How much of the resurrection testimony in the NT comes down to us today in first-hand form?

Apologists are forever talking about now the NT gives us "many" eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection.

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.

Matthew as resurrection witness: "...but some doubted"

Only in Matthew do we find the unexpected remark that when the 11 apostles saw the risen Jesus, some of them "doubted":

 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.
 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (Matt. 28:16-18 NAU)

 "doubtful" in the Greek is distazo, and it means to waver or doubt.

In what sense did Matthew mean that some of the 11 disciples "doubted"?

First, the "some were doubtful" is distinguished from the "worshipped him" by the word "but".  "But" intends to introduce an exception.  The sense here is that some of the 11 did NOT worship Jesus at the time the others did.

Second, Matthew's only other use of distazo is in 14:31, where Peter's faith began to fail him as he walked on the water to meet Jesus, and Jesus characterizes the state of his mind as "why did you doubt (distazo)?".

 28 Peter said to Him, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water."
 29 And He said, "Come!" And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
 30 But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!"
 31 Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt (Matt. 14:28-31 NAU)

Third, how believable is it that the disciples could run around every day with Jesus, watching him perform genuinely supernatural miracles for three years to confirm the accuracy of his prediction that he would die and rise from the dead, and then "doubt" when beholding their resurrected lord?  Exactly how many times can you dip into the "they-just-didn't-get-it" well, before it runs dry?

10 not-so-tough questions to atheists: My answers to J. Warner Wallace

 Bob Seidensticker posted 10 "tough" questions for atheists over at patheos.com

Here is my point-by-point answer:

No one can demand a proof that God does (or doesn’t) exist, 

 That's not biblical.  Nothing could be more obvious than the fact that story characters in the bible were given plenty of "proof" for God's existence, such as the parting of the Red Sea,

  22 The sons of Israel went through the midst of the sea on the dry land, and the waters were like a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. (Exod. 14:22 NAU)

 Elijah's bout with the prophets at Mt. Carmel:

   37 "Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that You, O LORD, are God, and that You have turned their heart back again."
 38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. (1 Ki. 18:37-38 NAU)

  Isaiah inviting King Ahaz to demand a sign from God:

 10 Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
 11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven."
 (Isa. 7:10-11 NAU)

 ------------------------

but where does the evidence point? Following the evidence without bias is the best we can hope to do.

Without trying to sound pretentious, being without bias is an impossible state of mind.  The best we can hope to do is suppress our biases to the point that they do not taint our evaluation of the evidence.  But at the same time, some biases are good.  Your bias against the possibility of levitation by mental power alone will serve you well when you need to decide whether to believe such a report from a stranger on a bus. 

A number of apologists defend Christianity with the thinking of a courtroom lawyer or detective.

 Which is not a good idea since the canonical gospel manuscripts we still have, come from unknown provenance, and thus fail element # 3 of the admissibility test of the "ancient documents rule"

 One of these is J. Warner Wallace. In his essay “The Christian Worldview is the Best Explanation”* he gives ten tough questions to which he claims Christianity has the better answer. Let’s take a look.
1. How Did the Universe Come Into Being?
Our universe had a beginning, but what caused it? Why is there something instead of nothing?

  Then apparently he doesn't approach Christian defense like a courtroom lawyer, since what he said justifies the hearer to respond "Objection, compound question", and "Objection, states facts not in evidence."
Wallace is blindly presuming the universe had a beginning and touts the Big Bang.  I am one of those atheists who believe the universe is infinite in size and scope, and the process of starts beginning and ending stretches back into the infinite past.  The Big Bang is easily falsifiable on its merits.  It has the Andromeda Galaxy during a full u-turn, and the BB needs the utterly ad hoc and unproven "dark matter" to keep it alive.

 2. Why Does There Appear to Be Design (Fine Tuning) in the Universe?
The constants that govern our universe appear to be remarkably fine-tuned to allow life. What explains that if not a supernatural intelligence?

 I disagree that fine-tuning exists.  It's no coincidence that we only find oxygen-based life forms living where there's oxygen.  Damp attics were not "fine-tuned" for mold, mold is just the natural result, given the physical conditions, if an attic in normal conditions remains damp for several days.

 If someone is closed minded to the evidence, I agree that that’s a problem. However, I’m happy to follow the evidence where it leads. 

 Christians are forbidden by the bible to do anything with oppositions of science "falsely so-called", beyond "avoiding" them.  1st Timothy 6:20 destroys millions of tons of Christian works in the last 2,000 years that attempted to deal with such oppositions of science.  All creationists who busy themselves "refuting evolution" are violating their own bible.

 3. How Did Life Originate?

  Since God is infinitely complex, Occam's Razor would require that any naturalistic explanation is going to be infinitely more likely true than "god-did-it".  That entails that supernatural explanations for origin of life must be demonstrated to be infinitely better than naturalistic explanations, before they can rationally obligate the hearer. 

Matthew as resurrection witness: did Irenaeus quote, or corroborate, Papias?

Generally, the less independent corroboration, the weaker the case for traditional authorship of Matthew, but the more independent corroboration, the stronger such a case would be (barring discussion of the credibility of the sources for the independent corroboration).

2nd century church Father Irenaeus asserts that Matthew authored a gospel. 
 

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies,Book 3, ch. 1

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Irenaeus elsewhere admits that he also got things not just from Papias, but specifically from the same Papias-authored 5-volume “Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord” that Eusebius depended on for crediting Papias with the earliest post-apostolic statement of Matthew’s authorship.  See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, ch. 33.

Therefore, it remains a possibility that Irenaeus’ statement about Matthew authoring a gospel constitutes nothing more than him simply repeating what Papias said.   If that is the case, Irenaeus wouldn't qualify as an independent corroboration, for the same reason that witness B is not independently corroborating the testimony of witness A, if all witness B is doing is depending on witness A's statement and giving it her own interpretation.

For obvious reasons, the more conservative or fundamentalist the Christian, the more they will view the evidence in the light most favorable to Matthew's authorship, since they are already low on resurrection eyewitness testimony, they cannot afford for any of their alleged witnesses to call in sick the day of trial.

Scholar Donald Guthrie, whose "NT Introduction" is "widely acclaimed" and "a benchmark evangelical work", says Irenaeus here was depending on Papias to assert Matthew authored a gospel:

This testimony is clearly identical with Papias’ statement only if λογία is interpreted as the gospel. Since Irenaeus was acquainted with Papias’ work it may reasonably be assumed that he is here giving his own interpretation of Papias’ statement…

Guthrie, D. (1996, c1990). “Matthew, Authorship”, New Testament introduction.

Series taken from jacket. (4th rev. ed.).

[The master reference collection]. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

The question to be answered in this blog is;  Is Irenaeus corroborating, or merely repeating, what Papias said?

If he was merely repeating, then he does not qualify as independent corroboration of Papias' statement, and as such, the case for Matthew's authorship is a bit weaker than it might have been.