least possible.4 These suggestions perhaps could be said to
fall into three categories.
(1) Allison mentions briefly the traditional hypotheses like
apparent
death, deliberate deception by either the disciples or others,
hallucinations, as
well as veridical apparitions.
(2) Allison also intriguingly poses seldom-suggested
alternatives that are
nonetheless found in the relevant literature. These include
the possibilities
of a sorcerer/necromancer stealing Jesus's dead body, the
power of the pre-
Easter faith of Jesus's disciples, mass hysteria, Marian
apparitions, Paul's
epilepsy, or his succumbing to his intense remorse for
persecuting Christians,
and apparitions of the dead.
(3) But not to be overlooked is another category, which
Allison himself
quite reservedly terms the "truly idiosyncratic hypotheses
that have failed
to garner respect or support" (212). These might instead have
been termed
the rather shocking, sometimes mind-numbing category-busters,
such as my
three personal favorites: the rapid though quite natural
disintegration of Jesus's
dead body; an aftershock from the crucifixion earthquake that
ingested
Jesus's dead body into a crack in the rock, which then
returned to its normal
position as if nothing had happened; and the Christian's
time-honored nemesis
of aliens taking Jesus's corpse and inserting a new brain
along with a
better body!5
It is definitely a credit to Allison that these skeptical
alternatives are put
forth with such fairness and understanding that, even if he
does not in the end
find much merit in them, it is often difficult to tell that,
at least initially. In
fact, because of Allison's evenhandedness, it is easy to
conclude that he actually
thinks that one or more of these theses could be probable. To
be sure, he
does think that some approaches are better than others.
But it is also easy to miss Allison's usually brief but
oft-repeated criticisms
of these natural suppositions. He issues many well-placed
warnings,
caveats, and select criticisms aimed at almost every alternate
hypothesis, as
well as other critical interaction. Actually, his list of
brief critiques is quite
lengthy.6 For example, after stating a number of potential
natural explanations,
including that a necromancer may have taken Jesus's dead body,
Allison
concludes that, "We have no reason to endorse any of these
speculations,
for which there is not a shred of evidence. They must all be
deemed unlikely.
Yet they are not impossible" (334).
__________
4. E.g., 20114, 266 9, 2967; 31819, 334, 33942.
5. These are found, in order, on 212, 204, 339340. I wish to
be clear that Allison also rejects
these theses, as I have said, so my tongue-in-cheek comments
are not aimed at him or his
thesis.
6. For some examples, see 201n6 and n9; 2034; 2078; 211n50
and n53; 212; 213n60; 218;
219n81; 234; 237; 2424; 266 n280; 2678; 270n293; 2834; 285;
288; 301; 302; 303; 3045;
308; 317; 324n497; 32832; 334; 336; 340; 3523; 3578; 3623.
p. 304
In keeping with this last thought, Allison thinks
that the resurrection
cannot be proved because alternatives can always be suggested
(334, 340,
see also 347n583). Often these are favored due to one's
presuppositions and
worldviews (298; 304; 340343, 347). But Allison realizes that
such skepticism "runs both ways," since we can disprove
Jesus's resurrection "only if
one's mind is so saturated by a materialistic naturalism that
it cannot allow
either divine intervention or paranormal phenomena" (298).
Still, Allison pokes a little fun at those who defend the
resurrection overly
much, though he is more than able to defend his own evidential
case. Tom
Wright and I seem clearly to be the two researchers whom
Allison targets
most frequently as "apologists," even as the "gung-ho"
variety.7 Yet, there
are also a number of passages where Allison himself waxes
eloquent, and
minus some caveats, acquits himself very well as a skeptical
apologist for the
positions that he espouses.8 So to some extent, it appears
that what counts as
an overly-exuberant defense varies according to the eye of the
beholder! My
point should be noted carefully: the more crucial matter here
is not whether
someone is an apologist, but whether their conclusions are
supported by the
relevant data.
Before continuing, it should be noted that there appears to be
some occasional
confusion or ambiguity in Allison's treatment of alternate
hypotheses.
For example, it is rather perplexing when clear distinctions
are not made
between hallucinations, illusions, and delusions. On more than
one occasion,
Allison moves between these phenomena as if they confirm each
other. But
subjective hallucinations should not be evidenced by referring
to hypnotic
states, and certainly not by general comparisons to Elvis
sightings (296
297). Likewise, it is unhelpful to lump side-by-side mass
hysteria, imagination,
Bigfoot sightings, and Marian apparitions (205206). In cases
where a
real person or object is taken to be a different person or
object, these experiences
ought to be characterized as illusions or simply as
misidentifications,
but not as hallucinations.9
Similarly, Allison twice scolds me because my critique of the
hallucination
theory does not apply to apparitions of the dead (271n296;
279n319).
But why should it apply at all? The sorts of apparition cases
that he outlines
in the immediate context (especially pages 278282) are far
different from
hallucinations! We agree on this (see below). But as I just
said in the previous
paragraph, these sorts of phenomena need to be distinguished
more carefully.
__________
7. As one of several examples, this comment appears on 339,
immediately after discussing
my first resurrection debate with Antony Flew, whereas he
seems to think that Wright's "apologetical
moves" fail to produce "the evidence that demands the verdict"
(347)! This is followed
(3489) by an outline of Wright's "apologetical proof" which
"claims too much."
8. See 23944 ; 32634, 35263 and especially one of the key
sections of the book, 269
99.
9. I also address this confusion in recent critical studies.
See Habermas, "The Late Twentieth- Century Resurgence of
Naturalistic Responses to Jesus' Resurrection," Trinity
Journal 22 (2001): 1945.
p. 305
Responses to hallucinations clearly will not work
with veridical apparitions,
but neither were they supposed to.10
Allison's chief point on the historicity of Jesus's
resurrection, in a nutshell,
seems to be that there are some good historical reasons for
believing
that Jesus's burial tomb was later found empty and that
Jesus's resurrection
appearances occurred, but that the possibility of alternative
explanations
keeps the issue in some amount of tension (334, 340). After
all, Allison
clearly concludes, "I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus
after his death"
(346). If this is correct, then the required response is not
so much for me to
refute his views, but rather to clarify my position and then
dialogue over our
major points of difference. I have also said many times that
the historical
evidence for the resurrection is probabilistic and corrigible;
it is not apodictically
certain, or some such thing.
Therefore, it appears that differences between our positions
pertain in
large part to the degrees of our persuasion. For
example, I think that the alternative
approaches to both the empty tomb as well as Jesus's
appearances
are much less likely than Allison apparently thinks. But we
agree that none
of these hypotheses viably explain all the empty tomb or
appearance data.
And we agree, most crucially, that, after his death, the
disciples saw Jesus in
some manner.
Apparitions of the Dead
Due to Allison's lengthy treatment of apparitions of the dead,
I would
like to add a few additional comments about this research. As
a longtime
observer of this same data, along with the related subject of
Near Death Experiences
(266), for over thirty years,11 I will state initially that I
agree with
him on the veridicality of at least a number of both
apparitions as well as
NDEs. Further, I also agree that these subjects are highly
relevant to studies
of Jesus's resurrection.
This conclusion of veridicality is built on certain cases that
evince exceptionally
strong data. Many of the relevant studies, especially of NDEs,
were done in recent years, by highly qualified researchers
from relevant disciplines,
and many have been published in peer-reviewed and other
well-acclaimed
sources. Moreover, Allison is certainly correct to concentrate
on the
evidential reports, rather than on the mere numbers of stories
or any generally
common tendencies shared by the claimed experiencers. I would
also
suggest that the two sorts of data augment each other.
__________
10. Somewhat similarly, Allison could emphasize more strongly
that some popular alternative
ideas are anything but naturalistic, with the adherents
holding to actual resurrection appearances,
with the chief difference being the form in which Jesus
appeared (such as 2089, 212).
11. E.g., Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death:
Exploring the Evidence for
Immortality (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), chapters 79.
p.306
Having said this, we must be very careful about how far we
use the apparition
data in comparison to the resurrection appearances of Jesus.
To be
sure, many apparition cases do meet important evidential
standards (294
295).
But there is also a large body of material that does not
qualify as the
sorts of reports that I would like to use. A volume could be
written on this
evaluation alone. For example, the anecdotal nature of even
most of the apparition
reports, the possibility of faulty recall, the often lengthy
time between
the event and its recording, the popular character of many
accounts,
the sometimes sensationalistic, credulous, or almost tabloid
appearance of
other cases, the nonspecialized background of many of the
authors or researchers,
the lack of evidence beyond simply reporting a story, and
that a
large body of the material dates from approximately one
hundred or more
years ago, as well as a number of potential medical and
psychological issues,
and so on, are all serious concerns.12 Allison mentions
briefly a few similar
problems (293294).
In my own study of apparition cases, in spite of my very
positive mindset,
I hardly ever saw a case for which there were not several
potential alternative
theses. In fact, when even the best cases are studied,
something
regularly seems to be lacking. Further, in order to compare
these cases to
the resurrection narratives, one needs to weave a patchwork
quilt by "mixing
and matching" a combination of these otherwise diverse and
sometimes
questionable reports.
One advantage of the earliest Christian accounts is that the
leaders, particularly
those who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, repeatedly
placed
themselves in harm's way, were apparently willing to die for
the proclamation
of the resurrection, and early data report the martyrdoms of
at least Peter,
James the brother of Jesus, and Paul.13 Few scholars doubt
this. This aspect
alone provides some crucial checks and balances, helping us
to rule out
some of the more obvious sorts of fabrication or even the
nonmanufactured
development of fantastic tales that might otherwise nullify
the resurrection
claims, as Allison notes (201, 207208). But it is more
difficult to argue the
provenance of some key apparition of the dead accounts at
this point, to
guard against these concerns.
Thus, when studying the resurrection appearances, one may
respond
that, "The apparition of the dead data are similar." A chief
strength of these
__________
12. Of course, critics may say many of the same things about
the resurrection accounts,
although the latter have some evidential advantages, too.
But as Allison notes as well, the case
for the resurrection still seems to survive such criticisms,
and I agree. After all, these and many
other worse charges have been aimed at the resurrection
accounts and it is fair to say that most
scholars think that these charges fail, for a variety of
reasons. Similarly, it is not that these concerns
invalidate the apparition cases, either. They stand on their
own. My only point is that we
have to be very careful with the data itself, as well as
with comparisons.
13. I have provided details in The Risen Jesus and Future
Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield, 2003), 24, plus the endnotes.
p.307
data is certainly the large numbers of evidenced cases from
which to draw.
But due to the issues like those I have mentioned above, it
is difficult to be
sure of many crucial examples. This might be part of the
reason why Allison
seems to concur that these comparisons to the resurrection
appearances
ought not be pressed too far (284).
The Uniqueness of Jesus's Resurrection Appearances
So I am by no means charging that Allison thinks Jesus's
appearances
can be completely explained as "typical" apparitions. He is
clear that he
does not think so (283285). I just made the preliminary
point that straightforward
comparisons might be more difficult than they appear, but
there is
still another avenue to pursue. Perhaps there are also major
elements of the
resurrection appearance traditions that not only resist easy
comparison to the
apparitions, but appear to be rather unique. Here I will
list several possibilities,
each of which can be mentioned only very briefly.14 I want
to be very
clear that I am not arguing why these details ought
to be accepted, only that
there are significant differences that emerge in a
comparison of both sorts of
reports. Thus I am emphasizing the distinctiveness
of these details, not their
factual provenance.
(1) Although it is difficult to tell for sure, Allison seems
to take seriously
the Gospel accounts (such as Mark 8:31; 9:910, 31;
10:3334; 14:28) of
Jesus predicting his death and resurrection (230232,
244245). In recent
decades, scholars have regularly taken a positive view of
Jesus being aware
of his impending death, and many are also at least open to
the resurrection
predictions. This is probably due to several factors such as
the embarrassment
on the part of the disciples and especially Peter, who
disbelieved and
even resisted Jesus's comments, the multiple attestation as
found in Mark,
M, John, and possibly Q, the absence of clear Old Testament
parallels, that
most of these statements are imbedded in Son of Man texts,
and that these
comments played no serious or extended function in a New
Testament apologetic.
If established, these predictions would most likely indicate
that Jesus
was aware of both his death and resurrection, as well as
something of the
role they played. This foresight would differentiate them
from the apparition
cases, since not only would Jesus have appeared to his
followers, but
he would have known of it ahead of time, which most likely
indicates a plan
known in advance.
(2) For the sizeable majority of contemporary critical
scholars who recognize
the historicity of the empty tomb, this is a major
consideration that
__________
14. While Allison warns against overemphasizing these
differences (284), he still recognizes
that several are worth mentioning (2835).
p.308
sets off Jesus's resurrection appearances from the
apparitions. Allison allows
the "tentative" conclusion that the empty tomb is a probable
event that is "historically likely" (331334, 344, 346347).
While this of course does not
necessitate a supernatural occurrence, the alternatives
appear to be "speculations,
for which there is not a shred of evidence" (334). For a
variety of reasons,
I think that the case is far stronger than Allison allows,
but this cannot
be resolved here. Suffice it to say that the extent to which
the empty tomb
is acknowledged indicates that what happened to Jesus's body
constitutes
something quite distinct from that of the apparitional
cases. Therefore, the
majority of scholars who grant more weight to the
probability of the empty
tomb will presumably find less overall similarity in the
apparition cases.
(3) In interacting with one of Tom Wright's arguments,
Allison acknowledges
that there were probably qualities in the disciple's
resurrection belief
that cannot be explained by any sort of disembodied
sightings alone (321
326). Such apparitions were well-known in the ancient world,
but were not
expressed as resurrections, and generally convinced no one
in this direction.
To the contrary, although these apparitions may have
comforted the mourners,
we must not lose sight of the fact that these persons were
definitely
known to have remained dead!
Allison considers this to be one of the strongest arguments
for the empty
tomb, but perhaps even more is transpiring here. As Theodor
Keim pointed
out over a century ago in his diatribe against David
Strauss's subjective vision
theory, the New Testament writers consistently distinguished
between
the resurrection appearances of Jesus and later visions.15
Something set these
appearances apart, and it seems to be more than the empty
tomb alone,16 or
else the later visions also might have qualified as
resurrection appearances.17
Allison makes a similar observation, wondering about the
nature of these
differences in the New Testament accounts (260261). But
whatever the best
answer, the resurrection appearances seem to have been of a
different quality,
distinguishing them from other visionary phenomena.18
Perhaps most to the
point here, the difference between the apparitions of those
who remain de-
__________
15. Theodor Keim, The History of Jesus of Nazara, 6 vols.
(London: William & Norgate,
18731883), 6:353.
16. Especially since Keim, interestingly for his theory,
actually rejected the historicity of
the empty tomb.
17. The physical nature of Jesus's resurrection appearances
is another chief reason for this
New Testament differentiation from visions, but ancient
apparition reports include both the
visionary sorts as well as bodily examples (for an instance
of the latter, see the account of Rabbi
Judah I in the Babylonian Talmud [Seder Nashim, Kethuboth,
3:12:103a]). So again we are left
with the question of differentiation. If the chief
difference is the empty tomb, and apparitions of
the dead are reportedly both bodily and nonbodily, why are
not the later New Testament visions
counted as resurrection appearances or emphasized in the
same way?
18. E.g., after one of Paul's appearance accounts in Acts,
we are told that he saw the Lord
speaking to him again (Acts 22:1718), but we never hear any
special emphasis placed on this
case.
p.309
ceased and the strong conviction that Jesus was raised from
the dead bodily
needs to be emphasized.19
(4) According to the New Testament accounts, Jesus appeared
many
times, to individuals as well as to groups of up to five
hundred persons at
once, was touched, ate food, and had normal, sometimes rather
lengthy,
conversations with his followers.20 As Allison points out,
similar details are
sometimes observed in the apparitional literature. But for
this response to
suffice, we must avoid initially all of the difficulties with
the apparitional
accounts that I mentioned above. As a result, we must be
astute in avoiding
a common mistake: allowing the apparition or other alternative
accounts to
stand in a straightforward manner, while picking continuously
at the resurrection
reports. This definitely does not nullify the apparitional
testimony,
some of which is very strong. But at the very least, as we
said, many of the
apparitional accounts must be patched together into a rather
incredible train
in order to come close to a parallel case, indicating that the
resurrection narratives
present quite a distinctive, perhaps even a unique
combination. This
is the crux of this point.
(5) Allison thinks that there "is every reason" to think that
Luke properly
reports Paul's resurrection appearance (236). We "can be
fairly certain"
of the tradition behind Luke's three Acts accounts and that
his ultimate
source is Paul himself. Accordingly, several details may be
gleaned from
these reports, including the "supernatural light" that caused
Paul to fall to
the ground, to which Allison sees a parallel in 2 Corinthians
4:6 (263264).
Acts describes this light as being even brighter than the sun
(26:13), causing
Paul's friends to fall down, as well (26:14), and that,
because of it, Paul was
blinded (9:89; 22:11).21
Details like these clearly separate Paul's appearance from the
typical
apparitions, but they also do more than that. The incredibly
bright, blinding
light is traditionally seen as an indication that Jesus had
been glorified
__________
19. A very intriguing question is, if there had been no
resurrection appearances, would the
other New Testament visions of Jesus have been taken as
apparitions of the dead, providing
comfort that Jesus was alive, but without indicating his
resurrection? If so, now we may be able
to see some of the distinctions between these two.
20. Some of these details, especially those in the last half
of this sentence, are questioned
in the critical literature. But again, as I have said, we are
only comparing the various sorts of
reported phenomena here, not debating the data on their
behalf. After discussion, if certain
scholars think that particular items here should be bracketed,
that could of course affect their
reaction to the conclusions here. But I still maintain that
there would be enough remaining that
most scholars would still allow various levels of differences
between the appearances and the
apparitional literature.
21. Allison reports his personal experience that the
apparition of a friend was "brightly luminous"
(275), and notes that the presence of light is found in some
apparition accounts (285).
However, the case of Luke's exceptional luminosity, described
as brighter than the sun, Paul's
resulting blindness, plus all the men falling to the ground,
besides Paul's own perception of
Lordship (below), seem to render his appearance rather
distinctive in our context.
p.310
in heaven. This is often given as one reason for Paul's
emphasis on a sōma
pneumatikon in 1 Corinthians 15.
Paul's extraordinary experience must be explained. If the view
is taken
that Paul most likely saw Jesus's glorified body, this could
point in the direction
beyond the initial resurrection itself, to God's glorification
that endorsed Jesus's teachings and ministry. Along these same
lines, Paul perceived the
risen Jesus as the Lord (see 1 Cor. 9:1). At a minimum, for
those like Allison
who accept the Lukan accounts as fairly reliable renditions of
what occurred,
including that Paul thought that Jesus appeared bodily (317),
this appears to
be a major differentiation from the apparitions of the dead.
Thus, whatever we think of the apparitions of the dead, the
resurrection
appearances appear at the very least to extend into another
category. I think
it is very crucial to note that while there is clearly some
overlap between
Jesus's appearances and apparitions, so are there similarities
with other afterlife
phenomena like the apotheosis stories of Enoch and Elijah, the
Transfiguration
account, Paul's (NDE?) visit to the third heaven, or even
modern
NDEs. In a sense, they are all members of a general class.
So it seems that Jesus's appearances do what the New Testament
writers
attestthey break all the categories. They were indeed unique.
The resurrection
predictions, the empty tomb, the New Testament differentiation
of
Jesus's appearances from visions when apparitions only
convince the recipients
that the individual is still dead, the number of Jesus's
appearances, even
to groups of observers, including the specific messages and
other details
that require a patchwork comparison of apparitions, along with
the glorified
appearance to Paul, are each at least fairly well evidenced.
Most critical
scholars recognize enough of these phenomena to build a
distinctive case on
behalf of these appearances.22
__________
22. For those like Allison's hypothetical questioner who
postulates that the resurrection appearances
are "instances of a wider phenomenon" (347), I have suggested
that there definitely
would be some important overlap, as with various other
afterlife data. But it does not follow that
the resurrection appearances are simply apparitions. There are
too many crucial differences. To
start with, apparitions produce the conviction that though the
person may be doing well, they
are nonetheless dead. The empty tomb argues a substantial
difference. The variety and form
of Jesus's appearances even to groups and the differentiation
from visions are also significant.
Jesus's predictions and the glorified appearance to Paul
indicate that Jesus's resurrection is part
of a larger plan, including affirmation by God (cf. Allison,
Resurrecting Jesus, 21419). Of
course the critic could question the data itself, and that
could well be pursued profitably, as I
have done often in other contexts. But as I have said from the
outset, here we are discussing the
distinctiveness of the appearance reports, not their factual
provenance. Further, in the overall
picture, this paper is addressed to Allison's treatment, and
he seems to think that at least the
majority of these distinctives are well-attested.
p.311
Conclusion
As I said above, perhaps the chief difference between Allison
and me is
the degree to which we think that the empty tomb and
resurrection appearances
are best explained by the hypothesis of Jesus's bodily
resurrection.
What specific weight do we give the particular details? After
all, he gives
a slight nod to the empty tomb and clearly affirms Jesus's
resurrection appearances.
I am far more convinced of the data for the empty tomb. Still,
Allison
concludes: "I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his
death" (346 ;
see also 343) and thinks that at least the New Testament
report (including
Paul's) is of bodily appearances (317, 324325). I agree. He
also concludes
that the apparitions of the dead do not explain completely
these appearances
(283284). Again, I also agree.
While we share in general many of the positive conclusions
regarding
the empty tomb and appearances, I rate the evidence more
positively than
does Allison. Perhaps due to this, my perspective is from the
angle of the
affirmative case, even though, like Allison, I am well aware
of the inability
to close the door completely against alternative suggestions.
Allison, on the
other hand, repeatedly highlights his more skeptical concerns,
due to the
fact that the alternative options "are not impossible" (334;
also 340). Yet, as
he also states frequently, natural options are unlikely. But
given the agreed
likelihood of the major highlights of the positive case, why
continually emphasize
the alternative views if they are admittedly improbable?
Further, since Allison tends to think that one's worldview is
the determining
factor in one's conclusions here (341344), he questions
whether
factual debates result in conversion (339, 343). Actually, my
experience has
been that few religious subjects are accompanied by the
compelling degree
of evidence that is available for NDEs. While I consider
conversion to be a
different matter from that of the data, I could list a number
of well-published
scholars who have changed their worldviews, even from
naturalism, precisely
because of this evidence for NDEs. I know other scholars who
have
been converted to Christianity by studying the resurrection
data.
At the very least, I would suggest a different angle here in
closing. Allison
confesses his personal desire that Jesus's resurrection would
provide
some sort of "postmortem endorsement" of Jesus's teachings,
and especially
the afterlife (214219). I often approach the matter23 by
beginning with the
evidence for NDEs (and I have cited apparitional cases here,
as well), indicating
the likelihood of some notion of an afterlife (343, 225). This
is even
more likely when God is already postulated (215). Then, as a
more distinctive
example of the specific species of afterlife, the evidence for
the resurrection
of Jesus can be introduced (see Allison's similar move on
299). I
__________
23. For one example, see Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future
Hope, esp. 6077.
p.312
have argued here that at least a few of these distinctive
elements point in the
direction of God's endorsement of Jesus's ministry and
teachings.24
I have found that using NDEs in this manner is a very helpful
move,
particularly when addressing those who are reticent to
recognize the supernatural,
even with naturalists. Indeed, in Allison's case, it seems
that this sort
of data had precisely that affect on him, as well, indicating
the probability of
the afterlife (225, 34344). It often succeeds in breaking
barriers. At the very
least, it provides a different perspective on the issue of
Jesus's resurrection.
In sum, I am quite pleased that Dale Allison, in spite of his
skepticism, clearly allows the historicity of the
empty tomb and the postresurrection appearances
of Jesus, even if his position on the former is qualified.
Even for
Allison, the overall case is well-vindicated to that degree.25
________
24. For additional considerations, see Habermas, The Risen
Jesus and Future Hope, chapters
16.
25. I wish to thank Steve Davis, Bill Craig, and Mike Licona
for comments on an earlier
draft of this essay.
p.313
Citation Aid
Footnote Entry:
Gary R. Habermas, "Dale Allison's
Resurrection Skepticism: A Critique," Philosophia Christi
10 (2008): [page range cited].
Bibliography Entry: