middle Ages,

one could refer to the Eastern empire (i.e. Byzantine) or to the West (i.e. Rome). In the

Twenty-first century, the term generally refers to countries such as West Europe (i.e.

England but also France, Spain, Germany, and Italy) and nations that have been primarily

populated by migrants from West Europe such as the United States of America,

Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (White South Africans could also be grouped in

this). Clearly, there are differences between and within these nations. However, it is

nevertheless a basic classification system aiming to provide some clarity to a large and

complex matter. It should be clarified that while it is generally the case that one born in

these countries will exemplify western culture, it is not necessarily the case. Clearly, one

could live in a so-called western country and yet have an eastern mindset. Similarly,

while being western is commonly associated with those of Caucasian ethnic origin who

speak English, this is not a necessary feature of being western and there are “white”

English speakers who will not be of the western mindset.

25

A Brief History of Western Cultures

There are various ways one could categorize the main periods of western

culture. A common way is to group them as pre-modernism, modernism, and

postmodernism.

Pre-modernism

The pre-modern period is classified as being prior to the 16th

century AD. The

characteristics generally include that people were some kind of theists, truth was

understood as being revealed through a divine being, and there were respected authorities

who taught this message. There was an expectation of constancy in life (for instance

people either walked or rode an animal around, sons took their father’s occupation),

social structures provided security and unanswered questions were considered part of the

accepted mystery of life.1

Pre-modernists formulated their epistemology in light of their metaphysics.

Hence, their understanding of God greatly influenced how they understood reality. Truth

was seen as objective, but rationality (or reason) as subjective (that is relative to one’s

background assumptions). Hence, a pre-modern would not have said that one should just

follow the evidence wherever it leads, for one needs a framework to interpret that data (it

would be acknowledged that there is no neutral ground but that some grounds are to be

preferred over others).2

How a pre-modern would respond to the Christian’s case for the resurrection

will largely depend on his (or her) background assumptions. If the pre-modern is a theist

but not a Christian theist, he (or she) may not think that God would act in such a way to

1 Some of these ideas were adapted from Glenn R. Kreider, ST101 Introduction to Theology

Masters Level Class (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007).

2 Some of these ideas were adapted from Douglas Blount, ST630 Postmodernism Masters

Level Class (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 2010).

26

bring about the death and resurrection of Jesus. Consequently, in order to make the case

for the resurrection more compelling to the pre-modern, the Christian should share the

case for the resurrection in the context of the complete Christian story. That is the

resurrection should not be shared in isolation from the framework of the biblical story,

namely that humans are sinners and cannot do anything to solve their predicament, but

God in his love sent Jesus to die for humans and the resurrection is vindication of what

Jesus accomplished. Further, the more that the Christian is able to share about how the

Christian God (not that there is any other God) corresponds with reality (such as the

Trinity having unity and diversity thereby giving illegitimacy to unity and diversity in

this world) the more the pre-modern is likely to be convinced to accept the Christian’s

presuppositions.

Modernism

The modern period is classified as being from the 17th

to 19th

centuries AD. It

is often associated with the Renaissance, reformation, enlightenment, and industrial

revolution. Descartes3 and Hobbes are generally considered the fathers of modernism.

Modernist ideology is commonly found today in the sciences and in individuals such as

Sam Harris,4 Christopher Hitchens,5 and Richard Dawkins.6 Some Christian apologists

3 René Descartes, Meditations, Objections, and Replies, trans. Roger Ariew, and Donald Cress

(Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2006).

4 Known for his book: Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York, NY: Vintage,

2008).

5 Known for his book: Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons

Everything (New York, NY: Twelve, 2007).

6 Known for his books Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin

Company, 2006); Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watch Maker, 2nd

ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 1996); Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2nd

ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1989).

27

who have generally taken a modernist approach include Josh McDowell,7 and Lee

Strobel.8

A characteristic of modernity is that both truth and rationality are viewed as

being objective. Modernists start with epistemology and are certain of this, and then they

formulate their metaphysics of which they are also certain. Hence, a modernist would tell

others to follow the evidence wherever it leads and expect that everyone will eventually

come to the modernist position.

Knowledge is considered to be highly obtainable and it is thought that

anything one needs to know will be discovered by empirical science. Society’s rate of

growth is fast, progress is real, there is a belief that resources are unlimited and such

change will continue until everyone is educated and then everything will be right.

Humanity is viewed as more independent and individualistic, and deism is on the rise.

A modernist would likely respond to the case for the resurrection by only

accepting scientific facts and demanding certainty before he (or she) would accept it.

Hence, when dialoging with a modernist, the Christian should place greater emphasis on

the four facts of the resurrection, namely the death, burial, empty tomb and that the

disciples believed they saw appearance of the risen Jesus. These facts would also be

mentioned when dialoguing with anyone about the resurrection for it is part of the case

for the resurrection, but greater emphasis should be placed on them when discussing it

with a modernist. Whereas a pre-modernist would be more accepting of the conclusions

of experts in the field concerning the resurrection, modernists place little value on the

authority of others. Further, modernists are likely going to have more issues with the

7 Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Evidence I and II Fully

Updates in One Volume to Answer Questions Challenging Christians in the 21st Century (Nashville, TN:

Thomas Nelson, 1999).

8 Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for

Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).

28

resurrection being a claimed miracle and so supernatural causation will have to be

addressed.

The goal of the Christian should never be to win the argument but rather to

draw the individual to the truth of the resurrection. However, with a modernist there is a

sense in which he (or she) will be more intrigued the stronger he (or she) perceives the

case for the resurrection is; the more the modernist feels he (or she) is winning the

argument the less likely he (or she) is to be persuaded toward of its truthfulness. Of

course the Spirit is able to work in spite of this though it seems more likely that the Spirit

will work in accordance with the personality of the individual (in the same way how the

Spirit might highlight the beauty of Christ to someone from an artistic background).9

Postmodernism

The postmodern period is classified as being from the 20th

century AD to the

present. Nietzsche10 and James11 are considered the fathers of postmodernism. Some

prominent Christians who are postmodernists include Grenz12 and McLaren.13

9 If it is not already apparent my analysis of how to best present the case for the resurrection

to a modernist is dependents partially upon which of the three positions I consider to be correct. I think the

pre-modern view is most correct and hence, I am critiquing modernism (and next post modernism) from the

pre-modern position. One who disagrees with my conclusion that the pre-modern position is correct will of

course disagree with some of my analysis; however, I trust they will be able to adapt their approach in light

of the information I have presented.

10 Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Gay Science. Cambridge Texts in the History of

Philosophy, trans. Josefine Nauckhoff, and Adrian Del Caro, ed. Berand Williams (New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2001).

11 William James, Pragmatism and The Meaning of Truth (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1978).

12 Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans

Publishers, 1996).

13 Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I am a Missional + Evangelical +

Post/Protestant + Liberal/Conservative + Mystical/Poetic + Biblical + Charismatic/Contemplative +

Fundamentalist/Calvinist + Anabaptist/Anglican + Methodist + Catholic + Green + Incarnational +

Depressed-Yet-Hopeful + Emergent + Unfinished Christian. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004); Brian

McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith (New York, NY:

29

Postmodernists start with epistemology of which they doubt, and then

formulate their metaphysics, which is in turn uncertain. Both truth and rationality are

considered relative (postmodernists are perspectivists). Knowledge is elusive. Progress is

illusory, there is just change (neither positive nor negative just different).

Interpretation is paradigmatic; life is hermeneutics, merely a matter of one’s

perception. Postmodernists hold to deconstructionism, which declares that a text does not

have meaning until it is interpreted by the reader, which means that a text could

potentially have an unlimited number of meanings (depending on the number of people

who read it). Postmodernism can be defined as incredulity (refusal to believe) toward

meta-narratives.14 A meta-narrative is a grand/overarching story that frames all other

stories. A postmodern will say, “you have your story and I have mine.” So how does one

decide, go with taste, what is one’s personal preference. An example of this is Lennon’s

song “Whatever Gets You Thru the Night.”15

Postmodernists live by their feelings and their tastes. How does a postmodern

community decide – not by discussing with reason; rather the strongest community wins.

Science is perceived to have both positives and negative aspects in light of the fact that

we are multi-sensory animals and there is an opportunity cost to resources.

Postmodernists are communal (though there is a fragmentation of society into sub

groups). There is a realization that all organisms are connected in some manner. Society

is syncretistic with a high degree of cynicism, skepticism, existentialism and it is a

materialistic age of media and cyber space.

Harper Collins, 2010); Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change: When the World’s Biggest Problems and

Jesus’ Good News Collide (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007).

14 Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff

Bennington, and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 7.

15 John Lennon, “Whatever Gets You Thru the Night,” in Lennon Legend: The Very Best of

John Lennon. Audio Compact Disc (Capitol, 1998).

30

A post-modernist would likely respond to the case for the resurrection

perceiving it like the rest of the world as uncertain, and would only choose to adopt it if

he (or she) likes the impression of it. Hence, the Christian should highlight the

magnificence of the Christian story, that really no greater story could be conceived or

told; the marvelous teaching of Jesus to love God and to love others; or for instance,

when the Pharisees tried to trap him regarding paying taxes to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17).

Jesus responded, “Bring me a coin?” “Whose image is this and whose inscription?”

“Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” The

story of God entering into history and redeeming his enemies at the cost of his own life.

This is a story worth considering.

The post-modernist would want to know what the pragmatic value of

resurrection is for them. The Christian should emphasis that trusting Christ in his death

and resurrection means being born-again, that is receiving a new life from God with the

Spirit of God indwelling believers giving them love, joy, peace, hope and forgiveness.

The post-modernist in particular is going to consider the community of

Christians and how they are living before he (or she) makes his (or her) decision. It is

therefore imperative that the church displays God’s salvation by being his family and

showing the church’s commitment to fellowship to the needs of each other and to the

welfare of society. This is not to say that the church needs to be perfect but that it needs

to be a place of healing for sinners, who are being transformed bit by bit. The reputation

of the body of Christ is beyond the control of individual Christians. However, each

believer can do his (or her) part showing the holy love of God. Also when discussing the

resurrection with a post-modernist, the Christian should highlight the beauty of it.16

16 See Joseph D. Wooddell, The Beauty of the Faith: Using Aesthetics for Christian

Apologetics (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010).

31

Relativism

One of the key values held by post-modernists is relativism. Relativism is the

view that truth is subjective, that there is no absolute truth that is true for everyone,

everywhere, and every time. A relativist might reason that one person may like vanilla ice

cream, others like chocolate - neither is objectively right. A relativist is likely to hear the

claim of the resurrection and respond that they are happy that it works for you. However,

relativism is a self-defeating notion for the idea that truth is not absolute is itself an

absolute statement.

Stemming from this relativism, westerners promote tolerance and not being

judgmental. However, westerns tend to have a misunderstanding of what tolerance is.

Tolerance is defending one’s right to voice an opinion even if you disagree with that

viewpoint. Today tolerance is all too often confused with indifference, which basically

states that “if it does not affect me, I do not care.”

Another argument put forward for relativism is that there is so much

disagreement, who is to say who is right and who is wrong.17 However, while it might be

difficult to determine which the correct option is, it cannot be the case that two mutually

exclusive positions are both right – at least one is wrong. This is a reminder to the

Christian that the case for the resurrection should not be arrogantly presenting as trying to

win an argument about the evidence but rather speaking the truth in love, the case for the

resurrection needs to be set forth.

One of the motivations for moral relativism is that it “frees” people to do

whatever they want. In this regard, American philosopher Richard Rorty said, “truth is

what your peers will let you get away with.”18 In response to this the Christian can point

17 Talk show host Phil Donahue used to be known for saying “who’s to say.”

18 Stephen Louthan, “On Religion – A Discussion with Richard Rorty, Alvin Plantinga, and

Nicholas Wolterstorff,” in Christian Scholar’s Review 26 (Winter, 1996), 180.

32

out that if the resurrection is true it means that whatever one has done God is offering

forgiveness for free and further the Christian can highlight that living the Christian life is

embracing the fullness of life that God intended.

Pluralism

One of the key values held by post-modernists is pluralism. Pluralism is the

view that “all religious traditions are equally legitimate.” It is said, “All roads lead to

Rome.” However, the various religions contain mutually contradictory truths, i.e.

Christianity says God is Trinitarian and Islam says that God is not Trinitarian (but

Unitarian) – both could be false, but both cannot be true. Pluralism could also be stated as

the view that “there is no privileged religious perspective;” however, this is self-refuting

since it is itself claiming to be a privileged perspective. A commonly given illustration

along these lines is that of several blind men touching different parts of an elephant. One

is holding the tail, saying it is a snake. Others hold the trunk and say it is a hose.

However, this illustration fails for it assumes that there is a privileged position that can

see that it is indeed an elephant.

Pluralists might say that God is beyond conception, but that is self-defeating

for then one would be conceiving him as beyond conception. Christians can point out that

God is beyond exhaustive comprehension, but it is possible to have a sufficient

understanding.

Westerners tend to prefer the idea of being inclusive rather than exclusive, for

exclusivism is seen as being arrogant in daring to state that others are wrong. However,

this is self-contradictory for the inclusivist excludes the exclusivist. Christians must

remember not to push their beliefs onto someone but to humbly hold out the resurrection

as evidence that God has graciously provided a way for sinners. Also it should be pointed

out that though Christianity thinks it is the only one that is fully right, that does not mean

33

that Christianity considers other religions fully false, other religions may have truths, i.e.

the Jewish Old Testament scriptures or Muslims say there is one God.

One of the reasons why Westerners argue for pluralism is because they

believe that it will result in peace, that there will be no more fighting about who is right.

Christians too are saddened by religious wars; however, it is only the truth that will set

people free.

Conclusion

This chapter has considered how the case for the resurrection can best be

presented to individuals of a Western cultural background, as well as how a pre-modern,

modern or post-modern would typically respond and how to progress the dialogue in light

of this.

34

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

This thesis examined the evidence for and against the resurrection of Jesus of

Nazareth and considered three ways through which one can know the truth concerning

the resurrection. It was argued that the testimony of the Holy Spirit directly to an

individual provides that individual with sufficient warrant that he (or she) is justified in

stating that he (or she) knows God exists and that God has raised Jesus from the dead.

From this assurance, the believer may know the resurrection is true, despite any defeaters

that could be brought against him (or her).

A second way of knowing the truthfulness of the resurrection was the witness

of the Bible. It was argued that given that the Bible is true and since the Bible states that

Jesus rose from the dead, many people do in fact come to believe in the resurrection

because of the testimony of Scripture. However, it is not possible to prove that the Bible

is indeed true and so as an argument, this will have a limited effect. It was pointed out

that the Spirit may indeed enlighten an individual to the truthfulness of scripture and

hence show that individual that the Bible is true; however, technically this is then coming

to know the truthfulness of the resurrection in accordance with the first option, namely

the witness of the Spirit.

Finally, it was argued that one could know the truth concerning the

resurrection through examination of the historical evidence by use of the criterion of

authenticity, namely multiple independent attestation, embarrassment, unintentional

signs, Aramaic linguistic features, double similarity and double dissimilarity, the impact

35

of an event, and coherence with already established material. Taking a minimal facts

approach, four events were found to have solid historical backing, including Jesus’ death,

burial, the empty tomb, and the disciples’ belief concerning appearances. Jesus’ death

was established chiefly on the basis of the Roman scourging and crucifixion that he

underwent. Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a known place. Jesus’ tomb was

found empty on the first day of the week by women followers. The early disciples

believed that they had seen appearances of Jesus, resulting in their change from that of

cowards to martyrs (i.e. Peter), the conversion of enemies such as Saul and the

conversion of non-believers such as James, the brother of Jesus. Several objections were

considered including the denial of the burial accounts, the women as a literary creation,

and that the gospels were written too late.

Using the criteria of explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, less

ad hoc and coherence with existing understandings of truth, various theories were

examined including the apparent death hypothesis, the conspiracy hypothesis, the

hallucination hypothesis, and the resurrection hypothesis. It was argued that the

resurrection hypothesis best explains that data. Objections raised against the resurrection

hypothesis were answered including that it violates the historical method, and that the

resurrection is only meant to be understood metaphorically.

An analysis of western culture was then undertaken considering some of the

typical objections a westerner would likely have against the resurrection with suggestions

being made on how to respond. The pre-modernist would likely challenge whether God

would act in such a way and so explaining the framework of the biblical story would be

an appropriate response. The modernist would likely demand certainty, only accept

scientific facts and dismiss supernatural causation. The post-modernist would likely be

doubtful of the whole historical enterprise, would wonder about the pragmatic value, and

be drawn to the aesthetic value of the resurrection.

36

In summary, there is substantial support for the resurrection of Jesus being an

actual bodily historical event and all people need to hear this.

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY

38

Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw. Jesus' Death in Early Christian Memory: The Poetics of the

Passion. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2004.

Akin, Daniel L. 1, 2, 3 John. The New American Commentary. Edited by David S.

Dockery et al., vol. 38. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2001.

Electronic ed. Logos Library System.

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black et al. The Greek New Testament. 4th ed.

Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Allberry, Sam. Lifted: Experiencing the Resurrection Life. Phillipsburg, New Jersey:

P&R Publishing, 2012.

Allison, Dale C. Jr. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010.

Allison, Dale C. Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its

Interpreters. New York and London: T. & T. Clark, 2005.

Alston, W. “Biblical criticism and the resurrection.” In The Resurrection, edited by S.

Davis, D. Kendall, and G. O'Collins, 148-183. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1997.

Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Edited by Charles, Robert Henry. Bellingham, WA:

Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004.

Baigent, Michael. The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History. New

York, NY: HarperOne, 2007.

Baker, Lynne Rudder. “Need a Christian be a Mind/Body Dualist?” Faith and Philosophy

12, no. 4. (1995): 489-504.

Balz, Horst Robert, and Gerhard Schneider. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament,

vol. 3. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1990.

Barnett, Paul. Jesus and the Rise of Earl Christianity: A History of New Testament Times.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVasity Press, 1999.

Barnett, Paul. Finding the Historical Christ: After Jesus, vol. 3. Grand Rapids, MI:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009.

Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on

the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997.

Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles.

International Critical Commentary. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994-1998.

39

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. 4 vols. Translated by G. T. Thomson, T. F. Torrance, G.

W. Bromiley, et al. New York: Scribner, 1936-1969.

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.

Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.

Bauckham, Richard. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament.

Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature. Edited by Revised and argumented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and

Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer's Sixth Edition. 3rd ed. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Beale, G. K. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges

to Biblical Authority. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.

Beale, G. K. and Don A. Carson. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old

Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

Beck, John A., David G. Hansen, and James C. Martin. A Visual Guide to the Gospel

Events: Fascinating Insights into Where They Happened and Why. Grand Rapids,

MI: Baker Books, 2010.

Biblical Studies Press. The NET Bible, 2006.

Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd ed. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1998.

Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early

Christian Literature, translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago:

University of Chicago, 1961.

Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. The New American Commentary. Edited by David S.

Dockery et al., vol. 22. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2001.

Electronic ed. Logos Library System.

Blomberg, Craig L. and Robert L. Hubbard. Jr., and William W. Klein Introduction to

Biblical Interpretation. Revised Edition. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004.

Blount, Douglas. ST630 Postmodernism Masters Level Class. Dallas, TX: Dallas

Theological Seminary, 2010.

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

Bock, Darrell L. Luke: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. 2 vols.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994, 1996.

40

Bock, Darrell L. Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

Bock, Darrell L. and Gregory J. Herrick. Jesus in Context: Background Readings for

Gospel Study. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.

Bock, Darrell L. and Daniel B. Wallace. Dethroning Jesus. Nashville, TN: Thomas

Nelson, 2007.

Borchert, Gerald L. John 12-21. The New American Commentary. Edited by David S.

Dockery et al., vol. 25B. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2003.

Electronic ed. Logos Library System.

Borg, Marcus J., and N. T. Wright. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. San Francisco:

HarperSanFrancisco, 1999.

Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul Rhodes Eddy. Jesus Legend, The: A Case for the Historical

Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,

2007.

Bray, Gerald Lewis. 1-2 Corinthians. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New

Testament, vol. 7. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Brooks, James A. Mark. The New American Commentary. ed. David S. Dockery et al.,

vol. 23. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2001. Electronic ed.

Logos Library System.

Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. Edited by Francis Moloney.

New York: Doubleday, 2003.

Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. 2 vols.

New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John. 2 vols. Anchor Bible. vol. 29.

Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-70.

Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Downers Grove, IL:

Inter-Varsity Press, 1981.

Bryan, Christopher. “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” STR 50, no. 2 (2007): 233-78.

Bryan, Christopher. The Resurrection of the Messiah. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 2011.

Bryan, Christopher. And God Spoke: The Authority of the Bible for the Church Today.

Cambridge, Mass.: Cowley, 2002.

41

Bullinger, Ethelbert William. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. New York, NY: E. &

J. B. Young & Co., 1898.

Bultmann, Rudolf. “The New Testament and Mythology.” In Kerygma and Myth: A

Theological Debate, edited by Hans Werner Bartsch, translated by Reginald H.

Fuller, 1-44. London: S.P.C.K, 1953-62.

Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman

Biography. 2nd ed. Grand Rapid, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

2004 (1992, as SNTSMS 70).

Byrne, Brendan. A Costly Freedom: A Theological Reading of Mark's Gospel.

Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008.

Byrskog, Samuel. Story as History-History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context

of Ancient Oral History. Boston and Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics

Ethereal Library, 2002. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html (accessed

March 10, 2012).

Cameron, James. The Lost Tome of Jesus. Discovery Channel, 2006

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html (accessed March 10,

2012).

Carroll, James R., and John R. Carroll. Preaching the Hard Sayings of Jesus. Peabody,

MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1996.

Carson, Don. A. The Gaging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan, 1996.

Carson, Don. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.

Eerdmans, 1991.

Carson, Don. A., and Douglas Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Catchpole, David. Resurrection People: Studies in the Resurrection Narratives of the

Gospels. Macon, Ga.: Smyth and Helwys, 2002.

Catchpole, David. “The Fearful Silence of the Women at the Tomb: A Study in Markan

Theology.” JTSA 18 (1977): 3-10.

Cavin, R. G. Miracles, Probability, and the Resurrection of Jesus: A Philosophicat

Mathematical, and Historical Study. PhD Dissertation, University of California

Irvine, 1993.

42

Chandler. S. Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ Re-examined. London: J.

Noon, 1744.

Charlesworth, James H. “Where Does the Concept of Resurrection Appear, and How Do

We Know That?” In Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine,

edited by James H. Charlesworth, 1-21. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006.

Ciampa, Roy E. and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Pillar New

Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 2010.

Clark, Neville. Interpreting the Resurrection. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1967.

Collins, Adela Yarbro. “The Empty Tomb in the Gospel of Mark.” In Hermes and

Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology, edited by Eleonore

Stump, and Thomas P. Flint, 107-140. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre

Dame Press, 1993.

Collins, Adela Yarbro and Harold W. Attridge. Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of

Mark. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007.

Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia, PA:

Fortress Press, 1975.

Cook, John Granger. “Envisioning Crucifixion: Light from Several Inscriptions and the

Palatine Graffito.” NovT 50 (2008): 262-85.

Copan, Paul and Tacelli, Ronald. Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? Downers Grove,

IL: Inter Varsity, 2000.

Cowan, Steven, ed. Five Views on Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Craig, William Lane. “‘Noli Me Tangere’: Why John Meier Won't Touch the Risen

Lord.” Heythrop Journal 50 (2009): 91-97.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed.

Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008.

Craig, William Lane. Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the

Resurrection of Jesus. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 16. Toronto:

Edwin Mellen, 1989.

Craig, William Lane. “‘Noli Me Tangere’: Why John Meier Won't Touch the Risen

Lord.” Heythrop Journal 50 (2009): 91-97.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed.

Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008.

43

Craig, William Lane. “The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus.” New Testament

Studies 31, no. 01 (Feb 1985): 39-67.

Craig, William Lane. “The Resurrection of Jesus.” Wheaton, IL: Reasonable Faith.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351

(accessed March 10, 2012).

Craig, William Lane. The Son Rises. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2000.

Craig, William Lane. “The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical

Perspective.” In Gospel Perspectives, edited by David Wenham and Craig

Blomberg, 9-40. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1986.

Craig, William Lane. Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann's

Hallucination Hypothesis. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2005.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/visions.html (accessed March 10,

2012).

Craig, William Lane, and J. P. Moreland. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian

Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 2003.

Craig, William Lane, and J. P. Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Craig, William Lane, and Shabir Ally. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Craig vs. Ally.

McGill University, Canada.

Craig, William Lane, and Hector Avalos. The Resurrection of Jesus: Fact of Fiction?

Craig vs. Avalos. Iowa State University. 2004.

Craig, William Lane, and Richard Carrier, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Craig vs.

Carrier. Maryville, Missouri: Northwest Missouri State University, 2009.

Craig, William Lane, and Robert (Greg) Cavin. Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? (Twin

Theory debate). 1995.

Craig, William Lane, and John Dominic Crossan. Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up?

1995.

Craig, William Lane, and James Crossley. Was Jesus Bodily Raised From The Dead?

2007.

Craig, William Lane, and Brain Edwards. Easter Debate Craig vs. Edwards.

44

Craig, William Lane, and Bart D. Ehrman. The Craig-Ehrman Debate: Is There

Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? Holy Cross College,

Worcester, MA, 2006.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=debates_main

(accessed March 10, 2012).

Craig, William Lane, and Roy Hoover. Should We Believe that Jesus' Resurrection is

Historical? 2008.

Craig, William Lane, and Robert Price. Did Jesus of Nazareth Rise From The Dead?

1999.

Craig, William Lane, and Gerd Lüdemann. Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A

Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann. Edited by Ronald

Tacelli and Paul Copan. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Craig, William Lane, and John Shelby Spong. Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? 2005.

Craig, William Lane, and Paul Copan, ed. Contending with Christianity's Critics.

Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 2009.

Craig, William Lane, and Chad Meister, ed. God Is Great, God Is Good. Downers Grove,

IL: Inter-Varsity, 2009.

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary,

Edited by J. A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

Limited, 1975–79.

Crisp, Oliver D. and Michael C. Rea, ed. Analytic Theology: New Essays on the

Philosophy of Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Crossan, John Dominic. A Long Way from Tipperary: A Memoir. San Francisco, CA:

HarperSanFrancisco, 2000.

Crossan, John Dominic. “Bodily-Resurrection Faith.” In The Resurrection of Jesus: John

Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue, edited by Robert B. Stewart, 171-

86. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006.

Crossan, John Dominic. “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16.1-8).” In The Passion

in Mark: Studies in Mark 14-16, edited by Werner Kelber, 135-52. Philadelphia,

PA: Fortress, 1976.

Crossan, John Dominic. Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon.

Chicago, IL: Winston, 1985.

Crossan, John Dominic. “Paul and Rome: the Challenge of New World Order.” USQR 59

(2005): 6-20.

45

Crossan, John Dominic. The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative. San

Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1998.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish

Peasant. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.

Crossan, John Dominic.“The Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection.” In The Search for

Jesus: Modern Scholarship Looks as the Gospels, edited by Hershel Shanks. 109-

34. Washington, DC: Biblical Archeological Society, 1994.

Crossan, John Dominic. “The Resurrection: Historical Event or Theological Explanation?

A Dialogue.” In The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T.

Wright in Dialogue, edited by Robert B. Stewart, 16-47. Minneapolis, MN:

Augsburg Fortress, 2006.

Crossan, John Dominic. Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the

Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1995.

Crowell, Steven. “Existentialism.” The Stanford -Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter

2010). Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/existentialism/ (accessed March

10, 2012).

Cullmann, Oscar. “Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead: The Witness of

the New Testament.” The Ingersoll Lecture for 1955. In Immortality and

Resurrection, edited by Krister Stendahl, 6-53. New York: Macmillan, 1965.

D'Angelo, Mary Rose. “‘I have seen the Lord’: Mary Magdalen as Visionary, Early

Christian Prophecy, and the Context of John 20:14-18.” In Mariam, the

Magdalen, and the Mother, edited by Deirdre Good, 95-122. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 2005.

Dallas Theological Seminary Thesis Style Committee. “Supplement to Kate L. Turabian,

A Manual for Writers of Terms Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, 7th ed.”

Dallas, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2008.

Danker, Frederick William, reviser and editor, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Based on Walter Bauer’s

Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und

der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th ed., edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland,

with Viktor Reichmann, and on previous English editions by William F. Arndt, F.

Wilbur Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University Press, 2000.

Davies, Jon. Death, Burial, and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity. London: Routledge,

1999·

46

Davis, Stephen T. “Seeing the Risen Jesus.” In The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary

Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel

Kendall, S. J., and Gerald O'Collins, S. J., 126-147. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1997.

Davis, Stephen T. Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection. Grand Rapids, MI:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

Davis, Stephen T. Christian Philosophical Theology. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 2006.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company,

2006.

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watch Maker, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 1996.

Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press,

1989.

Day, John. “The Development of Belief in Life after Death in Ancient Israel.” In After

the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason, edited by John Barton and David J.

Reimer, 248-57. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996.

Delling, Gerhard. “The Resurrection and Faith.” In The Significance of the Message of

the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ, edited by C. F. D. Moule. Studies in

Biblical Theology, 2nd ser., 8, 77-104. London: SCM, 1968.

Descartes, René. Meditations, Objections, and Replies, translated by Roger Ariew and

Donald Cress. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2006.

Dodd, C. H. “The Appearances of the Risen Christ: An Essay in Form-Criticism of the

Gospels.” In Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, edited

by D. E. Nineham, 9-35. Oxford: Blackwell, 1957.

Douven, Igor. “Abduction.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011).

Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/abduction/ (accessed March 10,

2012).

Dunn, James. Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2003.

Dunn, James D. G. “On History, Memory and Eyewitnesses: In Response to Bengt

Holmberg and Samuel Byrskog.” JSNT 26, no. 4 (2004): 482-85.

Dulles, Avery. A History of Apologetics. 2nd ed. USA: Ignatius Press, 2005.

47

Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Mark. The Pillar New Testament

Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

2002.

Edwards, William D., Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer. “On the Physical Death of

Jesus Christ” JAMA 255, no. 11 (1986): 1455-63.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf (accessed March 10,

2012).

Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New

York, NY: HarperOne, 2012.

Ehrman, Bart D. Historical Jesus, Part 2. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company, 2000.

Elowsky, Joel C. John 11–21. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New

Testament, vol. 4b. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007.

Endsjo, Dag Oistein. Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity. New

York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Epstein, Israel, ed., The Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino, 1935–48.

Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History, translated by Kirsopp Lake, Loeb Classical Library.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925.

Eusebius of Caesaria. “The Church History of Eusebius.” In A Select Library of the

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume

I: Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise

of Constantine, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, translated by Arthur

Cushman McGiffert In. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890.

Evans, Craig. Fabricating Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006.

Evans, Craig A. “Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus.” JSHJ 3, no. 2

(2005): 233-48.

Evans, Craig. Mark 8:27-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David A.

Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker; New Testament ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 34B.

Waco, TX: Word Books, 2001.

Evans, C. Stephen. The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational

Narrative as History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on

the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

1987.

48

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 2003.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians. Anchor Yale Bible. vol. 32. London: Yale

University Press, 2008.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.

Anchor Bible. vol. 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel according to Luke. 2 vols. Anchor Bible. vol. 28, 28A.

New York: Doubleday, 1981-1985.

Foster, Charles. The Jesus Inquest: The Case For and Against the Resurrection of the

Christ. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2010.

France, R. T. The Evidence for Jesus. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1986.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI:

William B. Eerdmans, 2002.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New

International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by I. Howard Marshall.

Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2007.

Fredriksen, Paula. “Why was Jesus Crucified, but his Followers were not?” JSNT 29A

(2007) 415-419.

Fuller, R. H. The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives. New York: Macmillan,

1971.

Fuller, R. H. “The resurrection.” In The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by B. M.

Metzger and D. Coogan, 647-49. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Fullmer, Paul M. Resurrection in Mark's Literary-Historical Perspective. London: T. &

T. Clark, 2007.

Funk, Robert W., and Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: The

Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: MacMillan, 1993.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

Garland, David E. Luke. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.

Gatta, Julia M. “Then He Showed Them His Hands and His Side.” STR 53, no. 2 (2010).

49

Geisler, Norman L. A Response to Mike Licona’s EPS Paper. A paper presented at the

Evangelical Philosophical Society, San Franciso, CA, 2011.

http://www.normangeisler.net/articles/Licona/default.htm (accessed March 10,

2012).

Geisler, Norman L. Miracles and the Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical Miracles.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992.

Geivett, Douglas. “The Epistemology of the Resurrection Belief.” In The Resurrection of

Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue, edited by Robert B.

Stewart, 93-105. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006.

Geivett, R. Douglas, and Gary R. Habermas. ed. In Defense of Miracles: A

Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary, edited by David A. Hubbard and

Glenn W. Barker, vol. 30. Dallas, TX: Word, 1989.

Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, ed. Dictionary of Jesus and the

Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 1992.

Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1996.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Gueliach, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David A.

Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker; New Testament ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 34.

Waco, TX: Word Books, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids,

MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 1990.

Habermas, Gary R. and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.

Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. 2004.

Habermas, Gary R. “Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in

the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection.” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 45,

no. 3 (2006): 288-97.

Habermas, Gary R. “Mapping the Recent Trend toward the Bodily Resurrection

Appearances of Jesus in Light of Other Prominent Critical Positions.” In The

Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue,

edited by Robert B. Stewart, 78-92. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006.

50

Habermas, Gary R. “Resurrection research from 1975 to the present: what are critical

scholars saying?” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3, no. 2 (2005):

135-153.

Habermas, Gary R. “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions,” in Journal of

Religious Studies 25, no. 2 (1989): 167-76.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/religious_studies/rel_stud_res_claims_in_

non-christian_religions.htm (accessed March 10, 2012).

Habermas, Gary R. “The Shroud of Turin and its Significance for Biblical Studies.” JETS

24, no. 1, 1981, 47-54.

Haenchen, Ernst, Robert Walter Funk and Ulrich Busse. John: A Commentary on the

Gospel of John. Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible.

Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984.

Hallo, William W. and K. Lawson Younger. The Context of Scripture. Leiden; New

York, NY: Brill, 1997.

Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation. New York, NY: Vintage, 2008.

Hays, Michael A., Stanley E. Porter, and David Tombs, ed. Resurrection. Edinburgh:

T&T Clark, 1999.

Hays, Richard. B. First Corinthians, Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1997·

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of The

Cross, translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1977.

Hesselgrave, David J. Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally: An Introduction to

Missionary Communication, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991.

Hiebert, Paul. Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker, 1994.

Hiebert, Paul. Cultural Anthropology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997.

Hiebert, Paul. The Gospel in Human Contexts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009.

Hiebert, Paul. Transforming Worldviews. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008.

Hirsch, Eli. The Concept of Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York,

NY: Twelve, 2007.

Hogeterp, Albert L. A. "Resurrection and Biblical Tradition." Biblica 89 (2008): 59-6 9.

51

Hooke, S. H. The Resurrection of Christ as History and Experience. London: Darton,

Longman, and Todd, 1967.

Horsley, Richard. “‘How Can Some of You Say That There Is No Resurrection of the

Dead?’ Spiritual Elitism at Corinth.” NovT 20 (1978): 203-31.

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. First Published 1748.

Republished 2008 by Forgotten Books.

http://books.google.com/books?id=H1rKYw9SnTgC&lpg=PA95&dq=hume%20

%22an%20enquiry%20concerning%20human%20understanding%22%20queen%

20elizabeth&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed April 20, 2011)

Hurtado, Larry W. “The Women, the Tomb, and the Climax of Mark.” In A Wandering

Galilean: Essays in Honur of Sean Freyne, edited by Zuleika Rodgers with

Margaret Daly-Denton and Anne Fitzpatrick McKinley, 427-50. New York, NY:

Brill, 2009.

Jacobovici, Simcha, and James D. Tabor. The Jesus Discovery: The Resurrection Tomb

that Reveals the Birth of Christianity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2012.

James, William. Pragmatism and The Meaning of Truth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1978.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth: The Jefferson Bible.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books, 1895 (reprinted 2011).

Johnson, Luke. The Real Jesus. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996.

Johnston, Graham MacPherson. Preaching to a Postmodern World: A Guide to Reaching

Twenty-first Century Listeners. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001.

Johnston, Philip S. Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Jones, P. R. “I Corinthians 15:8: Paul the Last Apostle.” In TynBu1 36 (1985): 3-34.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson, 1996.

Josephus, Flavius and Benedikt Niese. Flavii Iosephi Opera Recognovit Benedictvs Niese

... Berolini: apvd Weidmannos, 1888.

Just, Arthur A. Luke. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New Testament, vol. 3.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.

Keener, Craig S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.

Eerdmans, 2009.

52

Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,

2003.

Keener, Craig S. Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts. vol. 1 and 2.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.

Kelber, Werner H. The Oral and Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and

Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress,

1983.

Kelly, Anthony J. The Resurrection Effect: Translating Christian Life and Thought.

Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2008.

Kirby, Peter. “The Case Against the Empty Tomb.” In The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond

the Grave, edited by M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder. Amherst, NY: Prometheus

Books, 2005.

Kitchen, K.A. On The Reliability Of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.

Eerdmans, 2003.

Kittel, Gerhard (ed. vols. 1-5) and Gerhard Friedrich (ed. vols. 6-9). Theological

Dictionary of the New Testament. 9 vols. translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.

Grand Rapids, MI: Williams B. Eerdmans, 1964-1974 (1933-1973).

Klein, Peter. “Skepticism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011).

Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/skepticism/ (accessed March

10, 2012).

Kosentenberger, Andreas. John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.

Komoszewski, J. Ed; M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace. Reinventing Jesus: How

Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture. Grand

Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications: 2006.

Kraft, Charles. Anthropology for Christian Witness. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996.

Kraft, Charles H. Communication Theory for Christian Witness. Revised Edition.

Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991.

Kraft, Charles H. Worldview for Christian Witness. Pasadena, CA: William Carey

Library, 2008.

Kreider, Glenn R. ST101 Introduction to Theology Masters Level Class. Dallas, TX:

Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007.

53

Kreitzer, L. J. “Ressurection.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F.

Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 806-812. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Kruse, Colin G. The Letters of John. The Pillar New Testament commentary. Grand

Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

Kvanvig, Jonathan. “Heaven and Hell.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall

2009). Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/heaven-hell/ (accessed March

10, 2012)

Kvanvig, Jonathan L. “Resurrection, Heaven, and Hell.” In A Companion to Philosophy

of Religion, 2nd ed. edited by Charles Taliaferro, Paul Draper, and Philip L.

Quinn, 630-38. Chichester, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing, 2010.

Lake, Kirsopp. The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. New York:

G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1912.

Lapide, Pinchas. The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. Minneapolis:

Augsburg, 1983.

Lennon, John. “Whatever Gets You Thru the Night.” In Lennon Legend: The Very Best of

John Lennon. Audio Compact Disc (Capitol, 1998).

Levenson, Jon D. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the

God of Life. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006.

Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.

Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010.

Licona, Michael R. Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian – Muslim Debate on the

Resurrection. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006.

Licona, Michael R. When the Saints Go Marching In (Matthew 27:52-53): Historicity,

Apocalyptic Symbol, and Biblical Inerrancy. A paper presented at the Evangelical

Philosophical Society, San Franciso, CA, 2011.

http://www.risenjesus.com/images/stories/pdfs/2011%20eps%20saints%20paper.

pdf (accessed March 10, 2012).

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised by Sir

Henry Stuart Jones, Roderick McKenzie, et al. With Supplement. Edited by E. A.

Barber, P. Maas, M. Scheller, and M. L. West. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.

Lincoln, Andrew T. “The Promise and the Failure: Mark 16:7, 8.” In The Interpretation

of Mark, 2nd ed., edited by William R. Telford, 229-51. Edinburgh: T. & T.

Clark, 1995.

54

Louthan, Stephen. “On Religion – A Discussion with Richard Rorty, Alvin Plantinga, and

Nicholas Wolterstorff.” In Christian Scholar’s Review 26 (Winter, 1996): 177-

183.

Lüdemann, Gerd. The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry. Amherst, NY:

Prometheus Books, 2004.

Lüdemann, Gerd. What Really Happened: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection.

Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.

Luz, Ulrich and Helmut Koester. Matthew 21-28: A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN:

Augsburg, 2005.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, translated

by Geoff Bennington, and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press, 1984.

Madigan, Kevin J., and Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection: The Power of God for Christians

and Jews. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

Marcus, Joel. Mark 8-16. Anchor Yale Bible. vol. 27A. New Haven and London: Yale

University Press, 2009.

Martin, Francis and Evan Smith. Acts. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New

Testament, vol. 5. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Marxsen, Willi. The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, translated by Margaret Kohl.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.

Mavrodes, George I. “The Life Everliasting and the Bodily Criterion of Identity.” Nous

11 (1977): 27-39.

McCallister, Stuart. “Evangelism in a Post-modern World,” Lecture, Ravi Zacharias

International Ministries. Atlanta, GA: RZIM, 2006.

McCane, B. R. Roll Back the Stone: Death and Burial in the World of Jesus. Harrisburg,

PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.

McCullagh, C. Behan. Justifying Historical Descriptions. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1984.

McDowell, Josh and Sean McDowell. Evidence for the Resurrection. CA: Regal, 2009.

McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Evidence I and II Fully

Updates in One Volume to Answer Questions Challenging Christians in the 21st

Century. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999.

55

McGrath, Alister. “Evangelism and Apologetics.” In Witnessing to Christ in a Pluralistic

World: Christian Mission among Other Faiths, edited by Lalsangkima Pachuau

and Knud Jorgensen, 103-109. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011.

McGrew, Timothy and McGrew Lydia. “The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative

Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.” In The Blackwell Companion to

Natural Theology, edited by William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland, 593-662.

Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

McLaren, Brian. A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I am a Missional + Evangelical +

Post/Protestant + Liberal/Conservative + Mystical/Poetic + Biblical +

Charismatic/Contemplative + Fundamentalist/Calvinist + Anabaptist/Anglican +

Methodist + Catholic + Green + Incarnational + Depressed-Yet-Hopeful +

Emergent + Unfinished Christian. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004).

McLaren, Brian. A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the

Faith. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2010.

McLaren, Brian. Everything Must Change: When the World’s Biggest Problems and

Jesus’ Good News Collide. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007.

Meacham, William. “What Did John ‘See and Believe’ in the Tomb? Countless Easter

Sermons and Many Bible Commentators May Have Got It Wrong.” ExpT 120, no.

7 (2009): 322- 26.

Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 3 vols. New York:

Doubleday, 1991-2001.

Merricks, Trenton. “The Resurrection of the Body.” In The Oxford Handbook of

Philosophical Theology, edited by Thomas P. Flint, and Michael C. Rea, 476-90.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Merricks, Trenton. “The Word Made Flesh: Dualism, Physicalism, and the Incarnation.”

In Persons: Human and Divine, edited by Peter van Inwagen, and Dean

Zimmerman, 281-300. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Metzger, Bruce Manning, and United Bible Societies. A Textual Commentary on the

Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible

Societies' Greek New Testament, 4th ed. New York, NY: United Bible Societies,

1994.

Meyer, Marvin, ed. The Nag Hammadi Scriptures. New York: Harper One, 2007.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John. New International Commentary on the New

Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010.

Miller, Troy A. Jesus the Final Days: What Really Happened. Craig A. Evans and N. T.

Wright. Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 2009.

56

Molnar, Paul D. Incarnation and Resurrection: Toward a Contemporary Understanding.

Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdrnans Publishing Company, 2007.

Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,

2002.

Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel.

ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1926.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI; Willam B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992.

Moule, C. F. D. “Introduction.” In The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection

for Faith in Jesus Christ. Edited by C. F. D. Moule. Studies in Biblical Theology,

2nd ser., 8. London: SCM, 1968. I-II.

Mournet, Terence C. Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability

in the Synoptic Tradition and Q. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen

Testament 2. Reihe. 195. Mohr Siebeck. Coronet Books, 2005.

Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters,

2009.

Murray, Michael. ed. Reason for the Hope Within. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.

Eerdmans, 1999.

Naugle, David. Worldview: The History of a Concept. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.

Eerdmans, 2002.

Nash, Ronald H. The Gospel and the Greeks. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003.

Negev, Avraham. The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. 3rd ed. New York,

NY: Prentice Hall Press, 1996.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Gay Science. Cambridge Texts in the History of

Philosophy, edited by Berand Williams, translated by Josefine Nauckhoff, and Adrian

Del Caro. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols and

Other Writings. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the

Future. New York, NY: Random House, 1966.

57

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings. Cambridge

Texts in the History of Philosophy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press,

1999.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality, 2nd

ed. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press, 1997.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits.

Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press, 1996.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. On the Genealogy of Morality and Other Writings.

Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press, 2007.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Cambridge Texts in the History

of Philosophy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Nickelsburg, George W. E. Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Lift in Intertestamental

Judaism. Expanded ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Niederwimmer, Kurt. The Didache. Herrneneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New

International Greek Testament Commentary, edited by I. Howard Marshall and

Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.

O’Collins, Gerald G. “Is the Resurrection an ‘Historical’ Event?” HeyJ 8 (1967): 381- 87.

Oden, Thomas C. and Christopher A. Hall. Mark (Revised). Ancient Christian

Commentary on Scripture New Testament, vol. 2. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Orr, James. The Resurrection of Jesus. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908.

Osborne, Grant R. “Jesus’ Empty Tomb and His Appearance in Jerusalem.” In Key

Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context

and Coherence, edited by Bock, Darrell L. and Webb, Robert L., 775-824.

Tubingen: Coronet Books, 2009.

Osborne, Grant R. Matthew. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010.

Osborne, Grant R. The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study. Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker Publishing Group, 1984.

58

Papias. “Fragments of Papias.” In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic

Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts, James

Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company,

1885.

Pausanias. Description of Greece. 4 vols. Translated by W. H. W. Jones and H. A.

Ormerod. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918.

Pearson, Birger A. Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress,

2007.

Penner, Ken and Michael S. Heiser. Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha With

Morphology. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2008.

Perkins, Pheme. Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection.

New York: Doubleday, 1984.

Perszyk, Ken. Molinism: The Contemporary Debate. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 2012.

Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. The Pillar New Testament Commentary.

Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009.

Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans,

1974.

Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. New York, NY: Oxford University Press,

2000.

Porter, Stanley E. and Craig A. Evans, ed. Dictionary of New Testament Background: A

Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 2000. Electronic ed.

Porter, Stanley. “Resurrection, the Greeks, and the New Testament.” In Resurrection,

edited by Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs, 52-81.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Potts, Michael. “Aquinas, Hell, and the Resurrection of the Dammed.” Faith and

Philosophy 15, no. 3 (1998): 341-351.

Poythress, Vern Sheridan. Inerrancy and Worldview: Answering Modern Challenges to

the Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2012.

Price, Robert M. “Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 As a post-Pauline

Interpolation.” In The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grace. Edited by Robert M.

Price and Jeffery J. Lowder. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005, 69-104.

59

Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by Charles, Robert Henry. Bellingham,

WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004.

Quarles, Charles L. Midrash Criticism: Introduction and Appraisal. Lanham, MD:

University Press of America, 1998.

Quarles, Charles L. “The Gospel of Peter: Does It contain a Precanonical Resurrection

Narrative?” In The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright

in Dialogue, edited by Robert B. Stewart, 106-20. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg

Fortress, 2006.

Ramsey, Arthur Michael. The Resurrection of Christ: An Essay in Biblical Theology.

London: Geoffrey Bless, Centenary Press, 1945.

Robinette, Brian D. Grammars Of Resurrection: A Christian Theology of Presence and

Absence. New York, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2009.

Robinson, James McConkey, Paul Hoffmann and John S. Kloppenborg. The Critical

Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and

Thomas With English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas.

Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN

Leuven: Fortress Press, 2000.

Samovar, Larry A., Richard E. Porter, and Edwin McDaniel. Communication between

Cultures, 8th

ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2012.

Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1985.

Sawicki, Marianne. Seeing the Lord: Resurrection and Early Christian Practices.

Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

Sawyer, M. James, and Daniel B. Wallace, ed. Who’s Afriad of the Holy Spirit? An

Investigation in to the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today. Dallas, TX: Biblical

Studies Press, 2005.

Schneider, Carl. “μαστιγόω.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by

Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, translated by

Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 4, 515-519. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans,

1964. Electronic ed.

Scholem, Gershom. Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah. Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1973.

Schonfield, Hugh J. The Passover Plot. New York, NY: The Disinformation Company,

2005.

Segal, Alan F. Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West.

New York: Doubleday, 2004.

60

Segal, Alan F. “Paul and the Beginning of Jewish Mysticism.” In Death, Ecstasy and

Other Worldly Journeys, edited by John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane, 93-120.

New York, NY: State University of New York, 1995.

Segal, Alan F. “The Resurrection: Faith or History?” In The Resurrection of Jesus: John

Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue, edited by Robert B. Stewart, 121-

38. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006.

Sellars, Wilfrid. Science, Perception, and Reality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,

1963.

Simonetti, Manlio. Matthew 14–28. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New

Testament, vol. 1b. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. 5th ed. Downers

Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press 2009.

Smith, Daniel A. Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Early History of Easter. Minneapolis:

Fortress, 2010.

Stein, Robert H. Mark. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Edited by

Robert W. Yarbrough. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 2008.

Stein, Robert H. Luke. The New American Commentary, edited by David S. Dockery et

al., vol. 24. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2001. Electronic

ed. Logos Library System.

Stewart, Robert B. The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in

Dialogue. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006.

Strauss, David Friedrich. The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 4th ed., edited by Peter

C. Hodgson, translated by George Eliot. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1972

(originally published 1840).

Strunk, William, Jr., and E. B. White. The Elements of Style, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon, 1999.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence

for Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to

Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.

Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Edited by J. Eugene Reed. Philadelphia:

Gebbie & Co., 1889.

61

Sunshine, Glenn S. Why You Think the Way You Do: The Story of Western Worldviews

from Rome to Home. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.

Swinburne. R. The Resurrection of God Incarnate. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2003.

Tacitus, Cornelius. Annales (Latin). Edited by Charles Dennis Fisher. Medford, MA:

Perseus Digital Library, 1906.

Tertullian. Apology. Translated by S. Thelwall. American Reprint ed. The Ante-Nicene

Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Buffalo: Christian

Literature, 1885–1896.

Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations.

Revised by Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams, 7th

ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Turner, David L. Matthew. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.

Tylor, Edward Burnett. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of

Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art and Custom. Boston: 1874.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lHQuAAAAYAAJ&dq=Edward%20B.%20Ty

lor%20Primitive%20Culture (accessed March 10, 2012).

van Inwagen, Peter. “The Possibility of Resurrection.” In International Journal for

Philosophy of Religion 9, no. 2 (1978): 114-21.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40024198 (accessed March 10, 2012).

Vermes, Geza. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. New York: Penguin Group, 2003.

Vermes, Geza. The Resurrection. New York: Doubleday, 2008.

Vinzent, Markus. Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New

Testament. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2011.

Vyhmeister, Nancy Jean. Quality Research Papers: For Students of Religion and

Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2001.

Wallace, Dan. “The Gospel according to Bart.” http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-

bart

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: Exegetical Syntax of the New

Testament, Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software, 1999; 2002.

Wallace, Daniel B. “Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion to the Second Gospel.” In Perspectives

on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, edited by David Alan Back, 1-39. Nashville,

TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2008.

62

Wallace, Daniel B. “The Witness of the Spirit in Romans 8:16: Interpretation and

Implications.” In Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation in to the

Ministry of the Spirit of God Today, edited by M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B.

Wallace, 37-52. Dallas, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2005.

Warnock, Adrain. Raised with Christ: How the Resurrection Changes Everything.

Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009.

Webb, Robert L. “The Roman Examination and Crucifixion of Jesus: Their Historicity

and Implications.” In Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A

Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence. Edited by Darrell L. Bock

and Robert L. Webb, 669-774. Tubingen: Coronet Books, 2009.

Wedderburn, A. J. M. Beyond Resurrection. London: SCM, 1999·

Wilckens, Ulrich. “The Tradition-History of the Resurrection of Jesus.” In The

Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ, edited

by C. F. D. Moule, translated by R. A. Wilson. Studies in Biblical Theology,

Second Series, 8, 51-76. London: SCM, 1968.

Wilkins, Michael and Moreland, James P., ed. Jesus under Fire. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 1995.

Williams, Rowan. Resurrection: Interpreting the Easter Gospel. London: Darton,

Longman, and Todd, 1984.

Witherington III, Ben. Matthew. Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary, edited by Mark

K. McElroy. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2006.

Witherington, Ben, III. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand

Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001.

Wooddell, Joseph D. The Beauty of the Faith: Using Aesthetics for Christian

Apologetics. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of

God, vol. 3. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003.

Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. London: SPCK, 1992.

Wright, N. T., and John Dominic Crossan. “The Resurrection: Historical Event or

Theological Explanation? A Dialogue.” In The Resurrection of Jesus: John

Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, edited by Robert B. Stewart, 16-

47. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006.

63

Yamauchi, Edwin M. Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973.

Yogananda, Paramhansa. Autobiography of a Yogi. Los Angeles, CA: Self-Realization

Fellowship, 1956.