But a testimony is not "eyewitness" unless its author claims to have seen the alleged event herself. Merely saying "Jesus rose from the dead" is not sufficient, because even a non-eyewitness can make that claim. We have to be able to ask "how do you know Jesus rose from the dead", and the source has to use words to the effect that the testifying party saw Jesus alive after he died (i.e., "saw" is the "eye" in "eyewitness").
With that qualification in mind, how many NT authors claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus?
Generously forgetting gospel authorship problems, I count three: Matthew, John and Paul:
16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. (Matt. 28:16-17 NAU)
24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. (Jn. 21:24 NAU)
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? (1 Cor. 9:1 NAU)
and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor. 15:8 NAU)That is, the NT does not provide us with any more than 3 first-hand testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus.
Remember, its not "eyewitness testimony" unless the author is claiming to have seen the alleged event herself.
While some hearsay from Luke might be based on eyewitness accounts, it is more important at this early juncture to keep the truly first-hand reports separate from the hearsay.
What do you think? Did I miss anything?
Matthew could be discounted on the grounds that he didn't include his name with the testimony, which is suspicious to say the least. He also draws most of his material from non-eyewitness Mark, and it doesn't matter how many scenarios apologists can conjure up to show otherwise, those who are real eyewitnesses usually don't confine what they have to say, to a non-eyewitness's version (Mark) of an alleged other eyewitness's words (Peter). Matthew's situation will continue to be abnormal regardless.
Paul could be discounted because the most explicit statements in the NT asserting that Paul encountered the resurrected Jesus, don't actually go far enough to actually say he saw Jesus. The story of Paul's encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus is told three times in Acts, chapters 9, 22 and 26, and at no time does the text express or imply that Paul physically saw this Jesus, while the inability of the other men to see this Jesus (9:7) helps take the "eye" out of Paul being an "eyewitness". J. Warner Wallace banned me from his Facebook page after I pointed out that Paul wasn't an eyewitness of the risen Jesus, then quickly conjured up an article arguing that Paul could still be a legitimate witness due to what he heard, even if he didn't actually see this Jesus. Wallace would hardly have done that had he believed something in the NT made clear that Paul physically saw the resurrected Jesus. Paul can also be discounted because he admits he would give a false impression of his true beliefs to the crowd he happened to be with, if he thought doing so would cause him to gain more converts.
John could be discounted because the Muratorian Fragment (which conservatives like to date early because its list of NT books basically matches that of the modern Protestant canon) says John only deigned to write after pressure from the other apostles, and when he did, he wanted the other apostles to fast for three days, and then relate to each other the visions each would have (as the basis for his planned writing), but afterward, apostle Andrew received a revelation that John should write everything from his own memory and then the other apostles should review it (i.e., review it for accuracy, and/or to add to it).
So there are obvious and substantial problems with a) saying there are many eyewitnesses to a resurrected Jesus, and b) the credibility of the three cases that under generous conditions, might qualify to be eyewitness accounts.
