Vision theory of Jesus' appearances

Last updated

The vision theory or vision hypothesis is a term used to cover a range of theories that question the physical resurrection of Jesus, and suggest that sightings of a risen Jesus were visionary experiences, often classified as grief or bereavement visions. It was first formulated by David Friedrich Strauss in the 19th century, and has been proposed in several forms by critical contemporary scholarship, including Helmut Koester, [1] Géza Vermes, [2] and Larry Hurtado, [3] and members of the Jesus Seminar such as Gerd Lüdemann. [4]

Contents

Christian apologists, scholars, and theologians reject the theory, holding the resurrection to be an actual bodily phenomenon. [5] [6] [7] [8]

Hypothesis

Subjective vision theory

Origen's response to the second century philosopher Celsus provides the earliest known literary record of a vision hypothesis; it was later popularized by 19th century theologian David Strauss. [9] [10] [11] David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874), in his Life of Jesus (1835), argued that the resurrection was not an objective historical fact, but a subjective "recollection" of Jesus, transfiguring the dead Jesus into an imaginary, or "mythical," risen Christ. [12] The appearance, or Christophany, of Jesus to Paul and others, was "internal and subjective." [13] Reflection on the Messianic hope, and Psalms 16:10, [14] [note 1] led to an exaltated state of mind, in which "the risen Christ" was present "in a visionary manner," concluding that Jesus must have escaped the bondage of death. [13] Strauss' thesis was further developed by Ernest Renan (1863) and Albert Réville (1897). [15] These interpretations were later classed the "subjective vision hypothesis", [note 2] and is advocated today in secular and Liberal Christian scholarship. [16] [17]

According to Ehrman, "the Christian view of the matter [is] that the visions were bona fide appearances of Jesus to his followers", [18] a view which is "forcefully stated in any number of publications." [18] Ehrman further notes that "Christian apologists sometimes claim that the most sensible historical explanation for these visions is that Jesus really appeared to the disciples." [19]

According to De Conick, the experiences of the risen Christ in the earliest written sources – the "primitive Church" creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–5, [20] Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:8 [21] and Galatians 1:16 [22] – are ecstatic rapture events. [23]

Paula Fredriksen, an agnostic scholar, expressed strong support for the vision theory, saying that “I know in their own terms what they [the disciples] saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that's what they saw. (...) I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.” [24]

Exaltation of Jesus

According to Hurtado, the resurrection experiences were religious experiences which "seem to have included visions of (and/or ascents to) God's heaven, in which the glorified Christ was seen in an exalted position." [25] These visions may mostly have appeared during corporate worship. [3] Johan Leman contends that the communal meals provided a context where participants entered a state of mind in which the presence of Jesus was felt; during these meals Jesus’ followers presumably experienced visions of their master or heard his voice. Leman also adheres to cognitive dissonance theory as an alternative explanation for the visions. [26] [27]

According to Ehrman, "the disciples' belief in the resurrection was based on visionary experiences." [28] [note 3] Ehrman notes that both Jesus and his early followers were apocalyptic Jews, who believed in the bodily resurrection, which would start when the coming of God's Kingdom was near. [30] Ehrman further notes that visions usually have a strong persuasive power, but that the Gospel accounts also record a tradition of doubt about the appearances of Jesus. Ehrman's "tentative suggestion" is that only a few followers had visions, including Peter, Paul, Mary and probably James. They told others about those visions, convincing most of their close associates that Jesus was raised from the dead, but not all of them. Eventually, these stories were retold and embellished, leading to the story that all disciples had seen the risen Jesus. [31] The belief in Jesus' resurrection radically changed their perceptions, concluding from his absence that he must have been transmitted to heaven, by God himself, exalting him to an unprecedented status and authority. [32]

Morton Smith, in his book Jesus the Magician, holds that the apostles learned from their master the ability to induce visions and hallucinations. According to him, shortly after Jesus' demise some of his followers had visionary or mystical experiences where they saw their master risen, leading to the resurrection belief. [33]

Call to missionary activity

According to Helmut Koester, the stories of the resurrection were originally epiphanies in which the disciples are called to a ministry by the risen Jesus, and at a secondary stage were interpreted as physical proof of the event. He contends that the more detailed accounts of the resurrection are also secondary and do not come from historically trustworthy sources, but instead belong to the genre of the narrative types. [1]

According to Gerd Lüdemann, Peter had a vision of Jesus, induced by his feelings of guilt of betraying Jesus. The vision elevated this feeling of guilt, and Peter experienced it as a real appearance of Jesus, raised from dead. He convinced the other disciples that the resurrection of Jesus signalled that the endtime was near and God's Kingdom was coming, when the dead would rise again, as evidenced by Jesus. This revitalized the disciples, spurring their new mission. [web 1]

According to Biblical scholar Géza Vermes, some disciples (not necessarily the apostles) had visions or hallucinations of a risen Jesus shortly after his death. [34] [35] The tales of these ‘apparitions’, and potentially the discovery of the empty tomb, encouraged and “illuminated” the dreaded apostles “like a ray of hope”, and eventually induced in them a "powerful mystical or visionary experience". [34] The resurrection is thus to be understood as a “resurrection in the heart”: a reviving of the self-confidence of the followers of Jesus under the influence of the Spirit, "prompting them to resume their apostolic mission." They felt the presence of Jesus in their own actions, "rising again, today and tomorrow, in the hearts of the men who love him and feel he is near.” [34] [2]

Objective vision theory

Hans Grass (1964) proposed an "objective vision hypothesis," in which Jesus' appearances are "divinely caused visions," showing his followers that his resurrection "was a spiritual reality." [36] Jesus' spirit was resurrected, but his body remained dead, explaining the belated conversion of Jesus' half-brother James. Grass' "objective" vision hypothesis finds no echo in more recent scholarship. [37]

Cognitive dissonance reduction

A further explanation is provided by the theory of cognitive dissonance, which implies that Jesus’ post-mortem visions might not have been the origin of resurrection belief, but its confirmation in the eyes of the disciples. [38] [39] [40] [web 2] While Jesus' early followers expected the immediate installment of the Kingdom of God, the delay of this cosmic event led to a change in beliefs. [38] According to a naturalistic explanation, in a process of cognitive dissonance reduction, Jewish scriptures were re-interpreted to explain the crucifixion and visionary post-mortem experiences of Jesus. [38] [39] [40] [web 2] The belief that Jesus' resurrection signaled the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God changed into a belief that the resurrection (i.e. the visions) confirmed the Messianic status of Jesus, and the belief that Jesus would return at some indeterminate time in the future, the Second Coming c.q. Parousia , heralding the expected endtime. [38] The same process may have led to intensive proselytization, convincing others of the developing beliefs to reduce cognitive dissonance, explaining why the early group of followers grew larger despite the failing expectations. [web 2]

John Gager, one of the first proposers of cognitive dissonance’s application to the growth of early Christianity, holds that the visionary experiences (and possibly lucid dreams) of the risen Jesus were the perceived ‘proofs’ that ‘resolved’ the cognitive dissonance itself. [41]

Cognitive-dissonance-induced rationalization

A more recent variant of the aforementioned theory. [42] Kris Komarnitsky, one the first proposers of this theory, says that while most scholars consider the resurrection belief a consequence of grief or bereavement visions, it is possible that the resurrection belief actually preceded and induced the post-mortem visions of Jesus. According to Komarnitsky, the cognitive dissonance reduction and a staunch refusal to accept Jesus’ death might have originated the resurrection belief, followed by visions (and possibly dreams) of Jesus after his death, which the disciples considered the confirmation of their belief. [43] [42] [44]

Interpretation of doubt in the visions

According to Bart Ehrman, there is an intrinsic leitmotif of doubt in Jesus’ post-mortem visions, which he called a “doubt tradition”: Mary mistakes the risen Jesus for a gardener, the disciples initially doubt Jesus’ resurrection, and in another episode fail to recognise him until he reaches the shore and talks with them; other examples are episode of doubting Thomas and the disciples of Emmaus, who fail to recognise Jesus till he shares his bread with them. [45] [46]

Most scholars have not delved into the question. Others, such as Morton Smith and Géza Vermes, have simply concluded that, since disciples had ‘visions’ of Jesus, it was normal for them to doubt what they had seen. The elements of doubt eventually remained in the tales. [34] [33]

However, Bart Ehrman notes that this explanation is unlikely, as medical literature suggests that “people who have visions tend to believe them wholeheartedly”. [45] According to Ehrman, there are too many elements of doubt in the tales to consider the aforementioned theory likely. As a result, he offers a “temptation suggestion”: while several of Jesus’ followers were convinced of their master’s resurrection by the tales of the disciples who effectively had post-mortem visions, some followers might not have believed them. Over time they either left or “ran away”, and the stories were embellished to make it seem that all the disciples eventually believed in the resurrection visions. Ehrman says the “doubt tradition” may be very old, possibly as old as the visions themselves, which he and various scholars date not further than the first or second year after Jesus’ crucifixion. [45] [46] [web 2]

Leonard Irwin Eisenberg proposes a variant of the vision theory to explain the “doubt tradition”. Basing his observations on medical literature, he says that some disciples, overwhelmed with grief and pain, might have experienced “mistaken identity” visions: they were deeply convinced to see Jesus, gaze his face or hear his voice, while in reality they were simply seeing or hearing other people. Eisenberg explains therefore several episodes of doubt, such as the apostles and the Emmaus’ disciples not recognising Jesus, or Mary mistaking a gardener for Jesus. He also notes that, in some cases, the characters start to recognise Jesus when the person they are talking to shows kindness toward them or performs a special gesture, such as breaking bread: the kindness of that person would therefore remind them of Jesus’ kindness, inducing the hallucination. According to Eisenberg’s theory, over time Jesus’ followers started encouraging each other to see Jesus’ face in other people faces and hear his voice, leading to a self-propagating cycle of Jesus’ sightings. [47]

Criticism

Several Christian scholars such as Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig and Michael Morrison have argued against the vision explanations for the textual accounts of a physical resurrection. [5] [6] [7] According to Habermas, most scholars on Christology are "moderate conservatives", who believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, either physically or spiritually. [48] While the vision theory has gained support among critical scholars since the last quarter of the 20th century, [49] "the vast majority of scholars" still reject the possibility of subjective visions or hallucinations as an explanation for the resurrection-experiences. [48] [note 4] Habermas himself views these critical approaches as "efforts to dismiss the central event and doctrine of orthodox Christianity". [49]

According to British scholar N.T. Wright, visions of the dead were always associated with spirits and ghosts, and never with bodily resurrection. Thus, Wright argues, a mere vision of Jesus would never lead to the unprecedented belief that Jesus was a physically resurrected corpse; at most, he would be perceived as an exalted martyr standing at the right hand of God. [50] Wright argues, "precisely because such encounters [visions of the dead] were reasonably well known [...] they [the disciples] could not possibly, by themselves, have given rise to the belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead [...] 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." [51] Similarly, Wright calls the cognitive dissonance theory "widely discredited" and criticizes it on the basis that "nobody was expecting anyone, least of all a Messiah, to rise from the dead. A crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah. When Simon bar Kokhba was killed by the Romans in AD 135, nobody went around afterwards saying he really was the Messiah after all." [52]

Dale Allison has expressed similar criticisms, and has argued that visions alone would never lead to the belief in a bodily resurrection. He writes "If there was no reason to believe that his [Jesus's] 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." [53]

While some scholars such as Ehrman have doubted the veracity of the number of witnesses, others such as C.H. Dodd have noted the antiquity of narratives concerning the postmortem appearances of Jesus, citing the sermons in Acts 10 which report that the risen Jesus ate and drank with the disciples which lack influence from Pauline theology or vocabulary and containing a high degree of semitism, lacking resemblance to the rest of Acts and Luke, indicating it comes from a much earlier tradition. [54] Similarly, the Pauline creed preserved in 1 Cor. 15 is most commonly dated to no more than five years after Jesus' death by Biblical scholars and contains numerous postmortem appearances of Jesus. [55] [56] [57] Likewise, in his evaluation of the vision theory, Allison notes that the number of witnesses raises "legitimate questions, and waving the magic wand of 'mass hysteria' will not make them vanish." [58] According to the historian A.N. Sherwin-White, “For these stories to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be unbelievable; more generations are needed… The span of two generations is too short to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical fact.” [59]

According to Wright, Paul "believed he had seen the risen Jesus in person, and [...] his understanding of who this Jesus was included the firm belief that he possessed a transformed but still physical body." [60] Similarly, James Ware notes that the verb for "raised" (εγειρω) used by Paul in 1 Cor. 15 is only ever used to describe one or another kind of action involving the raising up, rising up, or setting up of something or someone from a prone or seated position to an upright, standing position. And as paraphrased by Larry Hurtado, that the verb here refers to an ascension of Jesus, a transportation of him in some “spiritual” mode to heavenly glory, is ruled out. [61] [web 3]

William Lane Craig holds that the resurrection appearances are far too diverse to be classified as hallucinations; [6] [note 5] Craig and Lüdemann entered a written debate on the subject in 2000. [62] German Biblical scholar Martin Hengel notes that Lüdemann's theory transcends the limits of historical research, by providing an analysis which is not verifiable. [63] [note 6] Craig argues that there is "not a single instance in the casebooks exhibiting the diversity involved in the postmortem appearances of Jesus. [64] Mike Licona similarly cites psychologist Dr. Gary Sibcy that visionary explanations for the resurrection lack sufficient scientific support. [65] Additionally, Licona and other scholars point out that the vision theory does not account for the conversions of followers such as James, the brother but also disbeliever of Jesus, and of Paul, a persecutor of the early Christians. [66] [67] [note 7]

In an early critique of the vision hypothesis, George Park Fisher notes that Jesus' followers had their hopes crushed by his crucifixion, and that this would not have been a "preparation of mind for such a delusion as the hallucination theory implies." He argues further that such a theory is "shut out by one remarkable peculiarity" that "they took place, as Paul's testimony shows, at intervals and in a different number." [68]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ See also Herald Gandi (2018), The Resurrection: "According to the Scriptures"?
  2. ↑ Gregory W. Dawes (2001), The Historical Jesus Question, page 334: "[Note 168] Pannenberg classes all these attempts together under the heading of "the subjective vision hypothesis."; "[Note 169] In the present study, we have seen this hypothesis exemplified in the work of David Friedrich Strauss."
  3. ↑ Ehrman dismisses the story of the empty tomb; according to Ehrman, "an empty tomb had nothing to do with it [...] an empty tomb would not produce faith." [29]
  4. ↑ Habermas: "In place of the resurrection, both internal states of mind (such as subjective visions or hallucinations) as well as objective phenomena (like illusions) have been proposed. The vast majority of scholars, however, still reject such proposals." [48]
  5. ↑ Craig: "...the diversity of the appearances is not well explained by means of such visions. The appearances were experienced many different times, by different individuals, by groups, at various locales and under various circumstances, and by not only believers, but also by unbelievers like James the brother of Jesus and the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus [...] Even if one could compile from the casebooks an amalgam consisting of stories of hallucinations over a period of time (like the visions in Medjugorje), mass hallucinations (as at Lourdes), hallucinations to various individuals, and so forth, the fact remains that there is no single instance in the casebooks exhibiting the diversity involved in the postmortem appearances of Jesus. It is only by compiling unrelated cases that anything analogous might be constructed." [6]
  6. ↑ Hengel: "Lüdemann [...] does not recognize these limits on the historian. Here he gets into the realm of psychological explanations, for which no verification is really possible [...] the sources are far too limited for such psychologizing analyses." [63]
  7. ↑ Craig: "...the diversity of the appearances is not well explained by means of such visions. The appearances were experienced many different times, by different individuals, by groups, at various locales and under various circumstances, and by not only believers, but also by unbelievers like James the brother of Jesus and the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus [...] Even if one could compile from the casebooks an amalgam consisting of stories of hallucinations over a period of time (like the visions in Medjugorje), mass hallucinations (as at Lourdes), hallucinations to various individuals, and so forth, the fact remains that there is no single instance in the casebooks exhibiting the diversity involved in the postmortem appearances of Jesus. It is only by compiling unrelated cases that anything analogous might be constructed." [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christology</span> Theological study of Jesus Christ

In Christianity, Christology, translated from Greek as 'the study of Christ', is a branch of theology that concerns Jesus. Different denominations have different opinions on questions such as whether Jesus was human, divine, or both, and as a messiah what his role would be in the freeing of the Jewish people from foreign rulers or in the prophesied Kingdom of God, and in the salvation from what would otherwise be the consequences of sin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mary Magdalene</span> Follower of Jesus

Mary Magdalene was a woman who, according to the four canonical gospels, traveled with Jesus as one of his followers and was a witness to his crucifixion and resurrection. She is mentioned by name twelve times in the canonical gospels, more than most of the apostles and more than any other woman in the gospels, other than Jesus's family. Mary's epithet Magdalene may be a toponymic surname, meaning that she came from the town of Magdala, a fishing town on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee in Roman Judea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Resurrection of Jesus</span> Foundational Christian doctrine that states that Jesus rose from the dead

The resurrection of Jesus is the Christian belief that God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion, starting – or restoring – his exalted life as Christ and Lord. According to the New Testament writing, Jesus was firstborn from the dead, ushering in the Kingdom of God. He appeared to his disciples, calling the apostles to the Great Commission of forgiving sin and baptizing repenters, and ascended to Heaven.

The Christological argument for the existence of God, which exists in several forms, holds that if certain claims about Jesus are valid, one should accept that God exists. There are three main threads; the argument from the wisdom of Jesus, the argument from the claims of Jesus as son of God and the argument from the resurrection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Empty tomb</span> Christian tradition about the tomb of Jesus

The empty tomb is the Christian tradition that the tomb of Jesus was found empty after his crucifixion. The canonical gospels are consistent on the incident, with variations, of the visit of women to Jesus' tomb. Although Jesus' body had been laid out in the tomb after crucifixion and death, the tomb is found to be empty, the body gone, and the women are told by angels that he has risen. The gospel accounts are based on earlier oral traditions.

The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth historically existed. The question of historicity was generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century, and today scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed.

The term "historical Jesus" refers to the life and teachings of Jesus as interpreted through critical historical methods, in contrast to what are traditionally religious interpretations. It also considers the historical and cultural contexts in which Jesus lived. Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory. Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jewish Christianity</span> Proto-Christian breakaway Jewish movement

Jewish Christians were the followers of a Jewish religious sect that emerged in Judea during the late Second Temple period. These Jews believed Jesus to be the prophesied Messiah, but maintained the observance of Jewish law. Jewish Christianity is the foundation of Early Christianity, which later developed into Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Christianity started with Jewish eschatological expectations, and it developed into the worship of Jesus as the result of his earthly ministry, his crucifixion, and the post-crucifixion experiences of his followers. Modern scholarship is engaged in an ongoing debate as to the proper designation for Jesus' first followers. Many see the term Jewish Christians as anachronistic given that there is no consensus on the date of the birth of Christianity. Some modern scholars have suggested the designations "Jewish believers in Jesus" or "Jewish followers of Jesus" as better reflecting the original context.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Historical background of the New Testament</span>

Most scholars who study the historical Jesus and early Christianity believe that the canonical gospels and the life of Jesus must be viewed within their historical and cultural context, rather than purely in terms of Christian orthodoxy. They look at Second Temple Judaism, the tensions, trends, and changes in the region under the influence of Hellenism and the Roman occupation, and the Jewish factions of the time, seeing Jesus as a Jew in this environment; and the written New Testament as arising from a period of oral gospel traditions after his death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jesus</span> Central figure of Christianity

Jesus, also referred to as Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, and many other names and titles, was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader. He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Most Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, the Christ that is prophesied in the Old Testament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christ myth theory</span> Fringe theory claiming that a historical Jesus did not exist

The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory, is the view that the story of Jesus is a work of mythology with no historical substance. Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, it is the view that "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Géza Vermes</span> British biblical scholar, orientalist, and historian of religion

Géza Vermes, was a British academic, Biblical scholar, and Judaist of Jewish–Hungarian descent—one who also served as a Roman Catholic priest in his youth—and scholar specialized in the field of the history of religion, particularly ancient Judaism and early Christianity. He is best known for his complete translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls into English; his research focused on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Ancient Hebrew writings in Aramaic such as the Targumim, and on the life and religion of Jesus. Vermes was one of the most important voices in contemporary Jesus research, and he has been described as the greatest Jesus scholar of his time. Vermes' written work on Jesus focuses principally on the Jewishness of the historical Jesus, as seen in the broader context of the narrative scope of Jewish history and theology, while questioning and challenging the basis of the Christian doctrine on Jesus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stolen body hypothesis</span> Theory to explain the empty tomb of Jesus

The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons. Both the stolen body hypothesis and the debate over it presume the basic historicity of the gospel accounts of the tomb discovery. The stolen body hypothesis finds the idea that the body was not in the tomb plausible – such a claim could be checked if early Christians made it – but considers it more likely that early Christians had been misled into believing the resurrection by the theft of Jesus's body.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bart D. Ehrman</span> American biblical scholar (born 1955)

Bart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proto-orthodox Christianity</span> Early Christian movement which was the precursor of Christian orthodoxy

The term proto-orthodox Christianity or proto-orthodoxy describes the early Christian movement that was the precursor of Christian orthodoxy. It was coined by Bentley Layton, but is often erroneously attributed to New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman. Ehrman argues that this group from the moment it became prominent by the end of the third century, "stifled its opposition, it claimed that its views had always been the majority position and that its rivals were, and always had been, 'heretics', who willfully 'chose' to reject the 'true belief'." In contrast, Larry W. Hurtado argues that proto-orthodox Christianity is rooted in first-century Christianity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael R. Licona</span> American historian

Michael R. "Mike" Licona is an American New Testament scholar, author, and Christian apologist. He is Professor of New Testament Studies at Houston Christian University, Extraordinary Associate Professor of Theology at North-West University and the director of Risen Jesus, Inc. Licona specializes in the resurrection of Jesus, and in the literary analysis of the Gospels as Greco-Roman biographies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Burial of Jesus</span> Event in the New Testament

The burial of Jesus refers to the entombment of the body of Jesus after crucifixion, before the eve of the sabbath described in the New Testament. According to the canonical gospel narratives, he was placed in a tomb by a councillor of the Sanhedrin named Joseph of Arimathea; according to Acts 13:28–29, he was laid in a tomb by "the council as a whole". In art, it is often called the Entombment of Christ.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christianity in the 1st century</span> Christianity-related events during the 1st century

Christianity in the 1st century covers the formative history of Christianity from the start of the ministry of Jesus to the death of the last of the Twelve Apostles and is thus also known as the Apostolic Age. Early Christianity developed out of the eschatological ministry of Jesus. Subsequent to Jesus' death, his earliest followers formed an apocalyptic messianic Jewish sect during the late Second Temple period of the 1st century. Initially believing that Jesus' resurrection was the start of the end time, their beliefs soon changed in the expected Second Coming of Jesus and the start of God's Kingdom at a later point in time.

The historical reliability of the Gospels is evaluated by experts who have not found a complete consensus. While all four canonical gospels contain some sayings and events which may meet one or more of the five criteria for historical reliability used in biblical studies, the assessment and evaluation of these elements is a matter of ongoing debate.

Scholars have given various interpretations of the elements of the Gospel stories.

References

  1. 1 2 Koester 2000, p. 64-65.
  2. 1 2 Vermes 2008a, p. 151–152.
  3. 1 2 Hurtado 2005, p. 73.
  4. ↑ Kubitza 2016.
  5. 1 2 "Habermas". Archived from the original on 2003-02-07. Retrieved 2005-08-26.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Craig, William Lane (2 February 1994). "Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Ludemann's Hallucination Hypothesis". Reasonable Faith. Retrieved November 4, 2019.
  7. 1 2 Michael Morrison The Resurrection of Jesus: A History of Interpretation Archived 2015-03-29 at the Wayback Machine
  8. ↑ Bergeron & Habermas 2015.
  9. ↑ Bergeron & Habermas 2015, pp. 3–4.
  10. ↑ Origen (2003). Chadwick, Henry (ed.). Contra Celsum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 109.
  11. ↑ Strauss, David F. (1879). A New Life of Jesus. Vol. 1. London: C. Green and Son. pp. 414–431.
  12. ↑ McGrath 2011, p. 310.
  13. 1 2 Garrett 2014, p. 100.
  14. ↑ Psalms 16:10
  15. ↑ Rhees, Rush (1900). The Life of Jesus of Nazareth: A Study. The historical series for Bible students. New York: Scribner. p. 211. This last explanation has in recent times been revived in connection with the so-called vision-hypothesis by Renan and Réville.
  16. ↑ Koester 2000, pp. 64–65.
  17. ↑ Vermes 2008b, p. 141.
  18. 1 2 Ehrman 2014, p. 100.
  19. ↑ Ehrman 2014, p. 107.
  20. ↑ 1 Corinthians 15:3–5
  21. ↑ 1 Corinthians 15:8
  22. ↑ Galatians 1:16
  23. ↑ De Conick 2006, p. 6.
  24. ↑ Paula Fredriksen, The Search for Jesus (2000)
  25. ↑ Hurtado 2005, p. 72-73.
  26. ↑ Leman 2015, p. 168-169.
  27. ↑ Leman, Johan (April 26, 2023). Is de verrijzenis een mythe? (in Dutch). Dominicans of Belgium. Retrieved 4 March 2024– via YouTube. Lecture delivered on 23 March 2023.
  28. ↑ Ehrman 2014, p. 98, 101.
  29. ↑ Ehrman 2014, p. 98.
  30. ↑ Ehrman 2014, p. 99.
  31. ↑ Ehrman 2014, p. 101-102.
  32. ↑ Ehrman 2014, p. 109-110.
  33. 1 2 Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician. pp. 48, 61, 128–130.
  34. 1 2 3 4 Vermes, Geza. The Resurrection. pp. 148–152.
  35. ↑ Geza, Vermes. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. p. 112.
  36. ↑ Garrett 2014, p. 101.
  37. ↑ Luedemann, Gerd (2005). "The history and nature of the earliest Christian belief in the resurrection". In Dunn, James D. G.; McKnight, Scot (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Sources for biblical and theological study. Vol. 10. Pennsylvania State University Press. p. 418. ISBN   978-1-57506-100-9. The thesis of an "objective vision" has rightly found no echo in more recent scholarship, but Grass does more in his excellent book than provide a basis for the objective vision hypothesis.
  38. 1 2 3 4 Fredriksen 2018.
  39. 1 2 Komarnitsky 2014.
  40. 1 2 Bermejo-Rubio 2017.
  41. ↑ Gager, John (1975). Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. pp. 39–40.
  42. 1 2 Kris, Komarnitsky (January 4, 2019). "The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?". Κέλσος. Retrieved 4 March 2024.
  43. ↑ "Cognitive Dissonance and the Resurrection of Jesus | Westar Institute". www.westarinstitute.org. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
  44. ↑ Kris, Komarnitsky (February 2014) [2009]. Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box? (2nd ed.). Stone Arrow Books. pp. 86–89, 115–119. ISBN   978-0-9825528-9-6.
  45. 1 2 3 Ehrman, Bart. How Jesus became God. pp. 102–105.
  46. 1 2 Ehrman, Bart (17 October 2012). "Disciples who doubt the resurrection". The Bart Ehrman Blog. Retrieved 4 March 2024.
  47. ↑ Eisenberg, Leonard Irwin (2016). "A New Natural Interpretation of the Empty Tomb". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 80 (2): 133–143. doi: 10.1007/s11153-015-9551-0 . ISSN   0020-7047.
  48. 1 2 3 Habermas, Gary, Resurrection Research From 1975 to the Present: What Are Critical Scholars Saying?. Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3, no. 2 (2005): 135-53. doi : 10.1177/1476869005058192
  49. 1 2 Gary Habermas (2001), The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus' Resurrection. Trinity Journal (TRINJ 22NS (2001) 179-196)
  50. ↑ Wright, N.T. "Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem." Sewanee Theological Review, 1998.
  51. ↑ Wright, N. T. Resurrection of the Son of God. Spck Publishing, 2003.690-691.
  52. ↑ N.T. Wright, Simply Christian, p.96-97 (2009)
  53. ↑ Allison, Dale C. Resurrecting Jesus: the Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters. New York: T & T Clark, 2006. 324-325
  54. ↑ C.H. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, pages 19-27, (1935)
  55. ↑ Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90
  56. ↑ Cullmann, Oscar (1966) [1956]. Higgins, A. J. B. (ed.). The early church: Studies in early Christian history and theology. Westminister Press. p. 66.
  57. ↑ R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) p. 81
  58. ↑ Dale Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, page 269 (2005)
  59. ↑ A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 190.
  60. ↑ Wright, N.T. (2003), The Resurrection of the Son of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, p.398
  61. ↑ James Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3-5.” New Testament Studies 60 (2014): 475-98.
  62. ↑ Charles Foster The Jesus Inquest: The Case For and Against the Resurrection of ... 2011; Gerd Lüdemann in Copan, P.; Tacelli, R.K., eds. (2000). Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig & Gerd Lüdemann. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN   978-0-8308-1569-2.
  63. 1 2 Hengel, Martin; Schwemer, Anna Maria (1997). Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years. Translated by Bowden, John. Louisville, Kentucky, USA: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 342. ISBN   978-0-664-25736-1.
  64. ↑ Copan, P.; Tacelli, R.K., eds. (2000). Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig & Gerd Lüdemann. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. p. 190. ISBN   978-0-8308-1569-2.
  65. ↑ Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, Page 484 (2010)
  66. ↑ Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, page 440-460, 517 (2010)
  67. ↑ Critical scholars generally agree that Jesus' brothers, including James, were not his followers. See: Habermas, Gary R. (2003). The Risen Jesus & Future Hope. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 22, 44. ISBN   978-0-7425-3287-8. and Ludemann, Gerd (2004). The Resurrection Of Christ: A Historical Inquiry. Amherst, NY: Prometheus. pp. 81–83. ISBN   978-1-59102-245-9.
  68. ↑ George Park Fisher, Manual of Christian Evidences, pages 44-45

Sources

Printed sources
Web-sources
  1. ↑ Ehrman, Bart (5 October 2012). "Gerd Lüdemann on the Resurrection of Jesus". The Bart Ehrman Blog. Retrieved 4 March 2024.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Bart Ehrmann (June 4, 2016), Were Jesus' Followers Crazy? Was He?
  3. ↑ Larry Hurtado (11 September 2014 ), Paul on Jesus’ Resurrection: A New Study

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.