.

Background

I’m currently blogging about the first chapter of Part 2 of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona.

This chapter is numbered as Chapter 3, is titled “A Quintet of Facts (4+1)”, and is subtitled The First Two.

As a refresher, “minimal facts” are facts that:

• Are agreed on by nearly all scholars
• Are strongly supported by the evidence
• Collectively build a strong case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus

You are here

We covered the first minimal fact (“Jesus died by crucifixion”) previously…see post #10 in hyperlinked series outline above.

There is a quite a bit of material regarding the 2nd minimal fact (“Jesus’s disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them“), and this is our third post about it. The authors break this fact into two sub-facts:

1. They claimed it
2. They believed it

We haven’t even made it to the 2nd sub-fact yet! The authors present so much interesting information about the Scriptures and the scholarly consensus thereon. God willing, I’m going to continue talking about the first sub-fact today: They claimed it.

Matthew

If I simply quoted Matthew 28:9, the first resurrection appearance of Jesus in that gospel, I might not convince a nonbeliever of the resurrection. But what about a more modest claim?

What if I simply pointed out that chapter 28 does document Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” spreading news of the resurrection (verses 8-10, and 16)? And what if I mentioned that “Most scholars believe the gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90” (1), which means that many people who lived through the alleged events of the gospel would still have been alive when it was written?

Would you at least take that as decent evidence of the mere fact that Jesus’s inner circle claimed He rose again?

What if I added three more?

Mark

This gospel was apparently written even earlier: “Most scholars date Mark to c. 66–74 AD” (2). Mark 16:10 records Mary Magdalene telling the disciples about the resurrection.

Luke

Again, we see a mainstream, secular source (wikipedia) reporting that the greater weight of evidence points to a 1st century composition: “The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110”. (3)

Luke 24:9 again tells how the women spread the resurrection story to the unbelieving ears of the disciples.

John

“John reached its final form around AD 90–110,^[7] although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier.” (4)

[Jhn 20:18, 25 KJV] 18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and [that] he had spoken these things unto her. … 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

[Jhn 21:24 KJV] 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Putting the puzzle pieces together

Again, we are deferring the direct question of the resurrection until later in the discussion; for now, we are just asking whether or not the disciples claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. And I grant there are many possible explanations for why 4 gospels could appear in the late first century, reporting resurrection claims of the disciples.

But wouldn’t the most logical explanation of the disciples’ resurrection claims in the gospels be that…the disciples actually made those claims?

God bless, thanks for reading!

Links:

1. Gospel of Matthew on wikipedia
2. Gospel of Mark on wikipedia
3. Gospel of Luke on wikipedia
4. Gospel of John on wikipedia