Resurrection – a non-conversation
Sometimes people seem to be talking past each other.
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
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.
July 7th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I would agree with April DeConick against your “Historicity – did it actually happen – does indeed depend on one’s view of the universe.” If you mean that the occurrence of an event can depend upon an interpretation of what that event was, and that interpretation can differ between persons, then I’ll agree. But doesn’t “historicity” refer to the actual facts, assuming that one’s understanding of them is essentially valid?
July 7th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Dr. Chaplin,
Dr. DeConick misunderstood my point about the ultimate explanation of the universe. That relates to what one thinks is POSSIBLE, not what one thinks is historically likely. I was careful to separate possibility from historical likelihood, because as far as I am concerned they are separate questions or rather, admitting the possibility of something is at most a precondition for advancing to historical likelihood.
I’m not sure what you mean about the ‘canons of modern historiography’. I hear this vague appeal quite a bit (including in James Crossley’s recent post on the Resurrection, in which he appeals to ‘conventional historical methodology’) but have no idea what it is supposed to mean, other than the slightly naive statement that historians qua historians cannot appeal to supernatural explanations. I’m sure that’s not what you take it to mean, but I would appreciate a little more elucidation.
July 7th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
I still have the feeling that people are talking past each other here. There is a strong historical discipline which works with a matrix of cause and effect. In that sense I mean, I think, exactly the same as James Crossley. The resurrection, theologically speaking, is about the ushering in of a new age, a new humanity, an eschatological future and an act of God. I prefer to call it an event in history rather than an historical event, since it has no historical cause (and hence is problematic for the historian), but leaves many historical footprints (and hence is relevant to the historian). I think that those who call it an historical event miss the lack of historical cause, and those who say it doesn’t belong to history fail to take account of the historical effects.
PS I don’t have a doctorate (yet - I hope) so Doug will do fine on this blog.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
[...] should be coupled together simply because they are “miraculous”.The resurrection leaves historical footprints, which I think would be significantly different had it not happened. I can see no way in which [...]