Resurrection: Faith or Fact? Miracle Not Required?

209
Resurrection: Faith or Fact?

Miracle Not Required?
Peter S. Williams
Assistant Professor in Communication and Worldviews
NLA University College, Norway
peterswilliams@googlemail.com
I was privileged to have the opportunity material, he cannot justify his assertion
to contribute two chapters to Resurrection: 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 notion 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).
infallibility 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-
undermine 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
epistles that . . . are clearly legends or fictio-
shown that one or other of these sources
nalizations’.7 Carl lists several passages
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

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
gain entry to the high priest’s court-
place ‘about six-thousand years ago’
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

More or Less Evidence Required? the other Gospel accounts not

Carl observes: completing the story with its natu-
ral climax. Peter also does not
Peter writes, ‘In general, the more explain their silence.15
criteria of authenticity a saying or
event passes, the more seriously we Carl’s argument from silence holds that
should take it.’ This seems reaso- the failure of any NT author to meet his
nable to me. But I would like to literary expectations means they must
suggest a corollary: The fewer and have been making it all up (thereby mak-
weaker the evidence for any alleged
ing the false assumption that an argument
‘fact,’ the weaker the case for
accepting it. In this regard another from silence automatically trumps argu-
general rule might be the greater the ments from any and all other historical
importance of an event involving criteria). Nevertheless, the point stands
the eternal fate of billions of peop- that although Luke wrote about the
le, the more compelling should be ascension in Acts, he clearly didn’t consi-
the evidence that this event actually der the ascension to be the ‘natural cli-
happened.13
max’ to his gospel, since he didn’t write
However, wouldn’t prudential rationality about it there. Rather, he thought of it as
actually encourage us to act on the basis the natural introduction to the ‘Acts of
of less evidence in such cases, since a false the Spirit in the church of Christ’. As
negative carries greater risk than a false Craig said, Luke ‘understands it as the
positive?14 prelude to the sending of the Spirit at
Pentecost (2:1–41).’16 If the other Gospel
An Alarmingly Absent Ascension?
writers thought the same way, their failu-
Carl quotes neo-atheist physicist Victor J. re to mention the ascension in their gos-
Stenger back to me: pels is hardly surprising. As Craig obser-
‘Absence of evidence is evidence of ved:
absence when the evidence should
The reason the ascension doesn’t
be there and is not.’ I agree. I’ve
appear in multiple writers may be
argued on this basis that the report
as simple as observing that only one
of Jesus’ final words and his physi-
of the New Testament Gospel wri-
cal and visible ascension into hea-
ters wrote a sequel. The four Gos-
ven clearly meet this criteria [since]
pels all end with the resurrection or
this event, alleged by the author of
with an announcement of it. The
Acts, is nowhere confirmed or even
ascension came later.17
hinted at by Paul or the authors of
Mark, Matthew, or John, our only Indeed, Mark appears to have ended his
first-century sources for the stories gospel without narrating any resurrection
of Jesus’ resurrection. These docu- appearances, although his narrative pre-
ments have not a hint that their
authors have ever heard the story
dicts at least one resurrection appearance
told by Luke of Jesus’ final words and although we know that testimony
and ascension. Craig suggests that about resurrection appearances was
all the other first-century accounts already circulating in creedal form well
do not mention Jesus’ last words before Mark’s Gospel was published (see
and ascension because Luke has 1 Corinthians 15).
saved this for the ‘sequel’ to his
In any case, besides Luke’s report in
Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles.
This, however, fails to account for Acts, Jesus’ ascension is pre-figured or

alluded to in several NT texts (including unclear on what role charity should have
texts by John and Paul): in the understanding of these texts.’22
Given that Carl is an Emeritus Professor
· John 20:17 (c.50-90 AD): ‘Jesus said
of English, I’m surprised by his self-pro-
to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have
fessed ignorance of the principle of her-
not yet ascended to the Father; but go
meneutical charity. Allow me to clarify by
to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am
quoting our atheist co-contributor
ascending to my Father and your
Richard Carrier, who makes the follo-
Father, to my God and your God.’”’
wing plea in his book Sense and Good-
(ESV)
ness Without God:
· Ephesians 4:8 (c. 60-62 AD): ‘There-
I ask that my work be approached
fore it says, “When he [Christ] ascen-
with the same intellectual charity
ded on high he led a host of captives, you would expect from anyone else
and he gave gifts to men.”’ (ESV) . . . ordinary language is necessarily
· 1 Timothy 3:16 (c. 62 AD): ‘Great in- ambiguous and open to many diffe-
rent interpretations. If what I say
deed, we confess, is the mystery of
anywhere in this book appears to
godliness: He was manifested in the contradict, directly or indirectly,
flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by something else I say here, the prin-
angels, proclaimed among the nations, ciple of interpretive charity should
believed on in the world, taken up in be applied: assume you are misrea-
glory.’ (ESV) ding the meaning of what I said in
each or either case. Whatever inter-
· Hebrews 4:14 (c. 63-66 AD): ‘There- pretation would eliminate the con-
fore, since we have a great high priest tradiction and produce agreement
who has ascended into heaven, Jesus is probably correct.23
the Son of God, let us hold firmly to
As theologian Craig S. Keener observes:
the faith we profess.’ (NIV)18
Although harmonization is some-
Hence, we actually have early, indepen- times implausible, at other times it
dent testimony from multiple sources rightly values what survives of our
(most likely four sources, if it is granted sources above what we think we
that Hebrews wasn’t written by Paul19) in know based on our lack of survi-
ving information. Thus, for exam-
multiple forms (biography and epistles),
ple, scholars at one point noted two
relating to Jesus’ ascension. Moreover, ‘contradictory’ oral accounts of an
one of these testimonies comes from the 1881 lynching: in one, the men
apostle John, an eyewitness.20 hang ‘from a railroad crossing,’ in
the other, they hang from a pine
Contradictory Accounts? tree. Subsequently, however, histo-
Carl often asserts that there are contra- rians found ‘old photographs that
dictions within the NT, and he responds showed the bodies hanging at diffe-
rent times from both places’; after
to my observation that his ‘critique of the
being lynched in one place, they
canonical gospels often stems from an were hanged again in another . . . it
uncharitable and historically uninformed seems best methodologically to
hermeneutic’21 by writing: ‘I’m sorry to begin by seeking to explain our
be characterized as “uncharitable” in my sources as they are.24
analysis of the Gospel accounts, but I’m

As philosopher Lydia McGrew writes, Carl ignores this key point and reiterates
literary ‘harmonization is not a desperate, his objection:
specially religious activity used for preser- In the Matthew account, Jesus at
ving an a priori notion of inerrancy but the tomb instructs his female discip-
rather is just good historical practice, les to tell his male disciples to ‘Go
applicable to any putatively historical and take word to my brothers that
accounts, not just to Scripture.’25 Unfor- they are to leave for Galilee. They
will see me there.’ In the parallel
tunately, when Craig and myself offer
passage in Luke’s Gospel, Jesus does
what seem to us to be plausible harmoni- not appear at the empty tomb . . .29
sations of the texts Carl asserts are con-
Carl then explores Michael Licona’s re-
tradictory, he fails to respond to our argu-
cent suggestion, based upon his study of
ments. (Far worse than Carl’s lack of
ancient compositional devices in biogra-
engagement, in an endorsement solicited
phical works, that Matthew re-locates
by our publisher, Craig and I are accused
Jesus’ resurrection appearance from Jeru-
by atheist Robert M. Price of ‘behaving
salem to Galilee.30 While I included Lico-
like “eel wrigglers” (the Buddha’s term
na’s suggestion in a draft of ‘EEE’ that
for wily and evasive opponents), retrea-
Carl saw, Carl knew I was withdrawing
ting behind ingenious harmonization’s.
this material from the final version. I did
Naturally: they are spin doctors for the
this not only to reduce my word length,
dogma of an institution they serve.’26
but because I’d decided I didn’t agree with
Talk about poisoning the well!27
it. I think Licona’s hypothesis is unneces-
Carl persists in highlighting what he
sarily complex in this instance.
takes to be contradictions between the
In point of fact, Matthew doesn’t re-
Gospels despite my explanation that the
port that Jesus appeared to the women at
criteria of historical authenticity allow us
the empty tomb. Rather, Matthew states
to side-step questions like ‘Was Jesus’ first
that ‘an angel of the Lord’ appeared at
appearance to the male disciples in
‘the tomb’ (see Matthew 28:1-8) and said
Jerusalem or Galilee?’, establishing speci-
to the women:
fic data that can be shown to be histori-
cally likely and that therefore needs to be Do not be afraid, for I know that
explained, quite apart from debates you seek Jesus who was crucified.
He is not here, for he has risen, as
about the general reliability of the NT. As
he said. Come, see the place where
Terry L. Miethe and Gary R. Habermas he lay. Then go quickly and tell his
emphasize in a passage I quoted in ‘EEE’: disciples that he has risen from the
Our arguments [for the resurrec- dead, and behold [i.e. take heed],
tion are] based on a limited number he is going before you to Galilee;
of knowable historical facts and there you will see him. See, I have
verified by critical procedures. told you. (Matthew 28:5-7, ESV)
Therefore, contemporary scholars Theologian Ned B. Stonehouse comments
should not spurn such evidence by
that the present tense of the verb in
referring to ‘discrepancies’ in the
New Testament texts or to its gene- Matthew 28:7:
ral ‘unreliability’ . . . Jesus’ resur- may not be pressed . . . to mean
rection appearances can be histori- that even at that moment Jesus was
cally demonstrated based only on a on the journey into Galilee, for this
limited amount of critically recog- would bring Mt. 28:7 into conflict
nized historical facts.28 with 28:10 which locates Jesus still

in the vicinity of Jerusalem . . . This does not preclude other earlier

Rather than being a progressive, resurrection appearances, as descri-
therefore, the form in question must bed in Luke 24 and John 20, but
be understood as a vivid future, does prepare the way for his appea-
which is essentially the equivalent rance ‘up north’ following the end
of the future in Mt. 26:32.31 of the week-long festival of Unlea-
vened Bread, when the Galilean pil-
Having reference several works on Greek grims would return home. During
grammar ‘on the use of the present [tense] this appearance, Jesus commissio-
for the future [tense]’,32 Stonehouse con- ned his disciples for their future
tinues: ministry: herein lies Matthew’s par-
ticular interest.34
With regard to the words ‘there ye
shall see him,’ it should be observed That both messages about Galilee, from
that they are so closely connected the angel and from Jesus, were intended
with the reference to Galilee that
for a group that extended beyond the
they serve to make explicit what
has been constantly implied in the core group of male disciples (known as
prophetic word of Jesus, namely, ‘the twelve’, of which only eleven now
that Jesus would be waiting for remained), is indicated by the early cree-
them in Galilee and would welco- dal affirmation that after Jesus’ appearan-
me them there. They do not repre- ces ‘to Cephas and then to the Twelve’ he
sent an independent disclosure by subsequently ‘appeared to more than five
the angel as to when the disciples
hundred brothers at one time, most of
would first see the risen Christ but,
taken in connection with the prece- whom are still alive, though some have
ding clause, they serve to recall the fallen asleep.’ (1 Corinthians 15:5-6, ESV.
substance of Jesus’ promise. Now See also: Matthew 28:16, Luke 8:3, 10:1
that Jesus has risen from the dead, and 24:33-35 and Acts 1:21-26). This is
they may be assured that his decla- plausibly the same meeting described in
ration, that after his resurrection he
Matthew 28:16-20 as taking place in
would be in Galilee before they
reached there, was about to be ful- Galilee (though Matthew keeps his literary
filled.33 spotlight on the eleven disciples). As Stone-
house explains:
According to Matthew, it was after ‘the
women hurried away from the tomb’ By the term ‘brethren’ as used in
Mt. 28:10, it is by no means clear
(Matthew 28:8, ESV) that Jesus appeared
that only the eleven disciples are
to them, saying: ‘tell my brothers to go to meant . . . In only two instances
Galilee, and there they will see me’ besides Mt. 28:10 does Jesus use
(Matthew 28:10, ESV). This message, the expression ‘my brethren,’ and
given by the angel and by Jesus, seems to both clearly describe in the broa-
have been designed to remind the disci- dest possible way those who were
attached to him . . . Accordingly the
ples who’d accompanied Jesus to the
command of 28:10 that his breth-
Mount of Olives from the last supper of ren should depart for Galilee would
his words to them there: ‘after I am raised most naturally be understood as in-
up, I will go before you to Galilee’ cluding all persons attached to his
(Matthew 26:32, ESV. See Matthew 26:3-32 cause who were then in the vicinity
& Mark 14:26-28). Now, as Craig writes of Jerusalem . . . a company of per-
sons by no means restricted to the
in his commentary on Matthew:
twelve.35

Joseph Benson argued in the same vein: to us not to be well established.37

Go quickly, and tell his disciples . . . Now, Luke reports Jesus instructing the
and assure them further, that he is disciples in Jerusalem to ‘wait here in this
going before them into Galilee; and
city until you are armed with power from
that there they shall see him – In his
appearance to them all together. above’; and this is indeed, as Carl obser-
But their gracious Lord would not ves, ‘a seeming reference to the day of
be absent so long from the eleven Pentecost’. However, Carl mistakenly sta-
and several others [e.g. those gathe- tes that Pentecost is then ‘forty days in the
red indoors with the eleven apostles future’. To substantiate his point, he quo-
(see John 20:19 & Luke 24:9)]; he tes Acts 1:3-4: ‘To these men [the eleven
appeared to them several times
apostles] he showed himself after his
before then . . . This message, as
well as that from Jesus himself, death . . . over a period of forty days . . .
Matthew 28:9-10, was sent to all he directed them not to leave Jerusalem.
the disciples [note the grouping cal- ([Acts] 1:3–4)’.38 However, note the tem-
led ‘the seventy-two’ (Luke 10:1) poral context provided by Acts 1:5,
and the group of ‘about 120’ breth- which Carl doesn’t quote:
ren (Acts 1:15)], and not to the
apostles in particular. The reason And while staying with them he
may have been this: our Lord inten- ordered them not to depart from
ding to visit his apostles that very Jerusalem, but to wait for the pro-
evening, there was no occasion to mise of the Father, which, he said,
order them into Galilee to see him. ‘you heard from me; for John bap-
But as most of his disciples were tized with water, but you will be
now in Jerusalem, celebrating the baptized with the Holy Spirit not
Passover, it may easily be imagined, many days from now.’ (ESV, my
that on receiving the news of their italics)
Master’s resurrection, many of them So, while Carl places Jesus’ instruction to
would resolve to tarry in expecta-
stay in Jerusalem ‘forty days’ before
tion of meeting with him; a thing
which must have been very incon- Pentecost, Luke places it ‘not many days’
venient for them at that time of the before Pentecost, and thus towards the
year, when the harvest was about to end of the ‘span of forty days’ during
begin . . . Wherefore, to prevent which the resurrected Jesus ‘appeared to
their being so long from home, the them’. Nothing in Luke’s gospel contra-
message mentioned was sent, direc- dicts this (see Luke 24:46-51).
ting them to return into Galilee,
well assured that they should have
Carl insists that the resurrection
the pleasure of seeing their Lord appearances in Luke’s gospel are presen-
there . . .36 ted as having all happened on Easter day
in Jerusalem, a reading that not only
Thus, we may agree with Stonehouse that:
uncharitably creates a contradiction with
Quite apart from the evidence of the other Gospels (since they indicate or
Luke and John, and judging
narrate resurrection appearances in Gali-
Matthew’s testimony in the light of
the structure of his resurrection lee), but uncharitably creates a contradic-
narrative as a whole, as well as of tion between Luke’s Gospel and Luke’s
the character of his gospel, the con- book of Acts, where we are given the
clusion that he definitely excludes time-frame of Jesus ‘appearing to them
the possibility of a prior reunion during forty days . . .’ (Acts 1:3, ESV).
with the eleven in Jerusalem seems

Something that would only be appa- Evidence – Part Two: Data

rent to someone who looked at the Greek Carl acknowledges as ‘bedrock facts’41
of Luke’s gospel is that the appearance that ‘Jesus . . . was crucified by the
narrative is stitched together using the Romans’42 and that ‘after his death some
Greek particle ‘de’, which connects events of his disciples had experiences that con-
as happening one after the other without vinced them that Jesus had been miracu-
necessarily implying that they happened in lously resurrected.’43 Indeed, Carl recog-
immediate conjunction. That is, ‘de’ can nizes not only that ‘Jesus’ disciples came
be translated as ‘moreover, on-top of this, to believe that Jesus had been miraculous-
then or next’.39 Hence it’s entirely pos- ly resurrected from the dead,’44 but also
sible that while the events of Luke 24:1-43 that (according to his opening case) ‘some
happened on Easter day, those of Luke of Jesus’ disciples thought they saw Jesus
24:44 and following (‘Then [de] he said raised from the dead.’.45
to them . . .’, ESV) happened days or In ‘Miracle Not Required’ Carl focuses
weeks later. As Eric Lyons comments: on two points of evidential disagreement:
the Greek conjunctive particle de the existence of Jesus’ empty tomb and the
[translated ‘and’ (ASV), ‘then’ purported appearance of the resurrected
(NKJV), and ‘now’ (NASV)] [used] Jesus to Saul on the road to Damascus.
to begin verse 44, does not necessa-
rily denote a close connection bet- The Empty Tomb46
ween the two verses, but only a
Carl states that ‘As evidence for the
general continuation of the account
. . . Even though many twenty-first- empty tomb, Peter cites the Jewish Tole-
century readers assume that the dot Yeshu.’47 He reports that:
events recorded in Luke 24:44-49 According to classical Judaism
occurred on the very day Jesus rose scholar Mika Ahuvia, ‘Toledot Yeshu
from the grave, the text actually is is a decidedly non-rabbinic counter-
silent on the matter.40. narrative and satire of the founda-
Indeed, the process of Jesus teaching the tional story of Christianity, which
likely originated in the late antique
disciples about himself through the Old
or early medieval period . . . in the
Testament scriptures (Luke 24:45-49) genre of the folk story, no two
presumably took some time. Jesus’ subse- manuscripts are identical and story-
quent instruction to ‘stay in the city tellers likely embellished it with
[Jerusalem] until clothed with power every recounting.’ Peter’s citing of
from on high’ (Luke 24:49) was given this obscure and certainly unreli-
before he led them to the location of his able document signals to me how
thin and fraught with problems the
ascension, on the Mount of Olives (about
actual evidence is.48
a thousand yards outside Jerusalem).
Luke’s gospel is entirely consistent with Gary R. Habermas notes that although
the information Luke adds in Acts 1:5 Toledot Yeshu wasn’t compiled until the
about the events of Luke 24:49 happe- fifth century AD, ‘it does reflect early
ning ‘not many days’ before Pentecost. In Jewish tradition.’49 As Mika Ahuvia says
sum, Luke’s accounts of the resurrection in the article Carl quotes:
complement both each-another and the Toledot Yeshu is a decidedly non-
other gospels. rabbinic counter-narrative and satire
of the foundational story of Chris-

tianity, which likely originated in own lips: ‘On the first day of the
the late antique or early medieval week his bold followers came to
period. It probably circulated orally Queen Helene with the report that
for centuries before being transcri- he who was slain was truly the
bed in various places and times.50 Messiah and that he was not in his
grave; he had ascended to heaven
That said, I quoted from one of the later,
as he prophesied.’ The Sanhedrin’s
and thus probably less reliable, ‘Group II concern was probably ‘that the
traditions’ (traditions dominated by disciples would steal the body and
Queen Helene, Constantine the Great’s claim it had ascended to heaven.’53
mother, anachronistically placed in the In sum, Carl has simply misunderstood
first century).51 However, I didn’t quote my use of Toledot Yeshu.
Toledot Yeshu ‘as evidence for the empty Carl thinks I make an inadequate case
tomb’ as Carl says I did. Rather, in the for the empty tomb:
process of arguing that while ‘The Jews
About the alleged empty tomb,
believed in a general bodily resurrection
which is not clearly referenced until
at the end of time [they] did not have an Mark’s Gospel written decades
expectation of an earlier, immediate, spe- later, Peter writes that my questio-
cial resurrection for anyone’52, I quoted it ning of the conclusions cited by a
to corroborate the plausibility within a conservative Christian study group
Jewish worldview of Matthew’s report committed to a literalist interpreta-
tion of the Bible is an ad hominem
concerning the Sanhedrin’s motive for
argument, assuming that ‘scholars
posting a guard at Jesus’ tomb (see who believe in inerrancy can’t dis-
Matthew 27:62-66). This is clear if my tinguish between what they believe
remarks about Toledot Yeshu are read in on the basis of inerrancy and what
context: they can demonstrate on the basis
of historical scholarship.’ But this
If Jesus’ contemporaries made any-
suggests that such believers are not
thing of his elliptical predictions
subject, as we all are, to confirma-
about the Son of Man (i.e. himself)
tion bias. I certainly do not mean to
‘rising’ . . . they’d have thought in
question the character of these
terms of a) the resurrection of the
scholars, but given that member-
dead at the last judgement (see
ship in this group might well be
Mark 12:25 & John 11:24), b) revi-
viewed as an honor, and a negative
vification to earthly life, as with
finding about the evidence for the
Lazarus (though they’d probably
empty tomb might lead members to
assume a dead man couldn’t revive
feel they have to resign from the
himself), or c) the story of Elijah.
organization, a finding confirming
The dominance of these cultural
historicity is hardly surprising.
assumptions is seen in the Sanhed-
None of us achieve complete objec-
rin’s reason for having Jesus’ tomb
tivity.54
guarded: ‘lest his disciples go and
steal him away and tell the people, In reply, let me begin by mentioning two
“He has risen from the dead”’ points in passing: First, that it was Craig
(Matthew 27:64, ESV). The Greek who appealed to the conclusions of ‘a
translated as ‘risen from the dead’
conservative Christian study group’ (The
here isn’t anastēsetai (resurrected),
but ēgerthē (raised up) . . . The Jew- Gospels Research Project of Tyndale
ish Toledot Yeshu places this inter- House, Cambridge). Second, that while
pretation of events on the disciple’s Carl vaguely places Mark’s gospel ‘deca-

des’ after Easter Sunday, the scholarly historian cannot justifiably deny the
consensus holds that ‘Mark was most empty tomb . . . the evidence necessitates
likely written anywhere between ten to the conclusion the tomb was found
thirty years after Jesus’ death’55, and that empty.’59
I think the evidence suggests Mark was If the existence of confirmation bias
published c. AD 49.56 justifies Carl’s rejection of expert opinion
More to the point, allow me to re-ite- and argumentation, then, given that we
rate a pointed made in ‘EEE’ with which are all subject to confirmation bias, such
Carl fails to engage: the empty tomb is that ‘none of us achieve complete objecti-
accepted by a good many NT scholars vity’, all that remains is silence. I might as
who cannot be accused of harbouring the well replace this paper with the observa-
sort of bias Stecher assumes. As David tion that Carl undoubtedly suffers from
Mishkin writes in his study of Jewish confirmation bias, which means that his
Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus: rejection of the resurrection ‘is hardly sur-
Many non-Jewish scholars already prising’, and leave matters there.
have a faith commitment to Jesus. Carl reckons that the ‘most compelling
This does not mean that their scho- argument against the empty tomb is the
larship should summarily be discar- complete lack of evidence that Jesus’
ded as biased. It should be evalua- tomb ever became a holy shrine in the
ted on its own merit. Nevertheless,
first century. Peter does not respond to
the reality is that presuppositions
are influential. Jewish scholars this argument.’60 Space limitations meant
begin with a different set of presup- that I didn’t respond to this point, so I’m
positions. But, what is interesting glad to be able to respond here by noting
to note is that the main historical that, while the site of Jesus’ tomb was
events that make up this discussion apparently remembered by the early
are virtually the same for both
church, the fact that no veneration appe-
groups: crucifixion, burial, disci-
ples’ belief, empty tomb, and Paul’s ars to have taken place there supports the
dramatic turnaround.57 contention that the tomb was empty (i.e.
that there was no body in the tomb to
For example, noted Jewish NT scholar
venerate).61 As J.P Moreland writes:
Geza Vermes argues that:
In Palestine during the days of
The evidence furnished by female Jesus, at least fifty tombs of pro-
witnesses had no standing in a phets or other holy persons served
male-dominated Jewish society . . . as sites of religious worship and
If the empty tomb story had been veneration. However, there is no
manufactured by the primitive good evidence that such a practice
Church to demonstrate the reality was ever associated with Jesus’
of the resurrection of Jesus, one tomb. Since this was customary,
would have expected a uniform and since Jesus was a fitting object
and fool proof account attributed of veneration, why were such reli-
to patently reliable witnesses.58 gious activities not conducted at his
The empty tomb is verified by multiple tomb? The most reasonable answer
criteria of authenticity, and that explains must be that Jesus’ body was not in
his tomb, and thus the tomb was
why it is accepted by many NT scholars
not regarded as an appropriate site
irrespective of their worldview. As atheist for such veneration.62
historian Michael Grant concludes: ‘The

Saul on the Road to Damascus would likely be sufficient for the

Carl responds to my defense of the resur- sincere belief of some of the disci-
ples that Jesus had been resurrec-
rection appearance to Saul on the road to
ted. But . . . [t]hese quite natural,
Damascus: understandable beginnings could
that Paul’s anonymous companions have easily led to a belief that Jesus
‘knew something had happened’ is had been miraculously resurrected,
hardly the equivalent of a shared and to all the Gospel stories, with
group experience of Jesus. And do their fundamental contradictions
we really think that Paul’s compa- and fictional and legendary embel-
nions would have had a modern lishments. No miraculous resurrec-
understanding of psychological tion required.66
experiences?63
In ‘EEE’ I argued on the one hand that the
However, the distinction between a) an resurrection hypothesis offers a relatively
event that’s experienced differently by simple and wholly adequate explanation
various members of a group and b) one of the relevant historical evidence, an
member of a group claiming an experience explanation that combines excellent
that, for all the other members of the explanatory scope and power with a fair
group can tell, is purely subjective, is degree of plausibility and low degrees of
hardly restricted to ‘a modern understan- disconfirmation and ad hoc–ness (especi-
ding of psychological experiences’! The ally if one already accepts theism). On the
road to Damascus event, as reported by other hand, I argued that Carl’s explana-
Luke, falls into the former rather than the tory factors not only ‘have limited expla-
latter category. As Timothy Keller writes: natory power [but] suffer from problems
‘Paul did not have simply a trance or a of disconfirmation, ad hoc-ness, and in-
dream . . . since even the other men with sufficient explanatory scope.’67 While I
Paul recognized the presence (Acts 9:7).’64 noted that ‘The most interesting hypothe-
Carl says that here I am ‘forgetting or sis advanced by Carl is that a combina-
ignoring the dispute between Saul and tion of psychological factors might explain
Peter recorded in Galatians’65, but this the resurrection “appearances”’68, I criti-
dispute is irrelevant because a) it happe- qued the explanatory adequacy of Carl’s
ned after Saul converted, and b) it wasn’t appeal to co-opted memories (whether
motivated by rivalry but by theology with sparked by mistaken identity, dreams
which Peter was officially in agreement mistaken for reality, etc.) and demonstra-
(see Acts 15:1—29 and especially 7-11). ted that ‘the appeal to co-opted memories
can’t eliminate the appeal to multiple hal-
Explanation lucinations, including multiple group hal-
Carl suggests that there are: lucinations.’69 Indeed, while the appeal to
‘plausible natural explanations for hallucinations appears to be the skeptic’s
the genesis [of the disciple’s belief strongest card in attempting to explain
in his resurrection] – grief halluci- away the putative resurrection appearan-
nations, mistaken identity, dreams ces and the disciple’s belief in Jesus’ resur-
mistaken for reality, misheard or rection, given that the appeal to multiple
misinterpreted testimony, uncon-
hallucinations suffers from multiple
scious appropriation of another’s
experience, memory distortion, and short-comings, it seems to me that Carl
disciple rivalry. No one of these fails to provide a better explanation of

the relevant evidence than is provided by might be one of many plausible

the resurrection hypothesis.70 explanations for the disciples’
belief – in fact, I listed eight such
Explaining the Empty Tomb natural explanations. I certainly do
According to Carl: not believe that co-opted memories
alone could account for the resur-
Peter places considerable emphasis rection belief. But Peter has confir-
on the alleged empty tomb. For med that this does happen, even if
Christian scholars, the discovery of only for a minority of the popula-
Jesus’ empty tomb, which can only tion.74
be explained by his having risen
from the dead, is a major piece of However, I critiqued each sub-hypothesis
evidence.71 offered by Carl before addressing combi-
ned hypotheses. Besides, with a success
However, I neither claimed nor think that
rate of under half, any hypothesis that
the empty tomb ‘can only be explained by
employs a more than incidental reliance
[Jesus] having risen from the dead’. I do
upon co-opted memories in pursuit of
think that the need to explain the empty
explaining-away the disciple’s reports and
tomb puts additional strain on naturalis-
beliefs about the resurrection is going to
tic alternatives to the resurrection hypo-
be disconfirmed by the relevant clinical
thesis.
evidence.75
Carl complains that he referenced ‘the
Carl concedes:
many plausible arguments for natural
explanations detailed in [Robert M.] I would have made a stronger case
Price and [Jeffery Jay] Lowder’s [The . . . if I had reversed Peter (the disci-
ple) and Andrew in my speculation
Empty Tomb:] Jesus Beyond the Grave;
on how the resurrection belief might
Peter does not respond to any of these have begun – one of many ways –
possibilities.’72 Carl has me here.73 In the since so much more is known of
interests of brevity, I focused upon argu- Peter’s life.76
ing against Carl’s denial of the empty Note that here Carl presents an explana-
tomb rather than upon the possible tion that combines three elements (a
explanations he referenced for the empty dream, disciple rivalry and co-opted
tomb, preferring to critique Carl’s natura- memory):
listic proposals for explaining the histori-
imagine that Peter reports a dream
cal data that he did accept, namely, the
experience of the risen Jesus to the
appearance reports and the disciple’s evi- disciples. Andrew, arriving late,
dent belief in Jesus’ resurrection. doesn’t realize that Peter is relating
a dream, and claims a similar en-
Explaining the Appearances counter with the risen Jesus. This
Responding to my review of evidence would be only human – and the
showing that false memories are co-opted Gospels make clear there was disci-
by under half of subjects in studies of the ple rivalry. Several years later
Andrew remembers the occasion
phenomena, evidence that disconfirms
very imperfectly: in his recollection,
the hypothesis that the disciple’s claim he had an encounter with the risen
about Jesus being resurrected was groun- Lord – and it wasn’t a dream!77
ded in co-opted memories, Carl objects:
Several years later? That’s far too late!
But I never made such a claim. I did
The disciples were preaching the resurrec-
argue that co-opted memories

tion in Jerusalem during Pentecost (see In point of fact, I dealt with Carl’s asser-
Acts 2:1-4:22) and the appearance traditions about Jesus being a failed prophet at
tions quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 some length in ‘EEE’; but Carl dismisses
were probably packaged in creedal form my exegetical arguments and references
within months, or at most a few years, of because he’s content to rely upon his ‘lite-
the crucifixion.78 So, Andrew lies, and ral’ reading of the texts he ‘cited’:
then comes to believe his own lie years I am unable to see the connection bet-
later, but the other disciples, including ween these passages and the events of 70
Peter, believe Andrew at the time?! But C.E. Note the similarities of these passa-
what about ‘doubting’ Thomas? What ges with passages that Peter does not
about Jesus’ brother James? What about quote, passages that make clear Jesus’
the female disciples? What about Saul? promise to return during the present
How do we explain their belief? How do generation. Jesus is responding to this
we explain Saul’s reported resurection question from his disciples: ‘Tell us, they
experience? Simply swapping Peter and said, … what will be the sign of your
Andrew around does Carl’s hypothesis no coming and the end of the age?’
favors. (Matthew 24:3).80
Carl doesn’t make any exegetical argu-
Expectation ments for his interpretation of the texts he
Carl raises a number of issues in the areas ‘cited’. Nor does he engage with the exe-
of theology and philosophy of religion getical arguments I made, or with the
that limit his expectations of what any exegetes I quoted and referenced.81
historical argument for the Christian
Accessible Salvation
revelation claim can demonstrate.
As noted in ‘EEE’: ‘According to Carl,
An Unreliable Prophet? believing in the resurrection means belie-
Carl protests: ving God excludes billions from salva-
in his discussion of Jesus as a pro- tion. Craig disagrees, as do I.’82 In the
phet, Peter writes, ‘There’s every written debate, Craig said:
reason to think Jesus was an accu- As for those who have never heard
rate prophet.’ But Peter has done the gospel, it is sad that there are
nothing to refute the evidence to Christians who say that everyone
the contrary that I have already who has never heard the gospel is
cited . . . For example, what of damned or lost for all eternity.
Jesus’ failure to return as promised There are plenty of people in the
within the generation of those Bible who never heard of Jesus who
living then? Consider Jesus’ words are called God’s people – many of
in Mark when challenged by the them are Old Testament Jews, but
high priest: “‘Are you the Messiah, some are Gentiles also who come to
the Son of the blessed One?’ ‘I am,’ hear about the God of the Jews.
said Jesus, ‘and you will see the Son May we not extrapolate from these
of Man seated at the right hand of examples and leave it in God’s
the Almighty and coming with the hands to judge those who have
clouds of heaven’” (14:61–62). never heard? Abraham asked God,
Clearly this is a claim by Jesus that ‘will not the Judge of all the earth
his return will be witnessed by the do right?’ (Genesis 18:25) and the
priests interrogating him.79 context suggests the answer is that
he indeed will.83

In ‘EEE’ I observed: middle-knowledge, we may reckon that

Peter affirms, ‘The Lord is not wil- people who refuse salvation are people
ling that any should perish but who would make the same choice in any
[desires] that all should reach possible world wherein it’s feasible for
repentance’ (2 Peter 3:9, NIV). God to create them.’89
John states, ‘God did not send his Unfortunately, Carl’s ‘Miracle Not
Son into the world to condemn the
Required’ pays no attention to these
world, but to save the world
through him’ (John 3:17, NIV). remarks. Indeed, Carl ignores everything
Paul writes that God ‘desires all Craig and I say on this topic, failing to
men to be saved and to come to a engage with either our positions or the
knowledge of the truth’ (1 Timothy arguments we give for them, even to the
2:4, NIV). He also makes it clear point of misrepresenting our beliefs:
that God doesn’t condemn anyone
for ignorance, but only for a cul- if Peter and Craig are not mistaken,
pable refusal to welcome ‘the truth having the correct interpretation of
that would save them’ (2 Thessa- this alleged event is determinative
lonians 2:9–10, ISV). Those who of whether upon dying one ascends
will ‘come under judgment’ are to heaven to experience eternal joy
people ‘who have refused to believe with God, or whether one ceases to
the truth and have taken pleasure exist or descends to hell, there to
in unrighteousness’ (2 Thessalo- spend all eternity because of a failure
nians 2:12, Weymouth NT). If our to believe in Jesus and his resurrec-
understanding of the ‘good news’ tion.90
contradicts these apostolic affirma- Rather, with theologians Clark H.
tions, our understanding must be
Pinnock and Robert C. Brow, I affirm
improved!84
that:
Furthermore, whilst affirming that ‘the
Because God is love, we can be sure
fullest expression and experience of “the that no one will be excluded from
truth that would save” is found “in knowing God by ignorance or lack
Christ” (see Acts 19:1–6; Romans 10:1–21; of opportunity. Only those who
2 Thessalonians 2:13)’85, I noted with deliberately reject God’s love will
Rev’d Nicky Gumbel that: be excluded, and they will really
have excluded themselves. God has
Abraham and David . . . were justi- decided to exclude no one – exclu-
fied by faith. Jesus tells us in the sion can happen only as a result of
parable of the Pharisee and the tax the human decision to love dark-
collector that the tax collector who ness rather than light.91
said ‘God, have mercy on me, a sin-
ner,’ went home justified before Moreover, I lean towards the ‘annihilatio-
God (Luke 18:9–14).86 nist’ view that ‘hell’ and ceasing to exist
are, at least in the long term, one and the
I referenced scriptural warrant for my
same thing.92
belief that: ‘everyone saved by faith will
According to Carl:
ultimately receive salvation “in Christ”
(see John 8:56; Acts 10:1–48; Romans [The] inability of Christians
through the centuries to agree upon
11:23– 24; Hebrews 11:39–40).’87 I
the true faith undermines the cla-
noted how ‘This jives with the venerable ims of contemporary Christians
theory that salvation is possible postmor- that salvation or damnation is con-
tem.’88 Finally, I noted that ‘given divine sequent on correct belief in Jesus’

reported resurrection (or indeed given his sins freely . . . The watch-
anything Jesus taught).93 word of the Reformation became
Saint Paul’s summary of the gospel:
Carl once again writes as if non-culpable ‘The just (justified, saved) shall live
failure to accept ‘correct belief’ is deter- [have eternal life] by faith [in
minative of one’s destiny. While it’s Christ]’ (Rom 1: 17) Where then do
obvious that Christians have many in- good works come in? In Christian
house disagreements (as do atheists!), I’d Liberty, Luther explains that after
have thought it equally obvious that the great liberation about faith –
that we are saved by faith in
Christians share many theological agree-
Christ's work, not by our works –
ments and that many of these agreements comes a great liberation about
concern matters of central import. For all works: they need not be done sla-
their diversity of theological interpreta- vishly, to buy our way into heaven,
tion and emphasis, different Christian to pile up merits or Brownie points
communities and communions neverthe- with God, but can be done freely
and spontaneously and naturally,
less find common-cause in the historic
out of gratitude to God – not to get
orthodoxy of creeds such as the Apostles’ to heaven but because heaven has
creed and the Nicene creed.94 already gotten to us. Thus they can
Concerning salvation, what matters is be done for the sake of our
faith in Jesus, that is, an active trust in neighbor, not for our own sake, to
Jesus and allegiance to Jesus as Lord and purchase salvation.96
saviour. According to the 1999 ‘Joint
Declaration on The Doctrine on Justi- On Miracles and Evil97
fication by the Lutheran World Federa- Carl’s expectations, which shape how he
tion and the Catholic Church’ (and al- interacts with the historical argument for
though it was initially a Catholic-Luthe- Jesus’ resurrection, are dominated by a
ran agreement, this declaration has since rejection of miracles, a rejection that’s
been affirmed by the Methodist, Anglican ultimately grounded in the problem of
and Reformed churches): evil.
Together we confess [that] as sin- Carl affirms that since neither he nor
ners our new life [in Christ] is solely any family member or friend has ever
due to the forgiving and renewing ‘heard the voice of God’ coming out of
mercy that God imparts as a gift the sky, it would take confirmation ‘from
and we receive in faith, and never a respected news source’ of ‘a voice from
can merit in any way . . . We con-
the sky that could only be the voice of
fess together that sinners are justi-
fied by faith in the saving actions of
God’ to get him to reconsider his world-
God in Christ . . . Such a faith is view; although he would first ‘check the
active in love and thus the Chris- date to make sure it was not April 1st.’98
tian cannot and should not remain On the one hand, Carl’s desire to avoid
without good works.95 gullibility is both sensible and biblical (see
Discussing the reformation in his article 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 & 1 John 4:1).
on ‘Justification by Faith’, Catholic philo- On the other hand, the avoidance of gul-
sopher Peter Kreeft writes: libility shouldn’t drive us into the arms of
cynicism. Why shouldn’t a voice that was
Luther discovered the simple
bombshell truth that God had for- simply more likely than not the voice of
God be adequate to prompt Carl to

reconsider his worldview? Again, secular theologian Pinchas Lapide argues on his-
news sources probably share Carl’s torical grounds for the resurrection of
worldview, and are therefore unlikely to Jesus101, yet he resists the inference to the
report anything that would force Carl to truth of the Christian understanding of
‘check the date’ (unless they had confir- Jesus. In the face of evil, Rabbi Harold S.
mation from an equally respected and Kushner abandons belief in the omni-
skeptical source, and so on ad infinitum). potence of God, yet without abandoning
Indeed, Carl’s discussion of evidential belief in monotheism per se.102 The com-
standards for belief in miracles has an air bination of these two positions does an
of artificiality about it that speaks of an end-run around Carl’s argument, show-
underlying antipathy towards taking evi- ing that Carl’s corollary principle is un-
dence for miracles seriously, for he con- sound because it’s too strict. A better way
tends that there is ‘indisputable eviden- to formulate Carl’s corollary principle
ce’99 against the possibility of miracles: would surely be along the following lines:
the greatest significance of this de- · When a particular belief is a part of a
bate on Jesus’ alleged resurrection
larger system of beliefs, the denial of
is the place this event has in the clo-
sely related questions of God and
that belief gains support from argu-
his supposed plan for the world ments against that system to a degree
and for all who live in it. As con- that depends upon a) the strength of
servative Christian scholars Gary the arguments against that system and
Habermas and J.P. Moreland cor- b) how tightly the particular belief is
rectly note, ‘Often a particular tied to that system.
belief is part of a larger system of
beliefs, and it gains rational sup- Now, I’d happily agree with Carl that
port from its role in that system.’ belief in the resurrection of Jesus is most
But I would suggest a corollary to plausibly associated with the Christian
this observation: ‘When a particu-
‘system’, and that evidence for or against
lar belief is part of a system which
lacks coherence or is contradicted either one therefore translates into evi-
by indisputable evidence, that be- dence for or against the other; but this is
lief lacks credibility.’100 a matter of an inference that needs to be
weighed in the balance rather than a
Carl asserts (he doesn’t argue the point)
deductive fait accompli.
that the existence of natural evil constitu-
Carl highlights Craig’s suggestion that:
tes ‘indisputable evidence’ against an all-
powerful and all-loving creator, before my own conclusions are based on
arguing (via his version of the corollary something other than the merits of
the case at hand: ‘. . . at the end of
principle) that belief in Jesus’ resurrection
Carl’s chapter he makes reference
therefore ‘lacks credibility’. to the problem of evil. He did this
On the one hand, this argument pits briefly in the two live debates . . .
Carl’s professed openness to evidence He has done so in email exchanges
against his professed worldview. On the with me more recently. I suspect
other hand, strictly speaking, this argu- that this is the real nub of the pro-
blem. There can’t be an all-power-
ment is a non-sequitur, for it’s possible for
ful and all-loving God because of
belief in the resurrection to fit within the amount of evil in the universe.
more than one ‘system’ of thought. For If there is no God, then there are no
example, the Orthodox Jewish Rabbi and miracles. If there are no miracles,

there is no resurrection. I suspect ged by a methodologically unsound cyni-

that for all of Carl’s more sophisti- cism. Indeed, Carl’s methodology is fun-
cated arguments this is really the damentally flawed:
reasoning that has led him to his
conclusions. If this is the case, then · He mistakenly prioritizes arguments
the real issue to be debated is not from silence over and against the stan-
the resurrection but the problem of dard criteria of historicity.
evil . . .’103
· He mistakenly makes arguments that
In reply, Carl writes: are both logically invalid and factually
My response is we live in a world incorrect against the general reliability
that is beset by lethal natural disas- of the Gospels as if they could vitiate
ters . . . termed ‘Acts of God’ by any and all arguments for specific
insurance companies. Given that
points of NT historicity.
we poor humans can do nothing to
stop these forces of nature, but that · Despite his protests to the contrary,
an all-powerful God could do so Carl’s dismissal of work by scholars
without any effort, the label seems who believe in inerrancy is ad homi-
justified . . . Millions of Christians
nem.
believe in a God who is supposedly
everywhere, all-powerful, all-kno- · Ironically, given his remarks about
wing, loving of all his children, mo- literalism, Carl consistently assumes a
rally perfect. I cannot share this literalistic reading of the texts he cites
belief.104. rather than a literarily informed read-
Disappointingly, Carl fails to interact with ing. Indeed, Carl’s reading of the NT is
any of the responses to the problem of surprisingly naive, lacking in attention
evil made by either Craig or myself.105 to literary genre, the meaning of key
terms in the original language, etc. He
Conclusion rides roughshod over my exegesis of
Jesus’ resurrection is a key piece of the the biblical texts he cites, favouring
Christian jigsaw. This key piece integrates historically un-contextualized and
with other pieces. The overall picture one linguistically uninformed readings he
thinks these pieces jointly form, one’s apparently thinks so obvious that they
assessment of that picture and of the can be defended without exegetical
many reasons for and against embracing argumentation, simply by quoting an
it, will influence one’s view of the matter English translation.
at hand. That is, what one makes of the · He repeatedly ignores evidence that
resurrection depends not only upon one’s has been brought to his attention in
methodology in the gathering of the rebuttal of accusations he nevertheless
directly relevant historical evidence and persists in repeating.
upon how one assesses competing expla-
As Craig concludes, Carl’s sticking point
nations for that evidence, but also upon
isn’t really the resurrection of Jesus, but
an open and critical dialogue with one’s
‘the problem of suffering and evil in the
philosophical expectations.
world, and secondarily the question of
While Carl’s desire to avoid gullibility
the unevangelized, those who have never
is both sensible and biblical, it seems to
had a chance to hear the gospel.’106
me that his scepticism has been submer-
Indeed, Carl openly admits that his wil-

lingness to reconsider his atheism on the will continue.’109 After the original sub-
basis of evidential arguments for Jesus’ mission of this paper, I was saddened to
resurrection is constrained by his ‘impulse see the announcement that: ‘STECHER,
to assume that such events are either mis- Carl Age 78, passed away peacefully on
taken reports or they have a natural, non- November 24th [2019], in the care of fa-
miraculous explanation’.107 As Carl mily in his home in Georgetown, MA.’110
rightly says: ‘This takes us back to . . . our I wish to record my tribute to Carl as
differing senses of reality.’108 a generous friend and collaborator. As
Carl’s family wrote in his obituary: ‘As a
Postscript humanist and a skeptic, he often ponde-
As Resurrection: Faith or Fact? was being red the Big Questions, first and foremost
edited, Carl told his co-authors that he’d what happens after we die. We love you
already outlived the expectations of his Carl . . . and now that you have your ans-
oncologists: ‘So I’ve actually been very wer, we hope that you are pleasantly sur-
lucky; I just don’t know how long this prised.’111
Recommended Resources
(Audio) Peter S. Williams, ‘Problems With The Problem Of Evil’ (Trondheim University, 2018)
http://peterswilliams.podbean.com/mf/feed/jpz78a/Trondheim_2018_Problems_With_Evil.mp3
(Audio) Peter S. Williams, ‘The Particular and Exclusive Christ’
http://peterswilliams.podbean.com/mf/feed/zr36r9/Exclusivism_2017.mp3
(Paper) Chris R. Brewin and Bernice Andrews, ‘Creating Memories for False
Autobiographical Events in Childhood: A Systematic Review’, Applied Cognitive
Studies (8 April, 2016) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3220/full
(Paper) Peter Kreeft, ‘Justification by Faith’ www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-
philosophy/apologetics/justification-by-faith.html
(Paper) Eric Lyons, ‘To Galilee or Jerusalem?’ (Apologetics Press, 2004)
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=730
R.T. France, Tyndale New Testament Commentary: Matthew (IVP, 2008)
Robert A. Larmer, The Legitimacy of Miracle (Lexington, 2014)
John Sanders, No Other Name: Can Only Christians Be Saved? (SPCK, 1994)
Carl Stecher and Craig Blomberg, with contributions by Richard Carrier and Peter S.
Williams, Resurrection: Faith or Fact? (Pitchstone, 2019)
Peter S. Williams, Getting at Jesus: A Comprehensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense
about the Jesus of History (Wipf & Stock, 2019)
Peter S. Williams, A Faithful Guide to Philosophy: A Christian Introduction to the Love of
Wisdom (Wipf & Stock, 2019)

Notes
1. My other contribution was one of the four biographical chapters that opened the book. Atheist Richard
Carrier likewise contributed a biographical chapter and a chapter reviewing the debate between Carl and Craig,
to which Craig responds in his closing remarks. As far as I’m aware, this is the only volume debating the resur-
rection that’s published by a secular printing press.
2. Carl Stecher, ‘The Historical Evidence Is Insufficient and Contradictory’ in Resurrection: Faith or Fact?
(Pitchstone, 2019).
3. See: Robert H. Stein, ‘Criteria for the Gospel’s Authenticity’ in Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, ed.’s.
Contending with Christianity’s Critics (B&H Academic, 2009); Peter S. Williams, Getting at Jesus: A Compre-
hensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus of History (Wipf and Stock, 2019).
4. Stecher, op cit.
5. Carl Stecher, ‘Miracle Not Required’ in Resurrection: Faith or Fact? (Pitchstone, 2019).
6. See: Peter S. Williams, ‘The Inspiration, Authority and Activity of the Bible’ (2016)
http://podcast.peterswilliams.com/e/the-authority-inspiration-and-activity-of-the-bible/.
7. Stecher, op cit.
8. See: Lydia McGrew, Hidden In Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard, 2017);
Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust The Gospels? (Crossway, 2018); Peter S. Williams, Getting at Jesus: A Compre-
hensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus of History (Wipf and Stock, 2019); Peter S. Williams,
‘Digging for Evidence: Archaeology and the Historical Reliability of the New Testament’ Christian Evidence
Society (2016) http://christianevidence.org/docs/booklets/digging_for_evidence.pdf.
9. Stecher, op cit. See: YouTube Playlist, ‘The Nativity’
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQhh3qcwVEWjXCwcSr2FYzpj5-uQrLKIR; Wayne Brindle, ‘The Census And
Quirinius: Luke 2:2’ www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/27/27-1/27-1-pp043-052_JETS.pdf; Jonathan McLatchie,
‘The Nativity Defended’ http://crossexamined.org/the-nativity-defended/; J.C. Scott, ‘Matthew's Intention to
Write History’ https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/wtj-nt/scott-matthewhis-
tory-wtj.pdf; Brandon D. Crowe, Was Jesus Really Born Of A Virgin? (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster
Seminary, 2013); Douglas Edwards, The Virgin Birth In History And Faith (London: Faber & Faber, 1943);
J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (London: James Clark & Co. Ltd., 1958); Colin R. Nicholl,
The Great Christ Comet: Revealing The True Star Of Bethlehem (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2015); Charles
L. Quarles, Midrash Criticism: Introduction and Appraisal (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America,
1998); John Redford, Born Of A Virgin: Proving the Miracle from the Gospels (London: St Pauls, 2007);
Peter S. Williams, ‘The Nativity’ http://peterswilliams.podbean.com/mf/feed/rh7ek3/rf_nativity.mp3.
10. See: YouTube Playlist, ‘Young Earth Creationism’
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQhh3qcwVEWitFuSuMLz5fmhRGBHR8-_O; Paul Marston, ‘Understanding
the Biblical Creation Passages’ www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible Science/understanding_the_biblical_creation_
passages.pdf; Gavin Ortlund, ‘Did Augustine Read Genesis 1 Literally?’ http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/09/
did-augustine-read-genesis-1-literally/; J. Daryl Charles, Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation
(Hendrickson, 2013); John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (IVP Academic, 2009); Peter S.
Williams, ‘Mythology’ in Paul Copan et al, ed.’s. Dictionary of Christianity and Science (Zondervan, 2017).
11. Craig L. Blomberg, ‘Part Two: The Case Against Jesus’ Resurrection as a Fact of History’.
12. Stecher, op cit.
13. Ibid.
14. Consider William James’ famous pragmatic argument in ‘The will to believe’. See my discussion of James’
argument in the final chapter of Peter S. Williams, The Case for God (Monarch, 1999).
15. Williams, quoted by Stecher, ‘Miracle Not Required’, op cit.
16. Craig L. Blomberg, ‘A Reply to Carl’.
17. Ibid.
18. On Hebrews 4:14, see F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Eerdmans, 1990), 115.
19. See: F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Eerdmans, 1990), Zondervan Academic Blog, ‘Who wrote the
book of Hebrews?’ https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-the-book-of-hebrews; Kyle Campbell,
‘The Authorship of Hebrews’ www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume40/GOT040175.html.
20. For a defence of John’s role in the testimony of the fourth gospel, see: Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical
Reliability of John’s Gospel (Apollos, 2001); Peter S. Williams, Getting at Jesus: A Comprehensive Critique of
Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus of History (Wipf and Stock, 2019).
21. Williams, ‘EEE’.
23. Richard Carrier, Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism (AuthorHouse,
2005), 5-6.
24. Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 2019), 315.

25. Lydia McGrew, ‘Licona Wrap-Up’ http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2017/12/licona_wrapup.html.

26. Robert M. Price, endorsement for Resurrection: Faith or Fact?: A Scholars' Debate Between a Skeptic and a Christian
(Pickwick, 2019), www.amazon.co.uk/Resurrection-Blomberg-Richard-Carrier-Williams/dp/1634311744/
ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1568539845&sr=8-1.
27. See: ‘Poisoning the Well’ www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well
28. Terry L. Miethe and Gary R. Habermas, Why Believe? God Exists! (Joplin, MO; College Press, 1998), 273–4.
30. See: Michael Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography
(Oxford, 2017), 178-180.
31. Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of the Synoptic Gospels to Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1979),
173-174.
32. Ibid, 174.
33. Ibid.
34. Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary, Volume 22: Matthew (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H,
1992), 428.
35. Stonehouse, op cit, 175-176 & 178.
36. Benson Commentary, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/28-7.htm.
37. Stonehouse, op cit,181-182.
39. See: http://biblehub.com/greek/1161.htm.
40. Eric Lyons, ‘To Galilee or Jerusalem?’ http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=730.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. See: YouTube Playlist, ‘Jesus’ tomb was empty’
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQhh3qcwVEWhqraAeJ8gVcSlbXhZR2R6p; William Lane Craig, ‘The
Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus’ www.reasonablefaith.org/the-historicity-of-the-empty-tomb-of-jesus;
William Lane Craig, ‘The Disciples’ Inspection of the Empty Tomb’ www.reasonablefaith.org/the-disciples-
inspection-of-the-empty-tomb; William Lane Craig, ‘Reply to Evan Fales: On the Empty Tomb of Jesus’
www.reasonablefaith.org/reply-to-evan-fales-on-the-empty-tomb-of-jesus; Gary R. Habermas, ‘The Empty
Tomb of Jesus’ www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952861; Kristen Romey, ‘Unsealing of
Christ’s Reputed Tomb Turns Up New Revelations’ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/jesus-christ-
tomb-burial-church-holy-sepulchre/.
48. Ibid. See: Mika Ahuvia, ‘An Introduction to Toledot Yeshu’
www.ancientjewreview.com/articles/2014/12/25/a-quick-introduction-to-toledot-yeshu.
49. Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin: College Press, 1996), 205.
50. Mika Ahuvia, ‘An Introduction to Toledot Yeshu’
www.ancientjewreview.com/articles/2014/12/25/a-quick-introduction-to-toledot-yeshu.
51. See: Katja Vehlow, ‘Michael Meerson and Peter Schafer, eds. and Trans. Toledot Yeshu: The Life Story of Jesus
– Two Volumes and Database: Vol. I: Introduction and Translation, Vol. II: Critical Edition (Texts and Studies
in Ancient Judaism 159)’ SCJR 11, no. 1 (2016), www.researchgate.net/publication/306127688_Michael_
Meerson_and_Peter_Schafer_Eds_and_Trans_Toledot_Yeshu_The_Life_Story_of_Jesus/fulltext/57b3128108ae
e0b132d8d2e2/Michael-Meerson-and-Peter-Schaefer-Eds-and-Trans-Toledot-Yeshu-The-Life-Story-of-
Jesus.pdf.
52. Darrel L. Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), 125.
53. Williams, ‘EEE’. The quote at the end is from J.P. Holding, ‘Hallucinations and Expectations’ in Defending
the Resurrection (Xulon, 2010), 269.
55. Wesley Huff, ‘The extant literary sources for the life of Jesus compared with emperor Tiberius, one of the
best attested characters in Antiquity’ (Tweet of infographic: August 19th, 2019), referencing Peter J. Williams’
book Can We Trust The Gospels? (Crossway, 2018), 39-49.
56. See: Peter S. Williams, Getting at Jesus: A Comprehensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus
of History (Wipf and Stock, 2019).
57. David Mishkin, Jewish Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus (Pickwick, 2017), 210.
58. Geza Vermes, The Resurrection (London: Penguin, 2008), 142.

59. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review Of The Gospels (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1977), 176.
61. See: William Lane Craig, ‘Dale Allison On Jesus' Empty Tomb, His Post-Mortem Appearances, and the
Origin of the Disciples’ Belief in His Resurrection’ www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/histori-
cal-jesus/dale-allison-on-jesus-empty-tomb-his-post-mortem-appearances-and-the-origin/.
62. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1987), 161.
64. Timothy Keller, Galatians For You (The Good Book Company, 2017), 26.
66. Ibid.
67. Williams, ‘Evidence, Explanation, and Expectation’.
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
70. See: Peter S. Williams, ‘Evidence, Explanation, and Expectation’ in Resurrection: Faith or Fact? (Pitchstone,
2019); Peter S. Williams, Getting at Jesus: A Comprehensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus of
History (Wipf and Stock, 2019).
72. Ibid.
73. To make my own literature punt, see: Norman L. Geisler, ‘A Critical Review of The Empty Tomb (2005)’
https://normangeisler.com/a-critical-review-of-the-empty-tomb/; Steve Hays with Gene Bridges & Jason Engwer,
‘A Critical Review of The Empty Tomb’
www.academia.edu/35429125/A_Critical_Review_of_The_Empty_Tomb.
75. See: YouTube Playlist, ‘Memory Implantation’
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQhh3qcwVEWjoBnrBC8UZrQuIoMR5Hsq7&disable_polymer=true; Chris
R. Brewin and Bernice Andrews. ‘Creating Memories for False Autobiographical Events in Childhood: A
Systematic Review’, Applied Cognitive Studies (8 April, 2016)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3220/full.
77. Ibid.
78. See: Peter S. Williams, Getting at Jesus: A Comprehensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus
of History (Wipf and Stock, 2019).
80. Ibid.
81. See: Paul Copan, When God Goes to Starbucks (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 2009); R.T. France,
Tyndale New Testament Commentary: Matthew (Nottingham: IVP Academic, 2008).
82. Williams, ‘Evidence, Explanation, and Expectation’, op cit. See: Peter S. Williams, ‘The Particular and
Exclusive Christ’ http://peterswilliams.podbean.com/mf/feed/zr36r9/Exclusivism_2017.mp3.
83. Blomberg, ‘Part Three: The Case for Jesus’ Resurrection as a Fact of History’.
84. Peter S. Williams, ‘Evidence, Explanation, and Expectation’. See: William Lane Craig, On Guard for
Students (David C. Cook, 2015); Clark H. Pinnock, ed. The Grace of God and the Will of Man (Bethany House,
1989); Jerry L. Walls, Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy (Oxford University Press, 2002); Jerry L. Walls and
Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not A Calvinist (IVP, 2004); Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today (HarperOne,
2009).
85. Ibid.
86. Nicky Gumbel, Searching Issues (Kingsway, 1995), 36, quoted by Williams, ‘Evidence, Explanation, and
Expectation’.
87. Williams, op cit.
88. Ibid. Jewish belief in the possibility of postmortem forgiveness is seen in 2 Maccabees (12:38-45). The
‘Harrowing of Hades’ was taught by many theologians of the early church (including Ambrose, Athanasius,
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, John of Damascus and Tertullian). Belief in postmortem evangelism has been
supported by modern scholars such as G.R. Beasley-Murray, Donald Bloesch, C.E.B. Cranfield, Stephen T.
Davis, Brian Hebblethwaite, Richard Swinburne and Jerry L. Walls. See: John Sanders, No Other Name: Can
Only Christians Be Saved? (SPCK, 1994); Jerry L. Walls, Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy (Oxford University
Press, 2002).
89. Ibid. See: William Lane Craig, On Guard for Students (David C. Cook, 2015) & The Only Wise God: The
Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Wipf & Stock, 2000); William Lane Craig &
Joseph E. Gorra, A Reasonable Response: Answers to Tough Questions (Chicago: Moody, 2013).

90. Stecher, ‘Miracle Not Required’.

91. Clark Pinnock & Robert C. Brow, Unbounded Love (STL, 1995), 32.
92. See: Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final
Punishment, 3rd revised edition (James Clarke and Co Ltd, 2012).
94. See: ‘The Apostles’ Creed’ www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/what-we-believe/apostles-creed;
‘The Nicene Creed’ http://anglicansonline.org/basics/nicene.html.
95. ‘Joint Declaration on The Doctrine on Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic
Church’ https://www.lutheranworld.org/jddj.
96. Peter Kreeft, ‘Justification by Faith’ www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics
/justification-by-faith.html.
97. On miracles see: Robert A. Larmer, The Legitimacy of Miracle (Lanham: Lexington, 2014); Peter S.
Williams, Getting at Jesus: A Comprehensive Critique of Neo-Atheist Nonsense about the Jesus of History (Wipf
& Stock, 2019). On the problem of evil, see: Gregory E. Ganssle, ‘God and evil’ in Paul Copan and Paul K.
Moser, ed.’s. The Rationality of Theism (Routledge, 2003); Chad Meister and James K. Drew Jr., ed.’s. God and
Evil (IVP, 2013); Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford, 2000); Michael Rea, ed. Evil and the
Hiddenness of God (Cengage, 2015); Peter S. Williams, A Faithful Guide to Philosophy (Paternoster, 2013).
99. Ibid.
100. Ibid.
101. Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Wipf and Stock, 2002).
102. Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (Pan, 2002).
103. Carl (mainly quoting Blomberg), ‘Miracle Not Required’.
104. Ibid.
105. See: Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford, 2000);
Peter S. Williams, ‘Problems With The Problem Of Evil’ (Trondheim University, 2018)
http://peterswilliams.podbean.com/mf/feed/jpz78a/Trondheim_2018_Problems_With_Evil.mp3;
Peter S. Williams, ‘Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?’
www.bethinking.org/morality/can-moral-objectivism-do-without-god;
A Faithful Guide to Philosophy: A Christian Introduction to the Love of Wisdom (Wipf & Stock, 2019).
106. Blomberg, ‘The Case for Jesus’ Resurrection as a Fact of History’.
108. Ibid.
109. Personal e-mail correspondence, 5th January 2019.
110. ‘Carl Stecher, Obituary’
www.legacy.com/obituaries/bostonglobe/obituary.aspx?n=carl-stecher&pid=194555412&fhid=15385
111. Ibid.

Resurrection: Faith or Fact? Miracle Not Required?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resurrection: Faith or Fact? Miracle Not Required?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resurrection: Faith or Fact? Miracle Not Required?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

209

Resurrection: Faith or Fact?

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

period’ to an extent that undermined priests in Matthew 27:3–6 ignores

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

More or Less Evidence Required? the other Gospel accounts not

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

in the vicinity of Jerusalem . . . This does not preclude other earlier

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Joseph Benson argued in the same vein: to us not to be well established.37

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Something that would only be appa- Evidence – Part Two: Data

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Saul on the Road to Damascus would likely be sufficient for the

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

the relevant evidence than is provided by might be one of many plausible

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

In ‘EEE’ I observed: middle-knowledge, we may reckon that

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

there is no resurrection. I suspect ged by a methodologically unsound cyni-

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

25. Lydia McGrew, ‘Licona Wrap-Up’ http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2017/12/licona_wrapup.html.

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

90. Stecher, ‘Miracle Not Required’.

Theofilos vol. 11 nr. 2 2019

You might also like