Five Reasons to Doubt the Five Reasons: A Response to Matthew Hartke’s “Five Reasons to Doubt the Resurrection”

Second south chancel window, St Margaret’s Church, Rottingdean, East Sussex. Designed by Caroline Townshend in 1922.

Matthew Hartke recently released a thoughtful and self-reflective blog post in which he presents five reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. I appreciate his willingness to honestly share his doubts and to think critically about the claims of Christianity. After reading and carefully considering his post, I’ve decided to share some of my thoughts about each of his points below. My goal is not to provide an historical case for the resurrection. I personally believe in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and I’ve arrived at the conclusion that the historical evidence is consistent with this belief. However, I do not think historical methods are ultimately designed to adjudicate miracle claims. What can history tell us? The best we can do historically is to affirm some basic facts: 1) Jesus died by crucifixion. 2) After his death, some of his followers said they saw him alive again. 3) The followers of Jesus began proclaiming that God had raised Jesus from the dead. In my estimation, the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead coheres with the historical evidence available to us. My purpose in this post is to point out some problems with Hartke’s objections to the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. Before reading my response however, I would strongly encourage you to first read Five Reasons to Doubt the Resurrection.

I. The Nature of Paul’s Conversion Experience

Hartke suggests that Paul’s experience of the risen Jesus may have been akin to a personal or inner revelation rather than a physical appearance. He writes, “And yet even Paul himself, when recounting his conversion experience elsewhere, seems to use language more appropriate to a vision than to a physical appearance.” He cites these verses in support of this statement: “Gal. 1:12, 16; cf., Gal. 2:2; 1 Cor. 14:6, 26; 2 Cor. 12:1, 7.” Hartke claims, “In Galatians 1 he describes his experience as “a revelation of Jesus Christ,” using the same language he uses throughout his letters to describe non-bodily visions.” Ok…so let’s look at these verses in Galatians 1 in a little more context.

Galatians 1:11-12 – “11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”[1] What is being “revealed” in this statement? The revelation Paul is referring to isn’t his resurrection appearance of Jesus, rather the focus of v. 12 is the gospel he has been proclaiming. The gospel message was received by Paul through revelation by Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:13-17 – “13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. 14 I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. 15 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.” The New Revised Standard Version translates verse 16, “reveal his son to me.” What Hartke’s referring to is the literal Greek text, “reveal his Son in me,” inferring this to be a reference to an inner visionary experience. So, what’s Paul really saying here? Scholars such as Craig Keener and F.F. Bruce both assert that in Galatians 1:16 Paul is describing his commission to take the gospel to the Gentiles.[2] Paul’s experience of the risen Jesus led to an inward change…a revelation. Paul’s mission to take the gospel to the Gentiles was revealed in him. This in no way implies that Paul’s actual experience of the risen Christ was an inward revelation. In fact, Paul states earlier in his letter to the Corinthians that his experience of the risen Jesus was visual. He actually says that he had “seen”Jesus in I Corinthians 9:1. “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Here Paul uses the Greek word ἑόρακα (heoraka). The word choice indicates an ordinary form of seeing, not an inward vision or revelation.[3]

Hartke’s argument for an inward revelation faces another problem. It’s the perplexing fact that the rest of these verses he cites aren’t even referring to Paul’s experience of the risen Jesus as he claims. If you don’t believe me, take the time to look them up for yourself. If you want to know Paul’s view of the risen Jesus, hands down our best source is I Corinthians 15. What the exact nature of Paul’s experience was we may never know, but it’s clear that Paul believed that Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead. That’s the basis of his argument in I Corinthians 15. You see, some in the Corinthian community had been claiming that the general resurrection had already occurred spiritually and that the Corinthians had missed it. Paul contends however that since Jesus was physically raised from the dead, their resurrection would likewise be physical, not spiritual. In other words, they’ll know when it happens. James Ware, in a study[4] published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, argues that the notion of Paul holding to a nonphysical or spiritual resurrection isn’t supported by the text of I Corinthians 15 and must be ruled out. Whenever Paul mentions the resurrection “body” in this chapter, he uses the Greek word σῶμά (soma), which when he applies it to a person, refers to the physical body…without exception. The renowned New Testament scholar, Robert Gundry, insists, “Contrary to all this, however, runs Paul’s exceptionless use of soma for a physical body. Had Paul wanted to portray the resurrection in any other fashion than in terms of physical bodies, he would not have used soma.”[5]

Scholars like Bart Ehrman[6] and Larry Hurtado[7] have emphasized that Paul believed Jesus’ tomb to be empty. This shows a very early belief in a physical, bodily, resurrection. Again, what Paul actually experienced is unknowable, but whatever he experienced seems to have led him to the belief that Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead. The idea that Paul’s experience of the risen Jesus was a subjective visionary/revelatory experience just doesn’t cohere with what Paul himself says.

II. Discord Between the Accounts

Hartke points to the differences/contradictions in the resurrection narratives included in the gospels. He quotes John Dominic Crossan, “If all those accounts derived from composite memory and historical recall, it is quite remarkable that an almost hour-by-hour remembrance prevailed for the death and burial of Jesus but an almost total discrepancy prevailed for what was, I would presume, even more important, namely, the extraordinary return of Jesus from beyond the grave.”  Hartke makes some important observations in this section, but we need to remember a couple of things…

It’s true that the Passion narratives in the gospels bear many similarities. Mark appears to be using an earlier Passion Narrative as a source. Matthew and Luke have also borrowed this sequence of events from Mark. Like Mark, John also seems to be using earlier Passion material. These Passion accounts are describing one event that happened at one time, that happened in one location, and involved (for the most part) the same people. Taking this into consideration, it then makes sense that the historical sources describing this event would exhibit more consistency in their descriptions. However, the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection appearances by their very nature are not confined to the same location, the same time, the same place, and the same people, so we shouldn’t expect the same consistency in these accounts as we have in the Passion narratives.

Hartke mentions the differences in the resurrection accounts, specifically that Mark’s gospel has a very abrupt ending, concluding with the women at the empty tomb fleeing and saying “nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” Matthew, Luke, and John on the other hand have more detailed descriptions of the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances. We should take note that the prevailing theory is that the gospels were written for particular communities. Even if they were ultimately intended for a much wider audience, they still served to address certain situations in which the community of origin found itself. Whitney Shiner proposes that Mark was possibly written to be performed in front of an audience.[8] Richard Burridge suggests that the seemingly incomplete ending of Mark may have been an intentional literary device. It leaves the audience to think about how they would respond to the empty tomb and the promise of seeing Jesus.[9] Would they run away and say nothing to no one, or would they do as the angel commanded? My point is that when we see such differences in the gospel accounts, we shouldn’t immediately attempt to dismiss them as non-historical. We should instead question why those differences exist. Is there a literary, theological, or situational reason for those differences? The most important thing we can do is to seek to understand why those differences exist, not dismiss these accounts as mere legend.

We often see that historical sources describing the same event contain differing or conflicting information. We see this in the accounts of Hannibal crossing the Alps.[10] Our two main sources for this event are found in the writings of Livy and Polybius. Both narratives contradict each other dramatically and there is really no way for both to be accurate descriptions, but historians accept that Hannibal did, in fact, cross the Alps. Differing accounts don’t mean that an event didn’t occur. When faced with significant variations in our primary sources, do we just throw up our hands and say, “Well…I guess that didn’t happen!”? Not at all! Historians search for points of agreement between the two accounts and then seek to understand why any apparent discrepancies exist. The existence of contrasting accounts can actually indicate the presence of independent historical traditions and shouldn’t be viewed as a strike against historicity.

III. Signs of Legendary Development

Hartke takes aim at the contention of some apologists (based on the work of Oxford historian A.N. Sherwin-White[11]) that since the composition of the canonical gospels happened within a generation or two of the events in question, they are unlikely to contain legendary accretion, since that requires a longer period of time to develop. Hartke challenges this assertion using the Gospel of Peter as an example. He states, “Peter was written only a few decades after John. It stands, in fact, at relatively the same distance in time from John (the latest canonical Gospel) that Mark (the earliest canonical Gospel) stands from Jesus himself. So, if we are in agreement that Peter’s resurrection narrative is largely legendary, by what rationale of dating can we still insist that the canonical Gospels must be categorically different?” This would, at first glance, seem to be a legitimate objection to Sherwin-White’s position.

In the interests of full disclosure, I myself am not persuaded by Sherwin-White’s argument regarding the time required for legendary material to accrete. That being said, I need to push back on Hartke’s example. He seems to be trying to support his case on an assumption that’s anything but solid. He’s assuming the author of the Gospel of Peter used the Gospel of John as a literary source and then added his own legendary embellishments. We don’t know this. It’s possible…but possible doesn’t mean probable. In fact, it’s also possible that Peter is based on oral traditions that are independent from the four canonical gospels.[12] This means that when we look at legendary accretion, we shouldn’t examine the length of time between the composition of John and Peter. Instead, we need to look at the length of time between the composition of Peter and the events it purports to describe, roughly 90-120 years. So, this example doesn’t demonstrate what Hartke seems to think it does.

In response to Mike Licona’s assertion that Matthew is employing an apocalyptic literary device (reminiscent of Plutarch and Josephus) in Matthew 27:52-53, Hartke opines, “But then the floodgate is opened and it can’t be shut. If we can attribute the bodies of the saints coming out of their tombs and appearing to many in Jerusalem to Matthew’s creative license, then why can’t we do that with any of Jesus’ appearances?” I don’t personally claim to know anything about Hartke’s former faith background, but this statement is reminiscent of a fundamentalist “all or nothing” approach to the biblical texts. An historical-critical approach on the other hand requires more nuance.

It’s important to remember that the appearances of Jesus after his death are attested in multiple independent sources while the rising of the dead saints is not. The so-called “Matthean Zombies” incident also fits Matthew’s eschatological purposes…to herald the arrival of the messianic age.[13] Is it possible that the gospel accounts were embellished by their authors for theological or literary reasons? Sure! We see this dynamic in ancient biography/historiography. However, that doesn’t justify concluding that the underlying event(s) being described is legendary. The rising of the dead saints is part of Matthew’s Passion narrative. Would it be justifiable to conclude that the crucifixion (an event that has been deemed historical by virtually all scholars of antiquity) is therefore also legendary, simply because Matthew seeds the account with apocalyptic imagery?

One wonders whether Hartke would approach an historical source like Josephus’ War in the same manner… Josephus describes bizarre supernatural portents preceding the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE (Book VI, Chapter 5), such as chariots and soldiers being seen in the clouds and a cow giving birth to a lamb. Would Hartke then call the underlying event, the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans, into question?

Hartke goes on to argue that the gospel accounts of the resurrection were later legendary accretions by citing data from the gospels themselves:

“And aside from the suspiciousness of any one tradition, there is the more general observation that the scope of post-resurrection material grows with each Gospel: Mark is the earliest, and he contains no actual record of any appearances, but only the expectation of one in Galilee (Mk 16:7); then comes Matthew, who spends 190 words on two appearances (Mt 28:9-20) and then Luke, who spends 641 words on three appearances (Lk 24:13-53); and finally John, who spends 930 words on four appearances (Jn 20:14-21:25).[12] And just as the scope of post-resurrection material grows with each Gospel, so also do the themes of physical proof (an obviously important apologetic motif) and the displacement of Galilee with Jerusalem (which had greater prophetic significance; e.g. Isa 59:20) as the primary theater of the risen Jesus’ activity. Is it just a cruel coincidence of history that so much material is distributed in such a manner as to suggest legendary development?”

He is saying that if you read the gospel accounts chronologically, the appearance narratives seem to grow in scope and detail. Simply by looking at the number of appearances recorded by each gospel author this does indeed appear to be true. Mark (c. 70 CE) = 0, Matthew (c. 80s CE) = 2, Luke (c. 85 CE) = 3, John (c. 90-100 CE) = 4. On this basis, it looks like a clear chronological progression of appearance narratives. So, we can consider this as a legitimate line of evidence supporting the claim that the resurrection accounts are a later legendary development, right? After all, as Harke writes, “The plain and simple fact of the matter, established by a close reading of each Gospel side by side, is that the canonical Gospels clearly do contain numerous examples of legendary development.” Well…not so fast. I think you’ll see that the “plain and simple fact of the matter” isn’t so plain and simple upon closer examination.

Let’s begin with Mark and read what 16:6-7 says, “6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” Even though he doesn’t directly include appearance accounts, Mark shows us that he is at least aware of a tradition of an appearance to Peter and the disciples. This means that Mark should be moved from 0 to 1. Plus, this appearance prediction is part of a very early tradition. The empty tomb account is connected to the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative, a source used by Mark that has been dated, by scholars like Rudolf Pesch, prior to 37 CE.[14]

Hartke also doesn’t account for the source material used by the other gospel authors. Matthew’s appearance in Galilee on the mountaintop is from the earlier “M” Source.[15] “M” or “Special Matthew” includes material unique to Matthew that likely derives from a combination of oral and written sources. All three Lukan appearances are part of the L Source,[16] material unique to Luke’s gospel, also known as “Special Luke.” Both “M” and “L” have been dated prior to 50 CE[17], thus preceding Mark’s gospel.

The appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene in John 20 is considered by a number of scholars (Benoit, Brown, Hengel, etc.) to be a very early appearance tradition that would also predate the gospels.[18] However, we shouldn’t reduce the appearance traditions to the gospels alone. The very earliest appearance tradition is found in I Corinthians 15. Here Paul cites a creed that dates to the early 30s CE, which recounts 5 appearances. Paul then adds his own experience bringing the total to 6. James Dunn has even argued that this creed dates to within months of the crucifixion.[19]  James Ware further asserts that the primitive creed in I Corinthians 15 presupposes the narratives we find in the gospel accounts, “As historians, therefore, we must count I Cor 15.3–5 as evidence for belief in the resurrection of Jesus’ crucified body among the earliest Christ-followers. Birger Gerhardsson has argued persuasively that the brief formulaic statement in I Cor 15.3–5 of Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection and resurrection appearances presupposes a narrative of these events. If so, the language of this remarkably early formula presupposes a narrative or narratives of the kind we see in the synoptics and John, involving an empty tomb, and encounters with a Jesus risen in flesh and bones. Any historical reconstruction of ancient Christianity or of the earliest kerygma, if it is to be of critical value, must consider the evidence presented here regarding the meaning, within its original linguistic context, of this formula’s affirmation that Jesus ‘has been raised on the third day’.”[20]

So, let’s look at a revised chronology of appearance traditions considering source-critical scholarship and the writings of Paul.

POST-MORTEM APPEARANCES OF JESUS

WORDS DESCRIBING THE POST-MORTEM APPEARANCES[21]

This chronology would be even more interesting if we factored in the appearances of the risen Jesus attested in the primitive sermon material in Acts.[22] Of course there are lively scholarly debates regarding the scope, composition, dating, and even existence of such hypothetical sources. However, my point is that any claim of a clear chronological progression of increasing appearances and narrative detail becomes much more complex[23] when we (as we must) consider the appearance traditions in Pauline texts, pre-Pauline material, and sources used by the gospel authors. We simply don’t see the proposed accretion of legendary material over time in the canonical texts. Often history interferes with our desire to see the patterns we want to see and undermines our pet theories.

IV. Unrealistic features of the traditions

In this section, Hartke discusses some features of the appearance traditions that he believes do not cohere with real-world, physical appearances of the resurrected Christ. Hartke proposes that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus have much in common with bereavement hallucinations. He references Dale Allison’s work on the resurrection, “as Dale Allison has shown at length, they perfectly fit the phenomenon of bereavement hallucinations or visions of the recently deceased.” Hartke also shares a quote from a study that says, “the number of recognized apparitions decreases rapidly in the few days after death, then more slowly, and after a year or more they become far less frequent and more sporadic.” He argues that this pattern fits well with what we see in the gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances. One problem is that the study he cites was carried out over 100 years ago by William F. Barrett, a parapsychologist, and spiritualist, who experimented with dowsing, mediums, and clairvoyance.[24] This is hardly a source we should rely on to help us investigate a scientific/historical question.

Many of the studies conducted on bereavement hallucinations center on the loss of a spouse, as this is where we tend to see such experiences.[25] Hartke cites a more respected work in the field by Celia Green and Charles McCreery, entitled Apparitions, saying, “The cases reported to us tend to occur most frequently within a week of the death, and the number falls away as the length of time since the death increases.” However, another study conducted around the same time concluded, “The hallucinations often lasted many years but were most common during the first 10 years…”[26] They also found that hallucinations were less common in people under 40 and that people often didn’t talk about their experiences. A 1993 study found that 80% of elderly people “experience hallucinations associated with their dead partner one month after bereavement, as if their perception had yet to catch up with the knowledge of their beloved’s passing.”[27] A 2015 study revealed that, “Informants varied in the type of bond with the deceased (Table 2) and the time that had elapsed since the death (from 1 to 27 years, with a median of 3 years).”[28] These studies clearly don’t support Hartke’s position that bereavement hallucinations occur most often within a week after someone’s passing and then taper off. What we also don’t see with these experiences is the claim, by those who are hallucinating, that a loved one has physically returned from the dead. On the contrary, these experiences tend to help people accept the death of a loved one on an emotional and psychological level.[29]

Hallucinations, or visions of the dead, were understood in the ancient world. Ancient Near Eastern[30] and Greco-Roman[31] literature bears witness to these experiences. But such visions were viewed as confirmation that the person was indeed dead.[32] It doesn’t explain the belief among Jesus’ followers that he had been physically raised from the dead. We actually see an example from the New Testament itself in Acts 12:1-17. James, brother of John, was recently killed by Herod and Peter had been imprisoned. Peter escapes from prison and goes to a house where other Jesus followers had gathered. When Rhoda tells the others, they think she’s crazy and that it must be his “angel,” or in other words…his ghost. They think Peter must be dead too! Visions of the dead were common in the ancient world, but this didn’t lead to belief in a person’s resurrection. Hallucinations simply aren’t a compelling explanation for the origin of the disciples’ belief that Jesus had been physically raised from the dead. Dale Allison even concedes this point, “If there was no reason to believe that his solid body had returned to life, no one would have thought him, against expectation, resurrected from the dead. Certainly, visions of or perceived encounters with a postmortem Jesus would not by themselves, have supplied such reason.”[33]

V. Dissonance reduction strategies

Hartke points to the reaction of apocalyptic movements when their prophetic hopes and expectations are dashed by reality. He cites studies that show that such groups tend to adjust their expectations (by reinterpreting and/or spiritualizing a prophecy) and projecting unfulfilled parts into the future. You can understand why someone might see a correlation to the early Jesus movement. One of my recent Twitter threads explains some of the problems faced when attempting to appeal to cognitive dissonance as an explanation for the resurrection belief. I’ve also posted a response to a critique of my thread. Here are some other places where the cognitive dissonance explanation runs into trouble…

Hartke writes, “And we see it in the ascension narratives of Luke-Acts, which provide a suspiciously easy answer for why the appearances of the risen Jesus eventually ceased.” This I assume is something he is attempting to fit into his previous claim that the followers of Jesus experienced bereavement hallucinations a few days to a week following the death of Jesus. The author of Luke-Acts needed an explanation as to why the appearances of Jesus stopped after a few days, so he presumably invented one…the Ascension. This would, in Hartke’s view, be an example of how an apocalyptic movement would adjust their eschatological expectations in order to reduce the dissonance of an unexpected turn of events.

There’s a slight problem with this hypothesis, however. If the appearances of Jesus were merely vision-like bereavement hallucinations experienced by his grieving followers, and the Ascension in Acts 1 is a literary creation by the author of Luke-Acts to explain why the bereavement hallucinations stopped after a few days, then why did the author narrate a vision-like experience of Jesus in Acts 7 and the appearance to Saul in Acts 9? If Hartke is going to appeal to bereavement hallucinations as an explanation for the resurrection appearances of Jesus, he needs to remember that studies show such hallucinations can continue for years (or even decades in some cases). So, his assertion that the Ascension was a necessary invention to explain the cessation of such hallucinations and reduce cognitive dissonance stumbles right out of the gate.

Further, Second Temple Judaism had no belief in a resurrection prior to the general resurrection at the end of the world.[34] The declaration of a crucified and resurrected savior, runs contrary to any Jewish expectations of Messiah, a Davidic ruler who would overthrow oppression. Messianic movements before and after Jesus provide a good case study on what happens when messianic hopes are crushed, and a leader is executed. The followers of such a failed messiah typically moved on and found themselves a new messiah to follow (possibly a family member of the former “messiah”) or gave up altogether. They didn’t suddenly proclaim that he was raised from the dead.[35]

Cognitive dissonance also doesn’t explain the conversion of Paul, a former persecutor of Jesus followers or James, the brother of Jesus, who doesn’t appear to have been a follower during Jesus’ lifetime. As someone who works in historical studies, trying to psychoanalyze figures from the past, or groups of people, such as the early Jesus movement, is notoriously fraught with difficulties. Historians just don’t have enough access to most historical figures to determine what psychological dynamics are at play. That’s why most historians typically avoid doing psychohistory.[36] The argument that cognitive dissonance led the disciples to the belief that Jesus had been resurrected simply isn’t persuasive.

In the end, I appreciate Matthew Hartke’s willingness to thoughtfully and critically examine a belief he once held. As a Christian, I think we should be open to having our beliefs challenged, even the ones we hold most dear. We ought to embrace critical scholarship instead of holding to some artificially imposed standard of biblical inerrancy. Christians should be free to follow the facts and the evidence wherever they lead, for as Princeton’s Helena Professor of Old Testament Literature and Exegesis, Mark S. Smith, once said, “What is true tells us something about God.”

---

[1] The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is used for all New Testament citations unless otherwise noted.

[2] Keener, Craig, Galatians: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019), 78-97; see also Bruce, F.F., The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: a commentary on the Greek text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 91-94. Bruce writes, “For Paul the outward vision and the inward illumination coincided: Jesus, whom he persecuted, was revealed as the Son of God, and the revelation was the act of God himself.” He further states, “The appearance of the risen Christ to him was an objective experience, in which Christ took the initiative: …the appearance of the risen Christ to him was as real as his earlier appearances to Peter, James and others, not that their experiences were as `visionary’ as Paul’s.”

[3] Newman, Carey C., Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (New York: E.J. Brill, 1992), 186; See also Crossan, John Dominic and Reed, Jonathan L., In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2009), 8. Crossan and Reed affirm that Paul viewed his resurrection appearance of Jesus as being bodily in nature, “To take seriously Paul’s claim to have seen the risen Jesus, we suggest that his inaugural vision was of Jesus’ body simultaneously wounded and glorified.”

[4] Ware, James, “Paul’s Understanding of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:36–54,” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 4 (2014), 809-835, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/563778

[5] Gundry, Robert H., Soma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 168. Gundry goes on to say, “A metaphorical use of soma would not constitute an exception, for the metaphor itself would rest on an understanding of soma as physical body.”

[6] Ehrman, Bart, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2014), 223. Ehrman writes, “But Paul is emphatic: Jesus was bodily raised from the dead. Paul states this view vigorously in 1 Corinthians 15, and in some sense the entire chapter is written to make the point”; see also Ehrman, Bart, “Paul’s View of the Resurrection,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, https://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of-resurrection-for-members/ Ehrman affirms, “Paul certainly thought, and would have said, if asked, that the tomb was empty, because he definitely thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead. That is his entire argument in 1 Corinthians 15.”

[7] Centre for the Study of Christian Origins. “Resurrection Roundtable.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKS1WVdGURs&feature=youtu.be&t=1093. YouTube, 12 April 2017.

[8] Shiner, Whitney, Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003), 189.

[9] Burridge, Richard A., Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 64.

[10] Clare, John D., “Polybius and Livy on Hannibal’s Crossing of the Alps,” GCSE Ancient History, https://www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources3.html

[11] Sherwin-White, A. N., Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, NY: Oxford University, 1963), 186-193.

[12] Ehrman, Bart, and Zlatko Plese, The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011), 654. Ehrman and Plese write, “since there are so few verbatim agreements with the other Gospels, it is hard to establish that the author actually used them as literary sources. And so it seems more likely that he constructed his Gospel on the basis of oral traditions and/or on recollections of accounts he had earlier read.”

[13] The New Testament Review podcast. “Donald Senior, “The Death of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Holy Ones” (NT Review, Ep. 31)” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5cLdKwmJbc. YouTube, 24 April 2020.

[14] Pesch, Rudolf, Das Markusevangelium, Volume 2, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 519-20; see also Engelbrecht, J. “The Empty Tomb (Lk 24:1-12) in Historical Perspective.” Neotestamentica 23, no. 2 (1989): 245. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43048983

[15] Powell, Mark Allen, Fortress Introduction to the Gospels (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), 62.

[16] Ibid, 86; see also Powell, Mark Allen, Jesus As a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man From Galilee (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 37. Powell writes, “The upshot of all this is that when historians deal with the Synoptic Gospels, they do not so much think of the material as coming from three Gospels (Matthew,Mark, and Luke) as from four source strata (Mark, Q, M, and L).”

[17] Barnett, Paul W, Making the Gospels: Mystery or Conspiracy? (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2019), 31-42; see also Paffenroth, Kim, The Story of Jesus According to L (London, UK: A&C Black, 1997), 156.

[18] Theissen, Gerd and Merz, Annette, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Fortress Press, 1998), 496-497; see also Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Vol. 2. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970), 1003: Brown states, “Despite the lateness of the witnesses, we are inclined to believe that the tradition of the appearance to Magdalene may be ancient.”

[19] Dunn, James D.G., Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 854-55.

[20] Ware, James, “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5,” New Testament Studies 60, no. 4 (2014), 498 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688514000150

[21] Words in the Revised Chronology were tallied using the Greek text of the New Testament found at the Society of Biblical Literature Website: https://www.biblestudytools.com/sblg/

[22] Dunn, James D.G., Jesus and the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 119-120; See also Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2012), 112, Ehrman states, “In both of these speeches we have, then, remnants of much older pre-Lukan traditions, older not just than the book of Acts but than any of the Gospels and older in fact than any surviving Christian writings.” and “These primitive traditions from the speeches in Acts are unambiguous about their views of Jesus. They are at least as old as our earliest surviving Gospel stories about Jesus, and equally important, they are independent of them.”; See Acts 2:22-32; 3:13-15, 10:39-41.

[23] Ibid, 117-122. See James Dunn’s discussion of earliest Christianity’s movement from an original physical interpretation of the resurrection, to view of a spiritual body (as the gospel spread into Hellenistic areas), and back to the physical.

[24] PSI Encyclopedia, “William Barrett,” Society for Psychical Research, https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/william-barrett.

[25] Castelnovo, Anna et al, “Post-bereavement hallucinatory experiences: A critical overview of population and clinical studies,” Journal of Affective Disorders Volume 186, (2015), 266-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.07.032

[26] Rees, W. Dewi, “The Hallucinations of Widowhood,” British Medical Journal, 4:37, (1971)  https://www.bmj.com/content/4/5778/37

[27] Gimby, A., “Bereavement among elderly people: grief reactions, post-bereavement hallucinations and quality of life,” Acta Psychiatr Scandinavia, 87(1): (1993), 72-80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8424323 as referenced in Bell, Vaughn, “Ghost Stories: Visits from the Deceased,” Scientific American, (2008), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ghost-stories-visits-from-the-deceased/.

[28] Hayes, Jacqueline, & Leudar, Ivan, “Experiences of continued presence: On the practical consequences of “hallucinations” in bereavement,” Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 89(2): (2015), 196. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12067

[29] Ibid, 194-195 & 197.

[30] Steiner, Richard C, Disembodied Souls: The Nefesh in Israel and Kindred Spirits in the Ancient Near East (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2015). https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pubs/9781628370775_OA.pdf

[31] Johnston, Sarah Iles. Restless Dead: Encounters between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece. (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1999). www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt3fh2v2.

[32] Wright, N.T., The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 691. Wright asserts, “Indeed, such visions meant precisely, as people in the ancient and modern worlds have discovered, that the person was dead, not that they were alive.”

[33] Allison, Dale C., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpretation (New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2005), 324-325.

[34] Jeremias, Joachim, “Die alteste Schicht der Osteruberlieferungen,” in Edouard Dhanis, ed., Resurrexit (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1974), p. 194. Jeremias declares, “Ancient Judaism did not know of an anticipated resurrection as an event of history. Nowhere does one find in the literature anything comparable to the resurrection of Jesus. Certainly, resurrections of the dead were known, but these always concerned resuscitations, the return of the earthly life. In no place in the late Judaic literature does it concern a resurrection to Glory as an event of history.”

[35] Wright, N.T, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 175-81; see also Bond, Helen K., “Messiah figures.” https://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/video-gallery/m/messiah-figures—bond. Bible Odyssey, (Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), Bond says, “Most of the messianic leaders, most of the prophets within this period suffered some kind of fate; most of the time the Romans came and killed them. That happened to Jesus too, but of course, what made his story distinctive was that it had an aftermath. That wasn’t the end; Christian followers of Jesus claimed that he’d been risen from the dead.”; see also Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 168. Ehrman says, “what made Jesus different from all the others teaching a similar message was the claim that he had been raised from the dead. Belief in Jesus’s resurrection changed absolutely everything. Such a thing was not said of any of the other apocalyptic preachers of Jesus’s day, and the fact that it was said about Jesus made him unique.”

[36] Stannard, David E., Shrinking History: On Freud and the Failure of Psychohistory (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 155-156. See also Hunt, Lynn “Psychology, Psychoanalysis and Historical Thought -The Misfortunes of Psychohistory,” In Kramer Lloyd S. and Maza, Sarah C. (ed.). A Companion to Western Historical Thought. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), 337–357.