Soon after Jesus’s crucifixion, were traditional witnesses testifying that Jesus appeared to them alive from the dead?

  • Question

    a surprised crowd with a speech bubble containing jesus with arms open

    Jesus was crucified around AD 30. Yet within days (or at most, a few years), masses of his followers were already proclaiming—in creedal form—that Jesus had risen and appeared to the apostles, James, and others. Because the creed was evangelistic in nature, it understandably omits the more embarrassing detail that the first witnesses were women. However, multiple biographical accounts do record that women were the first to see him. Regardless of whether all these alleged witnesses truly saw anything, the key historical question is this: Were these named individuals, by AD 30 (and Paul by AD 32), sincerely proclaiming Jesus had appeared to them alive after having died?

  • Historians

    • Gary Habermas & Michael Licona: “[t]here is a virtually unanimous consensus among scholars today who hold that Jesus’ original disciples said that he appeared to them risen from the dead.” [The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregal, 2004), 55.]
    • See quotes from historians and standard works agreeing that the traditional witnesess were at least ‘not lying’ about their belief that Jesus appeared to them. This of course entails that the same historians and standard works take for granted that the apostles were in fact claiming Jesus appeared to them.
“Yes, after all…

  • * E.g. “He visited us!” says Mary & women

    A woman kneels grabbing on to the robe of Jesus who is facing her. Another woman is in check behind them.

    A group of women followers of Jesus, including Mary Magdalene among them, were testifying that Jesus had group-appeared to them alive from the dead.

    This page analyzes 5 reasons to agree:

    • AD 30-35 Christians were saying, “Jesus visited Mary & the women!’. At this earliest stage of the church, Mary was prominent, influential, and easily consulted—likely regularly so. Because of this, she would have naturally regulated any rumors involving herself. No claims about her persisted without her approval, and on the other hand if she did approve or promote a claim about Jesus appearing to her, it would’ve circulated rapidly.
    • The Mary-visit reports spew witness-based content. The reports show signs of being sourced from actual witnesses—for example, in the careful naming of the female witnesses by Matthew and John, or how seemingly conflicting reports end up harmonizing naturally (like mice describing different parts of an elephant). They also include peculiar vividness and memorable details that don't serve the narrative. Since the Gospels in general show witness-based content, we should lean toward seeing this report as witness-based too.
    • Both Matthew and John checked “Jesus visited Mary!” with Mary. Like other Greco-Roman biographers, the Gospel writers tended to check their reports with available witnesses. Mary was accessible to those seeking her account, and fabricating stories about her was risky—misrepresenting her could get their Gospel text rejected. So if Matthew and John recorded that Jesus appeared to Mary and the women, it likely reflects what Mary herself said.
    • The visit reports formed honestly (not a lie/legend). The report is far too early, contextually appropriate, and inconvenient to be a fabrication. It wasn’t the kind of thing early Christians would invent—especially not with details like no men being present to substantiate the women's experience. (In an ancient patriarchal society, the testimony of a women was devalued.) Had it been a lie, it would likely have been caught and the originators would be shunned (a far bigger deal in this culture). The early church had strong mechanisms for shutting down rumors.
    • The “Visited Mary!” report is a Jerusalem church teaching. The report is early and rooted in the Jerusalem church, which held teaching authority in this foundational phase. Mary was a celebrated member there, and traditions about her flowed from this community. Objections based on 1 Cor 15, Luke 24, or Mark 16 omitting the report don’t stand up to scrutiny. The Jerusalem church would not have misrepresented Mary—and given her membership and voice, the report almost certainly reflects her own testimony, likely shared publicly and repeatedly in early Sunday gatherings.

    This helps show that the traditional witnesses were testifying to Jesus's appearing to them for the obvious reason: it's a direct example of a traditional witnesses—specifically, a group of them, including Mary and the other women—all reporting firsthand experience.

    But no…

    So what? Plausibly…

    • Mary’s group was lying.
    • Mary’s group just saw a hallucination of Jesus.

    Or in general…

  • * E.g. “He visited us!” says Cleopas & co

    Cleopas and his traveling companion (on the road to Emmaus) were testifying that Jesus appeared to them along the way.

    See this page to explore 5 arguments:

    • In general, Luke inherits his accounts from eyewitnesses So, by default, we can be similarly confident that this account ultimately came from the relevant eyewitnesses—namely, Cleopas and his companion.
    • In AD 30, the Jerusalem church said soThe early Church's teachings echoed the authentic testimony of involved witnesses. In this case, Cleopas and his companion would have controlled how stories about them circulated, meaning the community’s version reflects what they themselves were saying.
    • 1st church strove to reject Jesus-bio not vetted by witnesses,[Forthcoming]. If this story didn’t actually come from Cleopas, the fabrication would’ve been quickly and easily exposed. The early church operated under strict norms for preserving credible accounts.
    • The account is not ultimately a lie/legend. And if it’s neither a lie nor a legend, the only plausible explanation left is that it reflects authentic witness testimony from Cleopas and his companion.
    • Ps. Mk 16:12-13 approved “Cleopas thinks he did!”[Forthcoming] While often considered a later source, it still reflects a credible stream of tradition. It shows that this report was widely accepted in early Christian circles and had at least some independent validation.

    That Cleopas and his companion were testifying to seeing Jesus appear to them helps establish the broader claim that Jesus appeared to his followers. Why? Because it's a straightforward example of witnesses saying exactly that.

    So what? Perhaps…

    • Cleopas and his companion were lying. [Forthcoming]
    • Cleopas and his companion hallucinated. [Forthcoming]

    Or in general…

  • * E.g. “He visited me!” says Peter

    The apostle Peter was going around proclaming and publicly maintaining that Jesus individually appeared to him, alive from the dead, after Jesus was crucified and buried.

    This page considers these 4 arguments:

    Peter's proclaiming that Jesus appeared to him individually is relevant to this page because it is another straightforward example of a traditional witness testifying that Jesus visited them alive from the dead.

    But so what? Plausibly… (All forthcoming)

    • Peter was lying.
    • Peter hallucinated.
    • Peter suffered a delusion.

    Or in general…

  • * E.g. “He visited us!” say ‘the 12’ apostles

    Jesus’s apostles (“the 12”) claimed Jesus appeared to them as a group.

    One upcoming page will debate these 14 examples/evidences:

    • E.g. To 10+ after Emmaus.
    • E.g. To 11 (now with Thomas).
    • E.g. To 7 @ Lake Tiberius.
    • E.g. To many @ Mt Galilee.
    • E.g. To many for 40 days.
    • Jerusalem church: “They say He visited”.
    • Paul knew Peter etc.
    • Mk's author knew Peter etc.
    • Lk's author knew Peter etc.
    • Mt's author knew Peter etc.
    • Jn's author knew Peter etc.
    • Clement knew Peter
    • The Corinthians knew Peter
    • No trace of dispute

    This is relevant because it's a straightforward example of a traditional group of witnesses testifying that Jesus appeared to them alive from the dead.

    But no… (all forthcoming)

    • Mark narrates no appearance to them.

    So what? Plausibly…

    • The apostles lying.
    • The apostles just saw a hallucination of Jesus.

    Or in general…

  • * E.g. “He group-visited us!” say 100-500 “brethren”

    A known group of hundreds of brethren (e.g. 500) were publicly maintaining that Jesus visited them collectively as a group after his crucifixion.

    One upcoming page will debate these 3 arguments:

    • E.g. 1 Cor 15:6 creed's “to 500” relays witness testimony.
    • 1st church: “Jesus visited the 500!”.
    • “The 500” = the Galilee witnesses (Mt 28)

    But no...

    • It is not mentioned elsewhere. (forthcoming)

    But so what? Plausibly… (all forthcoming)

    • The 500 were lying.
    • The 500 hallucinated.
    • The 500 collectively suffered a delusion.

    Or in general…

  • * E.g. “He visited me!” says James

    James was testifying that Jesus appeared to him shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion.

    A full page will discuss these 5 arguments:

    • 1 Cor 15 is was formed by the AD 30 Jerusalem church.
    • The 1st church affirmed 1 Cor 15:7 “appeared to James.”
    • Paul says Jesus appeared to James.
    • James was willing to die for his faith in Christ.
    • James soon became the leader of the church.

    But so what? Plausibly… (all forthcoming)

    • James was lying.
    • James hallucinated.
    • James suffered a delusion.

    Or in general…

  • * E.g. “He visited us!” say Acts 1 apostle-competitors

    The competitors for being the 12th apostle, referred to in Acts 1, consists of a large pool of well-known witnesses to the risen Jesus, including the finalists: “Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias”.1 , 2

    But so what? Plausibly… (all forthcoming)

    1. • Acts 1:21-26 — Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.... And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
    2. Importantly, this group consisted of men. But women and children would've also been witnesses who were simply left out of the competition due to their age and gender.
      • Timothy and Lydia McGrew: “In passing we should note that the election of Matthias supports Paul’s contention (1 Corinthians 15:1–8) that Jesus after his resurrection appeared to a larger number of people than the eleven. The account in Acts shows that despite some fairly specific requirements, Peter has his pick among candidates for Judas’s replacement: … The disciples appoint Matthias and Joseph called Justus to be the finalists, and they draw lots for Judas’s vacant position. Not only does this account give us the name of another putative witness (Joseph), it also can plausibly be taken to imply that there were more to choose from originally who met the requirements (cf. Trites 2004, p. 137).” [“The Argument from Miracles” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Blackwell, 2009), 610-611.]

  • * E.g. “He visited me!” says Paul

    Jesus appears with arms raised, a halo over his head, with beams radiating out. Falling down in front of Jesus is a surprised man.

    Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was publicly proclaiming, “Jesus appeared to me alive from the dead!”

    This page analyzes these 5 arguments:

    • The Jerusalem church taught “Paul says this.”
    • In 1 Cor 9:1, Paul says “Have I not seen”?
    • In 1 Cor 15:8f, Paul says “He appeared to me”
    • Acts 9, 22, 26 etc. say so
    • In Gal 1:16, Paul says “revealed his son to me”

    But so what? Plausibly…

    • Paul was lying, deceptively claiming to have seen Jesus appear to while while being quite aware that he saw no such thing.
    • Paul hallucinated, seeing a subjective vision of Jesus produced by his own mind.
    • Paul suffered a delusion or false memory, thinking he saw Jesus despite having no experience at all (not even a misleading one!).

    Or in general…

  • 1st church’s Jesus-bio matched witness testimony

    The 1st church was saying Jesus visited the traditional witnesses.

    This page discusses these 6 examples:

    • E.g. 1st church said: “Jesus visited Mary.”
    • E.g. 1st church said: “Jesus visited cleopas & co.”
    • E.g. 1st church said: “Jesus appeared to Peter.”
    • E.g. 1st church said: “Jesus visited the 12.”
    • E.g. 1st church says, “Jesus appeared to James.”
    • E.g. 1st church says, “Jesus appeared to the 500.”

    This is relevant if the 1st church started and kept preaching that Jesus appeared to witnesses (e.g. Mary and the apostles).

    But so what? Plausibly...

    • The 1st church wasn’t saying Jesus appeared to named persons. (Forthcoming)

  • The gospels relayed witness testimony

    In writing about Jesus's life and deeds, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John adeptly relayed information only from eyewitness testimony (directly or indirectly).

    This page evaluates these 7 arguments:

    • Justin Maryr oft calls the gospels apostolic “memoirs.”
    • The gospels claimed to be witness based.
    • 60+ year old events didn't elude ancient historians.
    • In AD 70, witness-based Jesus facts perfected.
    • The gospel authors didn't lie-invent Jesus-bio.
    • AD 70 historiographers got witness-approval or close.
    • Gospel content is a subset of what witnesses say.

    This helps show the traditional witnesses were in fact testifying to having seen Jesus appear to them because the Gospels relayed that “Jesus visited named persons x,y,z” (filled in by the traditional witnesses: Mary, Peter, etc.).

    But no… (Forthcoming)

    • 1st hand info can’t be stylized.
    • Mt and Lk relayed info from Mk and Q, not witnesses.
    • Gospels are full of lies/invention.