Tabular Comparison of Canonical and non-Canonical Resurrection Accounts (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Resurrection of Jesus: do extra-canonical sources change the landscape?
Verbum et Ecclesia, 2005
The resurrection of Jesus is assumed by the New Testament to be a historical event. Some scholars argue, however, that there was no empty tomb, but that the New Testament accounts are midrashic or mythological stories about Jesus.� In this article extra-canonical writings are investigated to find out what light it may throw on intra-canonical tradition. Many extra-canonical texts seemingly have no knowledge of the passion and resurrection, and such traditions may be earlier than the intra-canonical traditions. Was the resurrection a later invention?� Are intra-canonical texts developments of extra-canonical tradition, or vice versa?� This article demonstrates that extra-canonical texts do not materially alter the landscape of enquiry.
A Brief Analysis of The Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection
SAURAJ, 2022
The resurrection of Jesus has been a debatable subject since the beginning of the 1 st century AD; in as much as it is simple and easy to believe in the resurrection of Christ for Christians, it is not quite so in the world today, where skepticism and agnosticism dominate the culture. In the last two centuries, with various revolutions emerging, due to the prevalence of naturalistic view in the literature world, and theology, in particular, several leading scholars started a quest to re-study the historicity of Jesus' resurrection and subsequently considered the four accounts of the four gospels to be merely a myth. This article attempts to briefly analyze the quest and, most importantly, provide legitimate evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus. In this article, the gospels' account is considered ancient literature since our main priority is to know whether it is historical. Therefore, the historicity of the gospel account is analyzed through the methodology employed by both the secular and religious scholars, which in turn makes the study not biased. The analysis concludes and reclaims that the account of the gospel is historical.
The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part I)
Is it possible to verify the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus? What is the correct historical method to approach the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in the gospels? What criteria should be used to determine the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus? What historical evidence do the gospels present for the resurrection of Jesus? This paper is the first of a two part series that attempts to answer these questions. This paper was published in The Journal of Ministry and Theology 6.1 (Spring 2002), 63-87.
The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part II)
For Christians the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the foundation of our faith. One of the strongest arguments for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is the resurrection appearances of Jesus to his disciples and to unbelievers who then became believers. This paper surveys those appearances and also looks at other evidence for the resurrection of Jesus: the witness of the apostles, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 and extra-biblical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus including the Nazareth Decree and the Shroud of Turin along with ancient non-Christian sources (Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger) and ancient Christian sources (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr).
The paraphrase model of the Testimonium Flavianum proposes that the description of Jesus in Jewish Antiquities 18.63-64 is a paraphrase by Josephus of a text very like, if not identical to, Luke 24:19-27. A previous paper demonstrated that the linguistic transformations between the two corresponded to those Josephus is known to have applied to other sources. In this paper, I statistically study the order and content, regardless of vocabulary considerations, of these two texts and a set of other ancient descriptions of Jesus that are of known Christian origin. I quantify the content overlap of pairs of texts, first without regard to their order of presentation, and then include order through the use of sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree algorithms. In both cases, I find that the Luke-Testimonium pair has a correspondence rate higher than all other pairs of texts in the sample, and, especially with the alignment study, find with a high degree of statistical confidence that the correspondences cannot be attributed to the natural similarity of Jesus description among Chrisitan writers or to mere coincidence. I conclude that paraphrase model accounts for this data easily, while previous explanations of Testimonium origins neither explain nor anticipate this result.