The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy 9780889468115
773 112 25MB
English Pages 685 [350] Year 1985
Polecaj historie
Citation preview
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS DURING THE DEIST CONTROVERSY
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS DURING THE DEIST CONTROVERSY
William Lane Craig
Texts and Studies in Religion Volume 23
The Edwin Mellen Press Lewis toni Queens ton
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Craig, William Lane. The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy. (Texts and studies in religion; v. 23) Bibliography: p. I. Jesus Christ--Resurrection--History of doctrines. 2. Deism. I. Title. II. Series: Texts and studies in religion; 23. BT481.C695 1985 232.9'7'09033 85-21570 ISBN 0-88946-811-7 (alk. paper)
EX LIBRIS ELTROPICAL This is volume 23 in the continuing series Texts and Studies in Religion Volume 23 ISBN 0-88946-811-7 TSR Series ISBN 0-88946-976-8
To PI Copyright © 1985 by William Lane Craig
All rights reserved. For more information contact: The Edwin Mellen Press Box 450 Lewiston, New York USA 14092
The Edwin Mellen Press Box 67 Queenston, Ontario CANADA LOS ILO
Printed in the United States of America
CONTENTS PREFACE
xiii
SECTION I:
PRE-MODERN ANTICIPATIONS OF THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
Primitive Christianity The Gospels and Acts Matthew Mark LUke-Acts John Paul The Earliest Christian Apologetic The Early Church
The Middle Ages
26 28 30 31 32 33 35 38 41 46 46 50
The Dearth of Historiography Augustine Thomas Aquinas
Part 1:
6 8 16 19 24 26
Early Apologists Apologies for the Resurrection of the Flesh Justin Martyr Athenagoras Theophilus Irenaeus Tertullian Pseudo-Athenagoras Origen Arnobius Eusebius
SECTION II:
3
3
THE MODERN PERIOD The Eighteenth Century Flowering of the Historical Argument for the Resurrection
Its Provocation by Deism Factors Contributing to the Rise of Deism Geographic Expansion Scientific Revolutions Incipient Biblical Criticism vii
50 53 61 71 71
72 82 82 92 101
Religio-Social Effects of the Reformation Diminished Importance of Ecclesiastical Additions to Religion Diminished Miraculous Content of Religion Increased Importance of the Role of Reason in Religion Anti-Clericalism Proliferation of Sects Religious Wars Policies of Intolerance Deism's Instigation of the Historical Argument for the Resurrection The Attack on Revealed Religion Orthodox Defense of Revealed Religion on the Basis of the Facts The Rise of Historical Consciousness Modern Appropriation and Development of the Medieval Signs of Credibility Seventeenth Century Development of the Historical Argument for Christianity Eighteenth Century English Development of the Historical Argument for Christianity Eighteenth Century French Development of the Historical Argument for Christianity Eighteenth Century German Development of the Historical Argument for Christianity
124 129 134 165 167 169 171 176 176 184 184 188 193 220 225 231
Epistemological Common Ground Between Deism and Orthodoxy Theological Rationalism Roots of Theological Rationalism Theological Rationalism of Descartes and Locke
234
Overview of the History of the Deist Controversy Early French Development Course of the English Deist Controversy Blount to Sherlock Woolston vs. Sherlock on the Resurrection
252
viii
Tindal to Hume Gibbon and Paley The French Deist Controversy Influence of English Deism Rousseau and Voltaire Orthodox Response The German Deist Controversy Influence of English and French Deism Deists and their Opponents
124
234 236 241
252 253 253 255
260 261 268 268 270 278 283 283 288
The Problem of Miracles The Attack upon Miracles The Defense of Miracles
297 297 303
The Use of Historical Methodology
317
The Case for the Resurrection The Authenticity of the Gospels Internal Evidence External Evidence The Textual Purity of the Gospels The Reliability of the Gospels The Apostles neither Deceivers nor Deceived The Origin and Growth of the Church Refutation of Objections The Privacy of Jesus's Appearances The Inconsistencies in the Resurrection Narratives The Limited Conversion of the Jews The Nature of the Resurrection Body Summary
321 322 322 323 328 330 330
Part 2:
The Decline of the Historical Argument for the Resurrection
The Advance of Biblical Criticism The Late 18th Century Crisis in German Theology The Fundamental Hermeneutical Change Neologians and Rationalists Johann Salomo Semler His View of Scripture His Auseinandersetzung with Reimarus His Letztes Glaubensbekenntnis Gottfried Ephralm Lesslng ix
339 340 340 342 348 349 350
352 353 353 357 357 363 363 369 383
386
The Rift between Truth and Biblical Historicity The Impossibility of Historical Proofs for Truths of Faith The Hermeneutic of Natural Explanations Karl Bahrdt and Karl Venturini Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus The Hermeneutic of Mythological Interpretation The Resolution of the Traditional Dilemma Johann Eichhorn, Johann Gabler, and Georg Bauer David Friedrich Strauss The Impact on the Traditional Apologetic
386 389 389 391 391 393 401 401
SECTION III:
ASSESSMENT OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY DEBATE OVER THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
The Problem of Miracles Natural Law Spinoza First Objection Second Objection Hume "In Principle" Argument "In Fact" Arguments
477 480 491 491 492 502 502 517
405
The Historical-Critical Method
518
408 415
The Argument for the Resurrection
522
The Tide of Subjectivism Subjectivism in England Theological Complacency Religious Revival Romanticism Subjectivism in France Post-Revolutionary Subjectivism Historical Antecedents Marie Huber Jean-Jacques Rousseau Fran~ois Rene de Chateaubriand Subjectivism in Germany Immanuel Kant The Elimination of Speculative Metaphysics The Substitution of Subjective Justification of Religious Belief The Implication for the Historical Approach to Religion The Move toward Subjectivism in Apologetics Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher Friedrich August Gottreu Tholuck The Impact on the Traditional Apologetic
417 418 418 419 421 425 425 427 427 430 433 435 435 435
Summary
475
Dissolution of the Orthodox Dilemma Some Arguments of Enduring Worth The Origin of the Christian Way Refutation of Objections
524 528 535 538 542
Summary and Conclusion NOTES TO SECTION I
547
NOTES TO SECTION II
583
NOTES TO SECTION III
667
444 453 458 458 466 474
xi x
477
PREF ACE
During the first half of the present century, the importance Jesus
of
for
the
historicity
Christian
predominance
of
thinking
theology,
in
century,
taking
a
place
in
of
both
resurrection
obscured
by
existential which
of the
modes
depreciated
of the
But in the second half of
remarkable
revolution
seems
resurrection
studies.
The
Marburg
turning
point
against
conference
of
Bultmann's
position
faith,
the
was and
dialectical
value of history for faith. this
of
faith
1953
marked on
a
the
irrelevancy
of
to
history
be
to
and several of his pupils began to seek ways of
re-tying the Christ of faith Inevitably
this
sparked
of the resurrection.
to
the
renewed
Jesus
interest
Von Campenhausen's
Q~!~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~_~~~_!~~~~_Q~~~
of history. in
the event
De~_Abl~~£_~~~
(1952)
and
Hans
Grass's Os!~~~~~~~~~~_~~~_Os!~~~~ri~~!~ (1956) were landmarks in the revival of attempts to investigate and defend Von
the
historicity
Campenhausen
of
argued
the
for
resurrection
the
essential
of
Jesus.
historicity
of the Markan narrative of the women's discovery of the empty tomb of Jesus, empty
tomb,
appearances subjective
while Grass,
argued of
that
Jesus
visions,
the
cannot
but
though rejecting the post-resurrection
be
ought
explained
to
be
away
as
understood
as
objective (veridical) visions of the risen Lord. Sceptical continued,
of
treatments course,
Barthian/Bultmannian
of
but
the
by
resurrection
the
approaches
to
appeared to have spent their force. a
faltering
apogee
with
to recede.
the
popular
book
Die
(1968) and began quickly
Gutwenger comments on
critical scholarship in this area: xiii
1960's
resurrection
Scepticism reached
Marxsen's
Au£~~~eh~~~~~~~~~~~~~
late the
also
the self-reversal of
It appears that a few years ago the attack on Jesus's resurrection reached its climax. This situation was created through modern rationalism, which wants to explain everything through immanent causes, through a weariness with the divine, and a massive, hedonistic materialism. Bultmann's poorly understood teaching of demythologization and the open confession of some theologians that they cannot believe in the resurrection of a corpse helped to bring about a crisis of faith in Easten . Reaction came, and from the Catholic as well as the Protestant side the them of the resurrection of Christ was taken up anew.
r
supplies
the
past
from German,
decade
French,
flowed forth, historically.
a
continuing
stream
of
works
and English-speaking scholars has
defending anew the resurrection of Jesus
foundation
for
faith.
4
After
the
predominance of the Barthian/Bultmannian approaches to the
resurrection,
development
that
Pannenberg' s several
program
years
ago
is
one
a
startling
could
hardly
have held for possible in German theology. of
But
although
Jesus
has
theological
the
historicity
become
themes
one
in
of
they
stand
at
the
end
the
resurrection
most
years,
discussed
most
authors
the most part unaware
of
a
long
tradition
of
Although it was anticipated in
debate on this subject.
earlier Christian thought, the
of the
recent
writing on this subject seem for that
During
the
the historical argument for
resurrection of Jesus
became
the
crowning
element
Perhaps the most striking indication of
in the evidentialist apologetic for Christianity during
the new appreciation of the historical evidence for the
the years of the Deist controversy, and the seventeenth
resurrection
is
that
Jewish
theologians,
himself
convinced
that God did, 2 dead.
on
one
of
today's
Pinchas
most
prominent
and especially the eighteenth century also saw a flood
has
declared
of books, both pro and con,
Lapide,
the basis of historical
indeed,
raise Jesus of Nazareth from the
and
German presses.
flow from English,
French,
In this study I seek to bring to
light again the principal issues in the debate of that period, with a view toward assessing what arguments of
In the realm of systematic theology, most
evidence
significant
resurrection
is
development Wolfhart
with
probably the
regard
Pannenberg's
to
the
attempt
to
lasting
value
may
be
discovered
contemporary discussion.
therein
for
the
This was an extremely fertile
and exciting period of thought,
fascinating
in its own
construct his entire Christology "from below," that is,
right, but also rich in lessons for our own time.
based exclusively on the historical evidence for Jesus and his resurrection. His historical approach has been
von Humboldt Foundation for the generous fellowship and
hailed as ushering in a new era in European Protestant
extension
theology.3
Universitat
Arguing
against
Bultmann
on
the
one
hand
I
wish
to
express
thereof MUnchen
my
which and
gratitude funded
at
my
to
the
Alexander
research
Cambridge
at
the
University.
The
that a kerygmatic Christ utterly unrelated to the real,
Foundation's
historical Jesus would be "pure myth" and against Barth
personal concern for Fellows were much appreciated, and
on the other that a dialectical encounter
the West German government may be rightly proud of its
distinguish
from
Christ
known
only
through
would
be impossible to "self-delusion," Pannenberg contends
that the reports of Jesus's empty tomb and appearances are
most
that
he
plausibly really
did
accounted
for
by
rise
the
dead
from
xiv
the and
explanation that
this
efficiency,
clear-sightedness
in
broadness
establishing
of
so
and
mind,
an
fine
organization to bring research scholars to Germany. I also wish to thank Prof. Dr. Wolfhart Pannenberg for serving as the supervisor of my research and
Prof.
Dr. Ferdinand Hahn for his reading and criticisms of my
xv
work.
NOTES Finally
thanks
are
due
to
my
wife
Jan
for
her 1
initial typing and re-typing of the manuscript, and to Mary
Dalton
for
the
production
typescript, and to Janet typescript for pUblication.
Gutman
of for
the
finished
preparing
the
E.
Gutwenger,
"Auferstehung
Jesu," ( 1 969) : 32.
Verlag,
MUnchen, Bundesrepublik Deutschland L.
Wilkins
1968).
Au!~~!ehung (Stuttgart:
1977; MUnchen:
3 Wo 1 fha r t L.
See
Auferstehungs-
~~.!.!~ch!:.'!'!!JU!:._ Ka~~~.!.i s~~~ Th~~.!.~gi e
1e i b
2Pinchas Lapide, William Lane Craig
und
B.
A.
D.
Calwer
Kosel Verlag, 1977), Jes ~~-=--_ G0s!~!!!!_!i~~,
Pa nne n be r g, and
9
A.
Priebe
Willems,
"W.
(London:
SCM
t r an s • Press,
Gr~~s!~~~~
Pannenberg,
s!~~Ch.!:.is!~ogie,"
322;
Henl Marll,
Tils!~~.!:.if!_~ooG~~~~gie 7 (1967): "Comincia un'era nuova nella teologia
protestante tedesca'?" Ci~.!..!.!~_Catt~ica 214-25; Daniel P. Fuller, "A New German Movement," 160-75. 4
xvi
~~~!!.!.~~_~~~.!:.~~.!._~!_!~~~!~~~
Pannenberg,
Jes~~,
pp. 27-8, 88-106.
xvii
119 (1969): Theological 19
(1966):
SECTION I PRE-MODERN ANTICIPATIONS OF THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS Although
the
resurrection
of
development thinkers opposed
Jesus
of
who
historical
modern
were
this
the of
by
these
the
modern
to
early
do
and
evidentialist
in
the who
disputants substance
in
arguments
writers
the
a
eighteenth
various
Christian again
part
those
earlier
only
the
apologetics,
seventeenth
Not
opponents often crop up but
most
both structure and
argumentation.
pressed
the
for
argument--and
indebted
concerning matters their
for
Christian
employed
it--during
centuries
is
argument
and
their
later centuries,
approach
to
apologetics
owes a great deal to the system worked out by medieval scholastics,
as
we
shall
see.
Therefore,
in
this
section I propose for purposes of background to survey briefly several of the important figures in the history of
Christian
thought
development
of
who
the
foreshadowed
historical
the
argument
modern for
the
resurrection of Jesus. Prim!!!ve_Chr!~ia~!!r
Whether they defend or deny the witness of the New Testament
writers
virtually
every
acknowledges risen
from
that the
Christianity. words: the
fact
to
the
modern at
dead This
least lay is
of
critic
theologian
the at
the
resurrection E.~l.!~!
the
true
or that
heart import
of of
Jesus,
Jesus
had
primitive Bultmann's
"All that historical criticism can establish is that
the
the resurrection.,,1
first
disciples
came
to
believe
in
The Bultmannian disciple Schubert
2
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
Ogden
similarly
faith
of
the
holds
the disciples. 2
first
that
resurrection New
Quester
is
the
James
M.
Robinson agrees that historically the content of early Christian
preaching
centering Marxsen,
in
the
though
was
God's
cross
and
himself
eschatological resurrection. 3
believing that
Jesus
the basis of the New Testament proclamation of Christ, without
Willi
which
there
would
be
virtually
no
witness
But
while
this
fact
is
widely
recognized,
for
~~!:!.~
the
fact
of
the
resurrection
as
E..!:.~~~.!.!!!.~
message is,
apologetic for the fact of the resurrection.
that
Paul
and
after all,
the New Testament. been
raised,
faith
is
the
written
disciples
throughout the pages of
our
vain"
preaching Cor
(I
is
in
vain
he
15.14),
and
spoke
not
for
The fact that Christ "was raised on the
third
one
was
we
find
it.
In
clear
the
New
examples
Testament books
of
first
century
Christian
of
the
essential
elements
of
the
Matthew Early Christian apologetic for the resurrection is evident
in each of the gospels.
Perhaps the clearest
example is Matthew's use of the story of the
Christ
the
him
and
delivered
by
him
recipients of his preaching (I Cor 15.1_5).5 to
Paul,
the ~ith
the
Acts,
Cor
(I
sermons
do
formulas (for
the
According
but
to
Jesus's
so
do
encapsulating
example,
15:3-5;
I
importance
Rom.
Tim. of
is to
(Acts find
climax
resurrection.
apostle
Acts
gospels serve and
1.22),
their
In as
the
fact
1.3-4; 6 3.16),
thus
belief
of
4.24-5;
in
the
the
the
disciples
had
in connection with
Jesus's
arrest
[In
28.15, this is indicated by the designation of Jesus as
in
an "imposter," an earmark of Jewish anti-Christian polemic. 8 The Jewish allegation that the disciples had
to
Cor.
resurrection.
stolen
Jesus's
Justin
Martyr
body in
his
the
Besides
by
does not refer to a guard.
the
think,
that
night
polemic
the
is
by
God
and
appearing
before
his
Koch;
the
New
"Resurrection
diSciples
constitute
tomb
wh i c h
was
are
a
clear
also
Di~l~L~.!.!.~TrrE.ho
the
however,
Jewish
Matthean
concerning statement
in
mentioned
by
but
he
108,
This should not lead us to
Matthew's
story of
the
Testament message," writes Gerhard
Mk
Not
I
to
pre-Matthean tradition may be found
of
cf.
14.44]), Matthew's intention is to provide a Christian
the
point
18.3,12;
Jesus's
demonstrating
central
stolen
In relating this story, which is unique
"It is everywhere clear that the
is
the
among the canonical gospels (John does mention a guard
event
Easter
counter
themselves
earliest Christians. of
to
11-15)
the
resurrection
resurrection
that
Jesus's body.
28.4,
in
Christian
10.8-10;
allegation
27.62-6;
counter-response
abound
of early
(Mt
the
climax
resurrection
citations
"a
tomb
guard at
all
God raised Jesus from the dead.
references
epistles,
in
the
Jesus's
resurrection"
announcement that the
of
All
chief duty of an
to his
evangelistic only
15.11).
proclamation
the
witness
to
this was the common message proclaimed by all
apostles
as
themselves
gospel message received by Paul from those who were in before
well
The Gospels and Acts
your
himself alone. day"
is
When Paul wrote, "If Christ has not
then
in
early
it
perhaps not so widely appreciated that early Christians
obviously believed that the resurrection actually occurred. 4 The
admits
to
Christ.,,7
action
is dead,
3
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
creation.
!:!.~E.~.!_l~~~!!!~!!.~
for
the
For in
the
guard
at
evidence
of
the many words New
T est arne n t :
4
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
aO~aAL~W,
EnavpLOV, rrapaOXEUn, nAavos/nAavn, XOUOTWOLa,
Moreover,
the expression
"chief priests and
a~payL~w.
Pharisees"
(cf. 21.45) is unusual for Matthew and never appears in or
Mark 9.47,
Luke,
though it is common in John (7.32,45; 18.3). 9 Moreover, the Gospel of Peter also
57;
relates
the
account,
story
while
independent
much
of
between
them
Matthew
did
of
the
later
it,
are not
guard than
since
the
tomb,
Matthew's,
the
and
the
verbal
guard
its
may well
be
similarities
non-existent. TO
virtually invent
at
story
That
also
seems
there for
is no need to mention the
this
presupposes
lapse on the guards' The assertion
that
history
of
Jewish
pattern
and
of
Christian
assertion
and
be attributed
this
to
the
the
disciples
stole the
body while
Jewish
polemic.
This
(28.15b).
Only now does it become necessary to
relate
the
chief
At
priests. in
attributed this
is
story of the
counter-assertion
tradition
part cannot
But
asleep.
reports
to
a
falling
guard,
the guard slept originates in the next response of the
response
lie
their
bribing of the
Christian apologetic, since it would be self-defeating.
evident from the fact that behind it there would appear polemic, a developing counter-assertion: 11
5
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
the
to
of
most
then,
the
pattern it
could,
that
rumor
bribing
above
Matthew.
connection
the
It
which
the
guards
only
of
the
be
story
the
final and
plausibly
interesting
Matthew's
by
assertion
seems,
is
Matthew
to
falls
note into
in two
parts, the setting of the guard and the bribing of the Christian: "The Lord is risen!" Jew: "No, his disciples stole his body away by night." Christian: "The guard at the tomb would have prevented any such theft." Jew: "No, his disciples stole away his body while the guard slept." Christian: "The chief priests bribed the guard to say this."
the
The
Jewish
charge
body
was
probably
Christian
proclamation
that
the
the that
disciples
Jewish Jesus
proclamation may well have been
reaction was
ana
body-snatching by the disciples.
stolen to
the
risen.
in the words
twice in Mt 27.64; 28.7: " Dyspfln To this the Jews answered with was
had
TWV
This
repeated "12
V€IlPWV
the
charge
At this point,
of
there
no need to mention a guard,
so that the origin of 13 the guard cannot be attributed to the Jewish polemic. Rather
the
first
mention
Christian
response
posted
the
Jews
would
Note
that
at
corpse.
by
to
the
of
the
Jewish have
this
guard
comes
slander:
prevented
stage
of
the
the theft
in
the
guard of
the
controversy
All
guard. appears Peter,
in
the
the
the
traditional
first
story of
material
section. the
Also
bribe
in
noted the
is missing.
above
Gospel
of
The guard
report, not to the chief priests, but to Pilate, and he simply
commands
them
to
mention of the guards' It may be that tradition hand,
in in
witnesses so
that
he
any
at the
the
There
is
no
falling asleep or of the bribe.
could case,
first
section;
not
have
for
he
tomb and
guards'
must be omitted.
silent.
the apocryphal writer only knew of the
Matthew's
however,
section
remain
included has
described
falling
on
asleep
the the
other second
multiplied
the
the resurrection, and
being
bribed
At any rate, it seems evident that it
is misleading to speak of the story of the guard at the tomb
as
a
"Matthean apologetic,"
for
Matthew probably
contributed at most only the story of the bribe. In Matthew's employment of the guard story, then, we
have
a
good
illustration
of
how
early
Christians
argued for the fact of Jesus's resurrection, upholding
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
6
it
against
note
the
that
the
resurrection forced
Jewish
to
polemic.
first
with
deal
is
interesting
counter-explanation
which
was
It
Christians
the
conspiracy
were
would
again
have
recourse
Ironically,
response. Matthew's
account
of
to
chief
guard
lies
which
was
Their opponents
Matthew's
the
the
the
apparently
theory,
revived by eighteenth century Deists.
of
to
guard
story
value not
today
in
the
positive Were
this
may
death
of Christianity themselves bear witness to the
of
be
of
of
the
could
empty
tomb
Matthew's
lacks story
the
of
obvious
contains.
the
discovery
apologetic
Bul tmann
motifs
comments
Mark's presentation is extremely reserved, the resurrection and appearances of the not
recounted.,,15
theological in
this
Nauck
motifs
story:
in-breaking
that
(1)
of
the
points
might
be
the
out
reality
or
forestall
early
Christians
oblivious The
to
prominent
passion
story
witnesses, Jewish
the
do
apologetic
place and
the
it
to
the of
(4) the nature
occupies
careful
the
this,
value
of
use
of
however,
the
been the
in
the
completely empty
tomb.
pre-Markan
recounting of the
women
scorned and un-qualified though they were in
society,17
shows
that
the
empty
decayed
(2)
(5)
have
they
ascension
prophecy,
tomb
had
some
wonder
is
at
so that
of
the
death
objection
his
the
story,
Jesus's
quick
guard
(Mk
interchange the
narrative
to
15.44-5).
is
meant
to
that
Jesus
was
resurrection
was merely
attempt
merely
very
explain
to
apparent
slow,
and
death.
since
it
Jesus's Death
was
by
difficult
to determine precisely the time of death, the bodies of
the
the
seem
many
to emphasize
Mark's
crucified victims were usually left on
or
(3)
not
are
a
was
although
from
Despite
Lord
of
If so, this would be an anticipation
as
relatives
are
eon,
and
resurrection
of
Jesus's
this
rationalist
crucifixion
"
of
that
lacking
expected
proof
body,
which
that
the
titles. 16
the
in so far as
new
resurrection
Christological
f
risen
Jesus's spirit or his descent into hell, of
of
the
the
place
and that this is
~~pty
interrogation
be
a resuscitation. of
that
a
significance
Pilate's
Pilate's
not actually dead, Mark
odd
such
Mark wants
feature
apologetic
him,
counteract
the empty tomb.
interesting
to
and
It
narrative
it
Christians.
in the gospels rather than skipping over it
Another
determine
simple
seems
given
of
Jewish polemic never denied the empty tomb, but rather 14 sought to explain it away. Thus the early opponents
Mark's
it
for
a significant sign of the resurrection.
that
fact
case, have
least
that the tomb of Jesus was found
guard
information
the
should
at
in
unhistorical,
incidental
value,
to the appearance traditions.
peculiar
the
not
prominence
which
in
evidential
evangelists
itself, which nearly all contemporary critics reject as but
7
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
to
be
taken
death John
by
down.
we
of
(In
preclude
unconscious
but
have
propounded
by
eaten
corpse
means
or
were
friends
records
refute since
or
was
birds
usually 18 it.
the
Roman
or
animals,
handed
requested
If
executioners
over
the
idea
that
This
could
evidence
opponents
of
Jesus was
is
that the
if
the body was ensure
a lance thrust into the victim, 19.34).1 9 Mark may have wished
alive. no
by
the cross until
as to
taken down
uncertain,
however,
this
explanation
early
Christians.
was It
could be that this is a piece of tradition that is only obliquely apologetic. with
v.46,
for
this
Stylistically, v. leaves
a
gap
43 does not go in
the
story
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
8
concerning Pilate's decision. of Mark,
In
leaving out vs.
the gap with Mt
27.58b.
The
two
in Mark contain Markan expressions ( ),
){EVTVPLWV,
unique construction here, technical official Grass,
and
of
the
verses llPOO){ct
but
ho
yvouS
are
reflecting
governor's
-
is a
6WPEO)JctL
together
terms, language
perhaps
order:
the
a
Taylor,
and
plausible
others
The prologue is composed in excellent Greek, some
have,
found
the
apologetical as well, since the question of apologetics concerns
only
the prologue he refers to the first-hand nature of his
related,
not
the its
purpose
not
for
factici ty.
preclude
which
In
the
the
its
being
account
present
case
is the
apologetic intent is not sufficiently obvious for us to conclude verses;
that
this
certain
is
is
the
only
raison d'~tre
that,
for
for
the
whatever
two
purpose,
as though he were
sources
and
Mark wished to underline the fact that although Jesus's
He
death was quick, it was sure.
orderly
LUke-Acts It
is
the
evangelist
Luke,
however,
who
in
his
so
long
demonstrate
and
careful
it or
clear his
that
reliability
of
takes
intention
this
he
any reader
procedure
his
in
intends
might
facts
narrative
~~~l~~_~~~
narrative
reader
the
of
1.53-5; idem
chronological
that
to
his
is meant to underline
reliability
C£~~~~_~~£~
makes
place
trying to
his
historical
Josephus
a more popular style.
His use of
research. the
to
to
initial I t is
that he is capable, should he so desire, of writing in 21 the style of the most eloquent Greek historian. In
does
Luke reverts
after this
an
historical
that
of the finest in the New Testament; sentence
is
feel
moreover,
it does not merit 20 Bultmann's appellation as legendary. Of course, that ac-count
and
Or ~~~~~~~~~r (Lk 1.1-4).
donavit
So there could be traditional material here.
cadaver. story
accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closelya for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
44-5
Luke creates such a gap in Lk 23.52-3, whereas
Matthew fills
9
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
of
to
of
know
the
seriously
6.134).22
construct
what
the
has That
evident
an
taken
certainty
gospel. is
(cf.
or
Luke
from
his
apologetic
elaborate synchronization of events in the style of the
treatise E~~~~~~!l~~~~ on the historical evidence for the resurrection. Of all·the evangelists, Luke is the
classical historian to fix the date of the beginning of
most
manifestly
double
work
of
Luke-Acts
self-consciously
a
has
composed
historian,
the
and
he
seeks
to
John
the
Baptist's
provide a firm basis for Christian faith in historical
factual
facts.
historical
In
his
prologue
to
insists that what he relates testimony
of
those
who
his is
double-work,
Luke
squarely based on the
experienced
the
events
first-hand: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compi Ie a have been narrative of the things which
very
basis
ministry
much of
for
the
concerned
what
resurrection
double-work hinges. historicity
(Lk
with
Christians is
the
3.1_3).23
Luke
establishing believed,
and
is the the
key event on which his
Luke adduces two lines of argument of
the
resurrection:
the
proof
from prophecy and the proof from eyewitness testimony. Both
are
found
already
in
the
gospel:
In
the
Emmaus
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
10
appearance, Christ glory?'
c Or child (Acts 3.13-15).
Jesus says, «'Was it not necessary that the
should
suffer
these
things
and
enter
into
his
And beginning with Moses and all the prophets,
'The God of our fathers raised Jesus whom killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. we are wi tnesses to these things and so is Holy Spirit (Acts 5.30-31).
he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning the
himself"
appearance
to
(Lk
24.26-27;
the eleven,
cf.
Jesus,
24.44-47).
In
after displaying
from the Old Testament that the Christ must suffer and rise
on
the
third
disciples: 24.48).
"You
day,
are
gives
this
witnesses
of
these
to
his
things"
(Lk
Both these lines of argumentation, which Luke
portrays as stemming from the risen then
charge
carried
represents
out
them,
in the
the
book
apostles
Jesus himself,
of
Acts.
continually
As
testimony becomes more extensive:
are Jesus of Nazareth went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses to all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest; not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as wi tnesses, who ate and drank wi th him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people. (Acts 10.32-42).
Luke
reinforced
Peter draws upon hearers'
own
knowledge
of
Jesus's
miracles;
he
accuses them of murdering Jesus; and he announces that God has raised him from the dead. quote
Ps
16.8-11
corruption,
and
psalm to David.
that he
God's
shows
the
Holy
He then proceeds to One
would
inapplicability
not of
you him give And the
4. Pe~~~~_~£~~~~~_Co~~~~~~~~~_~ou~~~~~: In preaching to outsiders the appeal to eyewitness
their message by the appeal to eyewitness testimony and to Old Testament proof-texts: 24 his
11
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
see
Paul also
this
finds it necessary to inform his listeners more closely
Therefore, it must be that David
as
to who
God's 'foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses' (Acts 2.31-32).
. . c the God of our fathers glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One. • and killed the Author of Life, To this we are whom God raised from the dead. witnesses.'
Jesus
great
was
acts
and in
what
the
he
After
did.
history
of
reciting
Israel,
Paul
announces: • God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets. ., fulfilled these by condemning him. Though they could charge him with nothing deserving death, yet they asked Pilate to have him killed. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people. . what
12
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus. • And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, "Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption." For David fell asleep and saw corruption; but he whom God raised saw no corruption' (Acts 13.23, 27-37).
6. f~~l~~_~!:.~~£~~~~_~£~~£!!: In Athens Paul "preached Jesus and the resurrection" (Acts 17.18), but is cut short by mockers before witnesses are mentioned:
contended that it is a special Lukan trait to emphasize the role of the 1.8,
22;
23.11;
case
2.40;
that
• has fixed a day on which he will in righteousness by a man whom he and of this he has given assurance raising him from the dead' (Acts
apostles as witnesses 4.33;
26.16;
8.25;
and
28.33)
Luke
has
a
18,5;
that
(Lk 24.48;
20.21,
it
is
developed,
24;
Acts
22.15,20;
undoubtedly
peculiar
the
theory
of
witness
(eine ausgebildete, eigene Zeugen- und Zeugnis!:.!!~~!:..!.~) . g----;;:-l--;;O-U-g-h--;i-l-;k-e-n-s-,--i-n--d-e-;e:-;e-:-;:; 0 n - Han s "Mitte der Zeit"
Conzelmann's program,
maintains
theologically God. judge the world has appointed, to all men by 17.30-31).
13
THE RESURRECTION Of JESUS
stressing
the
theory
could
witnesses
not
conception
Luke's
motivated,
apologetical, repeated
that
not
be
on
his
In
witnesses
is
motivation
in
historico-
this
would
Luke's
witness
primarily
theological?
emphasis
of
of
case
be
Luke's
intended
to
underscore the historical reliability of his account of
Thus in the Acts speeches we find Jesus's commission in
Christian beginnings.
the gospel carried out:
the concept of witness in the New Testament has argued
proclaimed
but
there
the resurrection is not simply
is
also
the
attempt
to
provide
that
this
credibility to the proclamation by the use of scripture
Luke-Acts
proofs
background
and
raised.
eyewitness
Were
testimony
a sceptical
Jesus was
as
them,
represents
Jesus
had
antagonist to have
of them how they knew Luke
that
raised,
would
have
the
been
demanded apostles,
confidently
is
in
persecution,
which
to
juridical 26 lawcourt.
Luke
talked
with him, and eaten and drunk with him over a period of
vindicates
Jesus
Jewish
The
repeated
emphasis
in
the
speeches
on
fresh
court. evidence
over The
Christ
and to of
the
that
against
a
active
place given
drawn
present the
out
and
large
ideas
from
the
the
evidence,
resurrection,
which
against his condemnation by the
resurrection
which
serves
brings, re-open
it
his
argue
evidence laid down in Deut 19.15.
basis
apostolic eyewitnesses. plays
a
leading
of
Indeed,
role
in
the
testimony
of
the
times
missionary
in
Acts. sermons
In in
his Acts,
to
the
According to Trites,
the concept of witness
Luke-Acts.
The
word
and its derivatives occur nine times in the gospel and 39
wi tnesses
were, trial.
facts he records, in accordance with the Jewish rule of
the
double
as
the historicity of the resurrection and was prepared to on
emphasi zes
to
Hence,
it
often
for
study of
eyewitness evidence shows that Luke was concerned about for
Luke
wants
of
his
points
contention,
accounts
evidence
in
He
case.
claims
the
terminology
the
many days.
the
hostility,
especially
responded that they had seen Jesus alive again,
fact
presents of
Allison Trites
important Ulrich
of
the
Wilckens
study
has
the only testimony Luke means to offer is that which would satisfy a court of law, and this demands twofold or threefold testimony; this is the significance of his repeated use of the principle of twofoldness. By this device Luke seeks to provide evidence for the truth of the
14
THE HISTORICAL ARGUM ENT FOR
event s which have trans pired , there by givin g Theop hilus 'authe ntic knowl edge' (aoqJCxAEGCt , the same word used by Thucy dides in the prefac e to his histo rical work, 1.22) and vindi cating his own name as a histo rian. His whole book is meant as a witne ss to the truth . He uses the histo rical mater ial for the Book of Acts accord ing to the stand ards of his time as they are expre ssed by such ancie nt histo rians as Herod otus, Polyb ius, Thucy dides and Josep hus, and certa inly intend s to offer eviden ce that stand the test of the close st scruti ny •
WI
If this is the case, then we have in LukeActs a sophi sticat ed, histo rical apolo getic for the Chris tian faith cente ring on the resur rectio n. The opera tive questi on for Luke, conten ds Trite s, is: on what groun ds or eviden ce can people have faith; hence , the great est possi ble stress is placed upon the factua l conte nt of the preac hing. 28 The testim ony conce rns GOd's great acts in Jesus and the resur rectio n const itutes the very heart of this. the " Chris tian faith rests upon histo rical facts, and Luke in both his Gospe l prefac e and Acts stress es the impor tance of the apost olic witne ss for this reason ."29 In additi on to this thread of contin uity which runs throug h his doubl e-wor k, Luke also graph ically descr ibes the appea rance s of Jesus to which the apost les bear wi tness in such a way as to preclu de their being hallu cinati ons or ghost ly visita tions (Lk 24.36 -43). The demon stratio n of corpo real i ty throug h eating is under lined in the preach ing in Acts (Acts 10.41 ; cf. 1.4: OUVCtAL1;OI1CtG 3 0 ). Notew orthy is Luke's summa ry statem ent in the prolog ue to the second volume of his doubl e-wor k: "To them he presen ted himse lf alive after his passio n by many proof s, appea ring to them during forty days, and speak ing of the kingdo m of God" (Acts 1.3). Luke' s singu lar use of "proo fs"
15
THE RESURR ECTION OF JESUS
demon strate s preoc cupat ion
with
insist ence
the
again ,
histo rical
not
only
his
but
also
his
facts , realis m of Jesus 's resur rectio n. howev er, one must be carefu l in speak ing
on
Once again , about "Luke 's physi calism " or "Luke 's apolo getic, " for while it is true that only Luke mentio ns Jesus 's eating (but cf. Jn 2 1 • 9 - 1 4) , the showin g of the wound s is part tradi tion recei ved, grant ed John' s he the of indepe ndenc e from Luke, for John also narra tes this (In Moreo ver, the words SpWOqlOV and txBus onTes are 20.20 ). unique here, indic ating that even Jesus 'S eating before the discip les is not a Lukan redac tion, but part of the tradi tion
he demo nstrat ions,
recei ved. which
Thus,
serve
the
the
two-fo ld
physi cal purpo se
of showin g corp~rea~ity and ~on~~nuitr with the cruci fied Jesus , canno t simply be set down to Lukan creat ivity . The empha sis in Luke and John on the demo nstrat ions of corpo realit y and conti nuity are perhap s best viewed as an attem pted proof that the discip les were not just "seein g thing s,"
This Celsu s was later to alleg e. be hallu cinat ory an would the antic ipatio n of expla nation of the resur rectio n appea rance s, champ ioned by the ninete enth centu ry libera l schoo l of theolo gy as
and still propou nded by sever al critic s today . In Luke- Acts then we have a sophi sticat ed examp le of early Chris tian argum en t f or t he resur rectio n. Indeed , in a sense Luke stand s like a rock far out at sea, as the first system atic attem pt to estab lish the resur rectio n Luke's
length y
resear ch
into
throu gh and
histo rical
close
scruti ny
evide nce; of
for
with the facts , his descr iption s of
eyewi tness repor ts, his unmis takeab le appea rances of Jesus alive from the dead, and his repea ted empha sis on the first- hand testim ony of the apost olic preac hers, a histo rical proof for the
16
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
resurrection, among other things, is exactly what he is about.
31
We
must
wait
until
the
fourth
century
for
17
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
interest
in
claim.
providing
evidence
Jesus's
substantiating
Jesus offers these signs as evidence:
"
another Christian historian to arise, and then Eusebius
these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that
will also employ his skill as a historian to attempt to
the Father has sent me"
establish
do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know
the
resurrection
through
historical
even though you
(5.36); " •
reasoning.
and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father"
(10.38);
John
and
Father in me; or else believe me for
the
"Believe
me
that
I
am
of the works themselves"
(14.11).
In
of wi tness. According to Trites, the in this gospel is apologetic and juridical in nature. 32 John like Luke seeks to root the
the
serve
the
resurrection
that
In on
John's
the
gospel
like
Luke's
we
find
an
emphasis
concept
wi tness
after
narratives
recording
in
that
eyewitness
one
of
the
reports.
soldiers
Thus, pierced
signs
can
actually
faith in Christ. stating
that
the
(20.31).
So
the
Father
the sake
John's portrayal foundation
for
Hence, he can conclude his gospel by
these
reader
as
in
signs
have
may
believe
John's
gospel
been
that as
recorded
Jesus
well
is
as
in
the
order Christ
Luke's
is
at
Jesus's side and that blood and water issued forth,
pains to underscore the fact that its narration of the
incident follows:
events surrounding the death,
peculiar "He
testimony is truth--that
to
who
John's saw
it
true, and you also
he
gospel, has
borne
knows
that
may
an insertion
this
witness--his he
believe"
tells
and resurrection
of Jesus stand on a solid historical basis.
the
(In
burial,
A second historical
indication
basis of the
of
John's
concern
resurrection
is
with
the
his manner of
19.35). Similarly at the end of the epilogue to the gospel we find this note: "This is the disciple who is bearing
dealing with the
witness
through the appearance to Thomas, who would not believe
to
these
things,
and
who
has
written
these
problem of believers who did not see
Jesus risen from the
dead.
John
handles
this
things; we know that his testimony is true" (In 21.24).
unless he personally saw and touched Jesus.
This
appears
testimonium
appearance
in
is
Galilee
attached and
is
to
a
resurrection
therefore
particularly
noteworthy.
It is clearly an attempted authentication
are
of
therein
20.29).
what
is
related
by
eyewitness status of its author. great
emphasis
Perhaps
the
on
most
the
disciples'
striking
appealing Like Luke, role
example
is
as Jn
to
the
John lays witnesses.
15.27,
a
sentence which could just as easily have come from Luke's hand: "and you also are witnesses, because you have Acts
been with 1.21-22).
me
from
the
beginning"
(cf.
Lk
24.48;
John's use of the signs also shows his
to
Thomas
and
Thomas
"Have you believed because you those
Peter,
who
have
not
believes,
When Jesus Jesus
have seen me?
seen
and
problem
yet
says, Blessed
believe"
(In
The same problem is similarly dealt with in whose
author
describes
himself
as
"Peter,
I an
apostle of Jesus Christ" and therefore an eyewitness of "the
resurrection
"Without not
now
having see
Unutterable problem
him and
of
of
seen you
Jesus him
you
believe
exalted
joy"
believers
Christ love
from
him;
the
though
dead": you
do
in
him
and
rejoice
with
(I
Pet
1.1,
3,8).
This
either
temporally
or
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
18
geographically
removed
from
the
original
events
could
only arise in a context in which the historicity of the original events was valued. treasured
in
historical
the
mind
event,
the
Were the resurrection not
of
the
early
problem
distance would never arise.
of
church
as
a
believers
at
a
19
-
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
33 Thus for John every bit as much for Luke is secure. the apostolic witness to the resurrection the means by 34 which our faith is supported. Paul Turning
The fact that the problem
from
the
gospels
to
Paul,
we
find
that
does arise within John shows how highly the historicity
because his letters were written
of
which presumably needed no convincing, the resurrection If a is widely mentioned, but not contended for.
the
events
apostolic
in
the
testimony
resurrection
thereto
was
valued.
story heightens, not diminishes, historical.
Indeed,
words to Thomas,
in
the
narratives
and
The
the
Thomas
John's emphasis on the
next
breath after
Jesus's
other
words,
first-hand
those
knowledge
confidently
who
of
do
not
have
of
the
Jesus.
believed wi thout of
the
ten
reliable
Thomas
disciples
who
the
because
disciples' it
was
having
not
seen
important
believe
we should not have possessed one of our most
seen.
Jesus for
the
alive
the
persons
contrary,
the
story
teaches
should
that
it
of is
seeing precisely
which
the
The
apostle "in
subsequent
the
because
believers'
in
the
church
of
that
the
faith
is
that
of the certain
there
"
is
no
This prompted
(I Cor 15.12).
Paul.
what
He begins
terms
I
by
preached
reminding the to
you
the
Corinthians
gospel"
(I
Cor
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twel ve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me (I Cor 15.3-8).
word
importance (as
though
disciples,
disciples
maintaining
of
15.1), whereupon the following summary is given:
Thomas
it
subsequent enjoyed
disciples'
and sure
witness to what they experienced with their own senses that
arisen
a brief treatise on the subject of resurrection by the
have
believers are blessed because they believe without the ad:!.~!!.!:.~~~
were
resurrection of the dead"
ought not to be important for subsequent believers); on the
never
eyewitness
possessed
had
story is not at all meant to play down of
Corinth,
including the
himself
seeing because he
other
Thomas's
nevertheless
testimony recorded by John to the signs, resurrection,
heresy
testimonies to the historicity In the Corinthian church, resurrection.
may
because
certain valuable
John states,
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing you may have life through his name (Jn 20.30-31). In
had
to Christian churches
confident
and
Why
does
Corinthians of the The answer content of the gospel he preached to them? seems
to
Paul be
doctrine
of
himself
did
want
that the not
to
Paul
remind saw
resurrection rise
from
the
that
their
would the
denial
imply dead,
of
the
that
Christ
which
would
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
20
invalidate rose
the
from
the
necessarily therefore, dead
(v.
which
Christian dead, to
show
and
such
as
the of
in
to
own
in
himself
6-7.
from
he cites the
the
formula,
8,
in
a
mentioning
the
can
fact
hardly
that
most
any
of
the
event
was
purpose
500
are
in
still
alive, unless Paul is saying, in effect, 'the witnesses 6 are there to be questioned.' "3 In short, Paul is arguing "The
historically
for
intention of this
the
resurrection
enumeration
proof by means of witnesses to the resurrection," hardly be able of
giving
a
is
Pannenberg;
to call
into question
convincing
of
"
historical
Jesus.
clearly to
fac~icity
concludes
give
of Jesus' one will
Paul's
intention
proof
by
the
standards of that time • Paul cannot be trying
to prove the resurrection since the Corinthians already accepted the authority and content of the 1-2,
13)38 misses the point.
trying of
for
J e sus's
evidence 20.
the
first
time
to
res u r r e c t ion,
which
underlies
then our faith
gravity
asserting,
of
just
what
he does not then
too
"
real
(vs.
he
is
recounting
resurrection
the
of
in
is in vain;
"But
in
fact
Corinthians
~~.:'.!~~!~£
assertion
of
the v.
if Christ is not
but this cannot be
Weiss's
He to
view there
evidence
order
to
for
the
undergird
his
statement that Christ has been raised. That this understanding of the passage is correct is evident from the famous Barth-Bultmann debate over I Corinthians 15. 41 Barth asserted, " it must be emphasized that
neith~~
~~~
for Paul
for the tradition,
to which we see him appealing here, of
a
giving
resurrection.,,,42 scriptures"
was it a question the of proof 'historical
expression
The
twice
repeated would "he
the
case
the
if
The
demonstration.
to verse the
is if
is
that
at
it
in
a to
as would be historical to
the
historical
fact
objection the
the
connected
"then,"
serious
most
no meaning
seen"
aimed
passage
to
"according
have
was
historical proof. the "he rose again" by "and," not
resurrection,
~_~ominem:
"But our experience
states,
historical
Jesus
of Jesus's
crucial
he
were
The logic of Paul's argument and have begun at v. 12. his insertions and additions to the formula show that
convince
the
of
is objective, historical fact. no reason to cite the formula at all; the chapter could
interpretation
is
consequences
Corinthians
argue,
On
historical
he
the
Rather
Of course, he is not now but
the
formula
Weiss also seems to misunderstand Paul's argument,
declaring it to be purely raised,
the
The
Conzelmann's objection that
disastrous
the
historical
be
the
perhaps
naming of wi tnesses, a method which Paul follows here. 35 With regard to Paul's comment in v. 6a, Dodd " Th ere
out
(v. 20). Christ has been raised from the dead • but experience, subjective to appeals, not
the
observes,
draw
the
Pannenberg draws attention to proving
does
denying Christ's resurrection,40 perhaps to bring home
6b,
v.
that the method employed by Greek historians, Herodotus,
Paul
Though
is
in
and
39 affirmed because our experience is too real.
and
resurrection
comment
v.
is
argument,
rise
did
Jesus's his
denial
Paul's
Christ
Christ
however,
general
crux
that
adds
appearances in vs. fact
If,
For this purpose,
20).
appearances,
the
The
cUlminates
appearance
then
false.
is
faith.
21
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
occurred,
is
according
13 dependent upon the general resurrection of
dead.
Barth
asks
incredulously,
"What
kind
of
historical fact is that reality of which [sic), is
bound
perception
up of
in a
the
most
general
express
truth,
manner
which
by
with its
the
nature
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
22 emerge
cannot
is
passage
in
actually
to
preaching with
Paul's
The
history
the
demonstrate
that of
the
point
of
the
continui ty
primitive
church.
of 44
Paul adduces the witnesses "not to confirm the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, not for that purpose at all, but
to
far
confirm
that
the
as the eye can see,
else
than
appearances
foundation can be
of
the
of
the
Church,
traced back to nothing risen
Christ.,,45
Barth
means by "appearances," not optical phenomena, incomprehensible mention
of
the
revelation 500,
most
so
of
of
but the
Christ. 46
whom
were
Paul's
still
alive
though some had died, was intended to show that though some
of
died,
these
the
men
who
ultimate
had
seen
victory
the
over
through Christ's resurrection.
Lord
death
nevertheless would
be
won
Bultmann responded that
Barth's
interpretation of I Cor 15.1-11 was simply ° 47 I nth e min d of Paul and the whole f a 1 see x e g e s 1 s • Christian community,
more
meaningful
scriptures." resurrection
if
And of
a historical account would be the it
were
since
the
Paul
dead
as
"in
accordance
also a
wi th
accepted
historical
the
the final
event,
the
truth of Christ's resurrection could be said to depend on
the
fact
of
the
resurrection
of
the
dead.
That
23
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
More recently R.H. Fuller has resupported Barth's position. 51 He acknowledges that Paul uses the list of witnesses
as
evidence.
But
they
are
cited
as
proof,
not of the resurrection, but of the appearances. proves
the
appearances
identical
with
Corinthians
Fuller's
~~~~£l
man
seems
are
for
at
ci ted
proof
he
raised"
death (cf. Acts 1.3)? ~££~~~~~£~~
~~~~~~~£~l£~
Moreover,
artificiality
Of
and
course,
the
appearances--and
what
better way to prove
by
adducing
alive to
people
reliable after
his
is bluntly said to be a witness of the (Acts
primary
truth
11.
the
future
appearances
the
2.32;
aim
does
which
Paul's
Corinthian heresy
appears
foremost
by
a
3.15; not
show continuity with the disciples' verse
whom no
Thus, in Acts to be a witness of
itself
Paul's
tangentiai
is
Once it is known that a
than
testimony that he"appeared" the
for
the resurrection.
"was
gospel
with
But the
apparent.
"died" and "was buried,"
that
his
disciples',
between
once
as
that
a gospel
1.12;3.4).
distinction
resurrection wi tnesses
preached
Cor
(I
show
original
insisted
resurrection of
the
to
Paul
5.30-32).
Seem
to
doctrine,
only
aim
to
to
a wholly
incidentally
is
step-by-step
be
refute
argument.
in the
52
His
Christ's appearances were localized is evident from the
first point is to remind the Corinthians of the content
expressions "most of whom are still alive" and "last of
of
all"
(I Cor 15.6, 7).
Says Bultmann, "I can understand
the
verse
gospel
preached
preaching would be false
Christ
If
Although
as
Bultmann
argumentation
as
an
objective
historical such
characterizes
"fatal"
because
it
tries
fact.,,48
historical to
adduce
the
Sorts the
"think he
Christ
resurrection of Christ as
an objective fact by listing the witnesses who had seen him risen.,,50
by
Paul.
Then
content of
rueful
of
the
if
the
dead
preaching
consequences
were
is
follow,
not
false,
from
with
raised. then
the
content
15.20); fO
has
of been
the
raised
therefore,
lrst fruits
preaching the
from dead
is
true:
the
dead
are
raised:
"But
all
final
result that we are of all men most to be pitied.
proof for the kerygma, 49 he acknowledges that Paul does can guarantee the
them
12 he proceeds to show that the content of this
the text only as an attempt to make the resurrection of credible
to
in
But fact Cor
"
of those who have fallen asleep.
the For as
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
24
by
a
man
came
resurrection
death, from
by
the
a
man
has (I
dead"
come
Cor
also
the
15.20b-21).
Therefore, the rueful consequences do not follow either (I
Cor
content been
of
the
raised)
is
It
15.22-28).
preaching
in
is
not
false
(:
resurrection Christianity
the
15.3-7
Christ
has
death,
that harks back to verses 5-8;
it is the
was
also
prior It
Testament.
that
establishing
25
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
to
is
contains
characteristic the
composition
generally
a
very
old
appearances to Cephas and the Twelve:
citing
these
witnesses
resurrection. 53 Corinthians
as
empirical
evidence
believed
the
other
apostles
parties)
reducible whether
to
the
that
the
the
rather
clearly
black-and-white
the
admitted, the
not,
it
seems
clear
that
Paul,
is definitely arguing for
resurrection
in
I
Cor
15.
as
it
as
Bultmann
the historicity of Dodd
has
drawn
an
Paul
recei ved
(I
Cor
on
an
(I
the
to
the
integral
is also a Acts. 58
to provide historical the
gospels
prominent In
evidence to
suggests
that
corporate apostolic testimony, .Paul by focusing on the
evidence
of
availability of individuals to be
by
appealing
que~tioned.54
but
"Jesus The Earliest Christian ApologetiC that
the
first attempts to provide historical arguments for
It
appears
to
be
undeniable
therefore
the
is
New Testament itself.
primitive
likely
But we can go further. that
such
an
approach
For to
it the
Christian
and
part
when
of
the
of
Paul
the
Gospel
evangelized
earliest Christian kerygma. 57
feature
of
from
the
particular, the
Lukan Paul
apostolic
times This
speeches and
preaching
in
Luke's are
in
This mutual confirmation strongly use
of
witnesses
as
confirmatory
resurrection was no late development,
characterized
in
all
fact
risen
the
from
apostolic
the
dead,
preaching.
!!.~.2.~~~~fter
The first attempts therefore to provide historical eVidence
very
the
!!..!.~~~~~~~~E.~~red~......!:..£~~!.!.!!.it~_wi~~~~~~. That is the post-Easter argument of the Christian community," concludes Mussner. 60
resurrection of Jesus are found within the pages of the seems
included
This means that the adduction of
this
the
actually
15.3),
part of the
complete harmony,59
both wish
resurrection,
by
resurrection was
this
count:
least
preached
Corinthians
representations
the
at
Cor 15.11), part of the tradition which
interesting comparison between the gospels and Paul on to
have
kerygma
(I
witnesses
regard
the
of
missionaries
Corinthian heresy most likely lies in Greek secularism, we
of
part
not
Whether
source
of
the
Now according to Paul the elements of this formula were
Cor 15.1).
proclamation.
The
HaL HaL
to
or
raised.
issue
not
must
Achaia
fatal
are
(with even Paul are
it
preached
apostolic
dead
problems
reciting
on
no
The bickering church described in
the first chapter is so fractionalized Jesus
preached
Cor
~lG XPGolbS &REeavEV 0R~P l~V &~aplGWV ~~~v Hal~ T~S ypa~&s, ha~n, 01G &Y~YEplaG l~ ~~{p~ TO TP~lQ Hal~ l~S ypa~as, 01G w~en Kn~~ seTa 10CS 6w6sHa.
the
Finally, there is no evidence that the
future resurrection. and
for
New
I
burial, resurrection, and appearances of 55 Christ. Although the exact extent of the formula is
argument depends.
seems to be defini tely
the
that
formula(s)
disputed,56
Paul
primitive
of
recognized
historical evidence for this fact upon which the entire Hence,
of
for
discovered
the
gospel that
resurrection preachers the
appeal
were
those
themselves. to
witnesses
of We
the have
was
an
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
26 important part of the
kerygma
and
that
in
the
gospels
27
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
we find stress laid on the facts of the empty tomb and
for literature aimed at their conversion or condemna t ion. 63 As a body the apologetic literature
appearances
was
countering the
of or
Jesus,
apparent death
subjective
as
well
anticipating theory,
vision
Dulles 1 s
judgement
sifting
of
the
the
theory, appears
New
as
apologetic
what would
later
conspiracy
and
the
theory,
legend
well-founded:
Testament
motifs
be called the
theory.
"A
critical
materials
makes
it
prime target
'
of
two
(1)
sorts:
political
securing civil toleration. and aimed or
at
(b)
securing the up
of either
absurd
rumors
lodged
and
Dionysian
Religious apologies to Jews followed
of unique importance apologetic.,,61
pattern
the
earliest
Christian
and
prophecy, (ca.
Th~_Early _
Church
to
Early Apologists
relied
most
of which
heavily
popular
pagans
were
or
banqueting.
the
proof
from
Dl~!~~_wi~~_Irr£~~~~~_~~
Justin's
Religious apologies
primarily critiques
mythology
Christians,
the New Testament
on
155-60) is the prime example.
pagans
(a)
against
indubitable that the resurrection of Jesus held a place in
at
(2) religious apologies,
conversion
cannibalism
as
such
aimed
Political apologies primarily dealt with
Jews.
clearing
apologies,
syntheses
of
of
the
the
follies
best
of
of
pagan
philosophy with the revealed truth of Christianity. Subsequent
to
the
New
Testament
apologetic literature until 125,
we
have
no
the church fathers of
Arguments often
used
the sub-apostolic age being more concerned with matters of faith and practice in the churches. 62 But the need
argument
for
it
a c cor din g
of
pagans
apologetics
necessary social
to
crimes,
concerned
arose
defend
when
with
to
intra-church
literature
to
(1)
attributed
converts to
often
and
to
conversion;
(2)
Christianity,
and
response; to
be
to
grips with
espoused
(3)
the
fel t the give
Du 'II e s influence
as
educated
pagan a
the
apologetic
of
four
men
the
justification
believers
shift
writing
philosophy they
philosophers saw
began the
from may
be
groups: .1eed
to
formerly
for
their
to
attack
necessity
of
a
emperors and other civil magistrates had
persuaded
acceptability
found
allegations
early apologists were primarily gaining civil toleration of the new
According
come
against
and
religion. largely
Christians
themselves
of
of
the
Christianity;
legality and
(4)
more
for
during
from t
resurrection
the
first
fulfilled
effective
than
Jus tin
0
simply
wrote
, 64 magic.
Hence,
resurrection
lies
it was
the
three
prophecy
proofs Mar t y r
in
his
considered
miracles
much
because,
~lr~~_!£~!~ll ,
miracles
evidential
the
The
centuries.
was
from
the
off
of Jesus were not
of
Christ
value
of
the to the
almost exclusively in the fact that 65 predicted. He emphasizes that the fact that
these prophecies were fulfilled in Christ can be proved by eyewitness testimony, to
conduct
a
careful
and he challenges unbelievers , t 'ion. 66 and thorough examlna
Justin does mention in his Jews and
in
Matthew
adduces
a
28
that
Di~lo£~~
the theory of the
the
disciples
stole
purportedly
official
report
the
body
of
Sanhedrin in this regard. " . . . 'InooiJ ll.VOS; TaAl.Aat.ou
the •
OV olaupwoavlwv nwwv, o~ waBnla~ a~10D ~A€~aVles; aUl0v ano 10D
and
social
WVnWCll0S; VU~10S;, onoBEv ~alE0n &~nAwBEl.S; ano 10D 01aupoD, nAavWat.
Jews
were
tous &vBp~nous; A~YOVTES; ~Yny~pBal. a010v ~~ VEHPWV Hal. E~S; 00pavov
a
r~VCt'\rl'\uBcVal..1I67
•
>
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
28 This
document
(197),
is
not
Tertullian
Emperor tomb,
mentions
concerning
as
well
known
as
a
Jesus's the 68
as
today. report
by
Pilate
execution
rumor
that
and
the
to
the
the
empty
disciples
had
29
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
Epicurus
or
Seneca,
or
else
they
adhered
to
the
immortality of the soul and its reincarnation in other life-forms, Platonic
as
with thinkers. 71
Pythagoras, This
had
Empedocles, led
to
the
and
the
popular
Tertullian
depreciation of and revulsion for the physical body, an
derisively refers to the theory that the body of Jesus
attitude which made the idea of the resurrection of the
had
flesh absurd and repulsive:
stolen
the
been
body.
removed
Tertullian, visitors
to
one
comes
that
gardener, the
to
work
another
the
come
lettuce patch!6 9 that
by
feared
sure
In
who,
trampling
the
tomb
would
surmises crowds
of
destroy
his
These brief comments are the closest to
arguments
for
the
resurrection
of
Jesus. Apologies for the Resurrection of the Flesh Nevertheless running
through
backdrop
to
namely,
the
conceptions the make
early
the
a
church
of
death
view
of that of
and the
continuous fathers
for
over
pagans
The knew of
immortality,
forms
a
resurrection,
against
immortality, body.
tradition
which
Jesus's
justification,
evident
Christian
is
argument
resurrection it
there
of
the
pagan idea of
early apologists and derided this
and
the
Christian
apologists briefly refer to arguments for the notion of phYSical resurrection which would be later systematized by Irenaeus, refutation rejection
of of
Tertullian, Christian the
and others, heretics.
resurrection
Greco-Roman pagan philosophy.
of
especially in the The
root
of
the
body
lay
the in
According to Tertullian,
the heretics borrowed the pagan arguments and would not in the absence of these be able to support their view from Scripture. 70 In Tertullian's analysiS, the philosophers either denied immortality altogether, such
Itaque haeretici inde statim incipiunt et inde praestruunt, dehinc et interstruunt, unde sciunt facile capi mentes de communione favorabili sensuum. an aliud prius vel magis audias [tam] ab haeretico quam ab ethnico, et non protenus et non ubi que convicium carnis, in originem in materiam in casum, in omnem exitum eius, immundae a primordio ex faecibus terrae, immundioris deinceps ex seminis sui limo, frivolae infirmae criminosae molestae onerosae, et post totum ignobilitatis elogium caducae in originem terrae et cadaveris nomen, et de isto quoque nomine periturae in nullum inde iam nomen, in omnis iam vocabili mortem? 'Hancne ergo, vir sapiens, et visui et contactui et recordatui tuo ereptam persuadere vis quod se receptura quandoque sit in integrum de corrupto, in solidum de casso, in plenum de inanito, in aliquid omnino, de nihilo, et utique redhibentibus earn ignibus et undis et alvis ferarum et rumis alitum et lactibus piscium et ipsorum temporum propria gula? adeone autem eadem sperabitur quae intercidit ut claudus et luscus et caecus et leprosus et paralyticus revertantur, ut redisse non libeat, ad pristinum: an integri, ut iterum talia pati timeant? nimirum haec erunt vota carnis recuperandae, iterum cupere de ea evadere.' et nos quidem haec aliquanto honestius pro stili pudore: ceterum quantum etiam spurciloquio liceat, illorum [est] in con?Zessibus experiri tam ethnicorum qual haereticorum. The pagans and heretics could in this light only regard the message of the resurrection of Jesus as foolish and offensive.
Hence,
early
Christian
thinkers
found
themselves embroiled in the controversy to justify the concept of bodily resurrection
Ub~~~~~E~'
30
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
31
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
Justin Martyr
teaching, then, no matter how maimed his body might be,
Justin Martyr in his first !E.~~~x. sounds a note which would characterize later defenses of the resurrection: the resurrection is vital to God's
Jesus would raise him up at his second coming entirely
judgement Justin the
of
men
for
their
deeds
in
states
wicked
life. 73
this
that Christians believe with will be punished, but that in
Plato their
that very
sound
and
deliver
pain. 75
and
so-called impious
forever
him
Later
in
the
who
dead, very
death.
One
consider such persons
to be
Pythagoras,
absorbed
Socrates,
because
Christians
but
the
heretics
the earthly body an immortal re~urrection body? unworthy of God's
to maintain
o
°
the
of
soul
is
taken up should real
to heaven
not,
at
Justin
Christians.
the
warns, Here we
the
pagan disdain
Christian as
religion.
well
as
for
the
It
will
against
the
physical body be
into
against
pagans
that
such later
apologists will have to defend the resurrection. Athenagoras Athenagoras Lucius
in
Aurelius
foreshadows
his
Commodus
another
to
SUEElic~tio
issue
and
that
the
Marcus
would
Emperors Aurelius
become
extremely
important in the controversy over the resurrection.
In
rebutting
in
the
charge
that
Christians
participate
cannibalism, he asserts that it is ridiculous to charge
to do anything more than allow everything to revert to the original elements from which it was produced. 74 In
with cannibalism people who believe in the resurrection of the dead. 77 For if the earth will give up its dead,
Di~~~.2'..!.~~Trypho
we
that
denounces
godless and espouse t h 1S d oc t r1ne. 76
He is unable
Justin's
power
It is
Justin
really
have reference to apparently Gnostic Christians who had
earth will be revived--for nothing is impossible with God. This appeal to Jesus's word in Matt 19.26 would
human sperm a man composed of bones, muscles, and flesh should develop, then why should it be thought incredible that God should by His power produce from
that
moment
expect that their bodies, though dead and buried in the
become a frequent citation among the defenders of the resurrection. Justin's following argument also proved influential: if it is possible that from a drop of
corruption,
These persons hold that there is no resurrection of the
eternally and not merely for a thousand years, as Plato had said. In chapter 18 of that work Justin asserts that Christians believe in God more than Empedocles and and
are
do not
bodies, united with their souls, they will be tormented
Plato
death,
Di~l~gue
who
Christians,
heretics,
from
find
an
allusion
to
so
will
men
give
up
the
dead
they
have
swallowed.
the pagan objection, noted above by Tertullian, that in
People who believe in the resurrection believe that the
the resurrection bodily infirmities and diseases would
body
persist.
soul will be
According to Justin,
Christ raised the dead,
thus compelling men of his day to
recognize
him.
But though they witnessed these miraculous deeds with their own eyes, they attributed them to sorcery. Jesus, however, performed these deeds in order to convince his future
followers
that
if
anyone
were
faithful
to
his
which carried
Hence,
out
the
irrational
punished with it for
impulses of
the
a man's evil deeds.
it is more likely that those who do not believe
in immortality would commit cannibalism than those who believe in the resurrectiton of the body. admits
this
doctrine
but at least it
is
of resurrection may
innocuous.
It
is
Athenagoras sound
novel,
interesting that
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
32
we
see
not
here
resurrection and
only
the
judgement,
connection
between
but also the foreshadowing
33
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
which
were
to
resurrection,
become
such
popular
as
the
in
resurrection
of the knotty problem of how God will raise the bodies
frui ts and
the monthl y resurrection
of
waxes
wanes.
those
eaten
by
cannibals,
since
the
same
elements
are constitutive of both men's bodies. Theophilus I nTh e 0 phi 1 u s refers
to
0
fAn t i
the
0
!Q._!~!:~lI~~!!!
c h 's
,
the
analogy of human seed to show
that if God could create a man from nothing then surely He can raise him from the dead. ~V
'(0
~nAC!.0EV
II Kell.
OE
Ka~
npo~yaYEv
~~ no~naav'(~ "
. at: Dt:0 an~aTt:LS
v~
Here the analogy by Justin,
OE
for
0 DEOS
ELS
,
ovvaa~a~
"
~ETaDU no~noa~;
,l8
is employed somewhat differently than
first
at
If
is
not
idea of the
to
resurrection
doctrine the
power
create
the
body
in
the
it follows that He has the power to recreate it
the
one
of
the
incredible.
dead.
should
Therefore
the
Theophilus also connects
resurrection wi th
unbeliever
seeds
the moon
as
is
ill
loses
and
it
came
this
is
analogy would seem to
be
again
also
from
the
that
as
food
work
God
converted
of
can
God.
reconsti tute
but
Theophilus
resurrection • now
too did
having
Interestingly,
adds
the
personal
that
he
would
then (2)
had
come
judgement of God. 79
the to
believe
in
God
spoken unjustly of God.
challenge
dead,
event,
note
not believe in the resurrection,
considered
the
matter
.
he
be 1 leves.
81
the basis of his new-found faith is not
the resurrection of Jesus, but fulfilled prophecy.
now,
Irenaeus -----In Irenaeus's great length
with
those
resurrection
heretics
Irenaeus
resurrection. and
Adv~~~~~~~~~
he deals at
who
deny
the
the
link
between
makes
Christ more explicit.
to
Theophilus
have
no
pagans
show even replies:
importance
believe that
were raised from the dead,
(3)
after
one (1)
To
the
But the main were
raised
salvation,
one's
belief
incarnate.
having
seen
the
Asclepius
if one disbelieves what
our
Christ was 82 raised in the flesh, states Irenaeus, so shall we be.
person
Heracles and
bodily
As
flesh
the
The
the body from foodstuffs, so He can restore it again at
will from
it
went and whence it came
link between our resurrection and is not his resurrection, but his incarnation. 83
unbeliever's
and
of
then God will raise up his flesh with his SOUl, and he see
the
the notion is now introduced that it is Since
place,
but
that once he
God
the
blood,
the
easier to recreate something than to create it. has
into
EE;
'(6VOE '(oV SLov . • • ){a~
at:
when
his flesh
Certainly
av'(n
.,
ovoLas
nO,(E
not know where
again.
apologist
Even
of
of
weight, then recovers and regains his former health, he does
uypaS
and
defenses
not
in
then
a
the
position Word
to
would
not
have
and shed his blood for
flesh has received the capacity of salvation. Irenaeus's
case,
being
directed
If our
participate
But because he really took on flesh,
appearance but in fact,
Christ
against
in
become not in us,
our
Much of heretics,
God says then one would be apt to disbelieve even if he saw a dead man raised and alive. 80 Moreover, continues Theophilus, God has given many indications for
concerns properly understanding the Scriptural teaching
believing Him.
Watchword
Here he appeais to analogies in nature,
on
this
body"
doctrine,
and
the among
especially
Pauline the
concepts
phrase,
heretics,
like
which
"Flesh
and
had
"spiritual become
blood
a
cannot
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
34
inherit
the
Kingdom
of
God.«
He
shows
that
the
heretics misinterpret these expressions in substantival " "t ua 1 orlenta " t"lon. 84 terms, rather than in terms of splrl These arguments,
however,
need not concern us,
for our
interest lies in Irenaeus's contribution to the defense
35
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
ought
to
be
perfection
soul
of
human
involves
hence
the
released
from
nature.
the
as well as the
body
resurrection
is
body
Rather
soul
necessary
the
nature
spirit,
and
for
for
human
complete
and
human
realization.
of the concept of resurrection. On
this
that since
God
originally, create,
score he eloquently
then
presses
the
argument
Tertullian was indebted to Irenaeus in the writing
created man from the dust of the earth
and God
since
it
is
is powerful
easier
to
enough
recreate
than
to raise man from
of his of
Sed quoniam potens est in his omnibus, de initio nostro contemplari debemus, quoniam sumpsit Deus limum de terra et formavit hominem. Et quidem multo difficilius et incredibilius est, ex non exsistentibus ossibus et nervis et venis et reliqua dispositione quae est secundum hominem facere ad hoc ut sit et quidem animalem et rationabilem facere hominem, quam quod factum est et deinde resolutum est in terram, propter causas quas praediximus rursus redintegrare, licet in ilIa cesser it ggde et initio nondum factus factus est homo • • • If God gives life to this flesh now, in the resurrection?
then why not also
treatise
work
as
also
defends
his opponents.
Tertullian
does
objections
to
arguments
a
wholistic
anthropology
against
A perfect and complete man consists of
body and soul together.
A disembodied soul is thus not
a glorified man, but a truncated man.
at
thereby
which
dedicated
need
argue the
not
carefully be
There
he man
can
the
idea
that the
and
against
the
and in
much
Scriptural us.
found
ridicules
to
detain
resurrection,
already
can
Ap~.9.~.!:..!.cus.
many
pagan of
his
earlier
his
those
But
philosophers
become reincarnate
as
an
animal or an animal as a man and yet who sneer at and persecute a Christian who thinks that a man will return to life as a man. 88 Like Justin, he believes that one cannot be a Christian and deny the
resurrection or use the objections of non-Christians to that doctrine. 89 He
first
attacks
the
notion
that
the
flesh
is
somehow unworthy of God's resurrecting it. 90
The flesh
is worthy because it is the creation of God,
and while
He was fashioning it God did so with the thought of the incarnation in mind;
that
is
to
say,
man's
being made
in the image of God means in the image of the incarnate we
contradicts
is
Son--a point alluded to by Irenaeus.
Anima autem et Spiritus pars hominis esse possunt, homo autem nequaquam: perfectus autem homo commixtio et adunitio est animae assumentis Spiritum Patris et admixtae carni quae est plasmata secundum imaginem Dei. flatly
De resurrectione carnis,
well
who can believe that
Irenaeus maintains that if there
is any external caUSe why God does not raise the dead, then this impugns His omnipotence and freedom. 86
Irenaeus
own
this
interpretations,
the dead.
He
Tertullian
it
deprecate judged
Tertullian the
soul
the
it also
flesh
worthy
when and
points
participates
out in
the by
Hence, why should
Artificer handling
that
the
flesh
sanctification
by choosing
made as
it
so?
well
during
as
this
life and so is worthy of resurrection. Tertullian
next
defends
the
resurrection
against
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
36
anyone Here
who
again to
power
should we
say the
find
create. 92
is
it
outside
Almost
from
argument
important all
power.
God's
the
91
God's creation of the world,
and they should therefore
know
power
that
He
has
sufficient
to
raise
the power to raise the dead. Finally, as to the rationale for the resurrection,
God I s
recognize
sec ts
the
Tertullian
purpose 96 resurrection to the fact of jUdgement.
only
constructed it
the
remains
matter
things
either
case,
which God's
universe
true
that
did
not
power
to
out
He
of
formerly raise
out
of
dead
the
So
in
should
be
exist.
the
acknowledged.
of
God's
find
analogies
repeated
the
nature,
such
in
argument as
day
of Theophilus and
night
from
or
the
seasons.
judgement
appear before Him. flesh soul
be are
entire
of
the
necessitates
this
the
whole
man
It is entirely appropriate that the
judged with in
that
the
life
soul,
for
partners
in
the flesh all
a
and
man's
the
deeds.
Tertullian has a peculiar view of the soul, that it is a
corporeal
that also
the
Tertullian emphasizes that the plenity and completeness
sive enim ex nihilo deus molitus est cuncta, poterit et carnem in nihilum prodactam exprimere de nihilo: sive de materia modulatus est alia, poterit et carnem quocumque dehaustam evocare de alio. et utique idoneus est reficere qui fecit, quanto plus est fecisse quam refecisse, initium dedisse quam reddidisse. ita r~jtitutionem carnis faciliorem credas institutione. We
down
igitur si deo et domino et auctori congruentissimum est iudicium in hominem destinare de hoc ipso an dominum et auctorem suum agnoscere et observare curarit an non, idque iudicium resurrectio expunget, haec er it tota causa immo necessitas resurrectionis, congruentissima scilicet dec destinatio iudicii.97
pre-existent
created
lays
dead.
Even in the case of those philosophers who say that God matter,
37
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
substance.
flesh
Therefore
he
makes
it
clear
not necessary in order for the soul 98 to suffer in the after-life. But as the soul cannot
act
the
~omEl~~~ll
~~~El~~I
is
without the flesh,
without the flesh.
neither can it suffer
Since the flesh has also
participated in sins, then it is appropriate that it be semel dixerim, universa conditio recidiva est: quodcumque conveneris fuit, quodcumque amiseris erit: nihil non iterum est: omnia in statum redeunt cum abscesserint, omnia incipiunt cum desierint: ideo finiuntur ut fiant: nihil deperit nisi in salutem. totus igitur hic ordo revolubilis rerum testatio est resurrectionis mortuorum: operibus eam praescripsi t deus ante qua~ li9~eris, viribus praedicavit ante quam voclbus. Tertullian phoenix, "sed
even
which
homines
appeals he
to
apparently
semel
a
natural accepts
as
a
real
in
the
bird:
Hence, for judgement to
life. Later
in
his
treatise Tertullian
handles
some
of
the typical pagan objections to the resurrection of the flesh. 99 To the objection that this would re-instate bodily
diseases
and
infirmities,
he
replies,
like
Justin, that if in the resurrection we are changed into glory,
how
much
more
into
health!
It
might
also
be
de
demanded what good certain bodily parts will be when in
Thus, creation and analogies
the resurrection they will no longer have any function.
interibunt,
resurrectione securis?,,95
analogy
involved in suffering as well.
be equitable and complete, the flesh must be raised to
avibus
Arabiae
of resurrection in nature make it evident that God has
Tertullian
responds
that
they
are
retained
for
the
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
38
purpose have no
of
being
different longer
Besides,
judged.
functions,
serve
for
for
he
adds,
example,
eating
but
they
can
the mouth will
for
praising
God.
39
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
what
about
men
who
are
eaten
by
cannibals,
such
that
the same elements belong successively to two different men?105
The author's
response
to
this
question
is
to
Hence, even in the resurrection these bodily parts will
assert that in the power and wisdom of God each species
glorify God.
has its own proper food and that things which are eaten which are not
Pse~do-Athen~~~ras
Perhaps doc t r i n e
the
point
th e r e sur r e c t ion
of
argument
for
the
i nth e t rea tis e De 100 resurrectione attributed to Athenagoras. The author 0
f
high
cam e
one on- -behalf of ----
distinguishes two types of argument: the truth ( UllEP truth (llSpL '(Tis; toward
those
'(Tis;
&'\n~sLas;
&'\n~sLas;
who
) ).101
disbelieve
and one
co~erni~
the
The former is directed the
doctrine
of
He first discusses arguments on behalf of the
gladly. truth
of
the
resurrection
Those
resurrection.
must
prove
that
God
is
who
either
deny unable
the or
to the
but
element were
assimilated
are
species are therefore not
passed
on.
into
the
that
human
bodies
of
the
consumed
men's
bodies
should
be
by
wild
beasts,
In this context he
has recourse to the familiar argument from creation: apxouoa llPOS '(nv '(wv ow~a'(wv avao'(aoLv, 6SLXVUOLV ~ '(ou'(wv au'(wv y{vsa~s;. st yap ~n 5v'(cx Kcx'(a '(GV npw'(nv a~a'(cxaGV ElloLnosv '(Q '(wV av~pwllwV aw~a'(a xaL '(as ,(OU,(wv apxas;, xaL 6La'\u~{v'(a xa~' OV av TUXQ ,(POllOV, avao'(nosL ~s,(Q '(Tis Lons su~apsLas En' Lons yap a0'(0 xaL '(oD'(o 6uva'(6v. 104 KaL ~nv
xa~ '(nv
6uva~Lv WS EO,(LV
But
is
He
willing?
For
the
from creation
can raise the dead,
suffices to prove
res u r r e c t ion
t.o
be
foreign to God's will it would have to be either unjust or unworthy of Him. 107 It is unjust neither to creation nor to man, the
dead. of
Nor Him
is to
in either body or soul,
it
unworthy
create
a
of
God,
is
therefore
both
Turning addressed
now
to
possible to
both
body
sake
and
each
having
that
he
and man
is
might
and
it
is
how much
The resurrection willed
by
author
God
the
and
truth
expounds
two
the nature of man involves
God
properly
if
concerning
the
First,
soul. 108
its
for
arguments
believers,
Irenaean arguments.
to raise
for
corruptible body,
more to create an incorruptible body?
created
composed
respective participate
of
functions. in
man
for
body God
rational
his
and
soul,
made life
own man and
contemplate God forever.
1\
~sv '(Tis YSWEOSWS aL1:l~a llLo'(ou'(aL '(nv SLS aE:L 6La~ovnv,
6La~OVn '(nv avao'(aoLv ns
The argument
of the eater,
raise the dead.
ought therefore to be believed.
God has the power to restore them.
some
eaten by others are fused wi th the 106 others. God is therefore able to
body decomposes, God knows where all the parts go, such that
if
bodies
worthy
and that even in the case
flesh
even
Thus, the opponents of resurrection cannot prove
unwilling to raise dead bodies and to restore them, if 102 they be decomposed. The author argues first that God is able to do this. 103 He maintains that when the that He can reassemble them,
And
it might well be non-essential to it and worked off in time.
the
resurrection, the latter to those who receive the truth
proper
assimilated,
n 6E:
XWPLS oux av 6La~SLVE:LE:V av~pwnos. 109
that God
but here a new objection crops up:
Since man gua man is soul and body together, man cannot
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
40 survive
death
apart
from
resurrection.
Secondly,
be unjust
alone
for
to
punish
justly the
soul
or
the
as the combination of both, he
resurrection
precisely
the
same
receives
again
body
at
he
the
possessed
of
man
provide
a
basis
the
for
fathers
these
sought
resurrection Greco-Roman
the
arguments,
the
for
concept
of
of
doctrine
substantial
apology was
in
to
response
of
the
the
contains
continuous
tradition
of
that
Irenaeus
should
It
say
that
a
all
Celsus's
raised
by Jesus, . 111 resurrec t lon; or turns not perhaps
to
show
rather
of
those
Jesus's
own
Theophilus,
when
than that
again,
one
resurrection
person
raised
from
dead,
the
called
an
appeal
to
the
resurrection
of
Jesus
his
would
assumes Origen's
lengthy
the
true to of
role
the
Because
a positive
for
Origen's
case
arguments
are
he
it
for
successful
impossible,
then
Hence,
thinkers
most
so
is
the
in
general
resurrection
concentrated
their
of
until Jesus's
Celsus
unleashed
resurrection
called forth.
that
his a
attack defense
Jesus.
energies
justifying even the notion of resurrection. that
on
It was not
specifically of
is
event
on was
Celsus of
a
argues Jew;
in
a
Hellenic
Jewish
objector
miracles is
a
acknowledges
a
and
the
response
to
cannot
be
nevertheless,
positive
as
because
result
correct
is
Celsus's
he
performed
miracles,
to
which
fact 113
Origen
a dd s the confirmation of fulfilled prophecy. Celsus
presses
resurrection:
to
the
(1)
six
objections
only
reason
The
the
resurrrection
but was
Christianity;
after his death he would rise again.
If
lost
arguments
in
fire.
now
of
the
Jesus's written
citations,
standpoint
his
first
Christianity
first,
reply
defense
for
treatise, frequent
the
the
(246),
against
have been question-begging, since it was by implication point under
body,
statement that believers regard Jesus as the Son of God
But
to Jesus but to Heracles and Asclepius!
in
from
objections,
identical
the
parts:
miracles.,,112
if
is
to
resurrection of Jesus, which Origen calls "the greatest of
achieved,
body
he
the
mentioned.
two
second,
the
polemic
in Origen's
Christianity
the
is
referred
arguments
Celsus's
the clearest proof that the resurrection concerns one's
challenged
Celsus's
largely reproduced
throughout
himself
of
employing
against
is noteworthy how rarely
writers
Origen's Contra Celsum
church to
church
resurrection
resurrection
run
It
Jesus
example,
earthly
the
into
early
intelligible
themes
a
argumentation.
odd,
early
the resurrection of Christ and argued at length for the
philosopher.
Certain
indicating
the
Christian
body
the
wor ld.
resurrection
seems
of
make
of
literature, apologetic
sorts to
the
divided
resurrection of the dead. With
although
Hence, the very nature of man and
during his lifetime. judgement
receive
must
So
body
Since each man is
judgement for his deeds.
individual,
the
the
Origen
It
deeds done with respect to the other member.
It is the man who,
an
either
41
the
judgement requires the resurrection of the body.110 would
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
resurrection
this
rather
odd
is
reasoning
demand of Celsus's Jew, that
Moses
foretold
because
own
point is apparently that both religions Others,
alike as
appeal
recorded
Christians
Jesus 114
that
for
to
death the
rep~ies
might
equally
burial?
Jewish and by
that
Origen
to believe except and
fulfilled
example
the
believe
foretold
one
what led you
his
against
The
Christian
prophecy. Herodotus,
(2 )
have
42
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
claimed Jesus has
to
have
here
against
the
guise
which
could
be
deeds,
Celsus
"fantastic tales" a
for
returned
from
the
for
have
the
to
was
heroes' proof
force.
between
of
behavior
of
the
their teaching. risen
this
with
death
as
they
the
objection between
nor
on
the
And
than
many
that
and
clear
adds
is
the
and
Greek
the
of
of
the the
from
of
Christ
the
visions
occurred
in
broad
When
Celsus
states
that
minds
(again
a
remarkable
para-psychological but
did
not
retorts
gospels
what
explanations
actually
that he
anticipation
appear
of
with
the these
Celsus selects arbitrarily
wishes
to
believe,
the
the
Christ's
for
harmonizes with the fact of the risen Christ's having a
lives
taught
a
between
and
Celsus's
relationship
proved
the
Origen
adds
reality
that
of
prophecy
although this body was of a sort in between 120 body and a disembodied soul. (5) Christ
solid
exchange
of the
Thomas 119 wounds.
real body,
should
aspects
to
physical
for
is
despise
have
to
which
everyone
was
to
succeeding two
appeared
be
everywhere. tirelessly
generations
solutions:
To
batted
this
back
of polemicists,
(a)
The
the
risen
unbelieving
forth
by
Origen proposes Jews
historici ty argument
the
of
the
for
the
U) The witnesses of Christ's who saw him?--a hysterical
Origen reminds his opponent that there were Besides,
there
and
(b)
lacked had
the
to them they would have been smitten with 122 (6) There is a discrepancy between the blindness. number of angels at the tomb. 123 Origen responds that
still
Christ,
objection,
and
accounts
is
see
121
Hellenistic be
to
the very men who executed him
to
capacity
disciples
others as well who saw the risen Jesus.
since
delirious.
Origen
the
to
the
appearances
a
certain
concerning
convinCing
wounds,
others
the
and
modern
appearances)
have
important
nor
disciples'
not
reply
accept
most
event.
would
to
appearance
Origen, their
no
indeed influenced by such
appearances are unreliable: female! 117
there
and
who
of
is,
objection
resurrection
regarded
reality
it
the
the
behavior
as
of
people,
The
(4)
due
Jesus produced only mental impressions of his wounds in
not
resurrection.
Origen's
unbalanced
he
question
post-resurrection
resurrection
have
visions
daylight and the persons involved were neither mentally
had
This
resurrection
trustworthy
by
to
hysterical.
be
unconvincing,
executed;
risked
did.
the
figure--could
legends?
are
as
the
prepared
foreshadows
debate
Jesus's
no more
stories
claiming
most
they
themselves
raises
Cl1)11P
dead,
spirit,
Celsus and Origen contemporary
At
Had they invented the story that Jesus
from such
mind.
in the biblical account for describing
dream or to hallucination 118 brought on by wishful thinking. Origen rebutts this
not
as
who
force
as
could
is
resurrection,
disciples,
equal
Mary
case
the
the
these
probably slipped
resurrection
But
Celsus
is no foundation
Jesus's
But
Jesus's
Jesus's
Greek
is
for
Greek
reappear
But
reappearance.
the
then
that
Jew,
heroes
publicly
why
with
these
dead. 116
he
some
comparison
11£10';
from
on the cross before all
might
had
that
the
pressed
that
only
time,
analogous, die~
and
dead; replies
of
stem
admits
the
Origen
dropped
Moses's
rate
away
from
extra-ordinary? 115
arguments,
any
returned
43
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
Jesus
appeared
the accounts are not contradictory.
Matthew and Mark's
one angel is the one who rolls back the stone;
Luke and
John's two angels are described only as standing by or sitting
in
the
discrepancies has
grasped
threaten
to
tomb. in
the
But
the end
unravel
in
drawing
resurrection
of the
a
thread whole
attention
narratives,
that
fabric
would of
the
to
the
Celsus
eventually accounts,
44
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
Christian
as we shall see. In book three, Celsus again raises the question of Jesus's resurrection, stories
and 124
phantom.
comparing it to Greek apotheosis
remarking
that
By contrast,
Jesus
appeared
many confess
only
that
as
a
since in book fantastic. 126 If he
is
events
here
asserting
really
occurred, However,
despite
that
Andresen's
these
insistence
that
Celsus
regards
the
events in 3.22-33, not as legends, but as actual events
the
Origen,
resurrection
for
his
part,
of
sticks
its
by
his
xaL ovv~~~Tasso0w y~ TU TWV n~p~ EX~LVWV ~OTOPLWV TQ n~pL TOO 'InooS. "H EXEtva ~~v BoJAETaL b KsAoos ~~vaL &An0n, TaoTa OS avaypa~svTa uno TWV TE0Ea~Evwv HaL T~ EPY~ O~LsaVTWV Tnv EvapUELav TnS xaTaAn~EWs nEpL TOO TE0~wpn ~SVOV, xaL napaoTnoaVTWV Tnv 6La0~oLV EV oes npo0u~wS unEP TOO Aoyou aUTou nEnov0aoLV, ~~vaL nAao~aTa;133
they have
then a contradiction would seem unavoidable.
in
defense in book two:
Celsus does not contradict himself here, as
faith
strength.,,132
seen and still see today real appearances of Asclepius, 125 not just a phantom. Some have wondered whether two such tales were dismissed
45
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
He
goes
on
believing himself
to
upbraid
Celsus
irrationally appears
to
in
for
Jesus's
believe
in
accusing
others
of
miracles,
while
he
such
tales
without
in history confirmed in the past and present,
it seems
adducing any proof for them or any evidence that they really happened. 134 By contrast the gospel writers
questionable
to
give evidence of their veracity by their willingness to
whether
historicity. third
He
person,
always
as
Origen notes,
Celsus
commits
reports
believed
by
himself
these other
Celsus carefully words
their
events in people. 127
the
the
objection
die
for
the
standpoint
Testament:
more
credence
be
these
Jesus?
If
they
are
(assumption
why
though
is
Jesus
unique?
they
have
done
Hence,
such
Celsus
deeds,
no
of
three),
urges one
that
regards
Aristeas as a gOd,129 nor does anyone think Abaris is a
god, 131 gOd.
130
nor
do
Whether
contradiction
or
men
think
this not,
even
enables it
Clazomenian
Celsus
remains
true
to
was
escape
that
"In
a
the both
things,"
credibility the
of
the
are
brought
polemic
forward,
purpose
of
and
they
sapping
in the
now
from
incredible tales.
that
claim "We
the answer
witnesses
eighteenth
century.
the
"It
the for
of
accept
Jesus
them
credulity?,,135
are
Jesus? without
not
the
notably
most
The
of the disciples.
as Brown observes,
classic
debates
illustrates
the
of
unique,
what
I f the
then
But if they are unique, incurring
the
charge
the
perennial
dilemma that appears to confront the believer. miracles
New
are witnesses of
themselves,
the behavior
anticipates
of
arguments
find
exchange between Celsus and Origen,
we
religion serve
the
the
strikingly
history
of
removed
we
argument from
special about
case
once
instead of
cases analogies to the resurrection of Jesus out of the each
one
With Origen, then, we begin to find arguments from
an y
then
no
as to which records the truth.
If they are not true (assumption of book two), then why of book
which
changed by these stories, and one will find
should
true
wrote,
Look at the result in the lives of those who have been
a
stories
they
would do for inventions or myths and
either the stories of the Greek heroes are true or not. the
what
so
Celsus's argument would be by viewing it as a dilemma:
to
of
As
as not to commit himself to saying whether these heroes 128 were gods or not. One possible way of reconciling
given
truth
is
so
how can of
blind
With regard to the resurrection, Origen
46
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
sought
to
answer
this
dilemma
by
arguing
for
the
historical credibility of the biblical accounts as over against those contained in pagan mythology and legend.
divinity
on
resurrection. deity
of
the 138
basis
of
Eusebius
works
miracles,
including
the
In order to provide evidence for the
Christ,
marvellous Arnobius
47
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
wrought
lists by
a
whole
Jesus,
catalogue
culminating
resurrection, appearances, and ascension.
of
in his
These proofs
of his divinity, states Eusebius, we have received only Arnobius of Sicca,
a convert
from
paganism,
appealed to the resurrection of Christ, other miracles, (297)
in
order
pagan
deities.
in to
as well as his
I~~_f~~~_~~~1~~!_!~~_f~~~~~
his
justify He,
also
the
too,
worship
of
emphasizes
Christ
that
over
Chrlst's
after
subjecting
critical
them to the tests and inquiries of judgment. 139 Eusebius's most significant
contribution the
a
generations begins moral
To the objection that these events may never have taken
invented
place,
that
makes
liars,
Arnobius that
would
become
filled
have
the
for
Arnobius
behavior
of
lives
so
time
were
deceivers
in
such
a
that short
with
a
their
from
the
case
it
also
appeals,
disciples,
for
bare,
for
and is
time
the whole world religion. 137 Here we expansion
rapid
the historicity of the events
roots. their
in
argument
the
that
responds
inexplicable
Christianity
of
like men
not
unsubstantiated
by
his
teaching the
of
the
it
Jesus of
is
for
the
be
inconsistent
with
disciples
Master's
of
conspiracy
emulated apologists. 140
the
their
historicity
of
would
Christian
that
stories
of
refutation that
later
arguing
to
miracles.
by He the have It
no sense to say that those who learned and then
imparted
such
Moreover,
how
teaching
should
could
many--that
so
be
base
deceivers.
is,
the
twelve
apostles plus the 70 disciples--agree together to lie? Suppose Jesus Was an
its
to deceive for
to
the
together
give
up
reports.
is
of
at
Origen,
would
of
discussion
refutation
the surest authorities who handed them down to us their descendants with confirmation of no small weight. 136 men
the
resurrection
theory,
miracles were seen personally by the best witnesses and
the
to
to
imposter who taught the disciples
selfish advantage,
invent
all
enterprise engineered In
fact,
these
men
the
so
by such men went
that
miracles.
to
ever
their
they banded
Would such an hold together?
deaths
testifying
Therefore, the gospel accounts of Christ's miracles and
unanimously to what they had seen.
resurrection
Jesus's miserable death would they stand their ground?
ought
to
be
accepted
as
historically
credible.
Why after observing
Why would they die for him when he was dead, had deserted him when he was alive? Eusebius
The
great
historian
of
the early church
Eusebius of
three
contains
a
historical
Furthermore, they
were unlearned men.
of Caesarea composed an apology for the Christian faith book
after they
proof
for
which Jesus's
How could they go out into all the world to preach the gospel in foreign lands? And how is it that the different testimonies of these shifty deceivers speech
all
agree?
supposedly
Eusebius
delivered
together in this conspiracy:
when
composes the
a
delightful
disciples
joined
let us band together, the
48
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
49
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
speaker exhorts his fellows, to invent all the miracles
from his executioners (much as the Docetists were later
and
to
resurrection
appearances
let us carry the sham even no good reason?
overthrow
all
their
we
never
and
torture
Josephus
gods.
have
the
satisfaction
we
convince
and
denounce
nobody,
of
believe
that
at
drawing the
their
least down
we
concludes
disciples
would
To suggest that Jesus and
suffer and die for nothing.
champion
was
a
that
hypocritical
on
the
the
show.
the
Greek
On
this
philosopher's sort
of
life
reasoning,
done
the
to
have
appears
of
famous
passage
gospel
from
accounts
evidence
of
Acts
and that
extraordinary
works
been
great
Renaissance.
As
Christianity
rested
historical
the of
past,
or
really
resurrection
was actually putting on a pretence to a holy life when law
observing
Eusebius
of
the
by
of
the
attributed to him.
the disciples were deceivers is like saying that Moses gave
cites
confirmation
have
upon
Eusebius asks
ourselves the punishment for our deceit!
he
as
then
must
shall
really
Eusebius
institutions
if
can
inflicted
do).
since myriads of Jews and Greeks believed in Christ, he
even
we
and
Let us go out to all nations and
And
if
saw,
Why not die for
to death.
Why dislike scourging
nothing? for
which
Jesus
last
argument
until
the
for
dawning
of
the the
the events connected with the origin receded
arguments
the
from
necessarily
further
miracles
more
and
and
further
and
the
more
upon
into
the
resurrection faith
in
the
accuracy of the biblical documents.
Already in Origen
all the records of the ancients would be turned upside
we
to
down.
establish the historicity of events in the remote past:
In reality, what happened was that the disciples
gave up they
family,
worldly pleasures,
proclaimed.
In
himself in debasing
the
terms
and money
gospels, as
a publican,
gospel,
based on Peter's preaching,
Jesus's
blessing
upon
Peter
Matthew
at
for
what
confession,
but does recount his three-fold denial of Christ.
As a historian Eusebius emphasizes that if we distrust then
we must distrust all writers who have
compiled lives and histories gospel
history
and
together.
Eusebius
selectively
accept
the
miracles.
decei ve,
then
If they
and
secular also
the
protests
passion
the would
records of men.
history
aim
against
narratives,
of
never
weaknesses or their failings.
stand
The
or
fall
those but
the
writers
have
recorded
who
reject was
to
Jesus's
They would have invented
fabulous stories telling of Christ's miraculous escape
perplexity
as
how
one
can
n
Can
such self-effacing men be thought to be rank deceivers? these men,
certain
ws
while Mark's
great
a
. 0XE6ov naoav LOTopLav, xav &AnBns h, SouAEo~aL xaTaOXEUUsELV YEYEvn~tvnv, xUL xaTUAnnTLxnv E~noLnoUL nEpG UUT~S ~uvTao~av, TWV o~o6pa EOTL XUAEn wTaTwv, xaL EV EV~OLS a6uvuToV. ~EPE yap TLva YEYELV, un YEyovEvaL Tev 'IALaxov nOAE~ov, ~aALoTa 6La TO a6uvaTOv npoonsnAEx~aL AOYOV nEp~ ToD YEyv~oBa~ TLva 'AXLAAsa BaAaoo~as ~EaS 8STL6os u~ov xa~ avBpwnou ITEASWS, Lapnn60va 6LOS, n ~oxaAa~ov xat 'IaA~Evov "ApEOS, n A~vE~av 'A~po6~Tns' n~s &v xaTaOXEuaoaL~Ev TO TOLOUTOV, ~aALOTa ~ALBo~EVOL uno ToD oux oL6' onws napu6avBsVTOS nAao~aTOS T~ xExpaTnXu~a napa naoe 6o~~ nEpL ToD aAnBws YEyovsvaL Tev EV 'IAG~ nOAE~ov 'EAAnvwv xaL Tpwwv;141
describes
neglects to record
his
find
The
same difficulty applies
Christ, he acknowledges.
142
to
the gospel
accounts of
He confesses that
a~ ~EV TEpaoTLoL 6uva~ELS TOUS XaTa TOV xpovov ToD xup~ou YEVO~EVOUS npoxaAELoBae EnL TO neOTEUEev E6uvaVTO' OUK EOWsOV 6c TO E~~aTLxov ~ETa XPOVOUS nAE~ovas n6n xa~ ~uBouS ELvaL
unovonBECoaL. nAECov yap TWV TOTE YEVO~SVWv 6uva~EWv LOXUEL npos nELBw n vDv OuvE~ETa~O~SVn TaCs 6uva~EOL npo~nTE~a, xaxE~vaLS anLOTECoBaL uno TWV EPEUVWVTWV aUTaS KwAUouoa. 143
But of course even the proof from prophecy presupposes
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
50
that
the
prophesied
events
matter.
Origen,
historical Eusebius
after
historically Jesus.
him, for
Their
felt
the
Eusebius,
dismissed deceit. would but
The
soon
the
on
the
suggested
only
that
was
to
by
a
and
Arnobius,
restated
Their
in
which
in
or a
on
the
to
the
able
to
and
argue
of
were literacy and
sorcery
Jesus
a
was
relic
of
urged
his
sorcerer
antiquity, against
disciples the
role,
the
The then
back
these the
medieval
to
a
great
histories
of
this
the
597-731
years
dates.
During
almost
the
decades
completely
Christianity
Christian
response
was to
to the
be
the
of
taken
up
objections. witnesses, spread
of
the
other
counted
successors who
Testament less
sink
historical
historiography
for
the
medieval
as
"authors,"
that
is
to
say, Their
verbatim
the
"writers" or
testimony
reiteration
became
of
"compilers,"
a
virtue,
and
describing the history of the recent past, could
medieval
be
Thus,
authorities.
adduced,
often
obliged
to
The character
the
authorities was largely determined by Isidore Bishop of Seville
historical
reflected
(d.
history,
narrates
we
the
This dearth
lack of
is
of
eyewitnesses. the
writing
Middle
his
contrasted
to
both
Ages,
took
a
matter
Writing This
of
history
but
the
of
fable it
place,
Therefore,
authorities,
sources.
I!x.!!!~l~.s.1~~
in
truly
simply
reiteration
argued
account.
testimonies one's
who
as
what
eyewitness
obscurity,
636),
as
writer
for which no
felt
in his own words. writing
a
of
reliance on historical reasoning to
argumentation
900
attacks
Deistical
establish the truth of the Christian faith. of
greatest,
of
Midd~~~
into
the
the
As we move into the Middle Ages and the events of less and
around
counted merely as
adduced
events New
as
Bede's covering
of
The Dearth of Historiography
the
which
authorities, whose testimony was not questioned.
since
find
ranks
Most
mainstay
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The
populace
on the one hand with the classical writers and poets on
historical
early
rapid
of
disappeared.
writing
the
the
consisted of chronicles simply listing events and their
authorities
and
the
illiterate.
time,
probably
apologize for
death,
extent
for
to
circles
Ec~l~~~~1~Hi~or1-~~the_~~lis~_~~ple
the moral integrity of the disciples, their unflinching unto
fifth
ecclesiastical
learning preserved,
testimony
even
from the
in
along
attacks be
was
the
historians, the biblical writers and the church fathers
arguments of
would
large
contrast to
were
resurrection
rationalistic
of
or
at
Only
centuries.
In
saw a period of intellectual
and cultural decline that lasted
of
grounds:
credibility
the West
refutations
predominant
turn
Byzantine lands,
resurrection
miracles
of
historical methodology in general.
eleventh
Arnobius,
was
Eusebius
order
Arnobius
a
Christ's
Christianity.
and
insistence
that
explanations
the Enlightenment upon Origen,
two
Jesus
Celsus,
is
to Origen,
curious
assume
natural
and
denied of
charge,
was
this
away the testimony of the
allegation
second
resurrection, with
either
become
charlatans,
who
as
mainly
According
those
them
144
he
were
to explain
and
well
miracles
New Testament writers. and
as
that
arguments
theories advanced
occurred,
51
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
and
must
were
that myth,
be
narration
an
of past
compilation
who
of
of
taken
to
the be
history
consisted
of
viewpoint
naturally
discouraged
of
instead
the
remote
channeled
past
copying
during
energies
into
the the
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
52
53
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
writing of contemporary history, which would end in the
Deity and incarnation of Christ (and hence the truth of
present and for parts of which eyewitnesses could still
the
be
While
found.
the
eleventh
and
twelfth
centuries
experienced a revival of culture and learning, this had little effect on
important exceptions, historians
William
of
in
main
literary the
the by
form
the
had
historians
Malmesbury to
be
the
(d.
a
thirteenth
collapsed
of
there
reasoning end of
into
thirteenth
progress over those of the twelfth.
history
of
as
chronicle,
century
a
and
made
no
It is interesting
that when in 1286 the authorities of the University of Paris drew up a booklist of all the texts necessary for basic reading
at
the university,
of 140 were historical.
only three
texts
out
It was not until the Italian
Renaissance and the humanists of the fifteenth century that modern historiography was born and not until even later that history would become a widely read type.
literary
Beryl Smalley sums up the situation:
proof on
~~mo
by
him)
~-E..!:..!.~ri
from
Anselm's dialogue
partner
at
the
confesses,
Anselm's
deductive
approach
circumvented
the
need
for
any investigation of historical facts, since everything On the other hand,
was proved by a rational necessity. we
also
find
very
sophistication
early in
on
and
then
with
thirteenth
the
increasing century
a
philosophical framework developed which was amenable to
To write the history of the past in the Middle Ages meant copying and compiling: it was not creative. A critical study of the remote past, as distinct from mere compilation of earlier sources, called for tools anf4~quipment which were lacking in the Middle Ages. Thus to expect a historical
As
alone.
~Deus
authorized
Rationabilia et quibus nihil contradici possit quae dicis, omnia mihi videntur; et per unius quaestionis quam proposuimus solutionem, quidquid in novo veterique testamento continetur, probatum intelligo. Cum enim sic probes deum fieri hominem ex necessitate, ut etiam si removeantur pauca quae de nostris libris posuisti non solum Iudaeis sed etiam paganis sola ratione satisfacias. et ipse idem deus-homo novum condat testamentum et vetus approbet: sicut ipsum veracem esse necesse est confiteri, ita nihil quod in illis 1~~tinetur verum esse potest aliquis d i ffiter 1.
history
recapitulation
century
back
1143),
books
were
such as the forerunner of modern
continued
authorities;
Al though
historiography.
biblical
the
part of
historical argumentation, even if devoid itself of such According
argumentation. supported the
to
this
authority of Scripture
approach, by
the
one
empirical
signs of credibility, mainly miracle and prophecy.
We
find this framework enunciated in a rudimentary way in Augustine and developed more fully in Aquinas.
medieval writers of the events narrated in the gospels would
be
to
exceptions 146 Greek.
expect medieval
an
anomaly.
scholars
Indeed
could
not
with
rare
even
read The
What then could be done to commend rationally the truth
of
thinkers,
Augustine
the
Christian
epitomized
by
faith Anselm,
to
unbelievers? sought
to
prove
Some the
biblical
Bishop
of
authority,
Hippo
adhered
taking
the
and hence inerrant Word of God.
to
Bible
a
strong as
the
view of inspired
He believed that if it
were admitted that there is one false
statement in the 148 The
Scriptures, their authority would be destroyed.
54
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
authority
of
Scripture
pronouncements canonical
of
books
authors
to
the
of
be
he
held
Church,
even
declaring
Scripture
alone
completely
free
above that
does
he
from
of
hold error.
55
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
consider
whom
the the
belongs
the 149
understand
to
believe,
truth when
Augustine,
it
and is
extrapolating that 154
you
may
are
biblical authority was to guide thought on the question
complementary
of authority observes,
Augustine's statements that
the
Middle
Ages.
Kiln g
not
Given
such
a
view
expect
that
of
Christian
the
for
of
biblical
Augustine fal· th
and
authority,
the
medievals
one
might
the
truth
wa s
. 1 y gIven . b y authority. sImp give such an impression. He
Sometimes Augustine does asserts that one must first believe before he can 152 know. This sentiment is expressed in his frequent reference to the LXX Isaiah 7:9: "Unless you believe, you
shall
not
understand."
The
Augustinian
principle
of fi~~~g~~~~~~~~~ll~!~~ was to guide all medieval thinkers hand,
in
the
Augustine
Augustinian makes
it
tradition.
clear
that
he
On
the
is
neither
other a
fideist nor a simple authoritarian. He holds that reason and authority co-operate in bringing a man to faith. 153 Authority demands belief and prepares man for and
reason, and knowledge.
entirely
absent
reason But from
leads
at
the
in
turn
same
authority,
to
time for
a
understanding reason
is
person
has
intellectual
and
in
should
full-orbed, it was above all St. Augustine who regarded man as merely the instrument of the Holy Spirit; the Spirit alone decided the content and form of the biblical writings, with the result that the whole Bible was free of contradictions, mistak~s. and errors, or had to be kept free by harmonIzIng, allegorizing, or mysticizing. St. ~ugustine's influence in regard to inspiration and Inerrancy prevailed throug9~~t the Middle Ages and right into the modern age.
highest
authority Elsewhere
clearly known. on
Isaiah
7:9,
believe
advises,
that
you
may
This suggests that authority and reason
separate
knowledge
the
believe;
Everything recorded in the Scriptures must therefore be 150 absolutely believed. Augustine's attitude toward throughout
understand.
to
successive,
probably
saving
of
concomitant to
and
faith.
imply that belief precedes be
knowledge
knowledge
but
person
a
leading
understood of
God,
certain
not
truths
in in
terms
of
terms
of
about
God.
Copleston explains: It is not that Augustine failed to recognize, still less that he denied, the intellect's power of attaining truth without revelation He knew quite well that rational arguments can be adduced for God's existence, for example, but it was not so much the mere intellectual assent to God's existence that interested him as the real assent, the positive adhesion to the will of God, and he knew that in the concrete such an adhesion to God requires divine grace • If there was a question of convincing someone that God exists, Augustine would see the proof as a stage or as an instrument in the total process of the man's conversion and salvation: he would recognize the proof as !~!!self rational, but he would be acutely conscious, not only of the moral preparation necessary to give a real and living assent to the proof, but also of the fact that, according to God's intention for man in the concrete, recognition of God's existence is not enough, but should lead on, under the impulse of grace, to supernatural faith in God's revelation and to a life in accordance with Christ's teaching. Reason has its part to play in bringing a man to fai th, and, once a man has the fai th, reason has its part to play in penetrating the data of faith; but it is the total relation of the sou 1 . t 0 1 5 5G 0 d wh i c h p rim a r i 1 y i n t ere s t s AugustIne.
not to
In this sense,
belief precedes
the
saving knowledge of
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
56
God
and
true
understanding,
but
it
does
not
precede
intellectual grasp of truths about God. As Augustine indicates, reason is involved even in the
use
must to
of
authority as
determine which
Augustine,
what
books
· wors h Ip
it
we
authori ty
is
our
are
God. 156
a basis duty
to
for
to
for
believe.
to
believe
faith,
a man
According
consider what men or in
order
to
rightly
57
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
that
we
accept
Scripture
as
But
authoritative.
this
to flatly contradict what Augustine says seems concerning the precedence or at least concomi tance of The solution to this authority with regard to reason. discrepancy possessed within
seems
by
the
the
realm
in
the
of
reason
one
of
authority
history of
the
stands human
Augustine the Scripture is absolutely authoritative and
concept
inerrant in itself,
whole authoritative tradition of past knowledge, which 161 reason. must be re-digested in the present by the course of the development of Gradually in to confined became auctoritas scholasticism, ---------theological traditions alone, to the supernatural the however, Originally, faith. of truths au~~~it~{~tio problem was not just the relation of
credibility
in 0
r
to
authority belief.
One
Augustine
explains,
not
mean
Therefore, f
0
it
he
that
must
as
indication
of
mentions
is
the
find
c red i b i 1 i t Y tom a k e
Scripture
therefore,
for
carries
On the basis of these signs,
believe
and
does
157
!.!!.~!.£!.~
authority evident. credible
Scripture
but that
itself.
c e r t a ins i g n s
of
the
possesses
authority,
Scripture doctrine
divine
can demand
authority
of
its
it is
which
monotheism.
He
argues that we ought to believe those who summon us to worship would
one
God
rather
eliminate
vindicate
man. 158
than
polytheistic
Christianity
But
religion,
over
Augustine must have additional
against
it
this
would
not
Judaism.
show
that the New Testament possesses divine authority.
The
authority prophecy.
of
adduced
the
159
if he
by Augustine on
whole
of
Strauss
Scripture explains
is
So
to
principal signs
signs
while
behalf of the
are
miracle
that
while
the
fai th
and
reason,
but
medievals,
of
~~~~oritas
of
the
embraced
the
spectrum of past It seems that knowledge and our present understanding.
whole
for
Augustine knowledge of the past still belonged to According to Augustine, the realm of authority. knowledge consists in what is (1) seen or (2) believed. 162 ei ther means
(a) of
and
something
the
others.
Scriptures are only one among many offering the way of
medieval
the
as
us
historical method,
doctrine
for
concept
For
out,
Augustine's
but
lie
medievals.
who lacked the As Lang points this cannot be said.
As Gerhard Strauss in his analysis of
sciences,
to
To
see
by means rational is true
that
is
true
may
be
perception or (b) by To £~iev~ that demonstration.
is
of
something
physical
to accept it on the testimony of
Belief is knowledge based upon the witness of
others of something which is not present.
Hence, with
and
regard to God's acts in history and prophecy, Augustine
prophecies which make it clear that they have genuine . 160 au th orlty. These signs make it credible to believe
says that the trustworthiness of temporal things either
that
intelligence. 163
salvation,
seems
the to
precedes
the
Scriptures
Scripture imply
is
that
authority,
for
the
alone
true
reason it
is
miracles
authority.
for by
have
Augustine reason
of
Now
this
actually the
signs
past or future can be believed rather than known by the believing belongs
upon
not
to
But what this seems to imply is that the
basis
the
realm
of of
historical reason,
but
testimony authority.
58
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
This is in fact what Augustine says.
For just prior to
59
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
ought
one
to
accept
the
historical
testimony
of
the
his assertion that one must believe before he can know,
gospel writers to miracle and fulfilled prophecy?
Augustine states that one should believe in God because
same question could be asked of the classical writers.
this
That
is
taught
in
the books of the men who have left
is
to say,
Augustine did
The
not place the testimony
their testimony in writing that they lived with the Son of God and saw things which could not have happened if there were no God. 164 Dulles comments, "
because their writings are Scriptures, but because they
Augustine proposes an approach to the existence of God
fulfilled prophecies are not in the present but in the
that
past
is
integral with
and
inseparable
from his
belief
in miracles and in the Christian testimony.
The normal and then later
order is first to believe such matters, to
arrive
Hence,
at
to
basis
some
rational
accept
of
the
the
fact
understanding of
authority of
of
miracles
them.,,165
Scripture is
to
on
the
accept
its
authority on the basis of another authority,
since for
of
the
are
gospel
history.
the
Therefore,
Now
circularity, Scripture these
authority
of
Scripture
historical
facts
the
of
basis
on
of miracle
the
authority
one
the
basis
and
prophecy)
of
accepts
of
reason and
Scripture
the (the
that on
one
places
is
not
to
re-interpret
Augustine,
but
This
simply
accepting
Scripture
as
in
the
miracle and one
true
prophecy for
authority
among
to
to
them
might
be
cannot
guarantee
events of
if
Augustine
appeal these
that
he
Scripture's
to
the
events,
appeals claim
is
to
the and
truth
of
prophecies
the
else
greatly open
which
the
story which
Therefore,
of
Christ
anyone
is
the
inevitable
to the
That to
point.
Therefore,
may
belong
refuse
to
in
to
ancient 166 believe.
he leaves these and turns to the miracle of
Church as
the
. t ure. 167 S crlp
basis for
accepting the credibility
of
competing
Church, the sufferings of its martyrs, the chastity and
would
historical
throughout
question
the
told
He
extols
the
universality
founded
course,
is
testimony
to him.
Catholic
Of
it
of
accepting
procedure, since
avoid
establish
abandon
necessary,
reason,
to
authority
evangelists'
or
visible miracles were at first
still say authority precedes testimony is authority.
the
all
authority.
moral earnestness of its members.
with
of
since to
Augustine,
agreeing
and
authority.
asked
authorities is to accept it on the basis of reason, but while
miracles
He frankly admits that the books and documents
the
provide grounds
say that
clearly,
first option was not
words
We would
testimony
the
au£to~l~~~
he chooses the second.
history,
"reason."
that
of
Given the medieval lack of historiography, however, the
to recognize a linguistic difference in the way we use the "authority" and
fact
realm
means that he must either come up with some basis for
one's faith in God and that in the light of that faith one acquires ever deeper saving knowledge of God.
the
the
question
he
to
very
miracles
that
in
historical testimony whatever why one should accept its truth.
that
is
is
makes
credibility
position
It
that
Augustine historical testimony lay in the realm of authority, not reason. We today, because we do not regard history as part of authority, would probably say Augustine's
writers
arises,
why
Church
has
been
of
the
He states that while
the world, miracles 168 necessary. He maintains that
now that the and
are we
diffused no
should
longer still
60
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
believe
those
who
proclaimed
miracles,
though
only
a
61
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
shall develop.
few actually saw them, for miracles were then necessary because
the
people
divine
and
invisible
existence
of
the
were
not
yet
fi t
things.
mighty
and
to
But
reason now
universal
about
the
Church
Thomas Aquinas
very is
an
Early scholasticism followed the Anselmian pattern
overwhelming sign that what the Scripture says is true.
of trying to provide credibility for
One must be careful here not to think that Augustine in
systematically
now
coherence 170 faith.
basing
the
authority
authority of the church. authority of the His
appeal
for
of
Scripture
upon
the
As we have seen he held
Bible above
even
the credibility
the
that of the church.
of Scripture
authority
is still to miracle, only now he has made the miracle, not
those
of
Jesus
and
the
apostles,
which
are
demonstrating
and
by
of
of
the
intelligibility
During
the
the Scriptures by
means
failed
thirteenth external
to
carry
century,
signs
of
full
~~~io~!
we
conviction.
find
growing
credibility.
it
approach
Thus,
weight
Aquinas
the
Christian however,
century,
twelfth
became increasingly evident that this often
reason
in
given
rejected
the to the
irretrievably removed in the past and thus incapable of
Anselmian approach of proving truths
being established, but the contemporary miracle evident
the
to
the philosophical framework of the signs of credibility
all,
the
Church
itself.
This
miracle
actually
serves in a way to prove the others as well.
employment
For as he says in ~~ivit~e dei, even if the unbeliever rejects
for
all
Greco-Arabic
the biblical miracles,
one stupendous miracle,
we
are still
left with
which is all one needs,
the
of the
this
In
Scr ipture' s
the
Augusti ne,
and
Scripture's credibility on reason, longer in the past, could
only
be
in
believed,
Augustine,
biblical authority, framework
of
the
to
implicitly
hi s
based
for the sign was no
in the realm of authority where it
where it could be seen. find
accord i ng
authority,
but
was
now
in
the
present
Be that as it may, however, we
coupled
with
his
strong
view
of
the rudiments of the philosophical signs
of
credibility
which
Aquinas
instead
is
the
the
challenge
greatest
of
apologetic
truths
begins
about
by 171
God.
making There
a are
truths about God that wholly surpass the capability of human reason,
reason
combat
Aquinas
work
within
contemporary miracle of the church as the chief sign of cred i bi 1 i ty,
adopted
and
treatise of the Middle Ages and so deserves our careful
distinction
of
to
philosophy,
the closest Augustine comes to historical argumentation
conception
reason
through
Aquinas's
composed
consideration.
Interestingly, by turning to the
natural
Scripture.
(1258-64),
whole world believing, without the benefit of miracles, the miracle of the resurrection. 169 This would seem for the resurrection.
of
of faith
other
within
such as the doctrine of the Trinity.
hand,
the
there
grasp
existence of God. Summa
Aquinas
natural
reason
are
of
natural
In
the
attempts this
the existence and
truths first
to
latter
about
which
reason,
such
three
volumes
demonstrate body
God
of
by
truths,
attributes of God,
as of
means
On
lie the his of
including
the structure of
creation, the nature and end of man, and so forth.
But
in
the
the
SUbjects
fourth of
volume, the
when
Trinity,
Aquinas the
turns
to
incarnation,
the
62
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
sacraments,
and
the
his methodology: authority Because
of
things,
he
abruptly
alters
such things are to be proved by the
Holy
these
final Writ,
not
by
natural
evident nor rationally demonstrable surpass reason and are therefore objects of faith.
reason.172
doctrines
But
this
surpass reason, they are 173 properly objects of faith. But it is very important
blind
to understand why. according to Aquinas, these truths surpass natural reason. Al though one is apt to take Aquinas to mean that these truths are mysteries, doctrines "above logic" as it were, this is not the way he defines his terms. Thomas holds that truths of
provides
demonstrating
faith surpass reason in that they are empirically . d 174 ln emonstrable. He makes no suggestion that these
enim
doctrines somehow transcend Aristotelian logic; it seems to be primarily a matter of lack of empirical data that distinguishes truths of faith from truths of reason. Thus, while the existence of God may be demonstrated from His effects, the truth of the Trinity cannot be so demonstrated. Similarly, the eschatological resurrection cannot be empirically proved future
because
there
is
no
empirical
data
for
this
event. Thomas elsewhere makes it clear that neither can truths of faith be demonstrated by reason alone. He maintains that only strictly demonstrable arguments must be used to prove truths of reason and that arguments (such as A I' . C nse m s ln _~~_£~~~_~~~£?) which attain no more than a degree of probability must not be used to prove truths of fai th, for the very insufficiency of these arguments is counterproductive. 175 Aquinas's position is thus reminiscent of Augustine's distinction between seeing and believing. Truths accessible to natural reason must be capable empirical
of
strict,
premisses
objects of knowledge,
rational
and
can
demonstration
from
therefore be said to be while truths neither empirically
63
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
in
implies
for
authoritarianism,
the
Aquinas
for
realm
of
truths
signs
in
the
neither
fideism
he proceeds to argue that of
miracles
that
reason,
God
and
fulfilled
prophecy that serve to confirm these truths,
while not
them
form
surpass
nor
directly.176
Thus,
the
truths
of
faith taken together as a whole share in the quality of credibility;
"Et sic
crederet
propter
nisi
evidentiam
hujuSmodi."177
These
sunt visa ab es qui credit:
non
videret
vel
ea
signorum signs,
esse vel
which
credenda,
propter later
aliquid
theology
was
to call the "motives of credibility," are described by Aquinas as
~onfirmatio~~
of truths of faith:
Sed quia sermo propositus confirmatione indiget ad hoc quod recipiatur, nisi sit per se manifestus; ea autem quae sunt fidei, sunt humanae rationi immanifesta: necessarium fuit aliquid adhiberi quo confirmaretur sermo praedicantium fidem. Non autem confirmari poterat per aliqua principia rationis per modum demonstrationis: cum ea quae sunt fidei, rationem excedant. Oportuit igitur aliquibus indiciis confirmari praedicantium sermonem quibus manifeste ostenderetur huiusmodi sermonem processisse a Deo, dum praedicantes talia operarentur, ~nand~_l~fl~~~~~_~ll~~_~ir~~te~ operando, quae non posset facere nisi Deus • • FUit-atitem et alius confirmationis modus: ut, dum praedicatores veritatis vera invenirentur dicere de occultis quae postmodum manifestari possunt, eis crederetur vera dicentibus de his quae homines experiri non possunt. Unde necessarium fuit donu~pr~~~~ia~, per quod futura, et ea quae communiter homines latent, Deo re~7~ante, possent cognoscere et aliis indicare . Aquinas
went
.§.~~~men~~
Ha e c
so
far
as
to
speak
of
these
signs
as
and E.!:.0ofs: en i m d i v ina e
Sap i e n t ia e sec ret a
ips a
d i v ina
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
64
Sapientia, quae omnia plenissime novit, dignata est hominibus revelare. quae sui praesentiam et doctrinae et inspirationis veritatem convenientibus argumentis ostendit. dum ad confirmandum ea, quae naturalem cognitionem excedunt, opera visibiliter ostendit, quae tot ius naturae superant facultatem; videlicet in mirabili curatione languorum, mortuorum suscitatione, cae1estium corporum mirabili immutatione, et, quod est mirabi1ius, humanarum mentium inspiratione. ut idiotae et simplices, dono Spiritus Sancti repleti, summam sapientiam et facundiam in instanti consequerentur. Quibus inspectis, praedictae probationis efficacia, non armorum vio1entia, non vo}uptatum promissione, et. quod est mirabi1issimum. inter persecutorum tyrannidem, innumerabilis turba non solum simplicium sed etiam sapientissimorum hominum ad fidem christianam convolavit; in qua omnem humanum intellectum excedentia praedicantur, voluptates carnis cohibentur, et omnia quae in mundo sunt haberi contemni docentur. . 179 In
his
later
Summa
Aquinas
even
states
that
Christ's
miracles are sufficient to demonstrate his divinity.180 These remarks make
it clear that there are for
good reasons to accept the truths of faith as
Aquinas a whole.
The proofs of miracle and prophecy are compelling, indirect. remains
That a
is
truth
to
say,
but
example,
credible
to
Aquinas's Thomas is.
a
that
a
Aquinas's (1) that
doctrine
Fulfilled the
revelation Scripture
may
prophecy
Scriptures from
the
of
the
be and (2)
exhibited
in
miracles together As
a
a
it
revelation
is absolutely authoritative.
credible
(3)
are
from
the
world
miracles
acted
Of
God's
and
as
Scripture, was
is
For
wonderful
(that
caused
by
God;
speaking,
indeed,
miracles
are
He
He can produce effects in
intermediate causes, and hence 185 for Him. The fact that He
a
natural does
for by
of
determined
necessity. not
miracles,
making
natural
act
system When
contrary
order
emanating God
to
from
performs
nature
a
strictly
only
Aquinas God
the
can
sun
but not contrary to nature. lists do,
stand
(for example,
causing life
nature
and
God
three
but
nature (2)
(1)
(for
miracles
but not in the same
after can
orders:
never
still),
that nature can do as well as God, that
the
nature as His creation is disposed to be 186 God. His acts may be outside the
example,
the
Holy
itself, and not merely 183 This implies
independently
not
God,
order
such
divine ------
the order of nature is the result of His
that
miracles
reasoning,
that
miracles
the doctrines taught by Scripture that cannot be proved empirical
to
possible
works
upon
demonstratively
by
without
are
a
Therefore,
in
mechanically operating cause,
ordinary course of events,
whole
is
that
properly
three
steps:
miracle
indeed,
is,
Bible
event
speaking,
make as
an
authority of 181 Thus,
by God with miracles.
taken
God.
basis
the
inexplicable)
that
faith
on
and
they are signs that make it
something
states
Aquinas
truths
of
of
works done by God outside the order usually observed in 184 things. Since God acts by free will and not as a
the
Scripture as confirmed
is
is
miracle,
of
that
miracle
Hence,
convinced
have
truths
Hove and Lang, a miracle , important sIgn 0 f cre d'b'l't I I I y. 182
naturally
Trinity.
be
we
on
accept
prophecy
the
is
with reference to this person or that.
the
may
of
we
on
it
Van
miracle
with
opponent
to
most
Him
an
role
faith
Aquinas
and is therefore authoritative.
According
credibility, there are sufficient reasons to believe in
the
the
believe
is revelation,
will
have
is
by
for
that
In this sense,
free
argument;
together
Scripture
what
accepted
Hence,
of
that
displays
any
it
identify
as
by
faith
but
but
of
of
cannot
faith,
are
Scripture.
authority
signs
directly
truths
it
the
incarnation,
of
insofar
the
because
for
and
authority
sometimes
demonstrated
faith
Trinity,
Trinity
be
all
of
the
65
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
death),
both
and
perform
(3) (for
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
66
example, causing rain).187
The first
two orders admit Aquinas
of miracles of differing degrees of magnitude.
his (3)
own
power
miracles
of
replies
out
that
nature,
and
necessarily Even
a
miracle
follows
that
has
only
God
invisible creatures such
only produce effects that natures.
no
as
are
natural can
work
cause,
miracles.
angels or demons
proper
it can
to their created
They may do works that appear to be miracles
he
and
not
His teaching,
only God can be properly said to , 1 188 Since all created beings are part perform m~rac es. points
67
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
was
God.
remark,
in
he
we
the
equal
that
ascension
confirmed
To
of
did
virgin
what
no
how
as
that
others
with birth,
other
has
closely
approximates an argument for
done.
faith?
miracles
serve
to
confirm
the
truths
of
Aquinas answers,
In
fact, the
quod
Thomas affirms,
miracula
confirmationem
facta
sunt
doctrinae
virtutem divinam in iPso."191 demonstrate
his
a
ejus,
" Respond eo dicendum, Christo et
ad
propter
divinity?192
Aquinas
answers
Aquinas,
proofs
Aquinas of
witnesses. Christ's
in
answering
offered
means
by
the
Christ
question
sufficiently answers that
prophecy
the
angelic
used
by
witnesses
Christ,
not
and
the
historical
By signs, he means the empirical reality of
risen
body
possessed.
Taken
arguments
are
and
the
together
miraculous
in
It
is
properties
a cumulative way,
sufficient
resurrection.
proof
evident
of
that
it
these
Christ's
Aquinas
means
for Only if one sufficient ~~~~~~~~~El~~, not - -us. accepts the Scriptural account are these evidences proof
today
of
the
resurrection.
Aquinas
simply
asserts the fact of the miracles which serve to confirm the truths of faith.
ostendendam
But do Christ's miracles
this
apologetic
they did so in two ways: (1) by the evidence of witnesses and (2) by proofs or signs. 193 By witnesses, testimony
With this in mind,
and
resurrection.
however,
Respondeo dicendum, quod divinitus conceditur homini miracula facere, propter duo. Primo quidem, et principal iter ad confirmandam veritatem quam aliquis docet: quia enim ea quae sunt fidei human am rationem excedunt, non possunt per rationes humanas probari, sed oportet quod probentur per argumentum divinae virtutis: ut dum aliquis facit opera quae solus Deus facere potest, credantur ea quae dicuntur, esse a Deo Secundo ad ostendendam praesenti~~o Dei in homine per gratiam Spiritus Sancti • • •
Thomas
Christianity based on the
manifested the truth of his resurrection,
do
that done
With
Aquinas's
to add, How
was have
resurrection,
whether
God may do a miracle through an angel or saint
others.
Christ's,
to us, but this is only because we do not discern their ' 't y. 189 At th e same t'~me, A ' h as t ens causa 1 ac t ~v~ qu~nas by His power.
did
by his miracles,
magnitude
see
prayer
objection
his
may
through
the
Thus ~.!.~!:~.!:.ic~:
miracle
crucial
how
ever
to
problem
prove
occurred.
that
for
Aquinas
fulfilled
There
is
is
prophecy
or
danger
of
the
decisively that Christ's miracles demonstrate his deity
reasoning in a circle:
in
confirm that the Scripture is from God;
therefore what
it
therefore
three
ways:
performed created
(1)
totally
power
and
The
very
surpasses therefore
only by divine power.
(2)
He
nature the could
of
the
capability have
works of
he any
teaches
is
authoritatively
been
wrought
miracles
worked miracles
through
actually occurred.
and
fulfilled prophecy and miracle
fulfilled In
prophecy all
true; taught
fairness,
it
by
the
Scripture
must
be
said
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
68
that
Aquinas
never
closes
this
circle;
historical question unanswered. step from here
he
leaves
enim omnibus signis mirabilius, si, ad credendum tam a r d u a et ad 0 per and u m tam d iff i c iIi a e t a d sperandum tam alta, mundus absque mirabilibus signis inductus fuisse~95a simplicibus et ignobilibus hominibus • • •
the
But it is a very short
to adding historical
arguments
for
the
Dulles has
historicity of these signs of credibility.
69
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
Taken over from Augustine,
observed,
this argument--that without
miraculous events at its inception, it is impossible to Doubtless the undeveloped state of textual criticism and of historical science at the time would have made it impossible to construct a fUll-blown apologetic for Christianity through miracles, prophecies, and other historical signs of revelation. This approach, which became prevalent in the 19th century, fits well with the theory of cre~~~ility worked out by the scholastics • It
might
barred the
for
past
sense
be
thought
Aquinas,
and
than
so
such
an
since events
are
future
that not
any
events.
approach
would
like miracles
more
Thus,
perceptible the
lie to
resurrection
explain the origin of Christianity and the transformed lives
of
its
adherents--is
still
pressed
by
many
Christian thinkers today. The
Middle
therefore,
Ages,
did
not
argue
historically in a substantial way for the resurrection of
Jesus.
Rather
progressively
the
theologians
elaborated
a
of
framework
this
period
within
which
be
miracles such as the resurrection possessed evidential
in
value
the of
for
reason
the
can
truth
of
establish
the
Christian
certain
of
the
faith.
Natural
Christian
truths
without aid from revelation.
Those truths that cannot
Jesus would have to remain as much a truth of faith as
be demonstrated by reason
to be accepted
the
on the authority of Scripture.
eschatological
however,
would
resurrection.
seem
hasty.
This
For
conclusion,
Aquinas
does
not
signs of credibility.
the senses in order to be demonstrated empirically.
advocate
can be demonstrated to exist by means of its empirical effects, as with the case of God. to
leave
past
the
events,
present, effects
door unlike
such back
open
for
future
that
one
an
event
to
a
But this would seem
historical
events, could as
have
reason
their
proof.
traces from
historical
in
a
blind
the
of Scripture
in
receives
signs
the
Scripture, their
historically
was taken as a block,
the miraculous
signs
of credibility,
he says,
entirety, concept
Haec autem tam mirabilis mundi conversio ad fidem christianam indicium certissimum est praeteritorum signorum, ut ea ulterius iterari necesse non sit, cum i n s u 0 e f f e c t u a p par e ant e v ide n t e r • Esse t
the
authority
of It
they
did
assume the unity
scripture
credibility.
The
~~hol~
notion
that
some parts of Scripture might be false and other parts
for
to
to
argument.
of
Aquinas himself actually adumbrates such argumentation, referring
So the medieval thinkers did not
submission
is noteworthy that although they did not presuppose the authority of the
cause.
We can be sure that the
Scripture without attempting to provide a warrant.
For
certain
by faith
Bible is truly divine Scripture because of the various
maintain that an object must be directly perceptible by It
are
accurate
not of
just at
treating
was
foreign
to them.
Scripture
and the Signs confirmed it as an the point of confirmation. the
Scripture
as
one
would
The any
ordinary fallible document was yet to come. About
the
only
proof
offered
by
the
medieval
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
70
the
of
thinkers
historial
signs,
such
as
SECTION II
Jesus's
miracles, was the origin and growth of Christianity.196 Because
they
lacked
the historical
method,
they
THE MODERN PERIOD
could
not argue in any substantial way for the historicity of The
Lang concludes,
the events recorded in the gospels.
Eig!:!.teent!:!._Century_Flow~.!..!!.8.~~he
Hi~to~ic~_Ar~um~~for
Even though the goal of grounding the faith was already seen in the proof of the external credibility of revelation and securing the faith fell to the criteria of credibility, the scholastics did not occupy themselves thoroughly with their development. The reliability of the gospels and the correctness of their traditional exegesis admi tted of no doubt. The reports of miracles were also generally recognized as certain. One only needed to allude to them; !!:!.~y had no need of a critical guarantee. Therefore, one couldusua iTi-contentoneself wi th a Ii st of the criteria of cerdibility without having to verify more closely their historical f~cti9~1Y or their philosophical power of demonstratIon.
The
undoubtedly
signs
of
credibility which were historical in 198 character. During the fourteenth century Galfridus Christianity
from
miracles,
but
his
only
argued
for
proof
that
the
richest
quanti ty
Year
disputed. Germany, presses the
of
after
particular
of Jesus
Christianity
and
defense.
Indeed,
historical
evidences"
signs of credibility,
historical
argumentation
because,
according
to
Lang,
hardly
France,
be and
defending
the
truth
of
argument
as
a means
speaks
of
for
the
of defending role
the
in
that
eighteenth
century's "almost exclusive insistence on Biblical and
historical
of
In terms of
can
the predominant
Dulles
to
short
works
It was during this outpouring
evolved
assumed
substantive
stopped
apologetical
England,
historical
the
resurrection
resurrection
but
"was
of apologetic treatises that historical apologetics and
Heinrich
listed
Orr,
verdict
in
boldly proclaiming and
Similarly
1396
this
year
Christian religion.
The
in
for
John
scores of books and pamphlets flowed from the
Christianity.2
Langenstein
writes
period
output,
miracles had occurred was that the miraculous spread of Christianity was a visible miracle to all men. 199 von
century,
in all the long history of Christianity."l sheer
in Later thinkers, such as Scotus, sometimes included
eighteenth
!!:!.~_Re~~rrectio~
however,
way and
to
use
in
support
of
defend at
the
historical the
biblical
reach
of
least
arguments
historicity
faith
in
as
truth of
general
far
of
in
a
Jesus's appears,
back
as
Hugo
Christianity had not yet encountered opposition on that
Grotius's ~x~~it~te_~~l~l~~~~!:!.~istl~~~ published in 1627 and then, after suddenly gaining momentum
score.
around
Nor
was
consciousness. emerged
from
deficiencies
there
as
yet
a
genuine
historical
But by the time Christianity will have the will
Reformation, have
apologetics will be born.
been
both
remedied,
of
those
and
modern
years
the later
Paley's 1794.
turn in
of the
the
century,
eighteenth
to
have
century
climaxed with
167
William
A View of the Evidences of Christianity
--------------------------------------
The
separating Christianity
little
more
than
these
two
works
based
on
the
a
century saw
and
the
historical
in
a
half
case
for
evidence
for
72
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
There are many who confess that while they believe like the Turks and the Jews that there is some sort of God and some sort of deity. yet wi th regard to Jesus Christ and to all that to which the doctrine of the Evangelists and the Apostles testify. they take all that to be fables and dreams. .There is much more difficulty with these than there is even wi th the Turks. or at least as much. For they hold opinions with regard to religion that are just as or more strange than the Turks and all other miscreants. r have heard that there are of this band those who call themselves 'Deists'. an entirely new word. which they want to oppose to 'Atheist.' For in that 'atheist' signifies a person who is without God. they want to make it understood that they are not at all wi thout God. since they certainly believe there is some sort of God. whom they even recognize as creator of heaven and earth. as do the Turks; but as for Jesus Christ. they only know that he is and hold nothing concerning him nor his doctrine.
Jesus's miracles. of which his resurrection was always taken to be the supreme instance. mode of defense Christianity.
on
the
part
accounts
Christian familiar little
for
apologists with
the
doubt
of
remarkable
during
proponents
of
productivity
of
this
period?
literature of the era. the
English Deism.
the
the
bx_Deis~
Its Provocation What
become the principal
of
answer:
Deism.
To those there can be
and
especially.
Roughly coinciding with this same time
span. there arose the movement of modern free which.
as
a
part
of
authoritarianism Christian Their
and
religion
attacks
literature.
its
rejection
traditionalism.
in
favor
of
called
forth
a
and
it
of
was
in
a
all
assailed
religion
deluge the
thought. forms
of
of
of the
nature.
apologetic
crucible
of
These Deists of whom we are now speaking. adds Viret. ridicule all religion.
this
controversy with Deism that the historical argument for
notwithstanding the fact that they adapt themselves in outward appearance to the religion of those with whom they must live and whom they want to please or whom they fear. And among them are some who have a certain belief in the immortality of the soul; some regard this as did the Epicureans and in the same way the providence of God: as if he took no hand at all in the governing of human affairs, just as if they were governed by fortune or prudence or the folly of men as things happen to occur. I am horrified when I think that among those who bear the name of 'Christian' there are such monsters. But my horror doubles when I reflect that many of those who belong to the profession of literature and human philosophy and are even many times deemed to be the most learned and acute and subtle minds are not only infected with this execrable atheism. but also make it their .profession. and 3teach it and poison many people wlth such pOlson.
the miracles and resurrection of Jesus was worked out. Although
Deism
is
generally
eighteenth century England and Lord
Herbert
Halyburton
in
of his
Cherbury
associated
with
its inception traced to (pronounced
by
Thomas
Nal~~~_Rel!~!~~_Insuffi~!~~ (1714)
to be the father of English Deism) and his treatise De ~~~.!.~ i mi 1.!..!.2-.E.£~ i b !l..!..!.~l2---.£~~~
of
this
movement
are
actually
(1 624 ). the roo t s Continental and extend
all the way back into the sixteenth century.
In note D Pierre Bayle observes that in
of his article on Viret. the
dedicatory
epistle
dated
December
12.
1563. to Viret's two volume work ~~~~lru~l!£~~~r~tienne. Viret
specifically mentions
the
Deists
and.
infidelity. describes their tenets:
deploring
73
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
their Prior
to
1563
Pierre
Vi ret
was
serving
as
a
Reformed
74
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
minister in Lyon, beliefs
there;
contact
with
into private circulation. It was impolitic that an official answer should appear to a book which was officially held not to exist; so that the orthodox defense was mainly confined to the classic performances of Pascal, Bossuet, Huet, Fenelon, and some outsiders such as the exiled Protestant Abbadie, settled in Germany. These having been written to meet the mostly unpublished objections of previous generations,. the Church through its chosen policy had the al.r of utter inability to confute the newer propaganda, though . some apologetic treatises of f al.r, powe: did appear, in particular those of the Abbe Bergl.er, which, ~owever, all appear to date from 1770 onwards.
and he probably heard of the Deists'
it
seems
them.
that
His
easily have been
written
late-seventeenth
and
he
had
of the
by
Viret
first
could
hand
just
as
English Deists of the
early-eighteenth
characteristics noted belief in one God
no
description
centuries.
remain
transcending
the
The
same:
the
all
particular religions, His creation of the world and aloofness from it,
the rejection of
any
special
Jesus
revelation
Christ
from
and his
doctrine
as
God.
The difference of opinion among the Deists concerning immortality of the soul was later preserved in the so-called mortal Deists and
distinction
between
immortal Deists. Particularly interesting is Viret's note concerning the Deists' insistence on the distinction between themselves
and
atheists,
for
later Deists were constantly charged with atheism and so labeled by their orthodox
opponents.
distinction execrable
turns
atheism
sequel).
This
apologetic centuries
In
Viret
and
himself
around (a
ought
works
fact,
of
purportedly
label to
which
alert
after
accuses
he
us
noting them
repeats
to
the
the
in
fact
of the
that
the
sixteenth and seventeenth aimed at atheists may in fact
have as real targets thinkers more properly regarded as Deists. The fact more overtly rigid
that we do not hear of this is
not surpriSing when
censorship
prohibited
laws
publication
one
early Deism
remembers
in
of
Catholic France unorthodox opinions.
the that
The official policy of suppression, however, only prolonged
the
period
of
gestation
and
ultimately
proved
counter-productive, as Robertson explains:
Similarly the
curious
in
England
. the clerical policy had the result of leaving all unanswered when they nevertheless got
press
the
circumstance
that
laws
prior
resul ted
to
Herbert
of by
Deism
is
only
published
answers
to
unpublished opinions. 5
LicenSing approved
Act
of
by the
1662,
censor,
obliquely
which
required
was allowed
in
represented
Cherbury,
When the
works
to
be
to lapse in 1679,
Charles Blount seized the opportunity of a temporarily free press to publish his !gl~~_~~gdi
(1679), ~~~~!-l~
Di~g~_~£_~~~_~E~~~l~g~
(1680)
influential
~£_!E£!!~gl~~_of_Ir~g~
(1680), a translation with notes
and his
of Philostratus's work in which and
his
miracles
with
Blount
compared
wonder-working
the
Upon his accession to the throne in 1685, the
law re-instated,
for
two
more
permanently
years. off
the
and
it was
When
the
press
Jesus
Apollonius.
was
1695,
6
James II had
renewed again in lid
in
Life
finally John
1693 taken
Toland's
epochal Ch~l~~l~gl~l_g~~_~l~~~~l~~~ (1696) almost at once appeared. 7 But even after the freedom of the press
had
been
ensure d ,
the
Blasp hemy
Law
of
1696
probably sufficed to make any Deist think twice before publishing
his
opinions.
such as Woolston and them
75
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
Indeed,
some
later
Deists
Annet actually suffered fines and
imprisonment for their writings •
Besides this,
it was
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
76
not always easy for Deist authors to find a printer for their
themselves
with
they
and
material,
miserable
often
little
to
had
pamphlets
content
that
paled
by comparison to the handsome volumes of their orthodox widespread, Boyle
as
is
Lectures
in
religion
Deist
Nevertheless,
opponents.
evident
against
1692
from
"for
notorious
opinions
the
founding
of
the
His mention of atheists, Epicureans, and other infidels He uses the term as threats is especially interesting. atheist
to
God,
that he
----
so
describe
one
who
denies
the
existence
of
cannot designate by this term Deists.
Vi ret had used the term ~icur~~~ in describing French Mornay also Deists less than twenty years earlier.
the
Christian
seems to associate
viz.,
atheists,
very much like Deists:
proving
infidels,
were
77
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
Epicureanism with persons who sound
theists, pagans, Jews, and Mahometans, not descending lower
to
any
controversies
themseIVes,"8 as well as refuting Deist tenets. 9 Thus,
given
that
from
these
are
the
among
The Epicureans are cut from this cloth because, sensing that their soul is guilty of so many crimes, they think to have declined the justice and providence of God in denying it. And of them we can say that reason has been swept away and ravished by the course of this world to which they adhere in order to have no other discourse and no other course than the world's. Some go a bit further and with regard to God and with regard to themselves hold that there is a God and that man has from him an immortal soul, that God governs all, and that man must serve him. But they see the Gentiles, the Jews, the Turks, the Christians in the world; among diverse peoples and diverse religions each one thinks to serve God and to find his salvation in his own religion. Just as at an intersection so many ways meet, so they, instead of choosing the correct one by the judgement of reason, stop, wonder, and conclude in this bewilderment that all go back to one, as 1\l the South and the North lead to the same place.
Christians
many works
aimed
at
it
is
circumstances,
understandable why Deism is not easily charted prior to Lord
Herbert.
It
is
movement,
which
should
already
be
contemporary Farel were
in
peaked
of
Geneva
written
really
a
in and
1534;
within
the
matter
Calvin in
quite
25
his
years
of
amazing
this
eighteenth
century,
concern
Viret,
compatriot comments of
that
the
to of
on
a
Guillaume
this
menace
establishment of
Calvinist rule in Geneva and more than 60 years before Lord Herbert broached his theological system. In any case it seems evident that the earliest and most significant treatises on the historical evidences for the Christian faith were written with an eye toward Deist
opinions.
In
Philippes de Mornay, his
mother
his
tongue
1581
the
French
Calvinist
Lord Duplessis-Mornay,
instead
of
Latin,
penned
writing in at
_______ ___2 _____ __________ De_!~ _ _ v6rit~ de_ _ _ la_ _ _ religion chrestienne
subtitled
his
work
leader Anvers Mornay
££~1~~_!~~_~1g~~~L_~£l£~~l~~~L
~~r~~~L_~l£~L __ ~~g~~~£l~1~~L_~_~~1~~~_!~£l£~!~~. his preface Mornay like Viret decries the spread
contempt step,
of
religion
which
one
encounters
at
In of
every
even among those who make a profession of piety.
Although the
the
world
this
is
will
speak
statement
appears
concerning
somewhat
God's
puzzling,
governance
it
may
be
of
that
to be taken
in the most general of senses and Grotius implies no specific acts of God in the world. the world
of
persons
who
regard
in such general terms,
God's as we
governance shall
see,
of and
Pascal in his notes specifically associates such a view "The God of Christians is not a God with Epicureanism: who is simply the author of mathematical truths, or of the order of the elements;
that
is
the
view of pagans
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
78 ' 11 and E p1cureans."
Epicureans
are
by
noted
in
the
description
thinking denial
of
fact
Deists. man
to
the
echo
serve
belief God
is of
Deism.
The
rest
Viret's:
the
divided
immortality
claims
further
must
providence, the
The
Herbert's
seems
all
pagans,
of
Jews in the course of their journeys.
Lord
God's
opinions
would
and
concerning
transcending
the
who
that
of
encounter
This makes it likely that Mornay's
Mornay
characteristic
79
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
the of
of
the
appeal the
the
one
God
to
particular
Mornay's system also seems to favor
soul,
adds this note:
Neque deesse impios, qui abditum metu venenum ex occasione apud simplices prodant: adversum quae mala optare me, ut recte armati sint nostrates, & qui ingenio praestant, incumbant pro virili revincendis erroribus, caeteri saltern id caveant, ne ab aliis vincantur. 12
religions.
identification
Muslims,
But he also
"~!£h~~"
These
could well have included Deist thinkers.
It is not until Books four,
five,
and
gives
detailed
of
Christians share a common belief in the Old Testament;
Islam
respectively.
hence,
The
follows the logical order of Mornay, establishing first
and
the existence of God, then showing the divine character
of some of his opponents as
Deists.
find
observes
a
common the
Gentiles
ground,
efficacy
and
he
of
Jews
the
proof
share
a
In his effort to that
from
belief
Jews
prophecy.
in
one
God
immortality, which constitutes a common ground. the
atheist,
motion.
he
may
be
convinced
by
miracles
cannot
come
are
evidence
from
subtitle,
of
nothing) ,
miracles have occurred. the
likely
this
that
Christ's
while
argument
are
Deists,
was
also
it
seems
Thus its
use
history
something
proves
of
seems
best
infidels, since
that
plausible
to
directed
which makes
the
characteristic
Mornay's apologetic system is in
(since
Of the opponents enumerated in
last
they
deity
beliefs. Deists
from
Philosophy proves
Deity
against the Epicureans and other it
proof
Those who deny the divinity of Christ may be
convinced by philosophy and history. that
the
As for
denial of
of
Deist
think
that
in part directed against
miraculous
evidences
for
Christianity. Similarly
Grotius's (1627) ,
mentioning Deists, tenets.
Grotius
while
not
explicitly
seems well-designed to refute their does
tell
us
specifically
work is intended to be a handbook for
world
that
of Judaism,
refutations In
paganism,
Books
one
Judaism,
through
three
and he
and finally proving at length the truth of
the Christian religion. Grotius
and six that Grotius
finds
it
In the course of his argument,
necessary
to
prove
that
God
governs
not only the universe at large but also the affairs of the
mundane
world:
providentiam hanc
autem
"Multum
coeli
orbibus
errare
eos,
includunt.
qui " 13
Nor is God's governing of the world to be conceived in a
vague,
general
, I'1a unIversa
sense:
"Neque
minus
t curarI' 1 vo un,
falluntur,
qui
non
&slngu ' 1 arIa. ' ,,14
It could well be that Grotius is here
interacting with
Deist
a b eo
We
sentiments.
providence comment
on
government
that
noted
characterized
those of
have
the
who
allow
world
by
the
denial
of God's
and
Grotius's
Deists, Ol'
Go
Y
the is
most
general
reminiscent
of
Mornay's opponents.
In refuting t:ese opinions Grotius
asserts
most
that
prov idence
is
the from
certair
miracles
and
proof !ulfilled
of
Divine
prophecy,
which can be established historically:
the
travelers,
At certissimum divinae praebent miracula, &
providentiae testimonium praedictiones quae in
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR
80
historiis exstant. Referuntur quidem multa id genus fabulosa: sed quae testes sui temporis idoneos habuerunt, id est, tales quorum nec judi~ium,. nec fi.des .lab.oret, rejicie~