This approach presents some seemingly compelling ideas, such as viewing the Gospels as generally historical sources, an attitude that takes the supporting evidence and historical data seriously. However, there are several reasons why it falls short, and this led to the rejection of Old Liberalism. We will present four major critiques of this view.
1. A priori rejection of miracles
First, why should miracles be rejected as actual events, unless we have prior knowledge that they can never be factual? Neither history, science, nor any other discipline can rule out miracles without an investigation. The claim that miracles are contrary to the laws of nature and therefore invalid is itself based on faulty reasoning and thus cannot rule out miracles a priori.40
Current science is no longer able to postulate absolutes that can rule out possibilities in an a priori manner, as was often believed in the past. We can only speak in terms of probabilities for any given occurrence. Even more important, the technique of examining all of the evidence before conclusions are drawn is required by the proper use of inductive research methodology. Accordingly, such an approach is utilized not only in physics, but in such varied disciplines as law, medical science, criminal justice, and journalism. Historians also investigate the known facts to find whether an event actually happened or not.41
As former Oxford lecturer William Wand remarks, there is no scholarly reason for rejecting possibilities before an investigation. An a priori dismissal cannot be allowed, even if we do not like the conclusion that is indicated by the facts. One must decide on the basis of the known evidence.42
Then if miracles cannot be rejected without an investigation, on what grounds can we accept part of the Gospel record and reject part of it? Such picking and choosing seems arbitrary unless there is some objective criterion for determining such a practice.
For reasons such as these, conclusions that are drawn before and against the facts are both non-historical and non-scientific. To rule out the possibility of miracles a priori is not a valid procedure. We must investigate the evidence and then draw our conclusions.
2. Miracle-claims and historical investigation
The second major problem with this approach is the common assumption that miracle-claims cannot be investigated by historical methodology at all. Often the charge is made that miracles belong in the realm of religious faith and, as such, are out of the reach of the tools of historical or any other investigation.43
It should be repeated that it is not the purpose of this book to determine if a miracle, as an act of God, has actually occurred. Our intention is to investigate the life of Jesus in general, and his resurrection in particular, according to historical standards. We are asking about the historical basis that we have for these events, not whether God performed any certain occurrences. For such a philosophical investigation of the resurrection as an actual miracle, which is an entirely appropriate study, the interested reader is referred to Habermas’, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic.44
As indicated in Appendix 1, we distinguish between a miracle-claim and a miracle. We can historically investigate the Christian claim that Jesus was raised from the dead without, in this present study, raising the attendant question of whether it is a miracle caused by God in a theistic universe. Nonetheless, the historical question of the resurrection is quite important even by itself, for if a miracle did literally occur, it did so in the time-space realm. Our approach will be to examine the historical side of the claim that Jesus was raised. Did Jesus, after dying on the cross by crucifixion, appear to his followers alive? This is our major focus.
Therefore, the charge that historical methodology cannot take us all the way to the conclusion that a miracle has actually occurred is a worthwhile concern. But this is entirely different from the assertion that historical inquiry cannot do any part of the important research. We need to distinguish between the historical and the philosophical dimensions of the issue. While knowledge is united, the research paths to it are multiple and each discipline has its strengths.
The original charge that miracles cannot be investigated at all would only be correct if we knew in advance that miracles do not literally occur in history. If they happen only in some non-objective realm or if they do not occur at all, then they cannot be investigated by historical methodology and this would be a correct assessment. However, since the claim that miracles literally occur in normal history is an open question, then it would at least be possible to investigate the historical portion of these claims as to their accuracy.
While some will object to even a partial investigation of a miracle-claim, this assertion is often simply a form of a priori objection just answered in the first critique above. In other words, since we cannot rule out the possibility of miracles without an inquiry, and since it is claimed that miracles have happened in space-time history, they can be investigated as such.
For those who object to investigations of any sort with regard to miracle-claims, holding that they are only tenets of faith, it must be remembered that the New Testament teaches that Jesus’ resurrection is an actual event (1 Cor. 15:1-20, for instance). Further, salvation consists of trust in the facts of the gospel, including the resurrection (vv. 1-4). Paul asserts that faith is built on these firm facts.
But if faith is not placed in a trustworthy source, how can we know that it is legitimate? Again, we do not need sight as a basis for our belief, but historical facts provide a stronger foundation than does a hopeful “leap.” If strong evidence for the resurrection is found, this would be the final indication that this event can be investigated historically, for it would bear up well under examination.
Some historians have called for just such an investigation. They hold that any data for the resurrection must be examined. Then we can judge whether it is an actual event of history.45
3. The failure of naturalistic theories
A third problem with this approach to history in the life of Jesus, especially with Old Liberalism, is that the naturalistic theories that were proposed to account for the resurrection are disproven by the known historical facts. Interestingly enough, it was the liberals themselves who attacked their own theories, in spite of their theological dispositions.
These naturalistic views were very popular in the nineteenth century. There was no consensus of opinion on which theory was the best alternative explanation for the literal resurrection. In fact, many of those who popularized these theories did so only after attacking and revealing the weaknesses in the other theories of fellow liberals. For instance, Paulus’ swoon theory mentioned above was disarmed by David Strauss, who, according to Schweitzer, dealt it its “death-blow.”46 We will examine the swoon theory in detail in Chapter 4.
It is not the purpose of this book to take an in-depth look at these alternative theories proposed to explain away the facticity of Jesus’ resurrection. Suffice it to remark here that, as with Paulus’ theory, each of the naturalistic theories was disproven by the liberals themselves. By this process, and by the critiques of others outside their camp, the weaknesses of these attempts were revealed. In other words, each of the alternative theories was disproven by the known historical facts.47