I'd like to suggest an additional nuance. I've heard it suggested by Dale Allison (whose work I appreciate a great deal) that the evidence for the resurrection is indeterminate, that both skepticism and belief can be rationally justified, and that whether one believes in the resurrection is a matter of worldview. You seem to suggest much the same. I agree somewhat but I'd argue that it's possible to have a worldview that is open to the possibility of the supernatural, and still disbelieve that this particular miracle occurred. Christians do it all the time with regard to other miracle claims in other religions or in sects of Christianity different to their own, that are at least as well evidenced, if not better attested, than the resurrection.
While I lean toward a naturalistic worldview, I accept there are aspects of reality we don't yet and may never understand, and grant the possibility that, as Dale Allison says, "the world is a very strange place" maybe even far stranger than a purely naturalistic account would have it. But even being open *in theory* to the possibility of miracle, I don't find the evidence in this case (or in any case yet brought before me) convincing. So it's not quite as simple as "if your worldview allows for the occasional rare occurrence of supernatural miracles then you will believe miracle claim X (in this case, the resurrection)." I agree with you and with Allison that one CAN believe the resurrection on faith, stepping a large step as it were from the point at which the historical evidence seems to leave you and landing on belief perhaps on the basis of what one understands as a personal encounter with the risen Jesus in one's own life, without being stupid or wholly illogical. But I'd part company if it's suggested that once one allows in theory that miracles might occasionally happen, then having left pure naturalism behind one must be compelled to believe that this alleged miracle did happen.
As ever, thank you for this really thoughtful engagement. My argument is certainly not that once one opens the pandora's box of the possibility of a supernatural event, then one should accept this one or that. I totally agree with you.
My argument is more radical than Allison's. I am trying to shift us away from seeing the Resurrection as something that one can be 'compelled' to believe by looking at the data.
If it happened, the Resurrection cannot be reasoned to as the end point of a secular historiography; rather, it is the starting point of an altogether different way of looking at history. If the resurrection is to be believed, it is to be believed through an epistemology which assumes its reality. Man cannot live on historical criticism alone!
Thank you John, for your reply and engagement with my comment! Ah, shades of U2 (a place that has to be believed to be seen) and Lesslie Newbigin! I am not able to make that somewhat presuppositionalist(?) move myself although when I was a Christian I would have found - did find! - the idea of doing so profound and moving. Step out in faith as if it's true, and it will be confirmed to you.
As my faith shifted, there was a good half decade or more where Lewis's Puddleglum was my not wholly tongue-in-cheek role model even as I pored over apologetics, NT Wright and other conservative scholars, before finding mainstream critical historical studies left me standing on different ground that didn't (to me) seem to merit making that "assume it's real" move any longer. But while I can't make that move myself and am skeptical of its validity as a path to truth as it seems one can make it for any number of faiths or worldviews, and indeed it's what's recommended by other faiths (assume the reality of this paradigm, begin to live accordingly, and watch for confirmation-has been recommended to me by Mormons, Muslims and Hindus as well as traditional Christians in recent years) I can respect someone who recognizes that that's the move they are making, finds it sufficiently confirmatory for themselves, finds their faith life-giving, and isn't practicing their faith in ways that I believe are harmful to others or the world.
I remain fascinated by the historical study of the Bible and Christianity, and appreciate scholars who strive to deal honestly with the data and share it with interested non-specialists like me, so am very grateful for the project you have undertaken here
I would say that Nelson isn't affirming that Ressurrection is a closed system that needs to be assumed just to be confirmed, rather is the reality of Jesus that comes from the outside, form the Totally-Other to inside of our experiences.
At best, the Risen Jesus is something that "happens" to someone - I think here in Jacques Frossard or even in the old saint Paul.
Jesus' resurrection is the paradigmatic instance of transformation, a deeply mysterious concept that makes identity ambiguous. Jesus appears in locked rooms, yet eats broiled fish; he has wounds on his body, yet is surprisingly hard to recognize. Continuation and change intermingled. Further, transformation is the key to much of the Christian faith, with Jesus being the point of transformation (2 Cor 5:17). At Jesus, individuals are transformed, as is the law, Israel, covenant, ancestry, inheritance, and more. Parts of the law remain as they were (Eph 6:1-3) while others are spiritualized (Rom 2:29). From this alone it should be evident that the resurrection cannot be fruitfully examined in isolation from its spiritual context.
The other mess of problems too is what “resurrection” means. As CD Elledge has demonstrated, Judaism from 200 BCE to 200 CE had a wide variety of ideas about what resurrection was and entailed, contra NT Wright’s oversimplification of it as mere sarkic reanimation.
This is a very rewarding post and one I will come back to. I haven’t seen the resurrection treated like this before.
I’ve always been deeply moved by the appearance to Peter and the others at the end of the Gospel of John. I wonder why this isn’t included in the other gospels. Do you think this is what Paul is referring to when he mentions the appearance to Peter? Is this what the author is working towards when our fragment of the Gospel of Peter ends?
I'd like to suggest an additional nuance. I've heard it suggested by Dale Allison (whose work I appreciate a great deal) that the evidence for the resurrection is indeterminate, that both skepticism and belief can be rationally justified, and that whether one believes in the resurrection is a matter of worldview. You seem to suggest much the same. I agree somewhat but I'd argue that it's possible to have a worldview that is open to the possibility of the supernatural, and still disbelieve that this particular miracle occurred. Christians do it all the time with regard to other miracle claims in other religions or in sects of Christianity different to their own, that are at least as well evidenced, if not better attested, than the resurrection.
While I lean toward a naturalistic worldview, I accept there are aspects of reality we don't yet and may never understand, and grant the possibility that, as Dale Allison says, "the world is a very strange place" maybe even far stranger than a purely naturalistic account would have it. But even being open *in theory* to the possibility of miracle, I don't find the evidence in this case (or in any case yet brought before me) convincing. So it's not quite as simple as "if your worldview allows for the occasional rare occurrence of supernatural miracles then you will believe miracle claim X (in this case, the resurrection)." I agree with you and with Allison that one CAN believe the resurrection on faith, stepping a large step as it were from the point at which the historical evidence seems to leave you and landing on belief perhaps on the basis of what one understands as a personal encounter with the risen Jesus in one's own life, without being stupid or wholly illogical. But I'd part company if it's suggested that once one allows in theory that miracles might occasionally happen, then having left pure naturalism behind one must be compelled to believe that this alleged miracle did happen.
Dear Karl,
As ever, thank you for this really thoughtful engagement. My argument is certainly not that once one opens the pandora's box of the possibility of a supernatural event, then one should accept this one or that. I totally agree with you.
My argument is more radical than Allison's. I am trying to shift us away from seeing the Resurrection as something that one can be 'compelled' to believe by looking at the data.
If it happened, the Resurrection cannot be reasoned to as the end point of a secular historiography; rather, it is the starting point of an altogether different way of looking at history. If the resurrection is to be believed, it is to be believed through an epistemology which assumes its reality. Man cannot live on historical criticism alone!
Thank you John, for your reply and engagement with my comment! Ah, shades of U2 (a place that has to be believed to be seen) and Lesslie Newbigin! I am not able to make that somewhat presuppositionalist(?) move myself although when I was a Christian I would have found - did find! - the idea of doing so profound and moving. Step out in faith as if it's true, and it will be confirmed to you.
As my faith shifted, there was a good half decade or more where Lewis's Puddleglum was my not wholly tongue-in-cheek role model even as I pored over apologetics, NT Wright and other conservative scholars, before finding mainstream critical historical studies left me standing on different ground that didn't (to me) seem to merit making that "assume it's real" move any longer. But while I can't make that move myself and am skeptical of its validity as a path to truth as it seems one can make it for any number of faiths or worldviews, and indeed it's what's recommended by other faiths (assume the reality of this paradigm, begin to live accordingly, and watch for confirmation-has been recommended to me by Mormons, Muslims and Hindus as well as traditional Christians in recent years) I can respect someone who recognizes that that's the move they are making, finds it sufficiently confirmatory for themselves, finds their faith life-giving, and isn't practicing their faith in ways that I believe are harmful to others or the world.
I remain fascinated by the historical study of the Bible and Christianity, and appreciate scholars who strive to deal honestly with the data and share it with interested non-specialists like me, so am very grateful for the project you have undertaken here
I would say that Nelson isn't affirming that Ressurrection is a closed system that needs to be assumed just to be confirmed, rather is the reality of Jesus that comes from the outside, form the Totally-Other to inside of our experiences.
At best, the Risen Jesus is something that "happens" to someone - I think here in Jacques Frossard or even in the old saint Paul.
Jesus' resurrection is the paradigmatic instance of transformation, a deeply mysterious concept that makes identity ambiguous. Jesus appears in locked rooms, yet eats broiled fish; he has wounds on his body, yet is surprisingly hard to recognize. Continuation and change intermingled. Further, transformation is the key to much of the Christian faith, with Jesus being the point of transformation (2 Cor 5:17). At Jesus, individuals are transformed, as is the law, Israel, covenant, ancestry, inheritance, and more. Parts of the law remain as they were (Eph 6:1-3) while others are spiritualized (Rom 2:29). From this alone it should be evident that the resurrection cannot be fruitfully examined in isolation from its spiritual context.
Thanks for this reflection!
The other mess of problems too is what “resurrection” means. As CD Elledge has demonstrated, Judaism from 200 BCE to 200 CE had a wide variety of ideas about what resurrection was and entailed, contra NT Wright’s oversimplification of it as mere sarkic reanimation.
Ooh! I'm not familiar with Elledge's work. Thanks so much, David!
You forgot the strongest case for the resurrection: Paul’s life and testimony.
Not only in how he changed from hating Christians to writing 1/3rd of the NT, but also how he confirms the experience of the disciples.
I’m hard pressed to think of a good naturalistic explanation of his life and testimony.
I also find the idea of confusing a vision with a real-life encounter with Jesus very dubious and unrealistic.
This is a very rewarding post and one I will come back to. I haven’t seen the resurrection treated like this before.
I’ve always been deeply moved by the appearance to Peter and the others at the end of the Gospel of John. I wonder why this isn’t included in the other gospels. Do you think this is what Paul is referring to when he mentions the appearance to Peter? Is this what the author is working towards when our fragment of the Gospel of Peter ends?