Ben Stevens

3/21/13

HY490

Early Christianity—The Resurrection of Jesus

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the most disputed events in history. But my goal is not to offer an argument to the resurrection’s validity. My contention is to only prove the resurrection of Jesus was an attested belief that unified the earliest Christians and their mission to spread the Gospel. The resurrection proclamation is just as historically significant as whether the resurrection truly happened. For the proclamation of the resurrection is what convinced the disciples to begin ministering and allowed Christianity to continue its existence to the present.[1] Ironically most scholars do not dispute this conclusion.[2] Instead, scholars dispute the importance of certain sources like the four canonical Gospels for verifying such a conclusion. Some scholars like Richard Carrier also dispute if the resurrection claimed in the sources meant a physical and bodily one or merely a “spiritual” resurrection. I disagree with these scholars and will now present my plan for this paper.

The canonical Gospels are crucial sources for the resurrection proclamation. I will explain why from an argument for an early dating range of the Synoptic Gospels[3] and the probable authors for the four Gospels. Next I will investigate 1 Timothy. This is also crucial as 1 Timothy 5:18 is an important piece of evidence revealing the early dating range of the Synoptics (especially Luke and Mark). Thirdly, I will elaborate Richard Carrier’s thesis that the resurrection proclamation of earliest Christians was a “spiritual” not “physical” resurrection and refute him. Finally, I will analyze all the primary sources and colligate them for positing a sound conclusion on the resurrection. Once this is all accomplished my contention stated at the beginning will be proved: The bodily resurrection of Jesus was a well attested and unifying doctrine held by the earliest Christians and disciples of Jesus.

Most scholars tend to gloss over the four Gospels and draw their conclusions only from Paul’s writings.[4] Such a method is useful as it offers the foundational roots of the resurrection no scholar would dispute.[5] But this method only permits a modicum of data for the critical historian. Therefore one should try to broaden the range of data by using the Gospels. But before one can use such disputed sources, they must prove why they are on equal footing with Paul.

First, I contend the Synoptic Gospels were written in the A.D. 40s and 50s rather than post-70 according to the scholarly consensus.[6] 1 Timothy 5:17-18 is the most significant piece of data affirming this range:

Elders who do their work well should be respected and paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching. For the Scriptures says, “You must not muzzle an ox to keep it from eating as it treads out the grain.” And in another place, “Those who work deserve their pay!”[7]

Deuteronomy 25:4 was the first book Paul quoted in that passage. But interestingly, Luke 10:7 was the next quote. Therefore, if the second quotation was from Luke 10:7 this is conclusive evidence Luke was written a few years before 1 Timothy. However, one may argue the quotation could have been from an oral tradition used in Luke or a separate written account.

The quotation in verse 18 is more likely from the Third Gospel in the current New Testament. Any theory asserting Paul quoted an oral tradition is implausible as the verse connected the quotation to “Scripture” which was necessarily a written source. Thus the probable alternative to Luke being the source is a lost, separate source that contained the same saying of Jesus. But such a theory is more speculative as Luke remains the only extant source containing the saying. Furthermore, the four Gospels were accepted as “Scripture” in the second-century churches.[8] Since Paul quoted from one such Gospel as “Scripture” in the first century churches, the Gospels may have likely been accepted earlier. Justin Martyr attested to a widespread acceptance of the Gospels about A.D. 150; perhaps such an acceptance was based from earlier roots in the first century.

Therefore the quotation in verse 18 of 1 Timothy most likely references Luke 10:7. This quotation cannot be from an oral source as Paul quotes from it as written “Scripture.” Furthermore, the quotation is probably not from a different written source, since Luke is the only extant source containing the quote and was accepted as “Scripture” in the churches. 1 Timothy 5:18 offers the only direct evidence which points to an earlier dating range of the Synoptic Gospels. Now one may ask: what is the indirect evidence for such earlier dates?

Acts is a commonly used source for dating the Gospels early. The stylistic similarities of Luke and Acts show the same writer authored both works.[9] In order to date Acts, one must first establish the veracity of the so-called “we” passages in Acts. These passages begin in the latter half of the book where the author seemingly places himself in the events with the first-person plural “we.” But some scholars such as V.K. Robbins argue the “we” passages are, instead, a literary device used for ship voyage stories rather than an implicit claim to first-hand recollection.[10] Colin Hemer responded to this counter argument by pointing out though “we” appeared in Greco-Roman ship voyage narratives, this is no evidence the “we” was intended to be anything other than first-hand reports.[11] Therefore, the inclusion of “we” alone is no proof the stories are necessarily literary fictions and is to be interpreted naturally regardless. Other scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman posit more radical explanations for the “we” passages.

Bart Ehrman in “Forged”[12] posited the “we” passages were intentionally fabricated by the author. In other words, Luke lied. Hemer did not respond to such an argument likely because such an argument is an unexpected one. Indeed, Ehrman mentioned how other scholars might question if an intentional liar would be so ambiguous in a fabrication. Luke never directly asserts his authority and the “we” passages in the latter half of Acts only make the author’s assertion of authority implied rather than loudly announced. Ehrman responded to this in “Forged” by pointing out historians do not know enough to theorize how forgers could fabricate their authorities. Even if this point is true the argument works in the other direction. For instance, under what evidence does Ehrman or any scholar retain to claim a forger would be so ambiguous in claiming his authority? If historians cannot be confident that forgery in the ancient world could be ambiguous than ambiguity cannot be used in a negative argument against the acclaimed author. However, Ehrman’s point is also mistaken for scholars have access to several gnostic and apocryphal Gospels under forged authors, none of which are as ambiguous as Luke. The Gospel of Peter not only asserted to be by the pinnacle apostle Simon Peter but went out of its way to mention its authority in first person “I” and repeated the author’s recollection during the narrative: “But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother took our net and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord…”[13] Also, Luke’s supposed authority implied by the “we” passages is particularly weak to early Christians. His only connection implied by the “we” is with Paul, who never knew Jesus and was a controversial figure in the early church. His connection to Paul is only related in the later chapters, as well. Why did Luke not claim to be present with a “we” at Paul’s miraculous conversion that was supposed to confirm Paul’s authority? Even in his asserted connection, Luke remains reserved and strangely distant.

Therefore, the “we” passages in Acts should be interpreted as a sign the author was involved to an extant first hand in the events he narrated. This is crucial for dating Acts, for the last two chapters of Acts are extremely minute in mundane details as if the events had only recently happened. In contrast to the indirect and general manner Acts recorded events prior to the twenty-seventh chapter,[14] chapters twenty-seven and twenty-eight became direct and specific. The author paid close attention to mundane details of the ship voyages and specific times and places. The best explanation for such data is Luke wrote Acts shortly after the last chapters.[15] Since Acts ended in A.D. 62, the book was most probably composed in the same year.

So the Synoptic Gospels, particularly Luke and Mark, were written no later than a few years prior to 1 Timothy and Acts. They were written no later than the A.D. 50s. Furthermore, since Luke used Mark as a source, Mark was written prior to Luke hence the A.D. 40s is a probable candidate. Both direct and indirect evidence for the dating of the Gospels has been given. However, one final piece of important evidence for dating the Gospels remains: patristic testimony.[16]

The late second-century church father Tertullian argued:

On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.[17]

Tertullian was disputing the authority of Marcion’s written Gospel with the four New Testament Gospels in the context of the quote. Tertullian was ostensibly saying here the original apostolic churches founded in the immediate decades after Christ were given such Gospels. This interpretation appears justified, since Tertullian argued such in the context of written Gospels and affirmed the Ephesians “read by it”. Tertullian affirmed in the same chapter the Gospels “were prior, and coeval in origin with the churches themselves.”[18] Also, Tertullian stated Marcion believed the “false apostles” Paul criticized in Galatians 2 were the people responsible for corrupting Luke’s Gospel.[19] If Tertullian was citing Marcion’s views correctly, then Marcion ostensibly believed Luke was written prior to Galatians. Since Marcion was part of the early second century orthodoxy before becoming a “heretic” the dates presupposed by the late second century church fathers likely had roots in the early second century.

Tertullian was not the only church father to presuppose earlier dates for the New Testament Gospels. Origen stated a common tradition in the church that Paul referred to Luke’s Gospel in 2 Corinthians 8:18.[20] Clement of Alexandria believed Peter was still alive when Mark recorded his Gospel.[21] Hence church fathers in the late second century presupposed earlier dates for the Gospels. Such external evidence does not, by itself, prove the Gospels were written early. But the data supports the internal evidence I elucidated previously which can only be explained by pre-70 dates for the Synoptic Gospels.

In summation of what has been argued thus far, 1 Timothy 5:18 most likely was a quote from Luke’s Gospel.[22] Acts was written in A.D. 62 therefore showing Luke and Mark were written prior to A.D. 62. Finally, the church fathers presupposed early dates for the Gospels in their writings. Having elaborated upon the dating on the Gospels, one must now ask: who wrote the Gospels?

I have heard countless times, “We do not know who wrote these anonymous Gospels.”[23] This cliché paints a false portrait of the true nature in contemporary scholarship. Scholars are not separated into only two groups with one contending all four Gospel authors are unknown while the other contending the traditional ascriptions are all completely correct. James D.G. Dunn, for instance, may not acknowledge Luke directly authored the third Gospel but he does accept a companion of Paul who could have been Luke authored it.[24] Martin Hengel argued an eyewitness and disciple of Jesus named John the Elder was behind the stories in the fourth Gospel but this John was not the apostle and son of Zebedee.[25] Yet Hengel also argued the traditional author Mark the disciple of Peter recorded the second Gospel.[26] Scholars dispute the authors of the Gospels indeed, but not in the fashion characterized today that contends with a broad generalization, “No one knows who wrote the Gospels!”[27] Even if some scholars like Dunn refuse to affirm a direct author by name like Luke, they still argue for certain types of authors such as a companion of Paul.

Of course, one should not only consider mainstream or liberal scholarship on the traditional ascriptions. What about evangelical scholars such as Craig Blomberg or F.F. Bruce? Such scholars would contend all four traditional ascriptions are genuine. Though they constitute a minority view, they cannot be thrown in the dustbin, for they are represented by equally renowned scholars in the field. The time has come to question with boldness this often repeated chant by many scholars and a skeptical public blasting, “No one knows who wrote the four Gospels!” F.F. Bruce thought he knew. Craig thinks he does. Martin Hengel and James Dunn thought they knew, at least, one or more of the authors. And I will claim to know here too. However, one should forgo the use of the word “know.” Historical evidence rarely achieves the authority of certitude. But it may conclude with the utmost probability that Mark, Luke, and John wrote the second, third, and fourth Gospels.

One may ask why I left out Matthew. The evidence for Matthean authorship is less authoritative than the other Gospels. The church fathers all asserted today’s Matthew was written in Hebrew and was the first Gospel. Yet most scholars agree Matthew was originally written in Greek and was based partly on Mark’s Gospel, the true first Gospel. Perhaps the church tradition reveals evidence of a Matthean source behind the first Gospel, but I will not travel that road for sake of brevity. On the other hand, Mark, Luke, and John all retain internal and external evidence revealing the probable identity of the authors.[28] Patristic evidence represents the common external support for all the traditional ascriptions.