This is
an electronic copy of the entire article.
The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During
the Deist Controversy. By
William Lane Craig. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1985, 677 pp.,
$69.95.
The first couple of decades of this century witnessed the
demise of nineteenth-century
liberalism, with its mistrust of supernatural events as well
as of most revealed theology.
The middle decades proved to be the heyday of existential
theologies of various types,
manifested primarily in the dialectical thought of Barth and
in the more radical
tendencies of Bultmann. But while taking distinctly different
views on the issue of Jesus'
resurrection, both of these scholars exhibited little
toleration for attempts to apply the
findings of historical studies to the life of Jesus. In
contrast, scholarship in the last
twenty years has produced a distinct upsurge of interest in
historical aspects of Jesus'
resurrection.
This massive volume begins with the assertion that few
scholars are aware of the
dialogue concerning Jesus' resurrection that has occurred over
the centuries prior to the
present. Craig believes that the period of the Deist
controversy, in particular, provides
some especially insightful historical precedent for portions
of the twentieth-century
discussion. Accordingly Craig explains that his chief purpose
in this work is not only to
discuss various aspects of the Deist controversy over the
resurrection as an historical
phenomenon in itself but also to assess the arguments that
were utilized at that time in
order to ascertain what may be relevant for today's studies
(p. XV).
The book is divided into three sections, the first consisting
of what the author terms "Pre-Modern Anticipations" of what
will later become the multifaceted historical case
for Jesus' resurrection. It concentrates on the various forms
of argumentation found in
the NT itself, in the writings of the early-Church theologians
through Eusebius, and in
the middle ages through Thomas.
241
The portion on the NT, though brief, uncovers a number of
worthwhile points. The
endnotes in particular provide many insightful comments for
the serious student. One of
the few disappointments in the entire volume, perhaps, is that
this section is presented
too briefly and is even somewhat sketchy. The material on all
four gospels plus Acts, for
instance, occupies only about 16 pages (pp. 3-19),
necessitating some picking and
choosing of topics. Yet a developed NT apologetic is not the
purpose of this volume, and
several pithy points seldom found in the relevant literature
are still made. The treatment
of Paul's major text in 1 Cor 15:3-8, though it also is short
(pp. 19-26), is exceptionally
helpful, especially because evangelicals so seldom treat this
passage in terms of recent
critical discussions. And here the endnotes are perhaps the
strongest element in this
section.
The second portion of section 1 is concerned with several
authors of the second and
third centuries who treat the resurrection in their writings,
both defending it and
utilizing it as part of an apologetic for Christianity.
Defenses of the resurrection of the
body and Origen's debate with Celsus formulate the key
portions of this topic, which is an historical period so
frequently ignored by Protestants.
Lastly, in section 1, Craig discusses the time period that he
laments as the downfall
of historical reasoning. Few scholars of the middle ages
pursued this methodology very
rigorously, and only two are discussed in much detail:
Augustine and Thomas.
Section 2, "The Modern Period," formulates by far the bulk of
the volume. It is
subdivided into two parts: the upturn in the historical
argument for the resurrection that
occurred in the eighteenth century, and the decline of similar
argumentation later that
century and afterwards due to trends in higher criticism and
to the philosophical
subjectivism then emerging in Europe. The former part contains
much of the deist-orthodox
debate, including discussions of the nature of Deism, its
variety of attacks on
the resurrection, and orthodox defenses of the integrity of
Scripture and the historical
nature of Jesus' bodily resurrection. Here the reader is
confronted by some of the major
scholars of this period, such as Locke, Blount, Tindal,
Toland, Woolston, Sherlock,
Voltaire and Rousseau. Claim is set forth and confronted by
counterclaim with the
principal participants sometimes being placed head-to-head.
In part 2 the decline of historical argumentation for the
Christian faith is traced to
such causes as Lessing's radical attack on reasons of any
evidential sort (especially
historical ones) serving as the basis for faith, the
continuing surge of naturalistic
explanations being proposed to account for belief in the
resurrection, and the popularity
of an inward, sentimental romanticism. Even conservative
theology experienced a shift
to such subjective interests (p. 476).
Section 3 provides an assessment of the eighteenth-century
debate surrounding the
resurrection of Jesus. Subjects discussed include the
philosophical issue of the possibility
of miracles and the higher-critical methods of Biblical
studies. Craig's chief purpose is to
ascertain those facets of the past discussion that are
relevant to a contemporary study of
the resurrection. And here modern critical scholarship has
witnessed that the Deists
were right on some issues while the orthodox scholars were
correct on others.
Craig asserts that the orthodox apologists presented a better
overall case in favor of
the resurrection, however, than the Deists did against it (p.
542), partially because some
of the deistic victories are on what many scholars today would
consider important but
nearly moot points in terms of the issue of Jesus'
resurrection (pp. 540-541), while
contemporary defenses of this event frequently utilize some
arguments that are very
similar to those of the orthodox scholars (esp. pp. 528-535).
Craig concludes by making a
brief case for the resurrection as understood in a
contemporary context.
Yet this last apologetic section (pp. 528-546) is basically
only an outline. It certainly
needs to be expanded further if it is to stand on its own as
'a developed case for the
resurrection of Jesus. In fact Craig recently has completed a
companion volume so that a
detailed apologetic can be given for this event.
242
I recommend this book for those careful students of
apologetics who are interested in
the subject of Jesus' resurrection and who wish to pursue some
of the history of
argumentation surrounding it. Such a study would help us not
only to understand our
past but also to see where our current apologetic approaches
are similar to those utilized
by others throughout history. Further, such comparisons can
assist us in avoiding
approaches that are likely to fail even today. Finally, the
more than 1300 endnotes
provide both additional commentary and sufficient sources
(especially original ones) for
those who would be interested in a further study of any of a
number of important related
topics.
Gary R. Habermas
Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA
Citation Aid
Footnote Entry:
Gary R. Habermas, "Review: The Historical Argument for the
Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy," Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 31:2
(1988): 240-242.
Bibliography Entry:
Habermas, Gary R. "Review: The Historical
Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist
Controversy." Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 31:2 (1988): 240-242.