Resurrection: Faith Or Fact? Miracle Not Required?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
209 Resurrection: Faith or Fact? Miracle Not Required? Peter S. Williams Assistant Professor in Communication and Worldviews NLA University College, Norway [email protected] I was privileged to have the opportunity material, he cannot justify his assertion to contribute two chapters to Resur rec tion: that the Gospels contain both types of Faith or Fact? (Pitchstone, 2019). One of material (for example, Carl holds that the these chapters reviewed the written resur- crucifixion is historical but the empty rection debate therein between atheist tomb isn’t). Contra Carl, I maintain that Carl Stecher (Professor Emeritus of Eng - the historical ‘criteria of authenticity’3 lish at Salem State University) and Chris- provide us with principled ways of ‘deter- tian Craig L. Blomberg (Distinguished mining what [in the resurrection narrati- Professor of the New Testament at Den- ves] is actually historical.’4 ver Seminary in Colorado).1 While I had In ‘Miracle Not Required’, Carl makes a couple of critical comments relating to an apparent mea culpa that quickly turns Professor Blomberg’s chapters, I focused into a red herring: my attention on Professor Stecher’s con- Peter’s challenge is justified; at the tribution to the debate, grouping my very least my point needs clarifica- observations under the headings listed in tion. My statement reflects a posi- the title of my review chapter: ‘Evidence, tion of skepticism and the rejection Explanation and Expectation’ (‘EEE’). In of Christian biblical literalism and infallibility . This is, after all, a his closing essay, ‘Miracle Not Required’, pivotal issue in any consideration Carl responded to ‘EEE’. Here, I critique of the historicity of the New Testa - ‘Miracle Not Required’, using the same ment accounts of Jesus’ resurrec- categories used in ‘EEE’. tion.5 However, my point was that Carl’s skep- Evidence – Part One: ticism isn’t methodologically principled, Historical Methodology and this response simply avoids the issue Professor Stecher (to whom I will refer as at hand. ‘Carl’) opens his debate with Professor Moreover, by using the criteria of his- Blomberg (to whom I will refer as ‘Craig’) toricity, one can argue for specific points by asserting that ‘What is lacking is any of historical veracity within the NT, and method for differentiating the historical even for the general historical reliability from the legendary and fictional,’2 genres of the NT, without appealing to any he assumes are mixed together in the no tion of biblical ‘infallibility’ (or iner- New Testament (NT). In ‘EEE’ I note that rancy).6 if Carl lacks a method for differentiating I wonder whether Carl is at least gestu - between historical and non-historical ring towards an argument here, to the Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019 210 Resurrection: Faith or Fact? Miracle Not Required? effect that there exists a warranted con- Pilate questioning Jesus in a private nection between belief in Jesus’ resurrec- interview in John 18:28–38, despite tion and belief in the ‘infallibility’ of the our being told, ‘It was now early morning, and the Jews themselves NT, such that evidence against the latter stayed outside the headquarters to is thereby evidence against the former. avoid defilement, so that they could This elaboration of Carl’s mention of eat the Passover Meal’ (18: 28). infalli bility would be of a piece with his However, even if Carl had a reliable prin- indirect arguments, which I will examine cipled method that allowed him to relia- later, about the accessibility of salvation bly detect ‘legends or fictionalizations’ and the problem of evil. If Carl has such within a text (which he doesn’t), and even an argument in mind, then he’s relying if that method supported his designation upon several additional assumptions: that of all the passages he mentions as such, ‘infallibility’ is inconsistent with a specific this still wouldn’t negate the recognition type of textual data, that there’s warrant of specific points of historical veracity for believing that this specific type of data gleaned from the NT via the historical exists within the NT, and that this war- criteria of authenticity. Nor would it rant is stronger than the warrant for be - under mine the inference from the enume- lief in the resurrection. Since Carl doesn’t ration of many specific examples of histo- actually articulate an indirect argument rical veracity in the NT to the general his- along these lines, he doesn’t explicitly torical reliability thereof.8 defend any of these assumptions. That Moreover, we must remember that NT said, Carl does pursue something in the scholarship recognizes a number of sour- ball-park of assumption 2, doubling-down ces, written or otherwise, that stand on his assertion ‘that the historicity of the behind the Gospels (for example, the resurrection accounts is undermined by ‘Q’ source thought to be common to passages in the Gospels and in Paul’s Matthew and Luke). Even if it were epist les that . are clearly legends or fictio - shown that one or other of these sources nalizations’.7 Carl lists several pa s s ages is historically inaccurate, this wouldn’t that he thinks are ‘clearly legends or fictio - demonstrate that all of these sources are nalizations’: unreliable. In short, Carl’s critique of the I place in these categories the birth NT is methodologically unsound on mul- legends in Matthew and Luke tiple grounds. (which contradict each other and are in conflict with known facts As to Carl’s examples: about the period); the opening of · I refute Carl’s unsupported assertions John, with its portrayal of Jesus’ that the birth accounts in Matthew role in the creation about six thou- sand years ago; those passages in and Luke ‘contradict each other’ and which the voice of God comes out ‘are in conflict with known facts about of the sky (Matthew 3: 16– 17 and the period.’9 (Even if these accounts many others) . conversations did contradict each other in every par- recorded verbatim and at length for ticular, the possibility of one of the which there were no plausible wit- accounts being historically reliable nesses (Judas and the Temple priests in Matthew 27:3–6; the guards and would be left open. Again, even if both the temple priests plotting false tes- accounts were demonstrably ‘in con- timony in Matthew 28:12–13); flict with known facts about the Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019 Peter S. Williams 211 period’ to an extent that undermined priests in Matthew 27:3–6 ignores belief in their general reliability, this relevant evidence that Craig drew to would be compatible with making his attention during their debate: sound arguments for specific points of As for the exchange between Judas historical veracity either within the and the priests not involving Jesus birth narratives or within other testi- at all (Matthew 27:3–10), here Acts monial sources woven into these 6:7 gives us an important clue. We Gospels. In particular, since Matthew read that ‘a large number of priests and Luke drew upon various sources, became obedient to the faith.’ If even just one of them had been proving the birth narratives to be among those who met with Judas, unreliable wouldn’t justify the conclu- or had heard from their priestly fri- sion that the passion narrative sources ends about what transpired, they are unreliable. Finally, criticism of the could easily have passed the word birth narratives in Matthew and Luke along to other Christians.11 has no application to the Gospels of · Turning to Pilate’s questioning of Jesus Mark or John, to relevant informa- in John 18:28–38, Carl once again tion from the creed quoted in 1 Corin - ignores evidence that Craig has alrea- thians 15, etc.) dy brought to his attention: · The preface to John’s gospel offers a First of all, it is highly unlikely that theological portrait of the divine logos any Roman governor would ever having a role in creation before the be left alone with an accused crimi- incarnation, but it makes no claim nal; other guards would have been about how long-ago this occurred. It present. We know that John had certainly doesn’t say that creation took ‘friends in high places’ sufficient to place ‘about six-thousand years ago’ gain entry to the high priest’s court - yard (John 18:16); who knows (relative either to the composition of what other acquaintances he might John or to our own time). Although have had among the Roman guard? Carl should know from my biographi- Craig Keener sees evidence here for cal essay that I think young-earth crea- actual legal proceedings, in which tionism requires an implausible inter- case at least one Roman official pretation of the relevant biblical texts, would have been assigned to Jesus as counsel. Records of proceedings he reads a young-earth creationist per - would have been kept and could spective into John’s preface, without have been consulted. Moreover, the offering any hermeneutical justifica- plausibility of the disciples hearing tion for doing so.10 about this kind of conversation · Carl’s assertion that ‘passages in which may be bound up with the plausibi- lity of the resurrection itself. If the voice of God comes out of the sky’ Jesus did spend considerable time are ‘clearly legends or fictionalizations’ with his disciples over a forty-day rests upon his rejection of the superna- period after the resurrection teach - tural, and is therefore question beg- ing them (Acts 1:3), then he would ging. have had plenty of time to tell them all the details . .12 · Carl’s scepticism about the conversa- tion between Judas and the Temple Theofilos vol.