Program 2: Is it Credible to Think of Jesus as Deity; that the Resurrection of Jesus Actually Happened?

Introduction

Dr. John Ankerberg: The search for the historical Jesus is a hot topic in both popular and academic circles today and has drawn a lot of attention from national magazines, such as Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. Further, the media has given an undue amount of attention to the outlandish statements of the Jesus Seminar, a self-selected liberal group representing a very small percentage of New Testament scholarship. Today we will address the questions surrounding the debate over the historical Jesus and show there are a significant number of historical facts about Jesus in secular and non-New Testament sources which prove that the Jesus of history is the same Jesus of the Christian faith.

My guest is world-class philosopher Dr. Gary Habermas, author of the book, The Historical Jesus and about twenty other volumes. He received his Ph.D. from Michigan State University. Dr. Habermas is chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty University and has written more than 100 articles, mostly on the life of Jesus, which have appeared in scholarly journals and elsewhere. Join us for this edition of The John Ankerberg Show and learn why Jesus is one of the most historically verified lives of ancient times.

Ankerberg: Welcome. Today liberal scholars in the Jesus Seminar are attacking traditional Christian beliefs about Jesus. They say it’s no longer credible to think of Jesus as divine; the resurrection of Jesus never happened; the New Testament books do not present a historical record of Jesus but only a religious witness to early Christian beliefs. But contrary to what the Jesus Seminar says, there is a massive amount of historical information inside and outside of the New Testament that confirms traditional Christian beliefs. My guest is philosopher Dr. Gary Habermas who was himself a skeptic for years. In working on his Ph.D. at Michigan State, he came to realize that there was much solid historical evidence about Jesus that he couldn’t ignore. Listen:

Habermas: In last week’s program we mentioned the very early creedal material that Paul presents in 1 Corinthians 15. This is probably the heart of contemporary discussions bearing on the historical Jesus.

Now, to summarize briefly, we said something like this: If we can imagine roughly a 25-year time line, it would begin with the cross about 30 AD, ending with the writing of 1 Corinthians at about 55 AD. That’s 25 years there. Paul reminded the church in 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 that he gave them the gospel when he came to them. That was about 51 AD, so we’re at about 21 years at that point. Then in 1 Corinthians 15:3 Paul outlined some crucial creedal material, concerning which he said: “I delivered unto you that which I also received.”

The typical, consensus critical view is that Paul acquired this material in Jerusalem while he met with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, in about 35 AD (Galatians 1:18). We’d only be five years away from the cross at this point. Given that Paul received this testimony during his visit to Jerusalem, then those who “delivered” it to him had it beforehand, in order to pass it on to Paul.

One crucially important topic from last week was the question, “How do we know that Paul was not the originator of Christianity?” In the creedal tradition that Paul received as per 1 Corinthians 15:3, Paul states, that this message was of “first importance,” thus, it occupied the very center of his proclamation. Further, the “delivered . . . received” sequence was a formal way of passing on tradition--of declaring, among other things, that this message didn’t come or originate from him. So again, Paul passed on this gospel message as of first importance, as it occupied the center of his proclamation. Paul taught what he had received. Given that he received it in Jerusalem from Peter and James, not only is this not Paul’s material, but it came from two of the important proclaimers in the early Church: Peter and James, the brother of Jesus.

How do we know that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is a pre-Pauline creed? Actually there are perhaps a half dozen reasons for us to believe that this is the case. If there are any major conclusions that are unanimous in New Testament scholarship, it’s probably this one. Why? For starters, remember that critical scholars think that the data indicate that Paul is a great source and that this epistle is undisputedly authentic, and written by him. Further, Paul states straightforwardly that he is passing on tradition that he received personally from others, and there is no reason to disbelieve him.

One more crucial thing here concerning these words that Paul uses. It is the equivalent terms in Aramaic employed by Paul that are technical words indicating the teaching of tradition. Paul uses this structure again in 1 Corinthians 11 concerning the Lord’s Supper: “delivered and received.” [1 Cor. 11:23] This all makes good sense.

After all, this is how Pharisees taught and Paul was a Pharisee (Phil. 3:4-6). So these are some pretty crucial signs that this material is not Paul’s. It’s pretty straightforward: if it were in existence before Paul, as about everyone thinks is the case, then it must be pre-Pauline!

There are several other strong indications for this conclusion being true, as well. For one thing, the text is formalized, in the sense that it appears to read in stanzas—like verses. Also, there are a number of indications that Paul is not the author of the proclamation. There are a series of non-Pauline words that Paul never uses elsewhere, such as “on the third day.” Joachim Jeremias, the German New

Testament scholar, argued that there’s probably an Aramaic original behind the Greek text, another indication that it predates Paul.7

Jewish New Testament scholar Pinchas Lapide has listed at least eight indications that Paul is passing on tradition here. As another, he notes what’s termed the “triple hoti clause.” English students will recognize that as: “and that . . . and that . . . and that . . . .” Paul doesn’t come up for air until he gets this long sentence out: “. . . he died for our sins according to the scriptures and that he was buried and that he was raised and that he appeared.” Dr. Lapide tells us that this sequence is a sign of Hebrew narration.

So there are a number of reasons to conclude that this text is exactly as Paul states: a proclamation that he is passing on to others, though he was not its originator. Lapide additionally lists the parallelism, diction, the use of the names “Cephas” and “the twelve,” and so on. These are some of the best indications that have convinced a generation of critical scholars.8 If Paul were writing this today, he’d have been required to use a footnote!

Ankerberg: Now, some scholars in the Jesus Seminar claim that the apostle Paul is the one who invented the Jesus of faith. What they mean by this is that Paul made up the story that Jesus was God. But Dr. Habermas presents the historical facts that clearly show that Paul invented neither Christianity nor the Christ of the Christian faith. Listen:

Habermas: Now, Paul has taught several relevant things here. He stated, “I delivered what I received [and I like these next words] as of first importance.” Paul basically thinks that this is the most crucial thing that he could have preached to the Corinthians. Of course, in the first two verses, he said that if they accepted this message, they were saved; if not, they weren’t. So we’re right here at the center of his message. But as we have been observing clearly here, when Paul goes on to state the case that follows, the material that he presents comes straight from someone else, who gave it to him.

In this tradition, Jesus appeared to an individual, Peter; then to a group, called by its better-known name, the Twelve; then to 500 brethren (counting the men only?) at once. Then he appeared to James, another individual, then to another group: “all the apostles.” [1 Cor. 15:5-7] There’s some order to this listing and it’s arranged like a catechism.

If it were true, as it is sometimes estimated, that perhaps even as much as 90 percent of the Jews in that area were illiterate during the First Century, then how does someone pass on to them the heart of their message, as “of first importance”? The key points must be given to the folks in a form where they can memorize them and repeat them back, teaching still others, even though they may not be able to read. That is the nature of these pre-Pauline creedal passages. Paul basically proclaimed the heart of his message, the very central items he taught when he came to their city, adding further, “and folks, so you know, it’s not my material.”

So in sum, I think we need to reiterate several things here: this gospel material is absolutely central, even “of first importance.” It’s a very early message, prior to Paul’s conversion, which took place about one to three years after the crucifixion.

Since the apostolic eyewitnesses who were with Jesus had the message before Paul, we’ve got a time line going back to Jesus in 30 AD. But since it’s not Paul’s material, he cannot be the originator of the New Testament message, and at its most important place at that.

But speaking regarding the appearances of the risen Jesus that the other apostles were also proclaiming, Paul asserts in 1 Corinthians 15:11 that, “Whether then it was I or they, this is what we preach and this is what you believed.” Again, the “we” here is clearly the other apostles. Paul is asserting that, whether you hear it from them or hear it from me, we’re preaching the same gospel message concerning especially the resurrection appearances in particular.

So it seems clearly that what Paul is teaching here is, “Ask the other apostles. They’ll tell you the same thing I’m telling you. We’re all on the same page here.” But according to the previous verses, it was the other apostles who originated this message. Paul and the chief apostles already talked it over on more than one occasion, and the others commended Paul’s message, according especially to Galatians 2:1-10. Remember, too, it was Paul who journeyed to Jerusalem and sought out the others on this topic, as well.

This is why we are at a very special junction in history where we can almost hear for ourselves what Paul is teaching, linked, as it is, through time-space history. It’s his words that are on the page. He’s an accredited messenger. But he is the teacher who passes out the material of others.9

So we have a time line here, and the basics are very widely recognized by non- Evangelical critical scholars. I think that by utilizing the Minimal Facts Method, then, we can observe the very firm grounds here regarding the very heart of our faith: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

Ankerberg: How many times in school have you heard that the material in the New Testament books is nothing more than legend or myth? Well, again, that’s just a lie. Dr. Habermas gives three reasons why scholars believe they are dealing with solid historical evidence about Jesus. Listen:

Habermas: Now, we can slow down just a little bit here and see another angle why the 1 Corinthians 15 passage is taken so seriously by critical scholars. First, we have said at length that this material is undoubtedly very, very early. From Paul’s trip to Jerusalem in 35ish AD, visiting with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus [Galatians 1:18]–to the time before that when Peter and James themselves received or even chose the wording for this creedal material, we’ve got hands-on material from a very early period that emphasizes the central facts regarding the very beginnings of Christianity. This is surely a window into those initial years!

It’s difficult to know and appreciate how early this material is until you’ve worked with Greco-Roman writers from this time period. For example, the best lives of Alexander the Great that we have are dated over 400 years after he lived! 400 years! But no one talks about how we can know so very little about Alexander. And then, one of the very best Roman historians, Livy, reports things that supposedly occurred hundreds of years before his time.

In contrast, Paul is recording a list of events that he participated in just five years after the occasion. Then, others had it before Paul did, and they were even closer to the events than was Paul himself! So we’ve cut down the gap here tremendously, until there’s no really no gap at all! Recall, too, that this is no periphery, borderline doctrine in Christianity—it is the very gospel message itself, “of first importance” as Paul claims, and we begin to understand and appreciate this incredible picture.

Secondly, through the window of the creedal tradition and then confirmed by Paul’s word, especially after what he learned from the other three chief apostles themselves (Peter, James the Lord’s brother, and John), we have their eyewitness testimonies, too. Paul certainly knew how to secure eyewitness testimony—interview the participants face-to-face! Then reproduce their own verification probably in their words, as in a footnote! After all, that’s the very best ancient path for formulating and teaching history, and Paul was honest enough to divulge that this was not his material. We have mentioned the authorship of the gospels, and that’s another possible route to go for sources. However, pursuing Paul’s method is really taking what he contributed and what is granted freely by the critical scholars.

Then don’t forget another crucial truth: Paul himself was an eyewitness on this subject of the resurrected Jesus. Let’s not miss the forest for the trees here. Paul told us more than once that he had seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8).

However, perhaps Paul’s most helpful contribution of all was in passing on the testimony and confirmation of these other three apostles. Now through Paul, we’ve also heard from Peter as well as James, the brother of Jesus, and the apostle John. The first two, by the way, are both listed individually and immortalized as among those who saw Jesus, as reported in the creedal list here (15:5, 7). So we’re dealing with the chief witnesses who were there from the very beginning.

A third way to go after this overall picture is to inquire into an entirely new area that we have not really discussed: to look at the early traditions that are found in Acts—what are known as the early sermon summaries. Ask an Evangelical, “What does the earliest Christian preaching look like prior to the writing of the first New Testament books?” They would probably say, “Simple—just read the book of Acts.” If you asked some critical scholars, they might also say, “Read Acts, meaning these sermon summaries.”

Now, those answers may sound very close to the same as other creeds that we have mentioned, but they are really reporting or at least emphasizing different things. Evangelicals answer this way because they trust the entire text of Acts. Critics look for and study a number of these early confessional or traditional sermonic passages in Acts. These sermon summaries—“sermonettes” if you will--are usually longer texts than the New Testament creeds that we have mentioned above, and thus may be considered as a slightly different species of very early tradition. True, it is sometimes the case that they are located in the text for similar reasons.

It should be noted that most of the Acts sermon summaries are also thought to potentially have Aramaic original forms, too, similarly indicating their earlier origins. However, among the differences with the creeds in the epistles, some of the sermon summaries also tend to be longer than the briefer theological creeds in the epistles. In that sense, their length makes them appear a little more similar to the early hymns of Philippians 2 and Colossians 1. Also, there is a little more difference between commentators over which verses within each of these chapters are the exact kernel of the early messages.

One example of a sermon summary is thought to be the presence of shorter, more compact, seemingly unevolved theology. The thought is that undeveloped theology is an indication of earlier layers of preaching. For an example, one such scene in Acts that is often thought to be such a sermon summary is when Peter says (and you can almost picture him pointing at the Jewish leaders as he speaks): “You killed him! God raised him from the dead!” [Acts 3:15] Here’s another pithy saying: “We ought to obey God rather than man.” [Acts 5:29] The key candidates for these sermon summaries are found in Acts 1-5, and Acts 10, which are Petrine. Acts 13 and Acts 17 appear to include other texts of a Pauline nature, though scholars do not seem to cite them quite as frequently as the Petrine examples.10 Still, any such conclusions that these are early sermon summaries are obviously very helpful as additional sources, as well.

Among the most crucial portions of this discussion is that, in every encapsulation of the gospel message that is found in these texts, the Deity of Christ (a time or two this theme is more implied), along with his death, and his resurrection are found quite explicitly. Many critical scholars doubt that Paul is the actual author of the actual summaries in Acts 13 and 17. So once again, if these summaries date to the 30s, those would also be independent and pre-Pauline sources. Still, Dodd, a recognized authority on these matters, points out that the summaries in general are so close to Paul’s teachings in his epistles, that this is still another indication of how early and apostolic Paul’s teaching is to the original source. His is definitely not a separate strand of thought.11

So for a number of reasons, then, Paul’s teachings definitely did not constitute the origin of early Christianity. Most of these best-known candidates for early Christian preaching snippets predate Paul, whose teachings do not even emerge on the scene until the first account of his trip to Damascus in Acts 9. Five chapters (Acts 1-5) before that contain this early preaching material, including the same fundamental message, although Paul is not around.

Dodd summarizes the chief themes of the four major Petrine sermon summaries in Acts 2-5, and finds most prominently the ideas of preaching the Messianic fulfillment in the dawning Kingdom of God, the ministry, Deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the resurrection as the chief indicator that Jesus is the exalted Lord. We could still go to these chapters in Acts and find in them something quite close to: “This is the message of first importance, how that Jesus died, was raised and appeared, and more than being the man Jesus, he is also Lord and Christ.” All of this is from Peter and company prior to Paul’s appearing on the scene.12

So, going at it from this third angle of Acts, we have these sermon summaries with these unevolved, short, concise, succinct theological statements of the gospel message and Paul is not even around yet. So here’s another way to look at the center of the Christian core, the gospel of salvation, earlier than and apart from Paul. But let’s be clear: when Paul comes on the scene, as Dodd said, his message follows the previous apostolic pattern, which is major.

Now, back to Dr. Ankerberg’s question: did Paul make this all up himself? Was he the father of the most important Christian doctrines? Hardly. The answer, of course, is definitely not, because all of these crucial points that were “of first importance” came from someone else, as he explained and acknowledged freely in his own teachings.

Ankerberg: Now, every Christian student should listen carefully to how Dr. Habermas is arguing. As Christians, we all accept the New Testament books as authoritative and true. But your non-Christian professor and friends don’t. Well, then, what evidence should you use in talking to them? If your professor and friends are up on modern scholarship, they know that certain portions of Paul’s writings and portions of the four gospels are accepted, not as inspired, but as historically reliable information. Now, if they accept it, then let’s use that material because it reveals the historical facts that Jesus lived, claimed to be God, died on a cross, was buried in a tomb, and appeared to his disciples later. This is historical evidence which can’t be ignored. Now, if you ask, what are some of those passages that virtually all critical scholars accept that tell us these things? Dr. Habermas explains. Listen:

Habermas: So we’ve kind of come through the back door. We’ve started with the data that are definitely the strongest: like 1 Corinthians 15 and Paul’s undisputed epistles. We’ve moved backwards about 25 years from the date of 1 Corinthians to the crucifixion. We’ve taken a look at Peter and James the brother of Jesus through Paul’s eyes, in Galatians 1:18-20. Then in Galatians 2:1-10 these same three apostles plus John were present several years later and they confirmed the nature of the gospel message that they were all preaching and teaching. The other apostles did not adjust any of Paul’s actual gospel message (Gal. 2:2-9). We also took a little bit of a detailed look at some of the major themes of the Petrine sermon summaries or snippets in the early chapters of Acts.

The more radical community of scholars way over on the left does not generally like the gospels, except for some brief texts here and there when they are confirmed by various checks and balances. Yet they defend and accept the so-called “authentic” seven or so Pauline epistles. These radical scholars sometimes claim that they hold mainstream views, but almost no one accepts that such is the case.

However, there’s also a moderate community of scholars out there in-between the scholars of the left and right, to which probably the most influential scholars belong right now. In general, they would recognize the historicity of many individual gospel accounts, including some of major importance.

Let me make this point again. 1 Corinthians predates the gospels and 1 Corinthians 15 is the longest extended treatment of the resurrection before the four gospels. So really, on the time line, the gospels were written later. So here we’ve got the chronological horse of Paul’s epistles in the right place, before the gospel cart. If it’s already in Paul, and if the earliest Acts sermon summaries are also confirmation, why are many critical scholars objecting to the gospels when we’ve already got it in the earlier timeline in Paul’s “authentic” epistles and the Acts sermon summaries?

When you check out the gospels, do you hear these same major themes? When Jesus speaks and the events unfold, do you hear the same basic, overall proclamation on key themes like who Jesus claims to be, the nature and duration of God’s kingdom, the crucifixion, and the resurrection appearances? This is why we cited Dodd’s comment earlier that the apostolic streams did not veer very far away from each other.13

When Paul visited Jerusalem, his world and that of the other apostles came together. Paul got to hear from people who knew Jesus intimately. He talked to the lead apostle, Peter. He talked to James, Jesus’ own brother. In the next visit in Galatians 2, when Paul returned to Jerusalem he found these same two apostles there again (Peter and James), plus John the Apostle was also present. So, Paul’s got some connections!

On another absolutely vital subject, Paul did not invent the deity of Christ, either, as we sometimes hear. Lofty titles for Jesus do in fact appear all over Paul’s “authentic” epistles. But they are also found in the early sermon summaries in Acts, and perhaps most importantly, in the pre-Pauline creedal statements that are earlier than Paul’s epistles themselves, such as those found in Romans 1:3-4, 10:9, 1 Corinthians 8:6, or Philippians 2:6-11.

But we find these titles in the gospels, too, in the teachings of Jesus himself. Many scholars think that our two best grounds for talking about the deity of Christ in the gospels are Jesus’ self-designations “Son of Man” and “Son of God.” Now, Son of God is more easily and usually recognized to be a title of deity. But Son of Man shouldn’t be said to refer only to Jesus’ human nature, or something like that. To summarize some scholarship real briefly here, Jesus shows that he knows the passage in Daniel 7:13-14 where Daniel sees a vision of the Ancient of Days, and one coming down from him, who looks like a Son of Man.

The idea had emerged in some Jewish writings of about this time, non- Christian texts that had nothing to do with Scripture. The Son of Man could be a human being as in the Psalms, or it might designate a prophet as in the book of Ezekiel, or it can be the Son of Man who comes down from the Ancient of Days. Daniel’s usage is of a prophetic figure whom critical scholars often identify as preexistent and divine, who sets up God’s Kingdom on earth.

Which of these three senses does Jesus employ for himself? Son of Man is Jesus’ favorite self-designation in the gospels and at least twice, one of them in Mark 14, he basically paraphrases some of the vital elements of Daniel 7:13-14. Then he clearly identifies himself as that last person. The Jewish high priest asks Jesus, “Are you the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the Blessed One?” Notice Jesus’ response: Ego eimi, “I am.” Then Jesus changes a Son of God question to a Son of Man answer. He basically retorts, “I am the Christ, the Son of God, and you will see the Son of Man sitting on God’s right hand, and coming with the clouds of heaven [in judgment].” [Mark 14:60-62]

Here the priest made a formal declaration of blasphemy. He ripped his garment and declared that Jesus had committed blasphemy. The other leaders present agreed with him that Jesus was definitely worthy of death. They thought they had him at last [v. 63]!

Now, what set off the high priest? Of our three Old Testament notions of the son of man, this is by far the closest to Daniel 7:13-14. In this passage in Mark 14, Jesus responded, Ego eimi, as in “I am the Son of God.” Then he said that, as the Son of Man, he would be seen sitting on God’s right hand and coming with the clouds of heaven. So Jesus claimed to be the preexistent one who came from the Ancient of Days to set up God’s Kingdom. He also used the enigmatic phrase, “coming with the clouds.” That phrase is used often in the Old Testament as a reference to God. But scholars often agree that claiming to sit on God’s right hand was the most serious and blasphemous claim of the entire passage.

The high priest responded almost as if he had been waiting all along, or perhaps dearly hoping, for something just like this clear affirmation. In contemporary terms, instead of tearing his clothing, he might have responded with an energetic fist- pump in the air, followed by something like, “Yeah, we’ve got him now. He’s going to die for this.” He could also very well have thought that this was a case of mano e mano, and although all of his other witnesses had failed to do the job properly, he was the high priest, and he had made the charge stick! Little did he know at the time that he probably gave us the clearest expression of all of our texts that Jesus had plainly claimed to be Deity!

So, if Jesus himself claimed to be both the Son of God as well as the Son of Man, why do some say that Paul invented the Deity of Christ? We see Jesus’ own teachings in the gospels. We find them in the pre-Pauline creeds that even pre-date Paul’s earliest epistles, as well as in the early brief sermon summaries in Acts. Of course, they are found in Paul’s uncontested epistles, too. I think this is a solid case for the deity of Christ from the earliest of times. There are other arguments here, as well, but these will have to suffice for right now.

But if Christ was raised from the dead, now we’ve got to ask the question, “What is God showing us here?” The traditional Christian response, starting with the New Testament itself, is that God’s raising Jesus indicates that Jesus’ Father confirmed his Son’s message. Remember, Dodd finds it in the earliest Acts sermon summaries. Now if Jesus had claimed to be deity but was not, nothing could be more blasphemous than usurping God’s nature and personal place in the universe.

But since he clearly did claim it and was subsequently raised from the dead, this event serves as God’s stamp of approval on Jesus teachings. This argument shows up on the lips of Peter according to the preaching texts in Acts 2:22-28 and 4:2, as well as by Paul in Acts 17:29-31, and in the pre-Pauline creedal statement in Romans 1:3-4. The resurrection is the capstone. As Paul declared in 1 Corinthians 15:3a, it truly is a matter of first importance, and as he affirms later, the resurrection drives home the truth of the theology.

Ankerberg: Now, if the Jesus Seminar scholars were listening to what Dr. Habermas was saying, how would they respond? He tells us. Listen:

Habermas: In this program we’ve been talking a little bit concerning the Pauline and pre-Pauline aspects of a historical time-line that extends from approximately 55 back to 30 AD. We’ve concentrated particularly on the first five year block, or from about 35 back to 30 AD.

I mentioned that Paul focused on the truth and the nature of the gospel proclamation while he was speaking with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, and again in his later visit with these same two apostles, plus the apostle John, as well. We also discussed some of the sermon summaries in Acts, where the gospel data are almost always central to the discussion. We ended by addressing one of the more highly evidenced texts in the gospels, emphasizing what Jesus said regarding himself. These ideas were quite similar to the earlier teachings, as well.

Sure, I’ll guess what some of the more extreme critical scholars are going to shake their heads and say in response: “Habermas has slaughtered gospel studies here. He thinks that just because the gospels report that Jesus said something, that he truly must have said just that. But what could be more of a myth than a man’s claim to be Deity? Simply take a look at the Greek heroes. Or just read some of the Roman authors.”

You know, this is a worthwhile challenge to address, too. It could easily fill a program by itself. How do we know, in fact, that Jesus really did claim to be the Son of God and the Son of Man? Now, we’re getting close to the center and if we’ve got Jesus himself teaching these truths, not to mention the pre-Pauline creeds and the Acts sermon summaries, then certainly Paul is not the author of invented tales regarding Jesus Christ being Deity. He was still persecuting the church in these earliest days of the church!

Endnotes

7 Joachim Jeremias, The Central Message of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965, 1981), pp. 39-40 for some brief comments. For details, see W. Zimmerli and Jeremias, The Servant of God (Studies in Biblical Study 20), rev. ed. (London: SCM, 1965), 88ff., 95f.

8 Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, trans. by Calwer Verlag, no name given (Minneapolis: Augsberg, 1983), pp. 97-99.

9 2 Timothy 2:2 is helpful here as another similar example from the early church, though it is a rare critic who will take this as the teaching of Paul.

10 We will list below many of these specific passages in Acts.

11 Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, especially 26, 31.

12 Dodd, Ibid., especially pp. 20-24.

13 Dodd, Ibid., p. 16; cf. 21, 26, 31.