3. Centrality of resurrection
Third, while the truth of the resurrection may precede and determine church authority, to attempt to circumscribe it almost totally within this latter, narrow parameter is certainly misplaced. In other words, the resurrection is absolutely central to the New Testament as a whole. It is related to far more than just socio-political factors in the early church, but this does not justify making any one of these other themes the chief focus, either.
Even a summary listing could take a separate chapter. For example, the resurrection is a sign for unbelievers (Matt. 12:38-40; 16:1-4) as well as a comfort for believers (John 11:23-26; Luke 24:36-39). It was an indispensable part of the gospel (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:1-5) and the heart of early preaching (Acts 4:2; 4:33). It was the impetus for evangelism (Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:45-48) and the chief message in Paul’s church planting methods (Acts 17:1-4).
Continuing, it provided daily power for the believer (Phil. 3:10; Rom. 8:11) and was the grounds for total commitment (1 Cor. 15:58). Believers would be raised like Jesus (1 John 3:2; Phil. 3:21) and the resurrection guarantees the reality of heaven (1 Pet. 1:3-5). And as we saw earlier in Paul, Acts also insists that one could not even be an apostle without having been a witness to this event (1:21-22).
An additional evidence for the resurrection and an especially powerful pointer to its centrality that is generally ignored by members of the Jesus Seminar is the presence of early creedal traditions in the preaching of Acts. Yet there is strong evidence that the (especially Petrine) sermons record reliable accounts of the early messages on the death and resurrection of Jesus, including his appearances. Dodd also argues that these confessions are perhaps as early as Paul’s creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff.44
4. Resurrection facts
Fourth, we still must deal with the data itself. Crossan admits that we have Paul’s testimony concerning his personal experience, and that his report dates very early.45 Then he concludes that “trances and visions” probably did occur, singling out Paul’s experience as the chief example.46 While this is not the place to argue for the historicity of these events, or their being caused by the risen Jesus,47 we will simply note here that Crossan apparently does not intend to deny the reality of these experiences. Neither has he chosen to argue a naturalistic hypothesis. As such, they have to be adequately explained. And as we have argued, it is insufficient to attempt to pass them off as mere indications of early church power structures.
5. Other religious phenomena
Fifth, while Crossan does not deny the disciples’ experiences, he further downplays their uniqueness by his remark that “trances or visions” are found in “every religion.”48 Such a comparison is intriguing, since Crossan states earlier that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ appearances are not “entranced revelations.” He declares that they “bear no marks of such phenomena.”49
Regardless, whether such curiosities are taught in other belief systems is not the issue. Anyone can make claims. The real question is whether they can be demonstrated. I have argued elsewhere that such non-Christian claims are poorly evidenced.50 If this is the case, they merely number among the myriads of unproven religious assertions. As such, they are not rivals to Jesus’ resurrection.
In sum, Crossan fails to adequately explain or dismiss the resurrection of Jesus. His socio-political interpretation is unproven. Additionally, he fails to realize that even if his thesis is accurate, not only is it still an inadequate basis for his de-emphasis of the facticity of Jesus’ resurrection, but his theme actually requires this event. Further, the resurrection is central not only to the early Christian authority structures, but to the New Testament as a whole. Yet this event cannot be reduced to any of these themes. Additionally, not only does Crossan admit the possibility of “visions,” but his attempt to eliminate their uniqueness by noting the presence of such occurrences in other religions also fails.
Marcus Borg
On this topic also, Borg takes a more moderate approach than does Crossan, addressing the resurrection appearances of Jesus at more length, as well. Borg thinks that, while “the story of the historical Jesus ends with his death on a Friday in A.D. 30, the story of Jesus does not end there.” According to Jesus’ followers, “he appeared to them in a new way beginning on Easter Sunday.”51
However, “[w]e cannot know exactly what happened. According to the earliest accounts of Easter reported by his followers, Jesus ‘appeared to them’” but “[w]e do not know what form those appearances took” since they are sometimes described as visionary and other times as corporeal. Did anything happen to Jesus’ body? Borg states that, in historical terms, “we cannot say,” maintaining that Jesus’ resurrection was not a reanimation of his corpse but that “Jesus’ followers continued to experience him as a living reality . . . .”52 Presumably, Borg thinks that the truth lies somewhere in between these two positions.
In a more recent article that attempts to answer this question, Borg adds a few items. He continues to take seriously the claims that Jesus appeared, largely because such is the testimony of Paul, whom he considers the earliest New Testament author, the only eyewitness writer we have, and because this was the central event for him. Thus we must make sense of these occurrences. Yet, these are not “straightforward events” and could not have been photographed. Again, they signify the continuing presence of Jesus in “the lives of Christians as both companion and lord.”53
We will look briefly at Borg’s proposal by responding to his own question concerning the nature of Jesus’ appearances. Although it is a crucially important issue, we will not be able to argue here the actual nature of these appearances,54 since we are more interested at this point in their facticity. But obviously, these scholars struggle with the bodily nature of the appearances.
Critique
Borg accepts the historicity of a number of facts that, together, indicate that Jesus actually appeared to his followers after his resurrection. This is the case even if we were to examine only Paul’s testimony, which is what Borg prefers. Borg is clear that Jesus really died and his followers reported that he had appeared to them afterwards. Paul was an early eyewitness to these occurrences. As a result, his life (as well as that of the other followers) was changed by what became his central message. They were convinced both that Jesus was alive and that he was their Lord.55
As we have said, Borg does not define or identify the nature of these appearances. Some of his language implies that he doubts their objective nature, especially when he seems to say that they are almost synonymous with the Christian conviction that Jesus is spiritually present with his followers. But on the other hand, he admits the crucial data for the early, eyewitness testimony to the appearances and seems to remain open to some unspecified type of manifestations.
It would seem that Borg has painted himself into a corner here. He realizes that the earliest, eyewitness data dictate, among other details, that Jesus appeared to Paul and many others after his death. Yet, he does not venture an alternative hypothesis such as hallucinations or other subjective conjectures. At any rate, such theses fail anyway.56 So the chief question is this: how does Borg account for these admittedly real experiences, particularly when they happened to groups of people?
In short, even the minimal amount of information supplied by Borg argues for objective appearances, while contrary suppositions are disproven. This conclusion is further reinforced by both the early, apostolic preaching in Acts, as well as the Gospel narratives.