The Timespan Of The Resurrection Appearances

Much is made of alleged inconsistencies among the New Testament resurrection accounts. Their common ground is often underestimated. One thing they have in common that doesn't get discussed much is the shortness of the period when the large majority of the appearances occurred. I'm allowing an exception for the later appearance to Paul, but he acknowledges that his experience was unusual (1 Corinthians 15:8). Paul has the other appearances occurring before the one to him. And the gospels and Acts align well with what Paul reports. Luke puts the pre-Pauline appearances within a forty-day timeframe (Acts 1:3). John refers to multiple weeks of appearances (John 20:26), but doesn't exceed the forty days referred to by Luke. They're consistent. Matthew and Mark don't set down a timeframe, but the modest amount of appearance material in both gospels (Mark does anticipate the appearance in Galilee, though he doesn't narrate it) lines up well with the sort of shorter timespan found in the other sources.

A good way to appreciate this agreement among the sources is to think of how easily they could have disagreed and what motives they could have had for doing so. Reports of later resurrection appearances could have been used by later church leaders to get more authority or attention. Even among the original apostles, if there wasn't much concern about accuracy, carefulness, and such, then why think all of the sources would end up with the same timespan? Why wouldn't one or more of them extend the pre-Pauline appearances out to several months, a few years, or whatever other length of time?

There isn't maximal evidence of agreement among the sources on these issues. There is some ambiguity. But there is substantial agreement in a context in which they could easily have disagreed a lot instead.

Arguing For Resurrection Accounts

We should argue for Jesus' resurrection by appealing to multiple lines of evidence, including the general credibility of the sources. One of the approaches we can take, among others, is to argue for individual accounts. Argue for Matthew's credibility in general, as I've done here, for example, but also argue for the resurrection account in Matthew 28:9-10. Argue for Luke's credibility in general, as I've done here, for instance, but also argue more narrowly for the material on the appearance to Paul in Acts. Argue for the general credibility of Paul, such as his willingness to suffer and die as a Christian, which gives us reason to trust what he reported about the resurrection appearance to James in 1 Corinthians 15:7. But we should also argue more narrowly for the appearance to James.

Using Other Miracle Claims To Argue Against Jesus' Resurrection

It's common for critics of the resurrection to argue against it by means of other alleged miracles, such as Marian apparitions. The argument will take on a variety of forms. For example, it will be assumed that such-and-such a miracle didn't happen, yet it has comparable evidence or better evidence than we have for Jesus' resurrection, so we should conclude that both the other miracle and the resurrection didn't happen. Or it will be suggested that since a Christian wants to attribute the other miracle to demonic activity, the resurrection could be considered demonic as well, and Christians have no way to justify viewing the resurrection as Divine while viewing the other miracle as demonic. And so on.

We've written a lot about that kind of objection over the years. See this recent thread (including the comments section) on the Zeitoun Marian apparitions, for example, for brief overviews of many of the issues involved (the explanatory options for miracles, whether the resurrection needs to have better evidence than other miracles, how to evaluate how the evidence for one miracle compares to the evidence for another, why we shouldn't think the resurrection and Christianity as a whole are demonic, why we shouldn't think the resurrection and Christianity as a whole are the result of human psi, etc.). I also wrote a couple of other posts on Zeitoun recently, here and here. Steve Hays wrote some posts about the Fatima Marian apparitions, such as here and here. He and I wrote about the miracles affiliated with the Salem Witch Trials in chapter 8 of the e-book here (pages 102-24). I wrote a post a decade ago that responded to a book that discusses religious miracles, and that post addresses many of the issues involved in comparing Christianity's miracles to the miracles of other religions. That post briefly discusses Sai Baba's miracles, a subject sometimes brought up by critics of Christianity. See here for some brief comments from Steve about Sai Baba. On UFOs, see here for an overview and our archive of posts on the subject here. These are just several examples of what we've written about miracles skeptics often bring up when discussing Jesus' resurrection. You can find a lot of other relevant material in our archives.

These skeptics often don't have sufficient reason to reject any of the miracles they're discussing. Frequently, when they suggest that we know that such-and-such a miracle didn't happen, they're bluffing. Their assumption shouldn't be granted. And they're typically substantially ignorant of the breadth and depth of explanatory options Christianity has for miracles. (Many Christians are highly ignorant as well.) These skeptics also don't know much or act as if they don't know much about the justification Christians (and others) have for placing different miracles in different categories and ranking them in a hierarchy. Sometimes the best response to a skeptical appeal to another miracle is that their miracle doesn't seem to be historical, whereas the resurrection is. But it's often the case that the Christian shouldn't deny that the other miracle occurred, and there isn't much difficulty in reconciling it with the historicity of the resurrection and the truthfulness of Christianity.