Spirituality: Resurrection: Beyond Ghosts and Ghouls

Resurrection and History

sightings of resurrection

There is no direct account of the resurrection in the New Testament; it mentions no blast of supernatural energy or eyewitnesses. What is mentioned are the circumstances surrounding Jesus of Nazareth’s death and even these are given a theological interpretation. Unlike the resurrection, the death of Jesus is attested to outside the believing communities in sources such as Josephus and Tacitus. The crucifixion while probably not a highly attended incident was nevertheless a public one – capable of historical verification. The cross took place in history as we generally define history.

The resurrection as we have said has no eyewitness, believing or otherwise. It is an event that is acknowledged to have happened because of its effects on the believing community. The resurrection was accepted because of the subsequent appearances of the Risen Christ in various community settings in Jerusalem and Galilee.

To Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18; Mark 16:9)
To the other women (Matthew 28:8-10)
To Peter (Luke 24:34; I Corinthians 15:5)
To the two on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35; Mark 16:12)
To ten of the disciples (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-29)
To all eleven disciples, eight days later (John 20:24-29)
To seven disciples by the Sea of Tiberius (John 21:1-23)
To five hundred followers (I Corinthians 15:6)
To James (I Corinthians 15:7)
To the eleven, at the ascension (Acts 1:3-12)
To Paul “as one out of time” (1 Corinthians 15: 8,9)

Since the authentication of the resurrection is attested to exclusively by those theologically invested, modern historians eliminate it from their discipline. From a scientific historical-critical point of view, resurrection is placed in the category of personal belief. Within this private realm it is beyond negative or positive criticism.

Those who seek assurance of resurrection through historical methods frequently end up discouraged because the discipline of history, as we moderns practice it, can’t verify the resurrection, nor does history disprove that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead. Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg maintain that our current “science of history” is inadequate and should therefore be replaced by a broader conception of history, one which could include events that while not empirically verifiable are nonetheless real and experienced. This philosophy of history doesn’t preclude out-of-the-ordinary events, nor does it restrict history to humanity’s actions toward nature or with each other. Contrary to the historical critical approach, this theological conception of history would allow for interactions between humanity, nature and supra-natural forces or beings such as God. Moltmann makes the innovative suggestion that we reverse the interpretive flow,asking not how history verifies the resurrection but how the resurrection contributes to the overall meaning of human history.

A theological versus a critical view of history seen from within the context of a believing community seems to recommend itself as a better starting point for the exploration of the resurrection. The problem is that many historians do not share a metaphysical consensus on which to base their ideas about the resurrection and consequently view such a practice of history as theological sleight of hand.

popup text

A better approach is not to rely on history or science as validating the resurrection since at best it can only secure probability. As a historical miracle devoid of any interpretation the resurrection makes very little difference. It merely leaves us with the uneasy feeling that of all the humans who have ever lived only one human being was raised from the dead. Such a barebones reading of the un-interpreted event of Christ’s resurrection would leave us asking the irreverent question, “so what?” Even if historical critical methods or newly discovered evidence proved that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth took place, its meaning would still remain a mystery. Resurrection must have another means of validation and explanation than historical proof.

The author of Luke foresaw the shortcomings of empiricism as a means of verifying faith or belief. He concluded the parable of Lazarus the Beggar and the Rich Man with the words, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead (Luke 16:31). Faith is not based on probability but on belief. The resurrection is not capable of being proven but it is capable of being believed, trusted and lived.

Instigating a revolution in the paradigms of science and history is not an effective or efficient approach to understanding and living the resurrection. The danger of Moltmann’s historical approach lies in returning theology to its pre-modern position as queen of the sciences. Ken Wilber, founder of Integral Studies, believes that one of the benefits of modernity is the creation of the dignity of the disciplines where science can be carried on independently of theological censorship. The theological history proposed by Moltmann may still be appropriate for the discipline of theology whose guiding axioms are other than those of the modern historian.

Previous 1 [2] 3 4 Next