MetaCatholic

Sometimes people seem to be talking past each other.

April DeConick said:

I insist that whether or not the resurrection actually happened, is not a question that needs to concern historians for several reasons.
1. Because of biology. Dead bodies remain dead

and went on to list a variety of other reasons.

One commenter on that post said:

I hope that appeal to biology was not meant to be taken seriously. The facts of biology are based on repeatable events and inferences from statistical data. By definition a unique event like a resurrection does not fall under the biological paradigm

DeConick then replied:

By definition? The irreversibility of death means nothing? The historicity of the physical resurrection of Jesus simply depends on one’s view of the universe?

The first thing I’d note is that the commenter, a J. D. Walters, seems to have slightly missed the point about this “concerning historians.” It is precisely because history works in a world of cause and effect that April DeConick appeals to the world of cause and effect. So, for her “as an historian” the early Christian belief in the resurrection concerns historians, but whether as an event it happened lies outside the realm of history. Walters talks past DeConick rather than engaging the point.

But then DeConick talks past Walters when she asks incredulously: “The historicity of the physical resurrection of Jesus simply depends on one’s view of the universe?” Historicity – did it actually happen – does indeed depend on one’s view of the universe. But that is, or may be, different from “open to historical investigation” which depends on one’s view of historiography, not the universe.

The Walters argument, pinched from Wright, I would guess, about history being full of unique events, really doesn’t hold water here. Resurrection is a different category of unique event from Caesar crossing the Rubicon. People cross rivers all the time, and it was the context of this particular river crossing that rendered it unique. People are not, however, raised from the dead all the time. On this ground, DeConick has the right of it.

But whatever “the resurrection of Jesus” was, it left historical footprints. That is there were a great many effects for which the something we call “the resurrection” was the cause. So that it is not quite true even for those who don’t believe the traditional Christian understanding to say that it is absolutely not an historical event.

But for those who do believe the traditional Christian understanding, the resurrection has no historical cause, and so it is not quite true to simply say it is an historical event, at least by the canons of contemporary historiography, which is the only sort we’ve got.  In reflecting upon the historical data, the historian’s question must be, “what sort of thing might have happened to cause this particular range of effects.” Believing historians may well give an answer that involves the empty tomb – as I would (and believe it is the best explanation of the historical effects, even though it is not, strictly speaking, a fully  historical explanation, but an eschatological one.) But this interpretation of the data, convincing though I find it, is one I only reach because of other things I have come to believe and experience on non-historical grounds.

Thanks to Iyov for noting this statement by Bishop Geralyn Wolf on Jim Naugthon’s Episcopalian blog.

As many of you know, The Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding is an Episcopal priest who has recently professed her faith in Islam. Dr. Redding is canonically resident in the Diocese of Rhode Island, though she has not served here for over twenty years.
After meeting with her I issued a Pastoral Direction giving her the opportunity to reflect on the doctrines of the Christian faith, her vocation as a priest, and what I see as the conflicts inherent in professing both Christianity and Islam. During the next year she is not to exercise any of the responsibilities and privileges of an Episcopal priest or deacon. Other aspects of the Pastoral Direction will remain private.

Jim comments:

I am happy–and relieved–that Bishop Wolf has taken this step. I don’t understand how one can sensibly claim to be a Christian and a Muslim.

And so say all of us. The full comment is worth reading.