Jesus in Tacitus

                                                        Introduction

In the fifteenth chapter of Cornelius Tacitus’ the Annals, he talks about the famous fire that engulfed Rome in the summer of 64 AD. He pins the blame of the fire on the emperor of the time, Nero.

Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per

flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio

imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in

praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem

eius mali, sed per urbem etiam

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” [1]

 

From this passage, we learn about the Historical Jesus and Christianity a.) Jesus was executed b.) under Pontius Pilate c.) Christianity began in Judea and d.) Christianity spread around the Roman world.

There are several popular objections to the reliability of Tacitus’ statements on Jesus, which will be addressed in this blog post.

1.1 Forgery

This first objection to Tacitus is, in my opinion, the weakest out of all of the ones we will see in this paper.

John P. Meier, a noted scholar for his five-volume Historical Jesus work the Marginal Jew series, notes, “Despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine. Not only is it witnessed in all manuscripts of the Annals, the very anti-Christian tone of the text makes Christian origin almost impossible.”[2] Whiles Tacitus is obviously disturbed by the way Nero and his empire treated the Christians, [3] he describes the Christians in a very negative way, one a Christian scribe looking to interpolate a document would not use; he obviously has a deep bias against them. Let’s examine some parts of this passage.

“...a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.”

“...a most mischievous superstition...”

“...the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful...”[4]

In addition to that, the founder of this group, Christus (Jesus), suffered the extreme penalty, crucifixion. Whiles this does not refer to crucifixion, the Latin word used for “extreme penalty” is supplicium [5], which specifically refers to capital punishment in the ancient Roman world [6]. Being crucified was seen as totally offensive and humiliating. The late Martin Hengel in his study on crucifixion in the ancient world says, “[t]he instances given so far [of crucifixion] have been an attempt to show that for the men of the ancient world...the cross was not just a matter of indifference, just any kind of death. It was an utterly offensive affair, ‘obscene’ in the original sense of the word.[7]” This would lead to Tacitus having even more of a reason to despise the Christian group, because of their leader’s violent and embarrassing death.

As mentioned before, no Christian scribe would use such terrible language to describe their own religion [8]. Any theory that proposes a Christian scribe were to impersonate being a pagan insulting Christianity to “cover up their tracks” is ad hoc and has literally no evidence.

In addition to that, the passage matches the normal technique and content of Tacitean style [9] and this whole pericope fits well into the context of the burning of Rome.

For these reasons, it seems very unlikely that this passage is a forgery or interpolation added by a zealous Christian scribe.

1.2 Hearsay

Now that we’ve dealt with the forgery argument, let’s deal with the more popular, yet poor, argument of hearsay.

In this section, we’ll take a source critical examination of Tacitus, although before we can get into that we must answer an objection: does Tacitus mentioning Jesus’ title imply his use of hearsay and impeach the reliability of Annals 15.44?

I’m going to have to answer in the negative here. First of all, this passage is focused on the origin of the Christian movement, not necessarily of Jesus. Tacitus wants to explain the origin of Christianity.

As scholars Gregory Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy point out, “Tacitus only mentions ‘Christ’ in order to explain the origin of the term ‘Christians.’ A reference to ‘Jesus’ at this point would not have explained the term ‘Christian’ and thus would have been completely beside this point.”[10]

Murray Harris, a New Testament exegete and theologian, notes the connection of Christ’s fate with the persecuted Christians through the Latin word adficere. “Christians were ‘punished [poenis adfeict] in the most unusual ways’ by Nero and that Christ ‘had been executed [supplico adfectus erat]' by Pilate.[11]” Basically, the reason Tacitus uses “Christus” instead of Jesus is because he was linking them together and wanted to inform his audience of the origin of the name Christians. Now, let’s take a look at Tacitus’ sources.

Unlike modern historians, ancient historians did not cite their sources with footnotes or bibliographies, although this does not necessarily affect the reliability of Tacitus.

Robert Mellor, a prominent Tacitean scholar, points out, “...Tacitus makes it clear that he indeed do research, and, regarding accuracy as important, be distrusts many of the written sources [of that day]".[12]

Tacitus was a careful historian who made his disdain for hearsay quite clear. One passage, Tacitus says, “in my case the reason for transmitting and criticizing the rumor was that on the basis of a resounding example I [Tacitus] might dispel false hearsay and ask of those into whose hands my work comes that they should not be hungry to accept well publicized incredulities nor prefer them to what is genuine and uncorrupted by the miraculous" [13].

In occasion, Tacitus did in fact appeal to hearsay as a source, but he always makes sure to mention it and he usually distances himself from the report. For example, he says, “In transmitting Drusus’ death I have recorded what has been recalled by most authors and those of the greatest credibility; but I am not inclined to neglect from those same times a rumor so effective that it has not yet abated.”[14] He says this about a scurrilous rumor on Emperor Tiberius poisoning his own son, Drusus, before dismissing it: “this was bandied about in public, but beyond the fact that it is affirmed in no reliable author, you can readily refute it" [15]. 

  Another example can be seen in this passage describing Drusus and his interactions with gladiators:

    Drusus presided over a show of gladiators which he gave in his own name and in that of his brother Germanicus, for he gloated intensely over bloodshed, however cheap its victims. This was alarming to the populace, and his father had, it was said, rebuked him. Why Tiberius kept away from the spectacle was variously explained. According to some, it was his loathing of a crowd, according to others, his gloomy temper, and a fear of contrast with the gracious presence of Augustus. I cannot believe that he deliberately gave his son the opportunity of displaying his ferocity and provoking the people's disgust, though even this was said. [16]

I’m not saying Tacitus was a perfect historian because he is known to fabricate speeches, but in general he was an excellent, meticulous historian who paid close attention to his sources.

Regarding Annals 15.44, Van Voorst points out that Tacitus didn’t use the New Testament as a source. He points out how no literary or oral dependence can be connected between Tacitus’ passage and the Gospels [17]. It is equally unlikely he used any Christian source due to his hatred of the Christians (see 1.1).

It is also possible that Tacitus had access to official documents referring to Jesus. Tacitus uses the Senate archives, the Acta Senatus, twice in his work (Annals 5.4; 15.74), and further use of them is implied with his detailed reports of Senate activities. It is also possible that Jesus was mentioned in other sources such as the Roman public libraries, biographies, letters, speeches and in the Acta Diurna (a daily gazette).

Since Tacitus did not cite his source for this passage, this is just mere speculation, even if it very plausible. Regardless of his source, Tacitus clearly—in my judgement at least—gives independent information on Jesus in his Annals passage.

1.3 Procurator-Prefect Objection

Until Claudius in 41 AD, each provincial governor was referred to as a “prefect” but Tacitus uses the term “procurator” to describe the title of Pontius Pilate in his section of the Annals between 29 AD and 32 AD, thus making an anachronism. The proper title for Pilate during this particular time period is prefect.

However, skeptics are being overly critical when they suppose this passage is unreliable primarily because of this alleged error. I think this a gross exaggeration for several reasons. There is good ancient evidence to conclude that these terms were often used interchangeably in the first and second century.

For example, an inscription discovered at Caesarea Martina gave Pilate the correct title of prefect [18]. However, both Philo of Alexandria (Legat. 38) and Josephus (Jewish Wars 2.9.2) refer to him as procurator just as Tacitus does. In fact, Josephus uses these terms fluidly.

Josephus calls two different governors Cuspius Fadus (c. 44-46) and Porcius Festus (c. 59-61) by both terms.[19]

M.J. Harris remarks: 

it seems reasonable to suppose that there was a certain fluidity of terminology regarding the titles of the governor of Judea, at least in popular usage, during the period A.D. 6-66, but that from A.D. 6-41 the titles ‘praefectus’ or ‘pro legato’ [prefect] predominated, while after the reconstitution of the province, from A.D. 44-46 the term procurator...became the common designation. During both periods....the unofficial term ‘governor’...was also used, as it is in the New Testament of Pilate... and other Roman officials governing Judea...We can scarcely accuse Tacitus...of being inaccurate or ill-informed on this point.” [20]

 

In conclusion, the procurator-prefect objection holds no substance and should not be taken seriously as an argument against Annals 15.44’s reliability as a source.

1.4 Conclusion

None of the popular objections against Cornelius Tacitus’ Annals 15.44 hold up to scrutiny, so we are reasonable to conclude that this passage relays independent historical information that documents Jesus and early Christianity.

---

[1] Annals 15.44.3 https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D44

[2] Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. vol. 1, Doubleday, 1991., 90.   

[3] “Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.” In addition to that, early church tradition has Paul and Peter martyred in Rome by decapitation and crucifixion, respectfully. For more on the fate of the apostles, see McDowell, Sean. Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus. 1st ed., Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2015.

[4] Later in the passage Tacitus describes their crimes as “hatred against mankind.”

[5] P. G. W. Glare, ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 1882–83 cf. Webb, Robert L. “The Roman Examination and Crucifixion of Jesus: Their Historicity and Implications.” Bock, Darrell L and Robert L. Webb eds. Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence., Mohr Siebeck 2009., 668.

[6] Cicero, Verrem 2.5.168-69 cf. Philo, In Flaccum 72

 [7] Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Fortress Press, 1977., 23.  

[8] “...no Christian forgers would have made such disparaging remarks about Christianity as we have in Annals 15.44...” Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside The New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000., 43.  

 [9] Van Voorst, Jesus Outside The New Testament., 43.

[10] Eddy, Paul Rhodes, and Gregory A. Boyd. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, 2008. PDF File., 157.

 [11] Harris, Murray. “References to Jesus in Classical Authors.” in Jesus Traditions Outside the Gospels, ed. by David Wenham, 275-324. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1982.

[12] Mellor, Ronald. Tacitus’ Annals. Oxford University Press, 2011., 23.

[13]Tacitus, Annals 4.11.3

[14] Ibid., 4.10.1

[15] Ibid., 4.11.1

[16] Ibid 1.76 

[17] Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 49

[18] Maier, Paul L. “The Inscription on the Cross of Jesus of Nazareth.” Hermes, vol. 124, no. 1, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1996, pp. 58 cf. Frova, A. L'Iscrizione di Ponzio Pilato a Cesarea, Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo 95, 1961, 419-43.

[19] Fadusà Ant. 19.9.2 § 363, 20.1.1.2 §2; 1.2 §14 Festusà Ant. 20.8.11 §193; Jewish War 2.14.1 §27

[20] Harris, Murray J. “References to Jesus in Classical Authors”, 349-50. 

.

Some Thoughts on Paul's Use of ὤφθη in 1 Corinthians 15

Paul's list of the resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians 15, likely derived from an early creedal tradition, is an important datum when analyzing Christian origins. While I think some apologists overstate the significance of this creed, it is nonetheless deserving of careful study as it gives us an account outside of and earlier than the Gospels from someone who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. 

A common objection to the appearances recounted in this creed is that the Greek word for "appeared", ὤφθη (passive form of ὁράω, "to see"), often denotes appearances in visions or other types of vague, spiritual manifestations. This, it is argued, casts doubt on whether the appearances of Jesus referenced in 1 Corinthians 15 are on the same footing as the robust, physical appearances recounted in the later Gospels. The purpose of this post is to lay to rest the notion, primarily through literary examples, that ὤφθη carries any relevant connotations beyond our English "appeared", and thus, it is hardly notable in analyzing the creed. 

Here is some more information on ὤφθη, and the root verb ὁράω. A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (BDAG) gives the following definitions for ὁράω:
1) to perceive by the eye, catch sight of, notice
2) to see someone in the course of making a friendly call, visit
3) to experience a condition or event, experience, witness
4) to be mentally or spiritually perceptive, perceive

Under definition #1, the passive form of the verb is defined as "become visible, appear". The passive form is what we're concerned with in 1 Corinthians 15.

From the 10-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT):
"The range of meaning is much the same in the case of ἰδεῖν ("to see") as in that of ὁράω. It denotes seeing as sense-perception, hence eye-witness."

Further:
"The important point about ὤφθη with the dative, however, is that the one who constitutes the subject is the one who acts, i.e., appears, shows himself, with no special emphasis on the resultant action of the person in the dative, namely, that he sees or perceives." (TDNT)

Instances in which ὁράω refers to normal seeing

For many of these examples I am indebted to NT Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God. I have divided the verses into sections which broadly delineate the different types of appearances involved. Most of the English translations are taken from the NASB. The Greek terms are taken from the Septuagint, specifically this online version.

Appearing before God

Deuteronomy 16.16
Three times a year all your males shall appear (ὀφθήσεται) before the Lord your God at the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Booths; and they are not to appear (ὀφθήσῃ) before the Lord empty-handed.

Deuteronomy 31.11
when all Israel comes to appear (ὀφθῆναι) before the Lord your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this Law before all Israel so that they hear it.

Isaiah 1.12
When you come to appear (ὀφθῆναι) before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courtyards?

Sirach 52.4
Thou shalt not appear (ὀφθῇς) empty before the Lord.

Appearing before other people

Genesis 46.29
And Joseph prepared his chariot and went up to Goshen to meet his father Israel; as soon as he appeared (ὀφθεὶς) to him, Joseph threw himself on his neck and wept on his neck a long time.

1 Kings 3.16
Then two women who were prostitutes came to the king and stood before him (ὤφθησαν).

1 Kings 18.1
Now it happened after many days that the word of the LORD came to Elijah in the third year, saying, “Go, present yourself (ὄφθητι) to Ahab, and I will provide rain on the face of the earth.” 

Sirach 39.4
He shall serve among great men, and appear (ὀφθήσεται) before princes: he will travel through strange countries; for he hath tried the good and the evil among men.

1 Maccabees 4.6
But as soon as it was day, Judas showed himself (ὤφθη) in the plain with three thousand men, who nevertheless had neither armour nor swords to their minds. 

1 Maccabees 4.19
As Judas was yet speaking these words, there appeared (ὤφθη) a part of them looking out of the mountain... 

Acts 7.26
And on the following day he appeared (ὤφθη) to them as they were fighting each other, and he tried to reconcile them to peace, by saying, ‘Men, you are brothers, why are you injuring each other?’

Other

Judges 5.8
New gods were chosen;
Then war was in the gates.
Not a shield or a spear was seen (ὀφθῇ)
Among forty thousand in Israel.

Genesis 1.9
Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear (ὤφθη)”; and it was so.

Leviticus 13.14
But whenever raw flesh appears (ὀφθῇ) on him, he shall be unclean. 

Deuteronomy 16.4
For seven days no leaven shall be seen (ὀφθήσεταί) with you in your entire territory...

2 Chronicles 9.11
From the algum trees the king made steps to the house of the LORD and for the king’s palace, and lyres and harps for the singers; and nothing like them was seen (ὤφθησαν) before in the land of Judah. 

Song of Solomon 2:12
The blossoms have already appeared (ὤφθη) in the land...

Exodus 10.28
Then Pharaoh said to him, “Get away from me! Be careful, do not see my face again, for on the day you see (ὀφθῇς) my face, you shall die!”

The Significance of ὤφθη

The above examples (more could be given) should suffice in showing that when Paul says the risen Jesus "appeared" no more needs be read into it than that Jesus appeared in some way to his disciples. It is worth noting that even if ὤφθη has spiritual or visionary connotations, this is still applicable to appearances of the risen Jesus. Paul held a very high Christology (Philippians 2:5-11) so it's understandable that he would use such a word in reference to the appearances.

In conclusion, there are plenty of instances in which the passive form of ὁράω and even the specific passive form ὤφθη refers to a regular, physical appearance. Of what exactly Paul or the early church believed these appearances to consist is a matter that must be settled on other grounds.

Was Jesus Wrong? (Mark 13:30)

Mark 13:30 is one of the hardest verses to interpret in the New Testament: “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” This saying follows the Olivet Discourse, in which Jesus teaches his return (parousia) and the signs which must precede it. The trouble here, of course, is that the generation to which Jesus was speaking is now long gone, and no parousia has come. 

I will not engage here in a full discussion of the New Testament eschatology with respect to the timing of Jesus’s return here. (Expect more posts and a fuller treatment later!). Nor will I engage in a detailed assessment on any particular view. I wish only to briefly discuss a few options and which one I currently prefer. 

The first option is that Jesus erred in his prediction. This view should not be considered an option for orthodox Christians, though some Christians have bitten the bullet (e.g. Dale Allison). [1] But even putting theology aside, we can show that this view doesn’t sit well with the text of Mark itself. In 13:32-35, Jesus says that he does not know the timing of his return. One can harmonize this with 13:30 if he wishes to say that Jesus knew the generational time but not the exact time. Such a move already concedes, however, that an apparent discrepancy exists and this move makes this theory more complicated. There are also good historical arguments against this position, but, again, these will have to be analyzed in a later post. 

The second is that the Olivet Discourse has nothing to do with the parousia and everything to do with the temple destruction in AD 70, so that “these things” refers only to the temple destruction. [2] This is initially an attractive view, but it does not fit well with Paul’s reuse of the same “coming on the clouds” imagery in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 with the parousia clearly in mind. Moreover, what Paul says comes from “a word of the Lord” — most likely the Jesus-tradition. This option also has trouble explaining Matthew’s presentation of the Olivet Discourse, in which the disciples’ question more clearly pertains to “the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3). 

The third is that “these things” refers only to the events mentioned before verses 24-27. In support of this view, Ben Witherington argues that “these things” in verse 30 refers back to “all these things” in verse 23. In his view, “that day or hour” whose timing Jesus does not know (v. 32) refers to the parousia which occurs “after that tribulation” (v. 24) described in verses 23 and before. [2] I would be curious to see how this view interprets the word “immediately” in Matthew’s version of Olivet Discourse (26:29), however. If the events in Matthew 26:9-14 (Mark 13:9-13) refer to those leading up to the temple destruction, in what sense can it be said that the parousia will come “immediately” afterwards? [3]

The fourth is that the word for “generation”, genea, refers not to a group characterized by a time span of 30-40 years but a group characterized by their rejection of Jesus’s message. Jesus would then be associating this “generation” with the eschatological generation of wickedness mentioned in other Jewish texts. Steffen Jöris [4] and Adam Winn [5] have argued along these lines. However, it is not clear to me that these scholars have shown genea to be able to have as atemporal a meaning as this view requires (though Luke 16:8 might be an exception). 

The fifth view is the one I hold to for now. This view hinges on the meaning of genētai (translated in my ESV as “take place”). This verb can plausibly be taken as an “ingressive aorist”. This aorist “may be used to stress the beginning of an action or entrance into a state.” Moreover, “the ingressive aorist is quite common.” [6] If genētai is understood this way, Mark 13:30 can be rendered, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things begin to take place.” Jesus is saying that “this generation” will live to see the beginnings of the thlipsis.

Luke 1:20 offers an intriguing grammatical parallel. The angel Gabriel says to Zechariah: “And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the days these things take place [genētai], because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.” The phrase “these things” refers to what is spoken by the angel in verses 13-17, which includes his wife bearing a son, who will “turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God”, and “go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.” However, Zechariah’s tongue is loosed after the boy is named, well before all “these things” have taken place (1:64). Thus genētai in 1:20 likely is an ingressive aorist and has the meaning of “begin to take place”. [7]

[1] Dale C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998). 

[2] So, e.g. N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019): 570. 

[3] Ben Witherington, Jesus, Paul, and the End of the World. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992) 42. This option is also defended by C. E. B. Cranfield, “St Mark 13”, Scottish Journal of Theology 7 (1954): 284-303. 

[4] The “tribulation” in Matthew 24:29 in my view refers to the “tribulation” in verse 9, not the “tribulation of verse 21. The “great tribulation” of verses 15-22 (i.e. the temple destruction) describe as especially sharp “birth pain” which will be felt somewhere in the more general “tribulation” period described in verses 9-14. This is suggested by the fact that the section of verses 15-22 begins after a summary of the general “tribulation” period, which ends with “and then the end will come” (v. 14). In other words, the temple destruction does not chronologically follow the general “tribulation” of verses 9-14 or chronologically precede the parousia described in verses 29-31. 

[5] Steffen Joris, “The Use and Function of genea in the Gospel of Mark: New Light on Mark 13:30.” PhD dissertation, LaTrope University, 2013. 

[6] Adam Winn, “‘This Generation’: Reconsidering Mark 13:30 in Light of Eschatological Expectations in Second Temple Judaism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 30.4 (2020): 540-560. 

[7] Dan B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1996) 558.

[8] The parallel to Luke 1:20 is pointed out by Royce Gordon Gruenler, https://www.billmounce.com/newtestamentgreek1/exegetical-insight-chapter-22.

A Response to "Resurrection Expert"

If you spend any time in the YouTube resurrection apologetics arena, you are likely to see an individual by the name of "Resurrection Expert" (henceforth 'RE'). This account is run by a skeptic who repeatedly copies and pastes a lengthy case against the resurrection to various comment forums, especially obscure Christian apologetics channels. While I don't think RE's case against the resurrection is particularly strong (though it engages with the evidence better than many YouTube skeptics), it is nonetheless prevalent, and deserving of a reply.

The comment is taken from this video. In what follows, I will quote portions of RE's comment and respond point-by-point. This isn't meant to be a complete response, and there will undoubtedly be good points that I omit, but I hope my comments are somewhat substantive. The first two sentences of RE's case are as follows:

The resurrection narratives grow in the telling which may indicate a legend that grew over time. Pay attention to how "experiencing" the Risen Jesus evolves in chronological order. 

Whenever someone makes a comment about the Gospels showing patterns of progressive exaggeration, it is paramount that we carefully read the relevant texts. It's trivially easy to cherry-pick details and create a façade of legendary development. For an example of this, see the second part of this post from Lydia McGrew.

Continuing:

Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows: Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1.

Paul's use of the Greek word ὤφθη ("ophthe") is unnecessarily controversial. All it should be taken to mean is that Jesus was "seen". Consider this passage from Philo: "For which reason it is said, not that the wise man saw (εἶδε) God but that God appeared (ὤφθη) to the wise man; for it was impossible for any one to comprehend by his own unassisted power the true living God, unless he himself displayed and revealed himself to him." (On Abraham 17:80). So it seems that ὤφθη refers to someone revealing himself of his own volition. A further analysis of this word might be the subject of a future post, but for now these comments will be adequate. 

RE quotes 2 Corinthians 12:1, alleging that this establishes the appearances as "visions and revelations": "Boasting is necessary, though it is not beneficial; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord." This verse isn't necessarily indicating that the appearances of the risen Jesus were some vague, spiritual reality. Paul uses the future tense which cautions against any comparison with the appearances that already happened, described in the 1 Corinthians 15:5-8.

The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation from heaven - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances.

See here for a discussion of the physicality of the Damascus road experience. Paul uses the word ὤφθη to describe both his encounter with Jesus as well as the experiences of the other disciples. In Luke-Acts, however, we read that Paul's conversion experience was much more visionary than the robust, flesh-and-blood Jesus that appeared after his resurrection. Does this mean that the resurrection appearances were initially believed to be "spiritual", with the details being added in over time? Not necessarily. While it's certainly possible that Paul is saying that their experiences are the same as his, it's also possible that he's pushing his up to the level of theirs. Paul is trying to establish his apostolic credentials (see 1 Corinthians 9.1: "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?"). In addition to this, the broad lexical range of ὤφθη means that Paul's usage of the same word doesn't establish much.

But does Paul actually say his appearance is the same as the others? Scholars like Kirk MacGregor argue that Paul's use of the phrase "as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me" as a prefix to his resurrection encounter implies that Jesus appeared to Paul in a different way [1]. Though this can't be established with much confidence, it weakens the claim that Paul draws no distinction between the various resurrection appearances.

And finally, is it relevant that the ascension isn't mentioned in this creed? Not really. There's no reason to expect a condensed creed to contain everything pertaining to Jesus' resurrection. Unless RE can give us a reason to think Paul should have mentioned the ascension before adding his appearance to the creed, Paul's omission of it is irrelevant.

This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances."

Not necessarily, but it's beside the point anyway. The creed in 1 Corinthians 15 can't tell us what kind of appearances the disciples claimed to have had (this is a problem with adopting a minimalist approach in defending the resurrection); for that, we need to turn to the Gospels.

Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the assumption that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates.

Paul nowhere says that the disciples touched Jesus, ate with Jesus, spoke with Jesus, or did anything of that sort, but he nowhere denies it either. This is a recurring problem in RE's apply: pointing out hypotheticals that are consistent with a certain datum but are nowhere evidenced by that datum. I think the Pauline corpus itself leaves it open as to whether the appearances of Jesus were like those recorded later in the Gospels. However, a case can be made that if Paul was a traveling companion of Luke (who does include physical details in his resurrection narrative), it's most likely that his understanding of the resurrection would be the same as Luke's. I do not intend to make that case here.

What Paul says in Phillipians [sic] 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that all of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse.

All of the above verses are consistent with Jesus going straight to heaven but are not at all required by it. For example, Romans 8.34 says "Christ Jesus is He who died, but rather, was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us." There is no reason there can't be time in between the resurrection and the implied ascension. In fact, there is clearly time between the death and the resurrection as Paul elsewhere implies that Jesus was raised on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:4). So yes, Paul could be saying that Jesus went straight to heaven after his resurrection, but there's no reason to think he is. Thus, the second part of the above text is irrelevant.

He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't.

As has been discussed on this blog before, the argument from silence is a weak form of historiography. Paul's omission of the empty tomb doesn't mean much.

RE now begins a comparison of the resurrection narratives in the Gospels. At this point, I will not attempt to argue with the provided dating, but it's worth noting that even fairly liberal scholars date them a bit earlier than is done here. RE begins:

Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

Note that Paul, our earliest source, has the most appearances. This weakens the evidential force of the claim that there are more appearances in the later Gospels—belief in all these appearances is very early. This is also the only place where we have a mention of the appearance to the 500. It might be alluded to in Matthew's account, but the fact that no Gospel narrates this appearance is interesting.

Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable.

Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

There is no contradiction between Matthew and Mark. Mark could hardly have meant that the women told no one, otherwise there wouldn't be a story to write. Most likely, he meant that the women didn't go screaming through Jerusalem that Jesus was risen.

RE accuses Matthew of "spicing things up". Note that the great earthquake and "zombie apocalypse" (an inept, rhetorically-charged description unfitting for anyone engaged in serious scholarship) appear only in Matthew but are absent in Luke and John. This is an example of reverse legendary development. RE attempts to turn this into a point against the reliability of the Gospels, claiming "If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period." Again, an argument from silence.

Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Acts adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days. Luke omits any appearance to the women. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem.

Again, no contradiction with the women telling the disciples. And there's no reason Jesus couldn't appear in both Jerusalem and Galilee. There are some other objections to the order of the appearances, especially regarding Jerusalem and Galilee, but as RE doesn't mention them I won't discuss them here. Furthermore, the argument that the Gospel authors used physical details to establish a bodily resurrection has been subject to criticism. [2]

John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip. 

Jesus' being able to walk through walls is actually surprising if John is trying to emphasize the physicality of the resurrection, as RE alleges, especially given the rise of gnostic teachings in the late first century asserting that Jesus did not have a physical body. Johannine Christology is more explicitly divine than Synoptic Christology, but the latter is on the same level as the former and they are not inconsistent. A good treatment of Markan Christology can be found in Michael Bird's book Jesus the Eternal Son.

As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. 

Minor inconsistencies are not surprising on eyewitness testimony. All of the major "inconsistencies" RE points out are merely where some Gospels record things that others don't. These, of course, are not inconsistencies, and are not surprising if the Gospels go back to eyewitness testimony, suggesting independence in the accounts.

None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 

Which suggests that the Gospels weren't blindly copying from earlier sources.

and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. 

The earlier sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the latest reports (e.g., the appearance to the 500, the guards at the tomb, the resurrection of the saints).

The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! 

Notice what RE has done here: earlier in the comment he argued that Paul's Christology is consistent with a "spiritual/mystical Christ". Now he's arguing that Paul believed in a spiritual/mystical Christ. This is fallacious reasoning. We shouldn't assume that Paul's beliefs about the resurrection differed fundamentally from, say, Luke's, unless we have good reason to do so. RE has not met this burden of proof.

So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports).

So upon critically examining RE's comment we can see the clear linear development that RE started with vague possibilities and evolved to the poorly-established assertions of legendary development in the Gospels (which are firsthand reports).

If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends.

Most events from history are not documented as many times within the first century of their occurrence as the resurrection of Jesus, so comparisons will be hard to find. And claims of legendary development can be shown to be evidentially trivial. Allegedly, we have Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, with each one being more legendary than the one before it. The probability of this happening by chance is 1 in (5 x 4 x 3 x 2) or 1 in 120. But Paul gives us plenty of details that the other Gospels don't, and he's not narrating the resurrection appearances. Thus, his testimony can't be used to establish legendary development. So the odds of the Gospels falling into a pattern of legendary development by chance are 1 in (4 x 3 x 2) or 1 in 24. Mark ends his narrative without describing any resurrection appearances, even though these were clearly believed in at the time (1 Cor 15). Given how much shorter Mark's Gospel is than the others, it's clear he was trying to write a compressed account. We have no idea what details he would have recorded had he decided to narrate any appearances. So his silence on the encounters doesn't mean much either, meaning we're down to 1 in (3 x 2) or 1 in 6. Given that Matthew and Luke were composed at about the same time, and it's unlikely either used the other, there's not much plausibility to a claim of legendary development. This means the only two data points are Matthew/Luke and John, where John contains the more elaborate account. The odds of this happening by chance are 1 in 2, which doesn't provide much evidence for legendary development. [3]

Someone might object that this assumes the Gospels ostensibly record different stages of legendary development, whereas we should expect more consistency if no legendary development took place. Two responses are in order. First, there's no reason to expect more consistency between the accounts than we get. Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days in different places to different people. If we had independent accounts, there's no reason to expect anyone would choose to narrate the same appearances, let alone the same details in those appearances. Second, I have presented some reasons to think we don't have accounts in different stages of legendary development. If the Matthean resurrection of the saints appeared only in John, skeptics would certainly point to this as evidence of legendary development. Thus, the fact that it appears early and then drops out entirely is evidence against legendary development.

More could be said, but RE's case against the resurrection is on weak evidential ground. For more criticism of his arguments, I would recommend Steve Hays' takedowns here and here (RE is using an alias).

Notes and References 

[1] Kirk R. MacGregor, "1 Corinthians 15:3B-6A, 7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (June 2006):225-234.
I credit the discovery of this reference to an excellent article by Jonathan McLatchie on the 1 Corinthians 15 creedal tradition.

[2] See here: https://www.academia.edu/35705227/The_Doubt_of_the_Apostles_and_the_Resurrection_Faith_of_the_Early_Church_WUNT_II_495_T%C3%BCbingen_Mohr_Siebeck_2019_PREVIEW

[3] Credit again to Jonathan McLatchie for developing this line of argumentation. 

My Exchange With A Mythicist

 I got into it with a Jesus mythicist on Facebook. I usually don't engage mythicism, but there wasn't much of a good Christian response in the thread, so I wanted to engage. We covered several different areas. The discussion may benefit some readers, so I wanted to post it here. I've reformatted the comments a bit so that it is easier to follow along with. 

Joel

"The Gospels, Paul, and Josephus"

1) Fictional stories written by anonymous people who never met Jesus.

2) The earliest evidence for Christianity, that actually is evidence against a historical Jesus.

3) A Christian forgery from centuries later.

Wow.

Lucas

"1) Fictional stories written by anonymous people who never met Jesus."

You have the burden here. (1) Demonstrate that the Gospels are not biographies and (2) demonstrate that they were not written by eyewitnesses.

"2) The earliest evidence for Christianity, that actually is evidence against a historical Jesus."

What do you mean? Are you referring to Paul here? If so, you should re-read the Pauline corpus. See: Gal. 3:16; 4:4; Rom. 1:3, 1 Cor. 9:5; 1 Thess. 2:14-15, etc. I can give many more verses upon request.

"3) A Christian forgery from centuries later."

Only a partial forgery. Those would be the parts of the Testimonium that call Jesus the Messiah and say that he was raised from the dead.

Joel

"You have the burden here."

False. This is the consensus of scholars.

"(1) Demonstrate that the Gospels are not biographies"

Fictional biographies are a thing, so you don't even know what you're asking for.

"(2) demonstrate that they were not written by eyewitnesses."

They don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses. Only religious extremists argue otherwise.

"Are you referring to Paul here?"

Unless you've discovered an earlier source than Paul.

"If so, you should re-read the Pauline corpus. See: Gal. 3:16; 4:4; Rom. 1:3, 1 Cor. 9:5; 1 Thess. 2:14-15, etc. I can give many more verses upon request."

All refuted in the scholarship already. Note your reliance on cherry picking ambiguous verses and forgeries rather than taking the entire context into account.

"Only a partial forgery. Those would be the parts of the Testimonium that call Jesus the Messiah and say that he was raised from the dead."

This is an apologetic argument based on no evidence. It is a fallacy of begging the question.

Lucas

"False. This is the consensus of scholars."

No, it's not. That the Gospels are biographies has been the consensus since Richard Burridge published his "What Are The Gospels?" There were also figures before him such as Charles Talbert.

"Fictional biographies are a thing, so you don't even know what you're asking for."

I'm aware. I'm asking you to show the Gospels are fictional, as opposed to information and witness based.

"They don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses. Only religious extremists argue otherwise."

-Luke (1:1-4) claims to have gotten his information from the eyewitnesses. Also, given the data from Acts, he was around the apostles frequently.

-John 19:35; 21:24, anyone?

-Furthermore, the anonymity of the Gospels has it's roots in Jewish historiography, i.e. 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, etc.

"Unless you've discovered an earlier source than Paul."

No need to be snarky. In order for a discussion to go well, we need to be on the same page.

"All refuted in the scholarship already. Note your reliance on cherry picking ambiguous verses and forgeries rather than taking the entire context into account."

Do you understand a burden of proof? How are these "refuted in scholarship?" To the contrary, see "On Richard Carrier’s Doubts

A Response to Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might

Have Reason for Doubt" by Daniel Gullotta in Journal for the study of the historical Jesus 15 (2017) 310-346 as well as "The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus

in Paul’s Letters" by Simon Gathercole in Journal for the study of the historical Jesus 16 (2018) 183-212. The irony here is that I am relying on contemporary scholarship, meanwhile you are piggy-backing on Carrier's blog posts.

"This is an apologetic argument based on no evidence. It is a fallacy of begging the question."

Is Robert Van Voorst an apologist? Is Willem Blom an apologist? Is Alice Whealey an apologist?

Joel

"the Gospels are biographies"

Irrelevant. Read my comment before replying to it.

"I'm asking you to show the Gospels are fictional"

They are full of magic, anachronisms, narrative tropes, lifts from other fictions, etc. It's not even debated outside of cult fundamentalist circles anymore because they're so obviously fictional.

"Luke (1:1-4) claims to have gotten his information from the eyewitnesses."

He didn't claim to be an eyewitness. Nice attempt to move the goalposts but I'm not falling for that trick. And we know he lied because he was just copying Mark.

"Also, given the data from Acts, he was around the apostles frequently."

A second century fiction is not a reliable source for the early first century. Copying from Josephus and Homer is not the same as being an eyewitness. And he lied about Paul. This is the worst kind of source.

"John 19:35; 21:24, anyone?"

The authors do not claim to be eyewitnesses. Lazarus is a fictional character. Not an eyewitness.

"Furthermore, the anonymity of the Gospels has it's roots in Jewish historiography, i.e. 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, etc."

Unreliable anonymous source matches unreliable anonymous sources. Agreed.

"see "On Richard Carrier’s Doubts

A Response to Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might

Have Reason for Doubt" by Daniel Gullotta in Journal for the study of the historical Jesus 15 (2017) 310-346 as well as "The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus

in Paul’s Letters" by Simon Gathercole in Journal for the study of the historical Jesus 16 (2018) 183-212. The irony here is that I am relying on contemporary scholarship, meanwhile you are piggy-backing on Carrier's blog posts."

If you're going to rely on an argument you should check that it's actually true and logically valid first. Ignorant complaints by people who haven't even read the text they're supposed to be responding to is hardly a good thing to associate yourself with.

"Is Robert Van Voorst an apologist? Is Willem Blom an apologist? Is Alice Whealey an apologist?"

Their arguments are fallacious and based on falsehoods. We can only speculate on their motives for ignoring logic and facts.

Lucas

somehow this reply is worse than the last one. You still have not demonstrated any of your claims.

"They are full of magic, anachronisms, narrative tropes, lifts from other fictions, etc. It's not even debated outside of cult fundamentalist circles anymore because they're so obviously fictional."

Miracles aren't magic by definition. A miracle is an even that would not have happened had the natural world not been left to itself. Magic is just a type of illusion created by a natural agent.

I need YOU to give me examples of anachronisms and lifts from other mythologies. I don't understand your failure to recognize this.

"He didn't claim to be an eyewitness. Nice attempt to move the goalposts but I'm not falling for that trick. And we know he lied because he was just copying Mark."

I didn't say he was an eyewitness. You want to win an argument in a comment section so desperately that you don't read my replies carefully. Here is what I wrote: "Luke (1:1-4) CLAIMS TO HAVE GOTTEN HIS INFORMATION from the eyewitnesses." Blatant misreading on your end.

Using Mark as a source, you mean? As Craig Keener observes: "The dependence of Luke and Matthew on information in Mark suggests two things: 1: their own commitment to information, rather than pure invention; 2: recognition that Mark provided such information." Christobiography (Eerdmans, 2019) p. 154.

"A second century fiction is not a reliable source for the early first century. Copying from Josephus and Homer is not the same as being an eyewitness. And he lied about Paul. This is the worst kind of source."

Which route do you want to take this? Theudas, the Egyptian or Lysanians? Happy to discuss these lines of evidence. 

Also, given your insistence on the scholars disagreeing with me, can you list some scholars, other than Dennis MacDonald that think any of the NT authors used Homer? Convenient how everyone missed this until Dennis MacDonald came around!

"The authors do not claim to be eyewitnesses. Lazarus is a fictional character. Not an eyewitness."

Oh my, Lazarus isn't the beloved disciple. Never mind your fictional scholars, have you ever read the Gospels?

"Unreliable anonymous source matches unreliable anonymous sources. Agreed."

The reliability of these documents is irrelevant to this part of the discussion. The point is that the Jewish people took these texts as historically reliable and the Gospel authors lined themselves up with these texts.

"If you're going to rely on an argument you should check that it's actually true and logically valid first. Ignorant complaints by people who haven't even read the text they're supposed to be responding to is hardly a good thing to associate yourself with."

In context, I cited this to demonstrate that the scholars are in AGREEMENT that Paul puts Jesus as a human on earth. That aside, you have failed to back up a single claim of yours.

Also, you're aware the journal these articles were published in is one of the leading NT journals around, right? They've certainly read the texts in question. Could you imagine making it through peer-review without reading the very subject in question! I suppose this is what happens in Joel's imaginary world.