Was Paul a Roman Citizen? A Response to the Amateur Exegete and Calvin Roetzel

Ben the Amateur Exegete (henceforth AE) is an atheist who produces content on historical biblical scholarship. He recently put out a video challenging the report in Acts 16:37 and Acts 22:22-29 of Paul's Roman citizenship. To his credit, AE doesn't think the objections are conclusive and concedes that Paul certainly could have possessed Roman citizenship. However, he argues that the balance of evidence suggests that Luke "padded Paul's resume". AE draws his arguments from Calvin Roetzel's 1999 book Paul: The Man and the Myth, so I will be responding to that text. Drawing on the work of Craig Keener, Martin Hengel, and others, this post will critique the arguments of Roetzel, and, by extension, those of AE. It is not a definitive treatment of the subject, and I will not be providing a separate positive case for Paul's Roman citizenship as other scholars like Keener have done.

Though these are not the only objections that have been raised to Paul's Roman citizenship, they are certainly some of the more common ones. I will address only the four listed by Roetzel.

Roman citizenship and the elite

Roetzel's first objection concerns whether it is plausible to think that Paul would have had Roman citizenship given the socioeconomic situation of the time. Here is the full quotation from his book:

"The granting of citizenship to Jews in the East was rare, and on those infrequent occasions when it was granted it usually went to wealthy and influential people who had performed distinguished service to Rome. To be sure, we do know of Jews who aspired to and were granted citizenship. Philo tells us of his nephew Tiberias Julius Alexander, who became a citizen of Alexandria and a Roman equestrian and rose to a position of power and influence. But he was singled out by Josephus for deserting the traditions of the fathers. The physical evidence supports the view that only a few Jews who were wealthy, powerful, and profoundly attracted to Hellenistic and Roman culture became citizens. In a survey of the epigraphical evidence Stegeman finds only 552 residents of Asia Minor who were citizens. We know of no citizens in Pergamum in the time of Augustus, and interestingly only 3 of 103 names from Ephesus contain the name of Julius, a probable indicator of citizenship. All of the evidence suggests that citizenship status was rarely granted in the eastern provinces." [1]

Before challenging Roetzel's arguments, I would like to draw attention to an epistemological point: even if Roman citizenship was rare, the fact that it did happen on occasion sets a prior not so unreasonably low that it cannot be overcome by testimony to the contrary. If it is true that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul (a hypothesis for which there is very strong evidence) then Luke was in a position to know whether Paul was a Roman citizen. Further, if it can be demonstrated that Luke was a meticulous historian, we are on solid footing in accepting his report of Paul's Roman citizenship. Even though it might be prima facie implausible that Paul was a Roman citizen, Luke's testimony that he was provides strong evidence for that proposition. Testimonial evidence can easily overcome a somewhat low prior.

To appreciate this point, consider a situation in which a neighbor you have recently met (and thus, whose backstory you know little of) tells you that they were in attendance for the famous "Minneapolis Miracle"—the 2018 NFL divisional playoff game between the Vikings and the Saints which ended with a walk-off 61-yard touchdown reception. There were 66,612 people in attendance at this game [2] and there are currently some 333 million people living in the United States. [3] Thus, bypassing minor considerations such as change in population, the probability that an individual randomly selected from the US population went to that game is roughly 0.02%. If we instead restrict the reference class to citizens of Minnesota, where the game was played, we come up with a prior of about 1.2%. [4] The exact number is unimportant, but it can clearly be shown to be quite low. 

Now, when your neighbor tells you that they attended this game, how confident are you that they are telling the truth? For me, even living in Florida, I think I would assign at least a 20% confidence level to the claim. It would likely be higher, but I will use conservative estimates. Using the rules of probability theory, this means that, in my subjective judgment, the testimony from my neighbor yields a Bayes factor of over 1000 in confirming the hypothesis that they were at the game. If I had as part of my background knowledge the fact that they were habitually trustworthy and had an interest in telling the truth, my confidence level would easily go over 50%. Further, if they told me a plausible story about their time at the game, I would be even more confident that they are telling the truth. Perhaps the reader would assign a higher or lower probability to the hypothesis after this evidence is taken into account than I did. But so long as the posterior probability isn't too low, the principle is clear: simple testimony can overcome low priors with relative ease.

The critic may quibble with some of the parallels I have drawn, and I have not intended to make this situation a perfect epistemological match. But the similarities are far more instructive. In both cases we have a proposition with a fairly low prior probability (though the probability of a given Jew possessing Roman citizenship was likely well above 0.02%) combined with testimony in favor of that proposition. Just like in the neighbor example, Luke, I would argue, was both in a position to know whether what he was saying was true and had an ostensible interest in telling the truth. As long as the prior is not too unreasonably low, Luke's testimony provides strong evidence for the proposition that Paul was a Roman citizen.

This observation aids in defusing some objections to Luke's testimony. One might argue that, given the significance of Roman citizenship, Luke would have had motivation to lie. This might be correct, but it applies similarly to a claim to have attended the Minneapolis Miracle. While one might be motivated to lie about having attended such a significant game, their testimony is still much more likely to be expected if they did attend the game then if they didn't.

Putting it in another light, I think in most cases it is far more epistemologically defensible to prioritize specific evidence for a historical proposition (e.g. Luke's testimony of Paul's citizenship) rather than general patterns of evidence which have exceptions (e.g. the rarity of Jewish Roman citizens). If we fail to do this, we might slip into a priori history in which we determine ahead of time what would or would not be the case and reject reliable, informed sources that go against it instead of questioning the initial presuppositions.

Regarding the claim itself that Roman citizens were rare, Craig Keener comments:

"Though citizens were a small minority, they were much more common than Stegemann allows; they could achieve their citizenship by manumission, assisting a general, and various other means (see comment on Acts 22:28). Thus inscriptions report even “fishermen” in Ephesus who were citizens. Moreover, nonelite persons could readily become citizens by various means—most relevant here, descent from properly manumitted slaves of citizens, a category that included a number of Roman Jews." [5]

Stegemann's reading of the epigraphical evidence has likewise been challenged. Here's Keener again:

"Stegemann doubts that Paul and his father, as Jews, could belong to the municipal elite, for whom (he thinks) citizenship was reserved. He claims, for example, only three Julii from Ephesian inscriptions of the Augustan period and only twenty from all first-century inscriptions. In his thorough dissertation focusing on Ephesian inscriptions and Paul, however, Steven Baugh demonstrates that Stegemann misreads the evidence. The Julii on later inscriptions were most likely descended from Ephesians who were granted the franchise under Julius or Augustus. He points out that of the 1,173 Roman citizens who appear in Ephesian inscriptions, 429 of them bear nomens of patrons other than emperors." [6]

In other words, the fact that an inscription doesn't bear the name of an emperor is little reason to doubt that the individual was a Roman citizen, so the rarity of Roman citizens cannot be established by that fact.

To summarize, it appears that Roman citizenship was certainly uncommon, and this explains why the military tribune of Acts 22 simply assumed that Paul did not possess it. But Roman citizenship was not so uncommon that Paul couldn't have had it, and it is simply false to say that only the wealthy and influential Jewish individuals were Roman citizens. When we consider the evidential weight of testimony, Roetzel's first objection is thus insufficient to overturn Luke's account that Paul was a Roman citizen.

Roman citizenship and pagan cultic devotion

Roetzel's second objection is as follows: 

"If Paul's piety reflects that of his parents, the piety of his home would argue against Roman citizenship. A condition of citizenship was participation in the civic cult, offering of obeisance to the gods of the city, sharing in the festivals of the polis, which were by definition religious, and offering homage to the Roman gods and allegiance to the imperial cult. Paul's own deep religious commitments as a pious Jew would certainly have conflicted with those obligations. Paul himself tells us with some pride of his blamelessness before the law (Phil. 3:6), that he advanced in Judaism "beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors" (Gal. 1:14), and that the same zeal led him to persecute the church (Phil 3:6). A Jew of such intense devotion to the ancestral traditions would have found it impossible to share in the religion of the Graeco-Roman world or to participate in its educational institution, the gymnasium. There is no sign in the letters that Paul was a student of the Greek classics or that he had been exposed to the exercise regimen, including exercise in the nude, associated with a gymnasium education." [7]

For an assessment of this claim, let us turn first to Martin Hengel:

"According to Philo's well-known report, which has to be taken very seriously by historians, the majority of Jews living in Rome were Roman citizens. Having been carried off to Italy as prisoners of war, in due course they were freed by their owners who 'did not compel them to corrupt their ancestral laws'. Augustus, on being given precise information about their religious practices, 'did not expel them from Rome nor deprive them of Roman citizen rights because they were concerned to keep their Jewish faith'...

As a rule they were exempt from military service, though it must be stressed here that in the late Republic and the period of the early Empire the Roman army was made up of volunteers. Notice was taken of religious peculiarities in a variety of other ways. Unless he held office, a Jew, whether a Roman citizen or not, did not have to perform any religious actions in connection with the emperor cult, either in Rome or in the Greek-speaking East, where the emperor cult flourished more strongly after the period of the Hellenistic monarchies than in the capital itself." [8]

Further contrary opinion comes from Keener:

"Third, Stegemann doubts that Jews such as Paul could be Roman citizens, because most locales would require Roman citizens' participation in pagan practices. But Baugh points to Ephesian inscriptions that reveal “Jews with Roman names and local citizenship fully participating in the lives of their cities.” Josephus attests numerous Jewish Roman citizens. Inscriptions show Jewish Roman citizens with significant roles in the Diaspora (especially in synagogues); many religious Jews found their Roman honor compatible with their Jewish practice. Many freed Jewish slaves were Roman citizens in Rome itself; we know of an entire community of Jewish Roman citizens across the Tiber (Philo Embassy 155–57). Although faithful Jews were never enrolled in Greek tribes, which entailed religious obligations, the Roman tribes were simply political and legal fictions by this period. In short, Jewish Roman citizens retained the privileges held by all Jews under Roman policy." [9] 

Finally, one wonders what to make of Roetzel's final comment, that there is no evidence in Paul's letters that he had been exposed to exercising in the nude. Even granting that it must have happened, what possible evidence of this would we expect? Throwing out things that were typical of Roman citizens and then noting that we don't have this evidence for Paul, even when there's no reason to expect find such evidence, is bad method.

Due to the evidence we have for Jewish Roman citizens, and specifically the exemptions they were able to acquire in relation to their religiosity, we have good reason to doubt Roetzel's second objection.

Roman citizenship and a Pauline argumentio ex silentio

Proceeding to Roetzel's third objection, we read the following:

"Certain omissions in the letters argue against citizenship. If Paul were a Roman citizen his endurance of oppression so severe that he despaired of life itself (2 Cor 1:8, 9f) is difficult to understand when an appeal to his Roman citizenship offered a ready escape. The omission of any mention of his Roman citizenship in his reference to his new heavenly citizenship is also puzzling (Phil. 3:20). It would also have been useful for him to have noted the ironic contrast between his citizen status and his condition as the "off scouring of the world" (my trans.) in 1 Cor. 4:13, but again he was silent. But, more importantly, Paul's failure to refer to his citizenship in his letter to the church at Rome is perplexing. While an argumentio ex silentio when taken alone is hardly convincing, when added to the other evidence noted previously it weighs against Roman citizenship." [10]

Much has been said about the weakness of the argument from silence. I wrote a post earlier this year discussing it. While Roetzel's admission of the potential weaknesses of this argument is to be commended, I still think he gives it too much weight. Regarding the first point about Paul willingly suffering despite his Roman citizenship, Craig Keener comments:

"This objection is stronger than some of the others. Yet this experience of beating need count against Paul’s citizenship no more than Luke’s claim that he was beaten with rods in Acts; if Luke, who understood the value of Roman citizenship against such abuse (Acts 16:37–38), saw no contradiction, it is possible that Paul would not have seen any either." [11]

Unless one wants to argue that Luke was incompetent and didn't see the contradiction, this point holds. If one does opt for this attempt at keeping the objection alive, it can be said that lack of attention to detail on Luke's part does not sit well either with his care and meticulousness elsewhere in his work or with the picture of Luke Roetzel suggests in his fourth objection, yet to be addressed, in which Luke embeds Paul's Roman citizenship into his narrative in order to make a subtle theological point. A simple explanation is that Paul sometimes endured suffering without invoking his citizenship, perhaps to identify with his Lord.

The next point at which Roetzel expects a mention of Paul's Roman citizenship is Philippians 3:20. Here is Philippians 3:18-21 (NRSV):

"For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself."

Since Paul is talking about the collective heavenly citizenship of the Philippian church, it would make little sense for him to appeal to his personal Roman citizenship which not everybody in Philippi would share. After all, Paul is not saying that his citizenship is in heaven, but rather "our" (Greek ἡμῶν) citizenship is in heaven. Thus, contra Roetzel, I see no reason to think Paul would have mentioned his citizenship here.

The next verse Roetzel cites is 1 Corinthians 4:13: "when slandered, we speak kindly. We have become like the rubbish of the world, the dregs of all things, to this very day." Specifically, he says that it would have been "useful" for Paul to note the "the ironic contrast" between his Roman citizenship and his condition as described in the verse. This is a transparently feeble argument. Roetzel has come up with a rhetorical device that he personally finds useful, and coupled with the unsupported assumption that Paul also would have found this device useful for his purposes, leaps to the conclusion that Paul must not have agreed with the content of the rhetorical device he didn't use. There are many rhetorical contrasts I could draw when writing a post like this, but my failure to include all of them doesn't mean I disagree with the item I could have contrasted. 

Roetzel's final suggestion for where Paul should have mentioned his Roman citizenship is in his letter to the church in Rome. This is more probable than any of the three previous suggestions, but it is still tenuous. If I lived overseas for several years and wrote a letter to a church back home, it is not clear that I would mention my US citizenship. In the same way, the purpose of Paul's epistle was not to inform the Roman church of his own legal standing but to address specific theological issues. 

Thus, we may conclude that Roetzel's third objection also fails. 

Roman citizenship and Luke's narrative theology

That Luke has a complex narrative theology in various parts of his work is plausible. [12] This does not mean, however, that every subtle meaning we think can be discerned from his writing was intentional. With his fourth objection, Roetzel would do well to take note of this:

"Paul's citizenship clearly served Luke's theological interests. By insisting on Paul's faithfulness to Judaism as a loyal Pharisee until the day of his death and his Roman citizenship Luke was able to argue for Paul's respectability and innocence at a time when the Christian movement had come under suspicion for its unwillingness to participate in the imperial cult, its refusal to serve in the military, its pacificistic lifestyle, and its secret meetings. By lifting up Paul as a respected and loyal citizen Luke could show that the movement he represented was innocent of treason or subversive activity." [13]

Prima facie, the fact that a particular aspect of the narrative of Acts may have served Luke's theological interests means nothing. A pastor will often share an anecdote from his life in order to illustrate a point in his sermon. Sometimes, this anecdote fits the context very neatly, but we don't then assume that he's making it up. Rather, he's selecting something from his many experiences to make a broader point. So even if Luke is trying to make the argument that Roetzel attributes to him, it counts little against historicity.  

Whether Luke is actually trying to exonerate the Christian movement is a different question, and one to which historical inquiry can offer little light. There are too many assumptions at play. But even granting this to be what Luke was trying to do, it is quite plausible that he would emphasize Paul's citizenship rather than inventing it. He could easily accomplish his objective by framing existing facts rather than inventing new ones. Thus, Roetzel's fourth and final objection fails, and his case against Paul's Roman citizenship falls with it.

Conclusion

Calvin Roetzel presented four arguments against Paul's Roman citizenship, each of which were picked up on by AE. These four arguments were each revealed to have significant flaws. 

While Roman citizenship was rare, it was not so rare that Paul could not have possessed it, and Luke's testimony that he did is sufficiently powerful to overturn a low prior probability. It is unlikely that Jewish Roman citizens would have been required to participate in the pagan cultic rites in which other Roman citizens participated, given the evidence for the prevalence of Jewish Roman citizens and the exemptions that were granted in other contexts. Finally, Roetzel fails to make a successful argument from silence, and his argument from Luke's narrative interests lacks rigor. 

A positive case for Paul's Roman citizenship may be the subject of a future post. The weakness of the arguments against it, however, leaves us with little reason to doubt the fundamental accuracy of Luke's account.

Notes and References

[1] Calvin Roetzel, Paul: The Man and the Myth (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 20

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Miracle 

[3] https://www.census.gov/popclock/

[4] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MN/PST045221 

[5] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015). Due to restricted availability, I am unable to provide page numbers for my citations of Keener's work. All of them come from his discussion of Acts 16:37.

[6] ibid.

[7] Roetzel, Paul, 20-21

[8] Martin Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM Press, 1991), 11-12

[9] Keener, Acts

[10] Roetzel, Paul, 12

[11] Keener, Acts

[12] See, for example, C. Kavin Rowe, “Acts 2.36 and the Continuity of Lukan Christology,” NTS (2007): 37–56

[13] Roetzel, Paul, 12

Book Review of "Searching for a Solution to Suffering"

The following is a review of my book on theodicy, Searching for a Solution to Suffering, by my friend and fellow theological autodidact David Pallmann. Though the review was written back in the Summer of 2021, I felt it would be helpful to archive it here for reference. 

Thanks again to David for his generous and honest thoughts.

..............................................

An Arminian - Annihilationist Review of Searching for a Solution to Suffering by Caleb Jackson

My friend Caleb Jackson was so kind as to send me a copy of his recent book on the problem of evil (POE). Although the book is intended as a Christian theodicy, it covers a much wider range of topics including soteriology, Christology, divine hiddenness, hell, and the atonement. Inasmuch as Jackson is writing a popular level book, I will treat it in this way. Although the book is written to a popular audience, it is quite comprehensive in terms of the amount of territory it covers related to the POE. I am impressed by the amount of study that must have gone into it. Jackson is a good writer and makes his points in an articulate and clear manner. I must also make a disclaimer: I am not an expert in the area of theodicy or the POE. I am approaching this review as someone who still has much to learn.

Jackson opens chapter 1 by posing the metaphysical question of what good and evil are. This is actually quite an interesting question and, as far as I can tell, it is never actually answered in the book. Jackson uses this as a springboard to transition into building his moral argument for God. I was a little surprised that with so many philosophical moral arguments to choose from, Jackson decided to utilize William Lane Craig's version. Craig's version is, in my opinion, much too simplistic since it doesn't offer any reason to link God to morality.

Jackson's defense of the argument has both strong points and weaker points. Some concerns include his periodic conflation of materialism and atheism. When arguing against atheism's capacity to ground moral truths, he constantly appeals to the inability of morals to be grounded in matter. But I don't think atheism is necessarily committed to materialism (although certainly many atheists are materialists). He also tends to assume a libertarian definition of freedom. And while I agree with him, compatibilists will likely think this to be question begging.

When offering an account for why the ground of morality must be God, Jackson attributes many attributes to the explanation. Most of them, I think, are correct. But I'm not sure if he is correct to say that it must be personal. His justification is that the explanation must be able to explain the "oughtness" of morality. But I'm not sure why a Platonic sort of account of moral truths wouldn't suffice here. Admittedly this seems more contrived than theism. But I don't think we can say that it is impossible.

When arguing for the reality of moral truths, Jackson argued that one cannot live without acting as though there is such a thing as objective morality. But I don't think that entails that objective morality is true. Evolution could explain why we are constrained to act in certain ways. Likewise he appeals to the idea that moral beliefs are properly basic and therefore in need of no further justification. But properly basic beliefs still need justification. That justification won't come in the form of other beliefs. But that doesn't make them arbitrary. Towards the end Jackson gives an excellent critique of theories of morality which try to explain it by reference to social conditioning.

Chapter 2 sets the stage for responding to the problem of evil. Jackson carefully lays out the many layers of the problem and briefly explains how he plans to tackle them. The chapter is both clear and helpful.

Chapter 3 introduces the free will defense. Jackson spends a lot of time discussing biblical texts relevant to the nature of free will. Initially this may seem a little out of place, but recalling that the book is specifically presenting a Christian theodicy, I think Jackson's deference to biblical texts is warranted. He gives some criticisms of compatibilist accounts of free will, and proceeds to offer arguments for a libertarian account. Unfortunately I found the biblical sections of the argument to border on proof texting. There was very little discussion about how compatibilists understand the texts Jackson used in support of libertarianism. But I suppose that probably went beyond the purview of the book. I was surprised that there was no mention on 1 Corinthians 10:13 which, in my opinion, is one of the clearest text in favor of libertarian free will. Finally Jackson explores the problem of whether or not there will be free will in heaven. He concludes that there will be, and I found his case to be quite compelling in this regard.

Chapter 4 applies the free will defense to the problem of natural evil. Jackson begins by discussing Lapsarianism, the idea that the fall of man as recorded in Genesis 3 is natural evils can be explained by reference to man's free will. I must admit that I am a little surprised that Jackson had a favorable view of this solution. The most glaring problem facing this idea is that God does not seem justified in removing everyone's immunity to evil on the basis of Adam and Eve having sinned. Why should we all suffer for what others did when this suffering is not a direct result of their sin, but rather a permanent curse on the earth? I don't think Jackson addressed this problem.

Jackson turns to consider Swinburne's suggestion that natural evil is needed in order for people to have knowledge of what is good. Now this is an interesting argument that I haven't fully decided upon. However, Jackson finds it to be fatally flawed since God could intervene and remove evil by means of miracles. I am less impressed by this objection than Jackson is. If we allow that natural evil is necessary in order for people to have knowledge of good and evil, then obviously God won't intervene. The objection seems entirely misplaced to me. Furthermore, Jackson does not appear to appreciate the devastating epistemic consequences that would follow if God did miracles in order to prevent every instance of evil. If miracles were commonplace, they would lose their evidential power and be mistaken for ordinary events. I was also a bit surprised that Jackson did not discuss the possible soteriological benefits that natural evil may bring about in this chapter (although he does in the next). I personally find this possibility intriguing.

Chapter 5 kicks off part two of the book. I think that the most outstanding feature of this chapter is Jackson's defense of consequentialism. I actually thought he made a rather good case that consequentialism is not necessarily a bad thing.

Chapter 6 discusses a theodicy which was entirely new to me, what Jackson calls the Felix Culpa theodicy. According to this theory, the evils in the world were necessary for the history of salvation to unfold and that this history is required for our world to be the best possible world. The chapter contains an excellent argument for an orthodox kenotic model of the incarnation (although Jackson never uses that term). When discussing the atonement, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint which theory of the atonement Jackson holds. Much of what he says sounds like he accepts the penal substitutionary theory (even referencing Craig's book on the topic), but in a later chapter he proceeds to critique penal substitution.

In chapter 7, Jackson moves to explore the problem of animal suffering. I think he is too quick to dismiss Trent Dougherty's solution (although towards the end of the chapter he expresses some sympathy towards a similar solution). When discussing how one's view on biological evolution impacts one's theodicy, Jackson correctly points out that rejection of biological evolution doesn't solve the problem. However, I think he overlooks the fact that rejection of biological evolution does make the task much easier, for now we needn't explain why there were millions of years of (seemingly) pointless suffering.

Jackson ultimately lands on a theodicy according to which evolutionary history complete with suffering illustrates or foreshadows salvation history. I'm not completely satisfied with this account. Imagine a painter who butchers helpless animals so that he can use their blood to paint beautiful pictures. I doubt anyone would say that the beautiful picture justifies the horrifying violence. True, the suffering isn't any longer pointless in the broadest sense of the word. But it still seems unnecessary. I'm hard pressed to see how Jackson's proposal significantly differs from this illustration.

In chapter 8, Jackson builds a case for universalism. However, I didn't find the biblical texts which he utilized to justify this conclusion. For example, he used texts like John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:4 which state that God wants everyone to be saved. But it doesn't follow from the fact that God desires that all be saved that all will be saved. Jackson also uses 1 Corinthians 15:22, which says that as in Adam all die even so in Christ will all be made alive. He argues that because the word "all" is parallel in both instances, it must refer to the same group. However that doesn't work if we understand how Paul uses the phrase "in Christ." Paul uses this to refer to the metaphorical location of believers. Christ is a corporate head who stands in contrast to Adam. Thus, we may read Paul as saying that all who are in Adam die just as all who are in Christ will be made alive. Similarly he uses Romans 11:32, where it says that God bound all in disobedience that He might have mercy on all. But contextually this refers to the people of Israel who, as Paul has explained in chapters 9-11, are being judicially hardened by God. Of course the point about God's mercy can be extended to all the world. But notice that Paul says that this was so that God *may have* mercy on all. This appears to be a statement about God making mercy available to all. But it doesn't suggest that all will be recipients of that mercy. Likewise he uses 1 John 2:2. But this verse only affirms that Christ died for the world. It doesn't say that the world will benefit from His death. And again, 1 Timothy 4:10 states that God is the Savior of all men and especially believers. Paul makes an obvious distinction between how God is the Savior of believers and unbelievers. I would suggest that the difference lies in who is actually saved. Philippians 2:10-11 says every knee will bow and every tongue will confess. But the context is about the supremacy of Christ. Paul isn't discussing soteriology. He certainly doesn't say that this confession is voluntary or salvific.

I also found it interesting that a text like Matthew 7:14 which plainly says that the way that leads to life is narrow and only a few find it was not discussed. Additionally Hebrews 6:4-6 which seems to say that apostates can never be saved again received no attention. I understand that this probably went beyond the scope of the book.

I thoroughly enjoyed the diatribe against Calvinism. However, I was disappointed in Jackson's treatment of Arminianism. First, and this is a rather minor quibble, he cites Dave Hunt as a proponent of Arminianism. This is not true. Hunt didn't identify as such and Arminians don't claim him. Moreover he greatly misrepresents Arminius in his books.

The really unfortunate part was Jackson's claim that Arminians don't believe that God is able to save everyone and that they deny God's sovereignty. This is completely false. No Arminian claims that God is unable to unconditionally save everyone if He wanted to. It is precisely because we believe that God desires all to freely meet the condition of faith, that He does not save all. God wants to save all, but not unconditionally. God wants everyone to meet the condition of faith, but will only actually save those who do. God doesn't have to do it this way. He surely could save anyone even those who don't believe. But Scripture doesn't teach this. Scripture reveals that God has chosen to save those who believe and that He wants all to believe.

Jackson concludes that Arminians must believe that God is unable to save a on the basis of the following argument:

1. God desires that all men shall be saved

2. God is omnipotent and has the ability to save everyone

3. Therefore, all people are saved

Overall Jackson's book is quite impressive in terms of discussing a wide range of topics. I think the sections pertinent to the POE were, for the most part, well done. I think that the discussion on tertiary issues like soteriology and eschatology could have been much better. But these were not the main issues that Jackson wanted to write about. Once again, this is not my area of expertise. These are just my honest thoughts as an interested layperson.

He concludes that Arminians must deny premise 2. But that's not the case at all. We would simply point out that the conclusion does not follow unless you add the premise that God unconditionally saves everyone he wants to save. This is the unspoken premise that the Arminian disputes.

Jackson also offers three biblical texts which he thinks challenge Arminianism: John 15:16, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Romans 9:16. In John 15:16, Jesus says that you did not choose me but I chose you. However, as John Calvin himself observed, this text is not about election to salvation but rather the choosing of the disciples to go and bring forth fruit (ie converts). It doesn't negate the fact that election unto salvation requires faith. 2 Timothy 1:9 says that we weren't saved on the basis of works. Arminians agree. We believe that faith, not works, is the condition for election. Finally, Romans 9:16 says that it doesn't depend on him that runs or him that wills. The crucial question, of course, is what does "it" refer to. Arminians have traditionally understood this to refer to the ground of salvation (grace through faith) although many scholars take this to be a simple reference to works of the law. Either way, it doesn't challenge Arminianism.

I also want to address Jackson's repeated claim that Arminians don't believe that God ever overrides human freedom. This is also false. We believe God can and does. We just don't think that He normally does this or that He does this in regard to salvation.

I also need to correct some of Jackson's claims about annihilationism. He claims that annihilationists don't believe in eternal punishment. This is false. Annihilationists do believe in eternal punishment (death) they just don't believe in eternal torment. He also seems to think that annihilationists believe that people are instantly annihilated at death. I am shocked by this claim especially given the sources that Jackson cites as books arguing for annihilationism. Surely if he read these books he knows that very few annihilationists believe that there is no judgment after death. Annihilationists don't dispute the reality of conscience torment, they just dispute the duration of it.

The final chapter of the book ties up some loose ends. Jackson addresses the issues of skeptical theism, divine hiddenness, and religious disagreement. The book ends by walking the reader through the sinner's prayer.

Overall Jackson's book is quite impressive in terms of discussing a wide range of topics. I think the sections pertinent to the POE were, for the most part, well done. I think that the discussion on tertiary issues like soteriology and eschatology could have been much better. But these were not the main issues that Jackson wanted to write about. Once again, this is not my area of expertise. These are just my honest thoughts as an interested layperson.

'Behold My Hands and Feet:' A Summary of Arguments Against the Antidocetist-Redaction Theory in the Gospels

Though there is near-unanimous agreement in New Testament scholarship that Paul and some of the disciples of Jesus claimed to see Christ risen from the dead, most critical commentators assert that the resurrection narratives found in the later Gospels are partially or wholly redactional in nature. Most frequently asserted is the view that such redactions are to combat that 2nd century beliefs of docetism, a common view among Gnostic Christians that asserted that Jesus did not in fact possess an incarnate body of flesh while on earth, but was instead a disembodied spirit only creating the illusion of being corporeal.

The following arguments presented will address this theory of legendary growth, specifically in reference to the Apologetic Redaction Hypothesis (ARH), which is defined as the model that the Gospel authors redacted the original primitive traditions of the resurrection and elaborated onto them motifs of physicality in order to respond to docetist heretics of their day. 

 

Issues With Trajectory Hypotheses and Chronicle Legendary Accumulation

 

One of the primary observations with the ARH is that, when lining up each report of the resurrection chronologically, we observe an evolution and see that the later accounts appear to be far more remarkable and apologetically-minded than the earlier stories.

Hence, we observe Paul's earliest references in 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 referring the the resurrection appearances as visionary and numinous (cf. with Paul's vernacular describing his conversion in Acts 26:19), whereas the trajectory in stories found decades later tend to emphasize the corporal nature of Jesus's resurrection body. In Mark 16:1-8, our earliest Gospel scribed roughly 40 years after Jesus's death, there is no description of the resurrection body, only a narrative of an empty tomb and a foreboding of Jesus's post-mortem appearance to Peter in Galilee. Verses 9-20 are later additions tacked on in the 3rd century or later. Matthew 28 narrates resurrection appearances to the women and the twelve, but lacks any major indications that Jesus was raised bodily. Indeed, the twelve are still said to doubt even after this experience (Matt. 28:17).

Luke, following the other Gospels by decades, narrates two accounts of the resurrected Jesus, one on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13-35) and one involving the twelve (Lk. 24:36-49), both of which occur on the night of Easter in Jerusalem and end with Jesus's ascension into heaven. Each of these involves a meal with the risen Jesus, and in the latter account Jesus invites His disciples to touch Him to relieve their doubts. The doubts raised in Matthew seem to be squashed by Luke. John 20 closes this story further by agreeing with Luke that Jesus invited the twelve to handle His wounds (Jn. 20:19-23), but adds the narrative of Thomas doubting and touching Jesus to be convinced (Jn. 20:24-29). The following chapter includes Jesus having a meal with the twelve on the shores of Galilee (Jn. 21:9-14). Those with a more critical eyeshot will lend these fantastic changes in the narrative to legendary accrual over time, with the story growing in elaboration. 

A few critiques of this theory arise. Establishing a fixed date for any of the Gospels  is a notoriously tricky endeavor, and even in concession that the canonical Gospels are significantly later than Paul, certainly much of their material contains tradition that goes back to earlier times. There are indications that much of the material in the Gospel resurrection traditions originate in tradition rather than redaction.

 

Evidence for the Primitive Nature of the Gospel Resurrection Narratives

For example, the statement found in Acts 10:41 that mentions the disciples who "ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead", is probably creedal and comes from a pre-Lukan lore. A number of scholars have noted Aramaic semitisms in many of the Acts creeds, which indicate an earlier tradition deriving from Palestine. [1] The sermon in Acts 10 may especially show signs of being the indicative of a Semitic origin [2]. Likewise, verse 41 mentions the apostles both eating and drinking with Jesus, a detail absent in both Luke 24:42-43 and John 21:13, which only state that Jesus ate with the twelve. This could act as evidence of a seperate tradition being used by Luke. [3] Luke 24:36-42 also contains non-Lukan vocabulary; Luke's use of flesh (σάρκα) in vs. 39 goes against the author's redactional tendency to remove σάρκα from the Markan versions of shared traditions. The only other times Luke uses σάρκα, he is referencing a passage from the Torah. Luke's tendency is therein to remove the term rather than redact it into the story, and only uses the word when he is quoting directly from source material.[4] All of this makes it probable that the story of Jesus eating with the twelve is not a literary creation on Luke's part but comes from an earlier source being used by him. 

Tom Wright has argued that the details found in Matthew 28, Luke 24, and John 20 indicate an earlier date of circulation orally, even if such traditions were written down later. Notably, the final chapters of the Gospels all surprisingly lack extensive proof texting, which is in direct contrast to the authors' habits of explicitly quoting verses to draw back onto the life of Jesus. Mark gives us virtually no Scriptural allusion, and while Matthew may allude to certain certain Old Testament commissioning motifs [5], Matthew is strangely silent in citing any particular verse (which he was no stranger to all throughout the other parts of his gospel). Luke and John cite Jesus's fulfillment of "the Scriptures" (Lk. 24:45, Jn. 20:9), but we are given no elaboration as to which Scriptures they had in mind. These more broad allusions are more in line with the early creeds in the Pauline literature (1 Cor. 3-4) then the explicit referential nature of the later Gospel period.[6]

Wright also notes the Pauline epistles also express much more theological afterthought in connecting Christ's resurrection with the future resurrection of all believers; Jesus was resurrected as not just vindication of His status but likewise as the model by which other Christians will be raised in the end times. The Gospels do not emphasize this. Though John's Gospel does draw this connection of eternal life, it is not clear that the resurrection of Jesus is directly parallel the afterlife of the believer, rather than some disembodied state.  The Synoptic Gospels are largely silent on these implications and focus only on the resurrection as vindication rather than explaining its eternal significance to all Christians. In fact, Jesus's brief description of the glorious nature of the resurrected body in passages like Matt. 13:43, "the righteous shall shine like the sun" (undoubtedly taking imagery from apocalyptic texts like Dan. 12:2) seems to contradict the more mundane descriptions of the resurrected Jesus in Matthew, Luke, and John. One would think that a later tradition would put more emphasis in Jesus as a precursor for the general resurrection.[7] 

The Gospel Resurrection Narratives In Comparison to the Pauline Epistles

Yet, even if this is all neglected and we concede for the sake of argument that the Gospel's may be later than Paul, this does little to establish the credibility of such accounts. It is difficult to establish such myth-making without cherry picking. Here we suffer from a lack of properly established methodology. The Gospels are far more detailed in the nature of the experiences to the twelve, yet in many ways 1 Corinthians 15 is more theologically developed than the later Gospel traditions. 

While the Synoptics are more detailed in the quality of the experiences, Paul purviews a greater emphasis on the quantity of the visions; with the exception of the Emmaus narrative in Lk. 24:13-35, the Gospels mostly focus on the appearances to the women and the disciples, only implying but not narrating the appearance to Peter. Paul's conversion is also narrated in the Book of Acts. Our earliest source on the other hand lists not only Peter, Paul, and the twelve disciples, but also mentions James and other apostles seeing Jesus. This is not mentioned or implied in any of the later Gospels, even in Acts where James is given a prominent role overseeing the Jerusalem Church. Most elaborate is 1 Corinthians 15:6's mention of a crowd of 500 witnesses who saw Jesus, an extraordinary claim that is left out of the Gospel narratives. One would think that such a fantastic claim would be found in later embellished sources, not our earliest source. Had the creed  in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 been found in a later source, perhaps recited by one of the characters in Acts, there is no doubt that many scholars would see this as evidence as the legend continuing to grow in elaboration.[8]

There are other ways in which the Epistles are more elaborate than the Gospels. Paul is far more descriptive of the nature of the resurrection body, describing it in analogies and establishing it as immortal in order to address concerns raised by Corinthian converts to Christianity. The Gospels only mention certain details of the resurrection body incidentally, and unlike Paul leave much of the ontology an open question.  All of this is to illustrate that the later Gospel accounts can only be seen as more embellished in the absence of proper comparative methods. Depending on which criteria one uses, it could just as fairly be argued that our earlier sources are more elaborate and apologetic than our earlier texts. Thereby, any argument deriving from linear development of myth between earlier and later texts will be largely tentative.

Therefore, there are good reasons to suppose that (1) many of the Gospel resurrection accounts contain early traditions that may pre-date Paul's writings and (2) comparing narratives purely chronologically is a poor methodology that requires cherry-picking details; the apparent "legendary development" goes both directions depending on what details one focuses on. 

 

Issues With the Anti-Docetism Redaction Theory

 

Critical scholarship has long recognized that the "proof" passages found in Luke 24:36-49 and John 20:19-29 are meant by the authors to respond to the heretical doctrine of docetism, which emphasized the spiritual nature of Jesus and denied that He was in fact incarnate in a body of flesh. Docetists saw the material world as evil and, by association, determined the notion of God becoming a physical man to be demonic. They argued that Jesus was not a man but a phantom, merely putting on the appearance of faux flesh to create the illusion of embodiment. The New Testament authors seem to be combating this doctrine as Christianity became more prominent in the Gentile-dominated regions of the Roman Empire. Just as 1 John 1:1 and 4:2-3 emphasize the handling of Jesus's resurrected body to directly respond to such heresy, so also do the later Gospel authors add in details about Jesus not only being seen, but also being touched and even eating in order to prove that He is not a ghost. 

 New Testament scholar J.D. Atkins is perhaps the most prolific dissenter of the ARH model, writing a nearly 600 page tome arguing that the narratives found in Luke 24:36-49 and John 20:19-29.are unlikely to be redacted as anti-docetist apologetics. His argument is primarily empirical in comparing the Gospel texts with 2nd-4th century Patristic apologetic texts  that explicitly respond to docetism (especially Irenaeus in Against Heresies and Ignatius's Letter to the Smyrnaeans). These later texts can be seen as our "control group", and as Atkins argues, when compared with these obviously apologetic works, the Gospels are missing key features shared by the vast majority of the texts share. Therefore, given the stark differences and absences from such expected features, the probability that the Gospel narratives are of this ilk is low. A brief summary of Atkins's main arguments from The Doubt of the Apostles, especially the 9th chapter, will be summarized below. [9]

The Gospel Lack Features of Anti-Docetic Literature

1. The Gospels lack much of the vocabulary found in anti-docetist apologetic texts, with very little overlap in word usage. In contrast, most of the texts of this kind in the centuries following Jesus frequently use these terms, as they were popular talking points for docetists. [10] 

2. The "touch test" found in Luke 24:38-40 and John 20:20, 23-29 is not effective as a counter to docetist claims of Jesus being incorporeal. This is several reasons:

a) Neither of these passages explicitly state that Jesus is in fact touched; He asks to be touched but reader is left unsure if the actions are carried out. Docetists did not deny that Jesus appeared to have wounds and a body, they only rejected such appearances as illusory. Docetists were more adamant about the incarnation body and and the pain felt on the crucifixion rather than the resurrection body. Later Church Fathers read into the text and explicitly stated that Jesus was in fact touched, clarifying the ambiguity left with the canonical texts. [11]

b) The passages where Jesus is explicitly said to be touched, Matt. 28:9-10 and Jn. 20:7, are incidental and do not contextually have in mind a response to docetism, as there is no objection to addressed nor doubts raised in either of those parts of the narrative. Therefore the touching motif may be part of the original tradition and not a purely fictional apologetic invention. [12]

c) Most notably, the touch test is explicitly stated to fail in Luke 24:40-41 " And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling..." In Luke, doubts only seem to be resolved after Jesus goes through the Scriptures and the disciples understand His role as Messiah. It is the Old Testament that proves to them the resurrection, not the physical demonstration (Lk. 24:44-48). Luke seems to tidy this up in Acts 1:3 where he states that the "many proofs" demonstrates the resurrection, perhaps to clarify the seemingly lack of convincing power such "proofs" seemed to have had. These proofs seem to have been the fulfillment of Scripture, emphasized by Luke, John, and Paul, rather than the realization that Jesus had a physical body. [13]

d) In John 20, it is sight that seems to form the belief in resurrection, not the touch test. John 20:20 emphasizes visual perception as the primary mechanism for belief, as Jesus "showed them his hands and his side" (no mention of actually touching Him); the disciples were then "glad when they saw the Lord." John 20:25 fairs a little better as a candidate for an apologetic, as Thomas states that physical demonstration is needed to believe. However, Jesus seems to counteract this in Jn. 20:29 by saying that it was not physical demonstration that convinced Thomas, but rather the mere post-mortem appearance to the disciple that converted him, "“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (cf. 1 Pet. 1:8).  The quote emphasizes visual perception, not experience of a different modality. Later Church Fathers like Origen, in responding to the claim Jesus was a ghost, rewrote this passage to explicitly contradict this and instead argue that sight alone would not be enough to convince Thomas of resurrection. This implies that he saw and others like him the original text as deficient. [14]

3) The meal undergone in Lk. 24:41-43 is not persuasive as an anti-docetist response. Docetists such as Maricon and others did not deny that such an event took place, nor did they argue that such a passage was invented or interpolated. Instead, they accepted its historicity but asserted that Jesus only mimicked eating as an illusion, similar to passages of angels pretending to eat in Gen. 18 and Tobit 12:19. Furthermore, there were ancient ghost stories in Antiquity that affirmed that spirits could feast on flesh and blood, with meal offerings being set at grave sites. Therefore, eating as a motif would not be sufficient in demonstrating Jesus was not a disembodied phantom, and the lack of resistance from later docetists implies they did not see it as a defeater to their dogma. In fact, docetists saw the need for food as a sign of corruption of the body; later Christian apologists often omitted the post-resurrection meal to argue that the resurrection body is incorruptible and immortal to counter Gnostic criticisms. [15]

The Gospels Leave in Details That Could Be Used to Support Docetism

1) Matthew, Luke, and John, despite emphasizing Jesus's corporeal nature, still leave in extremely numinous elements that later Church Fathers left out when debating heretics. Most obvious is the fact that Jesus is "transphysical" after the resurrection and has the ability to appear and vanish at will. In Matthew 's final chapter Jesus is already gone from the tomb before the stone is rolled away (Matt. 28:2), and considering that sepulchers typically lack a back door, implies that He must have disappeared or become intangible. Jesus then seemingly appears out of nowhere to the women in Jerusalem (Matt. 28:9). In Luke Jesus is explicitly said to vanish and appear unexpectedly (Lk. 24:31, 36). John 20 mentions on two occasions (vs. 19, vs. 26) Jesus appearing in a locked room, implying that He either can materialize at will or that He can walk through walls. These would not be advantageous to include if the authors want to convince their audience that Jesus is not a ghost, as these abilities are undeniably more akin to a specter than an individual with a solid body. Nearly all anti-docetist texts in the following centuries left out these details and only focused on the "physical proofs". This establishes a precedent for Christians to leave out such defeaters for apologetic reasons. It is thus surprising that the Gospels still include these details in spite of this discomfort. [16]

2) In Luke 24:44, Jesus states to His disciples that, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” The phrase "while I was still with you" is quite ambiguous, and implies that Jesus was "with" the disciples in the past but is not currently with them in the same form. To the Gnostic, Jesus could mean "while I was with you in the body" (implying He is no longer in the body) or "while I was with you in life" (implying He is no longer alive and is a spirit). Though Luke may not have intended for this interpretation  to abound, it is a fact that certain docetists read the text in this way. If Luke consciously left this phrase in his resurrection narrative, it is doubtful he did so to counter doecetist thought. [17] I will also add that the idea that Jesus was at one point with the disciples in the flesh, but now only stays with the Christian in the heart of the believer in a "spiritual" sense (cf. Matt. 28:20, Rom. 8:10, Gal. 2:20, 2 Cor. 13:5, Eph. 3:17, 1 Pet. 1:8), would have further docetist implications. Matthew's final roll call in Christ's commission in Matt. 28:20 ends with the phrase "I will be with you always until the end of the age", which is both reminiscent of Old Testament promises of Yahweh's faithfulness and a subtle implication that Christ will remain with the believer in a spiritual, but obviously not bodily, manner. 

3) As mentioned in Section C of Argument 2 in the previous section, the Gospels, especially Matthew and Luke, leave in the disciples doubting the earthly nature of the resurrection body. Matthew 28:17 is clear that many of the disciples still doubted despite seeing and worshiping the risen Jesus, with no clear attempt to address such doubts. If we were only to read Matthew, we would never know if all of the twelve stayed faithful. Luke 24:37-42 presents the disciples as believing Jesus to be a ghost, and maintains that they "were still disbelieving" the resurrection even after seeing His wounds and flesh (vs. 41). Jesus then eats in front of them and reads to them the Scriptures, at which their "minds were opened" to believe Jesus was prophesied as being risen from the dead. In John 20:24-29 Thomas is said to doubt the resurrection but declares Jesus to be God after undergoing a Christophany (Jn. 20:28). Though from the 2nd century onward apologists attempted to scrub such doubts and emphasize that physical demonstration convinced the twelve of the resurrection, the Gospel lingering of these "proofs" failure to convince are telling and probably derive from legitimate historical recollection. In contrast, a pro-docetic narrative would precisely emphasize continual doubt in the resurrection of the body. [18]

4) Despite the fact that Atkins does not spend much time on the argument, I would point out that Acts (authored by the same writer as The Gospel of Luke) predominantly presents Jesus as appearing in a more visionary and spiritual nature once He has ascended to heaven. Though the concept of Jesus's ascension into heaven at the right hand of God is found in Paul and the New Testament epistles (Rom. 8:34, Col. 3:1, Eph. 1:20 1 Pet. 3:22, Heb 1:3, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2) and implied in John 20:17, and in light of the fact that Matthew, Mark and John know of appearance traditions on earth in places like Galilee and Jerusalem (Ml. 16:7, Matt. 28:16, Jn. 21:1),  Luke is the only author to explicitly distinguish between Jesus's earthly appearances (immediately succeeding the resurrection) and his heavenly ones (immediately succeeding the ascension). Assuming such a distinction is a product of Lukan creativity, one wonders why Luke would narrate appearances after the ascension if such Christophanies could be taken as potentially docetic in nature.

If Luke desired to alter the original "visionary" appearances to the disciples and replace them with more concrete and earthly visitations, why did He not do so with the later appearances? If Luke is concerned with adding physical details to combat docetism, why does he see no issue with leaving in the visionary nature of the Christophanies to Stephen (Acts. 7:55), Saul (Acts 9:3-7), Ananias (Acts 9:10-18), and Peter (Acts 10:9-16)? Luke could have done any number of possibilities: 1) only narrate pre-ascension appearances to cover up any potential of leaving ammunition for the Gnostic, 2) change the post-ascension appearances to also be bodily in nature, or 3) left all of the original traditions untouched as visions (in which case he would be unconcerned with docetism).

Options 1 and 3 are contradicted by the narratives in Luke-Acts. Options 2 has precedent; though Jesus is presented in a more disembodied and numinous nature following His ascension, Luke on multiple occasions narrates assumed heavenly figures as appearing in bodily form. Moses and Elijah, the Old Testament patriarchs traditionally believed to have been assumed into heaven, appear alongside Jesus in a glorified state (Lk. 9:30). Yet despite their glorified bodies the apostles still act as if the patriarchs can rest in a man-made shelter (Lk. 9:33). Acts 12:6-11 has an angel of light descend from heaven to free Peter from prison, and though he originally believed this to be a vision (Acts 12:9, cf. Lk. 24:23), the angel's interactions are clearly veridical and solid as to break through chains and open gates (Acts 12:7-11).

This establishes the Luke still has a tendency to attribute heavenly beings with physicality when they appear to mortals. We do not, however, see Luke follow through with this principle regarding the post-ascension Christophanies. The inclusion of both bodily and visionary appearances in Luke-Acts indicates that Luke is not solely interested in the apologetics of the bodily nature of the resurrection body; an anti-docetist apologetic would likely not include any resembling the post-ascension visions. 

Comparing Hypotheses

To summarize the arguments listed above, it is helpful to parallel the Gospel resurrection narratives to later texts that are indisputably anti-docetic in nature. Under the ARH, one would expect very similar tactics shared between the texts as they relate to responding to docetists, whereas the failure of such parallels to align would serve to, in all probability, falsify the ARH.

 Below, I compare two texts: Luke 24:36-42 and the third chapter Ignatius's Epsitle to the Smyrnaeans, the latter of which was probably scribed in the early 2nd century. Though Ignatias is almost certainly paraphrasing Luke's accounts, the redactions he makes are clear. Ignatias removes the sudden appearance of Jesus, emphasizes that Jesus is not embodied, explicitly states that Jesus was touched, clearly argues that the witnesses immediately believed upon said touching, and is unambiguous that Jesus's meal with the twelve proved He was risen in the flesh.

Luke 24	Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 3
24:36, “As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them.”	3:2, And when he came to Peter and those with him…”
24:39, “Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”	3:2,  “Take, handle me and see, for I am not a bodiless daimon [ or “a spirit without a body”].”
24:40, “And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.”	3:2, “Straightway they touched him…”
24:41,  “And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling…”	3:2, “they touched him and believed, being convinced by his flesh and his spirit.”
24:42, “They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.”	3:3, “he ate and drank with them, as being in the flesh, though spiritually he was united to the Father.”

Ignatius's letters are far from an outlier in this regard; nearly all anti-docetists texts from the 2nd century onwards follow these same conventions and redactions. The stark difference in approach between Luke and John when compared to the apologetic works of Ignatias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and others are telling. 

In conclusion, the evidence indicates that the veridical details of the resurrection narratives are unlikely to be written as apologetics to combat docetism and Gnosticism. It does not follow from this that such texts are historical; they may very well still be invented by the authors of the Gospels. This is only to say that if such invention is postulated, one should not suggest anti-docetism as an apologetic to among the motivations of the authors. One will need to look elsewhere for explanation.

References

[1] For scholars who are considerate that some of the sermons in Acts could be earlier Palestinian tradition, see Dodd, Charles Harold. The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments. Hodder & Stoughton, 1944; Wilcox, Max. The Semitisms of Acts. (Oxford: Clarendon Press) 1966, pg. 79-80, 164-165; and Lüdemann, Gerd. Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary. Translated by John Bowden. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press) 1989, pg. 47-49, 112-115. John Alsup in The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition: A History-of-Tradition Analysis. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007, states on page 67 that the early nature of some of these creeds in a "widely held thesis" among commentators. 

[2] Dodd in Apostolic Preaching observes on pg. 35-36 that "The Greek of [Acts 10:] 35-38 is notoriously rough and ungrammatical, and indeed scarcely translatable, though the general meaning is clear. This is strange in so excellent a Greek writer as the author of Acts...[it] has [been] shown that if the text in its more difficult form...be translated word for word into Aramaic, it becomes both grammatical and perspicuous. The case, therefore, for regarding the passage as a translation is strong." In reconstructing an Aramaic original, he includes in this kergyma vs. 41 that mentions the twelve dining with the risen Jesus. Dodd's translation is as follows: "God raised Him up on the third day, and permitted Him to be manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen beforehand by God, namely to us, who ate and drank with Him after I arose from the dead."

[3] Atkins, J. D. The Doubt of the Apostles and the Resurrection Faith of the Early Church: the Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospels in Ancient Reception and Modern Debate. Vol. 495. Mohr Siebeck, 2019. On pg. 89 he argues that Ignatias in Sym. 3.3 may be conflating Acts 10:41 in his commentary to Luke 24:36-43. Gerald O'Collins in "Did Jesus Eat the Fish (Luke 24: 42-43)?." Gregorianum (1988): 65-76, argues that the post-resurrection meal originated in a primitive tradition involving a group appearance to the twelve that evolved over three stages, but finds the realism of Jesus literally eating to be a Lukan embellishment. 

[4] Atkins, Doubt of the Apostles, pg. 386. The Lukan redactions removing "flesh", σάρξ ,from Mark are as follows: Mark 10:8 (2x; cf. Luke 16:18); 13:20 (cf. Luke 17:22–37; 21:20–24); 14:38 (cf. Luke 22:39–46). Besides Lk. 24:39, Luke-Acts's other uses of σάρξ occur when citing Scripture (Luke 3:6; Acts 2:17; 2:26, 31).

[5] Matthew 28:16-20 may be alluding to Mosaic parallels and the commissioning of Joshua to conquest, see Sparks, Kenton L. "Gospel as Conquest: Mosaic Typology in Matthew 28: 16-20." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68, no. 4 (2006): 651-663. Even still, such allusions seem to be more primitive than Matthew's typical proof-texting used almost ubiquitously throughout the rest of his Gospel. 

[6] Wright, N.T.. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Vol. 3. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press) 2003, pg. 599-608.

[7] Ibid, pg. 599-608

[8] The elaborate nature of 1 Cor. 15:3-8 in comparison with the Gospel traditions is pointed out in Wood, David. "Did the Resurrection Accounts Grow Over Time? A Response to Dan Barker's 'Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?;" in James Patrick Holding, Defending the Resurrection. Xulon Press, 2010, pg. 81-95. 

[9] Most of the following is derived from pg. 379-408 of Atkins, Doubt of the Apostles.

[10] Ibid, pg. 385. He specifically points out that the words σῶμα, αἷμα, and ἀληθῶς and their cognates are absent in John 20:19–29 and Luke 24:36–49. He points out that "While the presence of these words is by no means proof of antidocetic intent, the absence of all four word groups is unknown in antidocetic accounts."

[11] Ibid, pg. 388-395. For example, Pseudo-Justin notes in De Resurrectione 2.14 that "there are some [ie docetists] who maintain that even Jesus himself appeared only as spiritual, and no longer in flesh, but presented the mere appearance of flesh." Merely showing off wounds would not be enough to dismantle a docetist's arguments, for they did not deny that Jesus at least appeared as if He had flesh. 

[13] Ibid, pg. 394-395.

[14] Ibid, pg. 391-394. Origen in Contr, Cel. 2.61 argues that sight alone was not enough for Thomas to believe, “[Thomas] expressed his belief in the statement of the woman who said that she had seen Him, because he did not think it impossible that the soul of a dead man could be seen; but he did not yet consider the report to be true that He had been raised in a body, which was the antitype of the former. And therefore he did not merely say, ‘Unless I see, I will not believe;’ but he added, ‘Unless I put my hand into the print of the nails, and lay my hands upon His side, I will not believe.'” Origen is directly redacting Jesus's statement that Thomas believed because he saw the resurrection (Jn. 20:29) 

[15] Ibid, pg. 400-407. Atkins also mentions on page 11 note 7 that Tertullian and the author of the Epistula Apostolorum omit the resurrection meal in order to argue that the resurrection body is incorruptible and has no need for food. O'Collins in "Did Jesus Eat" argues on page 69 that Luke may be trying to persuade Gentile readers of the resurrection, not Jews, "In the Jewish tradition eating would not necessarily indicate human bodiliness, whether risen or otherwise...Luke's Gentile readers would presumably hold that spirits and angels do not eat and hence be satisfied that eating the fish establishes the risen Jesus' real bodiliness." O'Collins presumption is not well-justified in my opinion; many Gentiles held that spirits could consume meals. For citations regarding the practice in Antiquity of offering food to the dead, see Riley, Gregory J. Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy. Fortress Press, 1995, pg. 46-47.

[16] Atkins, Doubt of the Apostles, pg. 380-383.

[17] Ibid, pg. 405-406.

[18] Ibid, pg. 395-399.