The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach

"Licona has tackled his subject energetically, with near-obsessive thoroughness. He concludes that if one approaches the sources without an a priori commitment to the impossibility of resurrection, the ‘Resurrection Hypothesis’ is the interpretation that most adequately accounts for the evidence. Thus, the book boldly challenges the naturalistic presuppositions of post-Enlightenment historical criticism. At the very least, Licona has shown that the usual naturalistic explanations of the resurrection tradition are, on the whole, weak, speculative and often tendentious.

"I am not aware of any scholar who has previously offered such a thorough and fair-minded account of the historiographical prolegomena to the resurrection question. Furthermore, Licona’s discussion of the ‘bedrock’ historical evidence is appropriately nuanced and carefully modulated, not claiming more than can be supported by the consensus findings of qualified scholars. This lends credibility to his conclusions. Licona has presented a fair and vigorous case for his position. No doubt many readers will be unconvinced by his arguments, but no one can accuse him of naiveté or of ignoring counterarguments.

This study spans fields that are too rarely brought into conversation: New Testament studies and historiographical theory. Licona is to be commended for this undertaking and for producing a study that has both wide range and significant depth.

Richard B. Hays, George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament and dean, Duke Divinity School

This book is the most thorough treatment on the resurrection and historiography to date, useful also to those studying the intersections of philosophy of science, history and theology. Drawing masterfully from a wide range of disciplines, Licona builds a coherent case showing that the best explanation for our evidence involves Jesus’ historical resurrection. Licona’s research also makes clear that the frequent skepticism about this claim in much of the academy reflects not serious historiographic consideration but the mere inheritance of outdated philosophic assumptions.

Craig S. Keener, professor of New Testament, Palmer Theological Seminary

Michael Licona’s thorough study of beliefs in Jesus’ resurrection is to be recommended, since it is informed of the social sciences, ancient data, . . . attends to the New Testament witnesses and engages most of the recent discussions. He rightly argues that the early Christians did not interpret Jesus’ resurrection in a metaphorical or poetic sense to the exclusion of a literal event that had occurred to his corpse.

James H. Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

At first glance this book is very provocative even for a theologian who is convinced that the Easter faith is based on an authentic encounter with God. But at second glance I became aware that Michael Licona is not dealing with the ‘resurrection faith’ but more modestly with the ‘resurrection hypothesis’—in other words, with those aspects of the resurrection faith that are accessible to historical arguments. It is fascinating to follow his arguments step by step in his investigation of the resurrection of Jesus as a unique event in history. I once learned that historiography is limited to events with analogies, immanent causality and sources that must be criticized. These are, according to Ernst Troeltsch, the great theologian and philosopher of historicism, the three principles of modern historical research. Must we revise these principles? Must we reformulate them? Perhaps! In any case, it is refreshing to be confronted with quite another approach that evaluates carefully the historical data, discusses respectfully the arguments of opponents and demonstrates a humility concerning the results, claiming only historical degrees of plausibility for its own hypothesis. Many arguments are valuable also for readers who do not agree. It is a necessary book, and I recommend it to all who are interested in a responsible way to interpret the Bible and the Christian faith.

Gerd Theissen, University of Heidelberg

No episode in the life of anyone in history is more important than the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Vehemently denied or vigorously defended, it has intrigued the world for twenty centuries. A host of scholars have addressed the phenomenon, so what more could be said? In The Resurrection of Jesus, Michael Licona tells us indeed. In brilliant detail, he begins with the anomaly that I, as an ancient historian, have noted for years: that secular historians often have a much higher regard for the New Testament as source material than do many theologians and scholars of religion. The latter tend to overlay their research with preconceived and hopelessly subjective opinions, often ignoring the basic rules of historiography. Licona corrects all this in showing how the research and writing of history ought to be done objectively, especially in dealing with Jesus. I warmly commend this book to all who want to know if the resurrection of Jesus really happened.

Paul L. Maier, Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University

With impressive erudition, Licona marshals all possible evidence of Jesus’ resurrection and considers its significance in a careful, methodical way. He then compares several alternative explanations of the disciples’ faith in the resurrection, judging them according to important criteria, and concludes that Jesus’ bodily resurrection provides the best explanation of their conviction, and so is worthy of belief. This is an astonishing achievement and a major contribution to the ongoing debate. It is clearly written and full of fresh insights and arguments that will enrich discussion for years to come.

C. Behan McCullagh, author of The Logic of History

The resurrection of Jesus is—in many ways—too important a topic to be left to theologians! In this thoroughly researched and well-argued volume, Mike Licona brings the latest in discussion of historiography to bear on the question of Jesus’ resurrection. In a discipline that is often overwhelmed by theological special-pleading, it is refreshing to have this sober and sensible approach to the resurrection that evaluates the historical data and the arguments of many of the scholars writing on the subject. There are few biblical scholars who will not learn something from this important book.

Stanley E. Porter, president, dean and professor of New Testament,

McMaster Divinity College

This rich volume is not only a storehouse of valuable information pertinent to the historical credibility of the resurrection of Jesus but also an important contribution to the discussion of the historiographical problems raised by the investigation of so singular an event. Licona rejects the pessimism that characterizes many historical Jesus scholars with respect to a resolution of these problems. He explodes the myth of a postmodern historiography while recognizing the ineluctability of personal horizons. As a friend of Mike Licona, I know how mightily and honestly he wrestled with the issue of his own horizons in tackling the question of Jesus’ resurrection. The result is as objective an assessment of the evidence as one might reasonably demand.

William Lane Craig, author of Is God Real? and contributing editor,

God Is Great, God Is Good

"What Licona calls a new historiographical approach is nothing of the sort. Rather, it is an old, time-honored approach still found among the great majority of historians. What is new is the application of genuine, rigorous historical investigation—methods and theories as defined by professional historians, not biblical scholars—to the question of whether Jesus was raised from the dead. He leaves no stone unturned in his examination of the evidence, and engages those with different views fairly yet with a tour de force that unmasks their lack of explanatory adequacy concerning the resurrection.

The book is clear and logical, written in an irenic, respectful tone, yet with passion, self-criticism and an engaging style. In short, Licona models what a true historian should do as he investigates the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. He has succeeded in making a compelling case with which all biblical scholars, as well as any who are concerned with whether Jesus was raised from the dead, must wrestle. When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, the metanarrative of our lives hangs in the balance. But that metanarrative goes beyond what Licona has presented. An unbiased reader (if there were such a thing!) will have to work out the implications for him- or herself.

Daniel B. Wallace, executive director, Center for the Study of New Testament

Manuscripts, and professor of New Testament studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

The most important event in the story of Christian beginnings is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who was widely believed by his followers to be the Messiah of Israel and the very Son of God. Their conviction that Jesus was such a being was confirmed by the resurrection. Without the resurrection of Jesus there really are no grounds for Christian faith. Consequently, there is no topic more important than this one and this is why Michael Licona’s book on the resurrection of Jesus is so welcome. Licona demonstrates expertise in every field that is germane to the question. He knows the philosophical arguments inside and out, as well as the relevant historical, biblical, cultural and archaeological data. This is the book for believers and skeptics alike.

Craig A. Evans, Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Acadia Divinity College, Nova Scotia, Canada

Treatments of the resurrection from various angles have become fairly common in recent years, though careful assessments are rare. But efforts that place the resurrection of Jesus against the meticulous backdrop of historiographical principles are perhaps the rarest of all. The brilliance of Mike Licona’s approach is his attempt to look far beyond his own discipline of New Testament studies in an effort to develop a rigorous method by which he could analyze and evaluate a historical claim such as the resurrection. His approach is original, and accompanied by painstaking honesty regarding the prospects of arriving at the best answer on this matter. Those who take the time to work through the various conclusions will, in my opinion, be rewarded by a cautious, thorough and painstaking study that could scarcely be outdone. I can vouch for the extent of Mike’s gut-wrenching level of soul-searching before and during this time of study, and can attest that it was a real effort to come to grips with a final conclusion, wherever that might lead. There is no question that the reader is the one who will benefit from this process. This is simply required reading for anyone who wants to master this subject.

Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor, Liberty University and Theological Seminary

©2010 by Michael R. Licona

Michael R. Licona has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of InterVarsity Press.

InterVarsity Press®, USA, is the book-publishing division of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA® <www.intervarsity.org> and a member movement of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students.

Inter-Varsity Press, England, is closely linked with the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship, a student movement connecting Christian Unions throughout Great Britain, and a member movement of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. Website: www.uccf.org.uk

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are the author’s translation.

BWHEBB, BWHEBL, BWTRANSH [Hebrew], BWGRKL, BWGRKN, and BWGRKI [Greek] Postscript® Type 1 and TrueTypeT fonts Copyright © 1994-2009 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. These Biblical Greek and Hebrew fonts are used with permission and are from BibleWorks, software for Biblical exegesis and research. Any derived publications using these fonts must display and preserve this copyright.

Design: Cindy Kiple

Images: Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Benozzo Gozzoli at Church, Peccioli, Itally. Scala/Art Resource, NY.

USA ISBN 978-0-8308-2719-0

UK ISBN 978-1-84474-485-5

Printed in the United States of America ∞

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Licona, Mike, 1961-

The resurrection of Jesus: a new historiographical approach/

Michael R. Licona.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references (p.   ) and index.

ISBN 978-0-8308-2719-0 (pbk.: alk. paper)

1. Jesus Christ—Resurrection—History of doctrines. 2. Jesus

Christ—Historicity. I. Title.

BT482.L54 2010

232.9’7—dc22

2010019870

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

This book is dedicated to my two children, Ally and Zach,

who were almost always very patient and understanding while

I spent countless hours over several years involved

in the research contained in these pages.

Please know that I love you very much!

Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Abbreviations

1   Important Considerations on Historical Inquiry Pertaining to the Truth in Ancient Texts

1.1. Introductory Comments

1.2. Theory

1.2.1. Considerations in the Philosophy of History

1.2.2. Horizons

1.2.3. On the Possibility of Transcending Horizon

1.2.4. The Role of a Consensus

1.2.5. The Uncertainty of Historical Knowledge

1.2.6. Postmodernist History

1.2.7. Problems with Postmodernist History

1.2.8. What Is Truth?

1.2.9. What Is a Historical Fact?

1.2.10. Burden of Proof

1.2.11. Theory and Historians

1.2.12. Is History a Science?

1.2.13. What Historians Do

1.3. Method

1.3.1. From Theory to Method

1.3.2. Arguments to the Best Explanation

1.3.3. Arguments from Statistical Inference

1.3.4. Spectrum of Historical Certainty

1.3.5. Summary

1.3.6. Conclusions

1.3.7. Confessions

2   The Historian and Miracles

2.1. Introductory Comments

2.2. David Hume

2.3. C. Behan McCullagh

2.4. John P. Meier

2.5. Bart D. Ehrman

2.6. A. J. M. Wedderburn/James D. G. Dunn

2.7. A Turning Point for Historians

2.8. Burden of Proof in Relation to Miracle-Claims

2.8.1. Risk Assessment

2.8.2. Legal System

2.8.3. Sagan’s Saw

2.9. Summary and Conclusions

3   Historical Sources Pertaining to the Resurrection of Jesus

3.1. Introductory Comments

3.2. Sources

3.2.1. Canonical Gospels

3.2.2. The Letters of Paul

3.2.3. Sources that Potentially Antedate the New Testament Literature

3.2.3.1. Q

3.2.3.2. Pre-Markan Tradition

3.2.3.3. Speeches in Acts

3.2.3.4. Oral Formulas

3.2.3.4.a. Romans 1:3b-4a

3.2.3.4.b. Luke 24:33-34

3.2.3.4.c. Other Formulas

3.2.3.4.d. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

3.2.4. Non-Christian Sources

3.2.4.1. Josephus

3.2.4.2. Tacitus

3.2.4.3. Pliny the Younger

3.2.4.4. Suetonius

3.2.4.5. Mara bar Serapion

3.2.4.6. Thallus

3.2.4.7. Lucian

3.2.4.8. Celsus

3.2.4.9. Rabbinic Sources

3.2.5. Apostolic Fathers

3.2.5.1. Clement of Rome

3.2.5.2. Polycarp

3.2.5.3. Letter of Barnabas

3.2.6. Other Noncanonical Christian Literature

3.2.6.1. Gospel of Thomas

3.2.6.2. Gospel of Peter

3.2.6.3. Gospel of Judas

3.2.6.4. Revelation Dialogues

3.2.6.4.a. Epistle of the Apostles (Epistula Apostolorum or Dialogue of the Savior)

3.2.6.4.b. Treatise on the Resurrection (Letter to Rheginus)

3.2.6.4.c. Apocryphon of James (Letter of Peter to James)

3.2.6.5. Pseudo-Mark (Mark 16:9-20)

3.3. Conclusion

4   The Historical Bedrock Pertaining to the Fate of Jesus

4.1. Introductory Comments

4.2. The Historical Bedrock Pertaining to Jesus’ Life

4.2.1. Jesus the Miracle-Worker and Exorcist

4.2.2. Jesus: God’s Eschatological Agent

4.2.3. Jesus’ Predictions of His Death and Vindication/Resurrection: Just Outside of the Historical Bedrock

4.2.3.1. Six Arguments for the Historicity of Jesus’ Passion and Vindication/Resurrection Predictions

4.2.3.2. Three Arguments Against the Historicity of Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection Predictions

4.3. The Historical Bedrock Pertaining to Jesus’ Fate

4.3.1. Jesus’ Death by Crucifixion

4.3.2. Appearances to the Disciples

4.3.2.1. Appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

4.3.2.1.a. Length of the tradition

4.3.2.1.b. Two especially controversial appearances

4.3.2.1.c. The three-day motif

4.3.2.1.d. The tradition and the nature of the appearances

4.3.2.1.e. Paul and the empty tomb

4.3.2.2. Appearances as Legitimizing Support for the Authority of the Recipients

4.3.2.3. Mark and Resurrection Appearances

4.3.2.4. Women as Eyewitnesses

4.3.2.5. Appearance to the Emmaus Disciples

4.3.2.6. Those Who Doubted in Matthew 28:17-18

4.3.2.7. Fates of the Apostles

4.3.2.8. Conclusion Pertaining to the Appearances to the Disciples

4.3.3. The Conversion of the Church Persecutor Paul

4.3.3.1. Pauline Texts on Paul’s Conversion Experience

4.3.3.1.a. Galatians 1:11-19

4.3.3.1.b. 1 Corinthians 9:1

4.3.3.1.c. 1 Corinthians 15:8

4.3.3.1.d. 2 Corinthians 4:6

4.3.3.1.e. 2 Corinthians 12:2-4

4.3.3.2. Acts Texts on Paul’s Conversion Experience

4.3.3.2.a. Acts 9:3-20

4.3.3.2.b. Acts 22:6-16

4.3.3.2.c. Acts 26:12-18

4.3.3.3. Similarities Between Paul and Acts Texts

4.3.3.4. Differences among the Acts Texts

4.3.3.5. Addressing Others

4.3.3.6. The Fate of Paul

4.3.3.7. Parallels

4.3.3.8. Conclusions Related to the Appearance to Paul

4.3.3.9. What Did Paul Believe About Jesus’ Resurrection?

4.3.3.9.a. Romans 8:11

4.3.3.9.b. 1 Corinthians 15:42-54

4.3.3.9.c. Philippians 3:21

4.3.3.9.d. Colossians 2:9

4.3.3.9.e. 2 Corinthians 4:16–5:8

4.3.3.9.f. Galatians 1:11-19

4.3.3.10. Why Is Paul So Important to Historians Interested in Jesus’ Resurrection?

4.3.4. The Conversion of James the Skeptical Brother of Jesus

4.3.4.1. Evidence of James’s Skepticism from the Canonical Gospels

4.3.4.1.a. Mark 3:20-35

4.3.4.1.b. Mark 6:2-4, 6a

4.3.4.1.c. John 7:1-5

4.3.4.1.d. John 19:25b-27

4.3.4.2. Additional Counterarguments

4.3.4.3. James After the Resurrection of Jesus

4.3.4.4. The Reason James Converted

4.3.4.5. Summary and Conclusion

4.3.5. The Empty Tomb

4.4. Conclusions

5   Weighing Hypotheses

5.1. Summary of Where We Have Been and Our Intent

5.2. Geza Vermes

5.2.1. Description of Vermes’s View

5.2.2. Analysis and Concerns

5.2.3. Weighing the Hypothesis

5.3. Michael Goulder

5.3.1. Description of Goulder’s View

5.3.1.1. Peter

5.3.1.2. Disciples

5.3.1.3. Paul

5.3.1.4. Appearance Traditions in the Gospels

5.3.2. Analysis and Concerns

5.3.3. Weighing the Hypothesis

5.4. Gerd Lüdemann

5.4.1. Description of Lüdemann’s View

5.4.1.1. Peter

5.4.1.2. Disciples

5.4.1.3. More than Five Hundred

5.4.1.4. James and the Brothers of Jesus

5.4.1.5. Paul

5.4.1.6. Appearance Traditions in the Gospels

5.4.2. Analysis and Concerns

5.4.2.1. Psychoanalysis

5.4.2.2. Disciples

5.4.2.3. More than Five Hundred

5.4.2.4. Paul

5.4.2.5. Symbolism and Doceticism

5.4.3. Weighing the Hypothesis

5.5. John Dominic Crossan

5.5.1. Description of Crossan’s View

5.5.1.1. Six Problems

5.5.1.2. The Appearances

5.5.1.3. The Meaning of Resurrection

5.5.1.4. The Harrowing of Hell

5.5.2. Analysis and Concerns

5.5.2.1. Crossan’s Six Initial Concerns

5.5.2.2. Sources

5.5.2.3. Metaphor

5.5.2.4. The Harrowing of Hell

5.5.3. Weighing the Hypothesis

5.6. Pieter F. Craffert

5.6.1. Description of Craffert’s View

5.6.1.1. Introductory Comments

5.6.1.2. Case Study: Jesus’ Walking on Water

5.6.1.3. Social-Scientific Approach Applied to the Resurrection of Jesus

5.6.2. Analysis and Concerns

5.6.2.1. Straw-Man Argument

5.6.2.2. Postmodernism

5.6.2.3. Naturalistic Bias

5.6.2.4. Altered State of Consciousness (ASC)

5.6.2.5. The Appearances

5.6.3. Weighing the Hypothesis

5.7. The Resurrection Hypothesis

5.7.1. Description of the Resurrection View

5.7.2. Analysis and Concerns

5.7.2.1. The Challenge of Legend

5.7.2.2. Ockham’s Razor

5.7.2.3. Not Enough Evidence

5.7.2.4. Deficient Sources

5.7.3. Weighing the Hypothesis

5.8. Summary and Conclusions

Summary and Further Conclusions

Appendix: A Review of Dale Allison on the Resurrection of Jesus

Bibliography

Author Index

Subject Index

Scripture Index

Acknowledgments

I am deeply thankful to my wife, Debbie, and my two children, Ally and Zach, for their sustained patience and sacrifice during my research. I would like to thank Professor Jan van der Watt for the gentle honesty of his criticisms, his guidance and encouraging words, and for his endearing friendship. I could not have had a better doctoral supervisor. I am grateful to Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig for their encouragement throughout. I would like to thank all of my former donors whose financial assistance during the first two years of my doctoral work made it possible. Finally, I would like to thank Amy Ponce and Robert M. Bowman for carefully going through the document and providing very helpful editorial comments.

Introduction

In 1910, George Tyrrell suggested that research was producing different versions of Jesus, as though the scholars at work were simply painting portraits of themselves in first-century clothing. John Dominic Crossan writes of the academic embarrassment resulting from this problem that continues in modern portraits.1 For a number of years I have been a student of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Anyone who has devoted even a minimal amount of time to this question realizes that the varied results of research by scholars on this subject are reminiscent of what we find in historical Jesus research, if not more so. Major scholars such as Dale C. Allison, Raymond E. Brown, Peter Carnley, David Catchpole, William Lane Craig, Crossan, James D. G. Dunn, Bart D. Ehrman, Gary R. Habermas, Gerd Lüdemann, Willi Marxsen, Gerald O’Collins, Richard Swinburne, A. J. M. Wedderburn and N. T. Wright have all weighed in on the topic during the past three decades; and most of them have arrived at different results on a number of related issues.2

Classicist historian A. N. Sherwin-White caught my attention when he noted that approaches taken by biblical scholars differed from those of classical historians. He expressed surprise over New Testament scholars’ loss of confidence in the Gospels and especially Acts. On Acts he added that attempts to reject its basic historicity appear absurd and that Roman historians have long taken it for granted.3 On the Gospels, Sherwin-White asserted that it is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material [than what Greco-Roman historians work with], has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism.4 The prominent theologian John McIntyre similarly observed that although historical positivism was severely criticized in the practice of history in the second half of the nineteenth century and early twentieth, it has lingered on to have a quite devastating effect upon biblical criticism and theological definition in the twentieth century. A curious aspect of this circumstance is that historical positivism has not had that kind of overwhelming influence upon general historiography.5

I began to wonder whether the reason why a more unified conclusion on these matters eludes scholars is because biblical scholars are ill prepared for such investigations. That is not to say that biblical scholars are not historically minded. Ernst Troeltsch made a serious attempt to form historical criteria, and even today debates are taking place over what criteria and methods are appropriate for investigating the sayings of Jesus and the degree of certainty that may be attained.6 While these are helpful for identifying potentially authentic logia of Jesus and some of his acts, are they the most appropriate for investigating the claim that Jesus rose from the dead? After all, criteria for identifying authentic logia are not very helpful in verifying Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon in 49 B.C. and Augustus’s defeat of Antony in 31 B.C.

What approach should be taken for an investigation involving the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection? When writing on the resurrection of Jesus, biblical scholars are engaged in historical research. Are they doing so without adequate or appropriate training?7 How many have completed so much as a single undergraduate course pertaining to how to investigate the past?8 Are biblical scholars conducting their historical investigations differently than professional historians? If professional historians who work outside of the community of biblical scholars were to embark on an investigation of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, what would such an investigation look like?

Gary Habermas is a professional philosopher noted for his specialization in the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. He served as director of my master’s thesis, which pertained to the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. Habermas has compiled a massive bibliography consisting of approximately 3,400 scholarly journal articles and books written in English, German and French between 1975 through the present, all on the subject of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection.9 He has extensive knowledge of the relevant literature, the major contributors, the positions they maintain and the reasons why they maintain them. I asked Habermas if he was aware of any professional historian outside of the community of biblical scholars who had approached the question of the resurrection of Jesus. He was aware of only a handful who had contributed a few journal articles and one who had written a short book on the subject. At that time, he could not recall any treatment by a religious scholar or philosopher who had laid out a detailed philosophy of history and proposed methodology for approaching the question pertaining to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. My interest in taking this direction for doctoral research intensified, and I began in March 2003.

Within two months, N. T. Wright’s monumental volume on the resurrection arrived: The Resurrection of the Son of God. Later that same year the first volume of James D. G. Dunn’s work on the historical Jesus was published: Jesus Remembered. These authors gave unprecedented considerations to hermeneutics and method, as would Dale Allison two years later, in Resurrecting Jesus. Even after these works, a void remained when it came to having a carefully defined and extensive historical method to the degree I imagined would be typical of professional historians.10

So how does my research differ from previous treatments? In the pages that follow I will investigate the question of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection while providing unprecedented interaction with the literature of professional historians outside of the community of biblical scholars on both hermeneutical and methodological considerations.11

In chapter one, I will discuss a few matters pertaining to the philosophy of history and historical method. I will discuss such topics as the extent to which the past is knowable, how historians gain knowledge of it, the impact biases have on investigations and steps that may assist historians in minimizing their biases, the role a consensus should or should not play in historical investigations, who shoulders the burden of proof, the point at which a historian is warranted in declaring that the question has been solved, and a few others. My objective in this chapter is to determine how historians outside of the community of biblical scholars proceed in their investigations involving nonreligious matters in order to establish my approach for proceeding in my investigation of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection.

In chapter two, I will address objections from a number of prominent scholars to the investigation of miracle-claims by historians. This is very important for the present investigation, since we can go no further if historians are barred from the task. I will address the objections mounted by David Hume, C. B. McCullagh, John Meier, Bart Ehrman, A. J. M. Wedderburn and James D. G. Dunn. My conclusion is that their objections are ill-founded insofar as they prohibit a historical investigation of Jesus’ resurrection, although they warn us to proceed with caution. I will provide further discussion on how the consideration of a miracle-claim may impact the issue of burden of proof.

Historians must identify the relevant sources from which they will mine data for their investigations. In chapter three, I will survey the primary literature relevant to our investigation and rate the various sources according to their value to the present investigation. I will limit this survey to sources that mention the death and resurrection of Jesus and that were written within two hundred years of Jesus’ death. These sources include the canonical literature, noncanonical Christian literature (including the Gnostic sources) and non-Christian sources. I will then rate each of these according to the likelihood that it contains data pertaining to Jesus’ death and resurrection that go back to the earliest Christians and identify the sources most promising for the present investigation.

In chapter four, I will mine the most promising material identified in the previous chapter and form a collection of facts that are so strongly evidenced that they enjoy a heterogeneous and nearly universal consensus. These will compose our historical bedrock on which all hypotheses pertaining to Jesus’ fate must be built. Facts that do not qualify as historical bedrock will not be allowed in the weighing of hypotheses in chapter five unless it is needed in the event of a tiebreaker, addressed by a particular hypothesis or included in the footnotes.

In chapter five, I will apply the methodological considerations discussed in chapter one and weigh six hypotheses largely representative of those being offered in the beginning of the twenty-first century pertaining to the question of the resurrection of Jesus. I will start with the contention of Geza Vermes that we do not know whether Jesus rose from the dead, followed by the proposals of Michael Goulder and Gerd Lüdemann, which draw exclusively on psychohistory and provide naturalistic explanations for the beliefs of the earliest Christians that Jesus had been raised. I will then assess John Dominic Crossan’s contention that a combination of psychological conditions, unique exegetical interpretations, competing reports in often ignored sources that contain earlier Christian teachings, Paul’s mutation of the Jewish concept of the general resurrection and the use of resurrection as a metaphor all contributed to the view that God’s cosmic cleanup of the world had begun and that a literal understanding of resurrection as the revivification of Jesus’ corpse would have been repulsive to the earliest Christians, including Paul. I will then move on to Pieter Craffert’s hypothesis, which attempts to take the biblical reports seriously but also to explain them in natural terms by drawing on the social sciences. I will then assess the resurrection hypothesis. Although Dale Allison holds to the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, he has a unique approach to the subject, employing apparitions of the dead as a heuristic for understanding the postresurrection appearances of Jesus. I have treated his approach separately in an appendix since it is worthy of special consideration; nevertheless, his conclusion does not differ from the resurrection hypothesis.

Allison refers to the question pertaining to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus as the prize puzzle of New Testament research.12 It is my hope that this work, which is a revised and updated version of my doctoral dissertation completed at the University of Pretoria, will assist us in coming closer to solving the puzzle.

1Crossan (1991), xxviii. For a recent treatment attempting to identify how this quagmire might be resolved, see Denton (2004). See also Stewart (2008).

2See Allison (2005); Brown (1973); Carnley (1987); Catchpole (2002); Craig (1989); Crossan (1994); Dunn (2003); Ehrman (1999); Habermas (2003); Lüdemann (2004); Marxsen (1990); O’Collins (2003); Swinburne (2003). Moreover, a number of books with numerous contributors have been published on the topic: D’Costa, ed. (1996); Davis, Kendall, O’Collins, eds. (1998); Stewart, ed. (2006). The hypercritical community has also recently weighed in with Price and Lowder (2005). The first theme issue for the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 3.2 (June 2005), was devoted to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Marxsen (1990) comments, There are almost as many opinions about ‘the resurrection of Jesus’ as there are books and essays which have been published on this subject (39).

3Sherwin-White (1963), 188-89.

4Sherwin-White (1963), 187.

5McIntyre (2001), 11. Historical positivism is the position that authentic knowledge only comes from historical investigation. Accordingly, failure to prove something means that it has in essence been disproved.

6Troelsch (1913). For more recent examples, see Eve (2005), Hooker (1972), and Theissen and Winter (2002).

7C. A. Evans (Fabricating Jesus, 2006): "Eventually I learned that many scholars engaged in the study of the historical Jesus have studied Bible and theology, but not history. These Jesus scholars are not historians at all. This lack of training is apparent in the odd presuppositions, methods and conclusions that are reached" (252n16).

8A search through the catalogues of courses and degree requirements revealed that few to no courses in the philosophy of history and contemporary historical method were offered by the departments of religion and philosophy at the eight Ivy League institutions for the 2007 fall semester and 2008 spring and fall semesters. The only clear case is a Ph.D. seminar offered by Princeton Theological Seminary (CH 900 Historical Method).

9At the time of my writing, Habermas was in the process of formatting this bibliography for publishing. Of interest is Habermas’s observation that by far, the majority of publications on the subject of Jesus’s death and resurrection have been written by North American authors and that these have perhaps the widest range of views ([Resurrection Research, 2005], 140; cf. 138).

10This is not to say that Wright, Dunn and Allison—and those like them—are on the wrong track. Wright (1996) especially gives attention to his hermeneutical method. I freely admit that his approach will provide him with additional tools to assist him in painting his portrait of the historical Jesus. The present research has no such ambition. Instead, it seeks only to produce a singular historical description pertaining to whether Jesus rose from the dead.

11To be clear, historians outside of the community of biblical scholars have these discussions. But an application of them to the question of Jesus’ resurrection has not been performed to the extent herein.

12Allison (Resurrecting Jesus, 2005), 200. See also Watson (1987): "The resurrection of Jesus has recently become a cause célèbre second only to the controversy about the ordination of women (365) and Craffert (2008): There is probably no other topic in Jesus research that creates such controversy and inspires more seminars than that of Jesus’s resurrection" (383).

Abbreviations

Biblical Versions

Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Reference Works

Classical and Patristic Primary Sources

Nag Hammadi Codices, New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Mishnah, Talmud and Other Rabbinic Works

1

Important Considerations on Historical Inquiry Pertaining to the Truth in Ancient Texts

Excessive epistemology becomes cognitive cannibalism. But a little bit of it is important as a hedge against easy assumptions and arrogant certainties in any branch of knowledge.1

LUKE TIMOTHY JOHNSON

1.1. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

In The History Primer, J. H. Hexter asked his readers to consider the difference between grading an examination in mathematics and one in history. In the former, students either get it or they do not. Really bad mathematics, therefore, is the consequence of an utter failure of comprehension and results in answers that are simply and wholly false. This sort of total disaster is far less likely in a history examination. When writing about the past, even an ill-informed stupid student is not likely to get everything all wrong. A slightly informed, intelligent student will do better. . . . [While n]obody bluffs his way through a written mathematics examination, the same cannot be said of students of history. Partly because writing bad history is pretty easy, writing very good history is rare.2

And so our journey begins. What is history? One might think this question would be easy to answer and that professional historians would all agree that history is a synonym for the past. Indeed, a number of historians and philosophers define history in this manner. Philosopher of history Aviezer Tucker defines history as past events.3 Philosopher Stephen Davis asserts that "history is understood as the events that occurred in the real past and that historians attempt to discover."4 However, it turns out that many others have provided differing definitions. Indeed, the term history may be referred to as an essentially contested concept, a word for which no consensus exists as to its meaning.5 What are some other definitions of history? Historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan offers the following: History is the past reconstructed interactively by the present through argued evidence in public discourse.6 New Testament scholar Samuel Byrskog defines history as "an account of what people have done and said in the past, which means that various kinds of biased, pragmatic and didactic features can be part of the writing of history.7 Historian Michael Oakeshott offers this definition: ‘What really happened [is] what the evidence obliges us to believe.’ The historical past, itself a construction based on reasoning from evidence, is ultimately a construction within the historian’s ‘world of ideas.’ 8 New Testament scholar Luke Timothy Johnson offers the following: History is, rather, a product of human intelligence and imagination. It is one of the ways in which human beings negotiate their present experience and understanding with reference to group and individual memory.9 Philosopher of history Hayden White offers this definition: the term history refers both to an object of study and to an account of this object and can be conceived only on the basis of an equivocation . . . in the notion of a general human past that is split into two parts one of which is supposed to be ‘historical,’ the other ‘unhistorical.’"10 More definitions can be found in abundance.11 Although much discussion is to follow, throughout this volume I will use Tucker’s definition and refer to history as past events that are the object of study.

Historiography is another essentially contested concept. White writes that historiography concerns quests about history and questions of history. It is both philosophy and method.12 Tucker refers to it as representations of past events, usually texts, but other media such as movies or sound recordings.13 According to this definition, Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, Tacitus’s Annals and Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List are all examples of historiography. Thus, historiography can be defined as the history of the philosophy of history and as writings about the past. Historiography is not historical method but includes it, since method enables one to write about the past. Throughout this volume I will use the term historiography to refer to matters in the philosophy of history and historical method. Philosophy of history concerns epistemological approaches to gaining a knowledge of the past. It attempts to answer questions such as, What does it mean to know something? How do we come to know something? Can we know the past and, if so, to what extent? What does it mean when historians say that a particular event occurred?14

1.2. THEORY

1.2.1. Considerations in the Philosophy of History

There are numerous challenges to knowing the past. Since the past is forever gone, it can neither be viewed directly nor reconstructed precisely or exhaustively. Accordingly historians cannot verify the truth of a hypothesis in an absolute sense.15 Our knowledge of the past comes exclusively through sources. This means that, to an extent, our only link to the past is through the eyes of someone else, a person who had his or her own opinions and agendas.16 Therefore, just as two newspapers offering reports of the same event can differ significantly due, for example, to the political biases of the journalists,17 reports coming to us from ancient historians have likewise been influenced to varying degrees by the biases of the ancient historian. Moreover, many ancient historians lacked interest in their past. Instead, they were more concerned with having their present remembered.18

Historians ancient and modern alike are selective in the material they report. Data the reporting historian deems uninteresting, unimportant or irrelevant to his or her purpose in writing are usually omitted.19 For example, Lucian complained when he heard a man tell of the Battle of Europus in less than seven lines but afforded much more time to the experiences of a Moorish horseman.20 Amazingly neither Philo nor Josephus, the most prominent non-Christian Jewish writers of the first century, mentioned Emperor Claudius’s expulsion of all Jews from Rome in ca. A.D. 49-50. Only Suetonius and Luke mention the event, and each give it only one line in passing.21 A contemporary example is found in Ronald Reagan’s autobiography, in which he comments on his first marriage. Readers desiring to learn about this relationship will be disappointed, since Reagan offers a total of two sentences: The same year I made the Knute Rockne movie, I married Jane Wyman, another contract player at Warners. Our marriage produced two wonderful children, Maureen and Michael, but it didn’t work out, and in 1948 we were divorced.22

My wife’s grandfather Albert Weible kept a daily diary for years. His entry for April 2, 1917, the day the U.S. entered WWI, against Germany, was as follows: The weather was cloudy and windy today. {Born to Herman and Edyth to-day a son.} Pa and I cultivated in oats again to-day. The following Sunday (Easter, April 8, 1917), he wrote the following: The weather is very nice and warmer. The ground is very much [?]. Pa {ect.} [sic] didn’t go to church to-day. I went alone on Pearl [a horse]. There were quite a few there in spite of the mud. In the afternoon we all went up to Fred’s. Albert Weible kept diary entries every day. Yet he never mentioned the war. If we think of history as an exhaustive description of the past, then history is certainly unknowable. However, if we regard history as an adequate description of a subject during a specific period, we are in a position to think that history is knowable to a degree. Although incomplete, adequate descriptions provide enough data for answering the questions being asked. George W. Bush was the President of the United States in 2006 is an accurate statement. It is incomplete, since it fails to mention that he was also a husband and father during the same time. Whether the statement is adequate or fair depends on the purpose of writing and the questions being asked. The Evangelists never actually described the physical features of Jesus because it was not relevant to their purpose in writing. This omission can hardly be said to hinder us regarding many questions of historicity. Thus, an incomplete description does not necessitate the conclusion that it is an inaccurate description.

The selectivity of historians goes beyond the events or narratives they choose to report. Historians select data because of their relevancy to the particular historian, and these become evidence for building the historian’s case for a particular hypothesis. Detectives at the scene of a crime survey all of the data and select specific data, which become evidence as they are interpreted within the framework of a hypothesis. Data that are irrelevant to that hypothesis are archived or ignored. Historians work in the same manner. Suppose an ancient historian selected specific data while discarding other data deemed irrelevant. If the ancient historian was mistaken in his understanding of what occurred, modern historians may find themselves handicapped, since what may be data relevant to the questions they are asking may now be lost, unless it is reported or alluded to in a different source. Therefore, historians may inquire whether there is a high probability that data no longer extant would serve as evidence. Of course, this speculation would produce an argument from silence and an ad hoc component to any hypothesis. But this is sometimes necessary when historians suffer from a paucity of data.

Memories are selective and are augmented by interpretive details. In time, they may become uncertain, faded or distorted. Authorial intent often eludes us, and the motives behind the reports are often difficult to determine.23 This is a challenge when we consider the four earliest extant biographies of Jesus, known as the canonical Gospels. There is somewhat of a consensus among contemporary scholars that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios). Bioi offered the ancient biographer great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches in order to communicate the teachings, philosophy, and political beliefs of the subject, and they often included legend. Because bios was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins.24

Another factor that contributes to the difficulty of knowing the past is the occasional unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Lucian writes of those who lie about being eyewitnesses, when in fact they were not.25 But even reports by eyewitnesses attempting to be truthful have challenges. Zabell notes that the eyewitness must (1) accurately perceive it; (2) remember it with precision; (3) truthfully state it; and (4) succesfully [sic] communicate it to others.26 Moreover, even bona fide eyewitnesses who were both sober and sincere often provide conflicting testimonies. Did the Titanic break in half, as many eyewitnesses claimed, or did it go down intact, as reported by other eyewitnesses? What really happened in the exchange between Wittgenstein and Popper at Cambridge the evening of October 25, 1946? Did Wittgenstein throw down a hot poker, storm out of the room and slam the door behind him, or was this a gross exaggeration of the event? There are numerous conflicting reports from eyewitnesses.27

The past has come to us fragmented. Ancient historians were selective in what they reported, and much of what was written has been lost. Approximately half of the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus have survived. All but a fragment of Thallus’s Mediterranean history written in the first century has been lost. Suetonius was aware of the writings of Asclepiades of Mendes, but they are no longer extant. Nicholas of Damascus was the secretary of Herod the Great and wrote his Universal History in 144 books, none of which has survived. Only the early books of Livy and excerpts from his other writings have survived. Although Papias was an influential leader in the early second-century Christian church, only a few citations and slight summary information remain from his five books titled Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord. Around the same time, another church leader named Quadratus wrote a defense of the Christian faith for the Roman emperor Hadrian. Had Eusebius of Caesarea not mentioned his work and quoted a paragraph from it in the fourth century, all traces of it would probably have been forever lost. Hegesippus’s Recollections, contained in five books written in the second century, likewise survive only in fragments preserved mostly by Eusebius.28

A watchword with some revisionist historians is that history is written by the winners.29 When attempting to understand the past, we look primarily at sources that tell a narrative of a battle, an era, a person, and so on. Usually the narrative is written by someone from an advantaged position. Therefore, we are getting our story from the perspective of the party in power rather than from those who are not. For example, our knowledge of ancient Rome comes primarily from ancient historians such as Suetonius, Tacitus, Cicero, Caesar, Livy, Priscus, Sallust, Plutarch and Josephus. Nearly all of these were Romans. Thus, the history of Rome to which we are privy is largely from a Roman perspective. Even Josephus, a Jew, had been conquered and was writing from a perspective in support of Rome. Thus, it might be argued that what we read is biased and slanted from a pro-Roman position. However, it is not always true that history is written by the winners. Thucydides and Xenophon are two of our most important ancient historians, and they both wrote from the losing side. Moreover, as Perez Zagorin notes, A significant part of contemporary German historiography is the work of scholars of a defeated nation seeking to explain how the German people submitted to the Nazi regime and the crimes it committed.30

Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels argue that there were a number of groups that thought of themselves as Christian but were rejected as heretical by the group who eventually won acceptance by the majority. Accordingly, they argue, the history of Jesus and the early church was written by the winners, the proto-orthodox, and the church now reads their writings as authoritative.31 Had the Gnostic Christians won, we would instead be reading a different set of canonical Gospels and other writings regarded as authoritative.

While this assertion about Christian orthodoxy is true to an extent, there are a number of major obstacles weighing against the conclusion it attempts to support. We may note primarily that it is often proper for those Christians who side with orthodoxy to say that the Gnostics got things wrong when referring to the teachings of the historical Jesus and his disciples. The Gnostic literature is later than the New Testament literature, usually quite a bit later. Moreover, that the Gnostic literature contains authentic apostolic tradition is dubious, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas. But there is even uncertainty regarding Thomas. Pagels dates the Gospel of Thomas to ca. A.D. 80-90 and admits to not knowing who wrote it or if the community from which it came (if it actually came from a community) was linked at all to the apostle Thomas32 or if any of its unique logia originated with Jesus.33 However, she maintains that an original disciple of Jesus is behind the Gospel of John.34 Moreover, there are good reasons for holding that many of the writings of the New Testament contain apostolic teachings. We are now a few decades removed from the day when New Testament scholars held that Paul invented present orthodox Christian doctrines. Instead, there are good reasons for holding that Paul’s teachings were compatible with the teachings of the Jerusalem apostles.35 Moreover, many New Testament scholars believe that the apostolic teachings are enshrined in the sermon summaries in Acts.36 Thus, there is a high probability that we can identify a significant core of the apostolic teachings.

The past only survives in fragments preserved in texts, artifacts and the effects of past causes. The documents were written by biased authors, who had an agenda, who were shaped by the cultures in which they lived (and that are often foreign to us), who varied in both their personal integrity and the accuracy of their memories, who had access to a cache of incomplete information that varied in its accuracy, and who selected from that cache only information relevant to their purpose in writing. Accordingly, all sources must be viewed and employed with prudence.

1.2.2. Horizons

Horizon may be defined as one’s preunderstanding.37 It is how historians view things as a result of their knowledge, experience, beliefs, education, cultural conditioning, preferences, presuppositions and worldview. Horizons are like sunglasses through which a historian looks. Everything she sees is colored by that horizon. Take baseball, for example. In a baseball game, if there was a close play at second base, do you think the runner was safe or out? It depends on whether your son is the guy stealing second or the shortstop tagging him. When we read books about Jesus, we find ourselves in agreement or disagreement with certain authors usually based on whether the Jesus they reconstruct is like the one we prefer.

For better and for worse, historians are influenced by their culture, race, nationality, gender and ethics; their political, philosophical and religious convictions; their life experiences, the academic institutions they attended and the particular community of scholars from which they covet respect and acceptance. They cannot look at the data devoid of biases, hopes or inclinations. No historian is exempt.38 Horizons are of great interest to historians since they are responsible more than anything else for the embarrassing diversity among the conflicting portraits of the past. How can so many historians with access to the same data arrive at so many different conclusions? Horizons. Geoffrey Elton writes, The historian who thinks that he has removed himself from his work is almost certainly mistaken.39 Robert Anchor notes that our thinking of the past cannot be sharply divided between a realm of ‘facts,’ which can be established beyond controversy, and a realm of ‘values’ where we are always in hopeless disagreement. Rather, Our subjectivity is in large part itself a product of the historically evolved communities to which we belong.40 Indeed, he asserts that historians, like everyone else, are historically situated, and that their reconstructions of the past are inevitably informed by their various existential interests and purposes; hence the multiplicity of their perspectives of the past.41 Georg Iggers comments that historians have increasingly recognized the limits of objectivity . . . [and have] become more aware of the biases that compromise their honesty.42 He adds that objectivity is unattainable in history; the historian can hope for nothing more than plausibility . . . [which] assumes that the historical account relates to a historical reality, no matter how complex and indirect the process is by which the historian approximates this reality.43 For Iggers, Historical scholarship is never value-free and historians not only hold political ideas that color their writing, but also work within the framework of institutions that affect the ways in which they write history.44

When the historical Jesus in general and the resurrection in particular are the subjects of inquiry, the horizon of the historian will be in full operation throughout the entire process.45 Accordingly, it is of no surprise to find similar comments in reference to a history of Jesus and discussions on his resurrection. Craffert asserts, Widely acknowledged but poorly understood in the traditional debate about Jesus’ resurrected body, is the role that world-view elements or one’s understanding of reality plays in these questions.46 Michael Grant notes that the life of Jesus is a theme in which the notorious problem of achieving objectivity reaches its height so that "it is impossible to be objective.47 D. J. Smit writes that for us no innocent reading of the resurrection message is possible.48 Thus, what is granted membership by some historians into their club of historical facts is rejected by others.49 James Dunn writes, The simple and rather devastating fact has been the Gospels researchers and questers of the historical Jesus have failed to produce agreed results. Scholars do not seem to be able to agree on much beyond a few basic facts and generalizations; on specific texts and issues there has been no consensus. The lengthy debate from the 1960s onwards about appropriate criteria for recognition of the actual words of Jesus has not been able to produce much agreement about the criteria, let alone their application.50 Also referring to Jesus research in the Gospels, E. P. Sanders writes, One should begin with what is relatively secure and work out to more uncertain points. But finding agreement about the ground rules by which what is relatively secure can be identified is very difficult."51

Anchor observes that our concept of history, realist or postmodern, and our concept of our external world, theist or otherwise, largely determine our conclusions.52 Indeed, the nature of reality itself is at stake.53 Accordingly, those historians who believe they have experienced the supernatural will have a different pool of interpretations of present reality than those historians who have had no such experiences. Theistic or Christian historians may be accused of allowing their horizon to muddy their ability to make accurate assessments pertaining to the historical Jesus and his resurrection.54 Many times, this is undoubtedly true. But it should also be noted that nontheist historians may be guilty of prejudice in the other direction.55 Sarah Coakley writes, New Testament scholarship of this generation . . . is often downright repressive—about supernatural events in general and bodily resurrection in particular.56 Examples of a bias against the supernatural abound. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy refers to Charles Hartshorne as one of the most important philosophers of religion and metaphysicians of the twentieth century.57 Hartshorne wrote the following comments in reference to a debate on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus between then-atheist philosopher Antony Flew and Christian philosopher Gary Habermas: I can neither explain away the evidences [for the resurrection] to which Habermas appeals, nor can I simply agree with [the skeptical position]. . . . My metaphysical bias is against resurrections.58 Flew himself later said, This is in fact the method of critical history. You try to discover what actually happened, guided by your best evidence, as to what was probable or improbable, possible or impossible. And the miracles are things that you just take to be impossible.59 A. N. Harvey confidently asserts that the biblical picture of Jesus is incompatible with historical inquiry and requires a sacrifice of the intellect to hold it.60 It is clear that the horizon of atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann is a driving force behind his historical conclusions when he a priori rules out the historicity of the ascension of Jesus reported in Acts 1:9-11 because there is no such heaven to which Jesus may have been carried.61 Jewish scholar Alan Segal writes with a similar tone: When a heavenly journey is described literally, the cause may be literary convention or the belief of the voyager; but when reconstructing the actual experience, only one type can pass modern standards of credibility.62 It seems that Crossan