Wesleyan University

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate: Gary R. Habermas and Antony G. N.
Flew by Terry L. Miethe; Gary R. Habermas; Antony G. N. Flew
Review by: Burton L. Mack
History and Theory, Vol. 28, No. 2 (May, 1989), pp. 215-224
Published by: Wiley for Wesleyan University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505036 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 18:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Wiley and Wesleyan University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History
and Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.199 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:20:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEWESSAYS

DID JESUSRISEFROMTHEDEAD?The Resurrection Debate: Gary R. Habermas

and AntonyG. N. Flew.Editedby TerryL. Miethe.San Francisco:Harperand
Row, 1987. Pp. xvi, 190.

The resurrectiondebatetook placeovertwo daysin May,1985at LibertyUniver-

sityin Lynchburg,Virginia.GaryHabermasandTerryL. Miethe,Christiantheo-
logianson the facultyof LibertyUniversity,had invitedAntonyFlew,the well-
knownatheistphilosopherfromEngland,to arguethe questionof the evidence
for the physicalresurrectionof Jesus.In the grandtraditionof forensicdebate,
each madetheir statementsand second speechesof rebuttalbeforea crowdof
3,000 people on May 2. Then, on the morrow,joined by Mietheand W. David
Beck, Chairof the Departmentof Philosophyat LibertyUniversity,Habermas
and Flewcontinuedtheir debatemorein the form of a roundtable discussion.
Thebookby HarperandRowis the protocolof thatdebateanddiscussionframed
by an introductionand conclusion.
The introductionwaswrittenby TerryMiethe,who explainedthat the philos-
ophy facultyhad askedtwo "panelsof experts"to judge the debate,one con-
sistingof fivephilosophers"whowereinstructedto judge [its]content . .. and
rendera winner,"the other consistingof five "professionaldebatejudges who
wereaskedto judgethe argumentation techniqueof the debaters"(xiii).Theresults
of the judgingproduceda clearwinner.It was Habermasand his case for the
resurrectionas fact. That is why,Miethefurtherexplained,the task of writing
a "FinalResponse"to serveas the conclusionof the book was turnedover to
Habermas.To broadenthe contextof the debatejust a bit, brief responsesto
the protocolwererequestedfrom WolfgangPannenberg,CharlesHartshorne,
and JamesI. Packer,two conservativetheologiansknownfor their defenseof
the resurrectiondoctrineand one processtheologian(Hartshorne)who appar-
ently servedas the token "liberal"in the group.The resultwas proclaimedby
Harperand Rowto be a "seminaldebate"and "brilliantexchange"on "thecen-
tral issue of Christiandoctrine."
This reviewerdisagrees.Verylittle light was shed on anythingthat was dis-
cussed,and the only signs of seminalexchangewerean occasionalhuffor puff
as Habermasand Flew came close, but not too close, to catchingeach otherin
their own juices. For the averagepersonof intelligence,to say nothing of the
academichistorianof religion,the scene encounteredin this book might raise
somehairon the napeof the neck,but only becauseit is so eerie.Oneis suddenly
in the presenceof Christianfundamentalistspassionatelyinvolvedin tryingto

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.199 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:20:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
216 REVIEW ESSAYS

get a nineteenth-century empiricist to say that he cannot finally argue against

the theoretical possibility of a unique miracle.
Part of the reader's uneasiness is that Flew keeps talking to Habermas long
after Habermas has turned the "debate"into preaching. Why? The reader also
shrivels in the strange, chilly world of this discourse when Habermas thinks that
he has accomplished something important by getting Flew boxed in on the ques-
tion of the theoretical possibility that "the Resurrectionwas a supernaturalevent"
(77). What difference to understanding could that make? Apparently, the
philosophical faculty at Liberty University thought, on the one hand, that such
a coup was significant, that this debate was decisive, that Flew's inability to dis-
prove the Christian claim to the resurrection as historical fact would somehow
establish that claim as convincing. And yet, on the other hand, they also knew
all along that nothing would be finally decided, that, in the words of Miethe,
"the debate should not take the place of a decision from you, the reader....
The decision is yours. On with the debate!" (xvi). So the reasons for the passion,
one suspects, are twofold. One is a pinch in the fit of a fundamentalist's own
intellectual garments (not the excitement of finding a partner-in-dialogue attrac-
tive, a partner with a different point of view). The other is the heady sensation
of calling surreptitiously for a decision on the part of those invited to overhear
the debate, a "decision"only possible on the part of those even less well-informed
about the study of religion than those who dared to debate such a topic while
inviting the entire world to look on.
Three issues surfaced again and again in the debate: (1) The definition of a
miracle; (2) the validity of historical evidence for miracles; and (3) how to inter-
pret the New Testament texts that seem to report upon the resurrection of Jesus
in various ways.
Flew took his starting point from David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human
Understanding, a position that denied the miraculous on the basis of a naturalist
philosophy, and that rejected historical reports of such because they provided
inadequate evidence and could not be double-checked by repetition. Flew made
two adjustments in the light of standard critiques of Hume. One was to admit
that Hume's conception of the naturalorder was correctlythreatenedby the limits
of human understanding. The other was that, even though historical reports of
miracles should be discounted in principle, the theoretical possibility of the truly
miraculous should caution the historian to consider:

whetherthe presentcase is sufficientlyexceptionalto requiresome radicalshakeupof

secularhistoriographicpresuppositions,eitherby revisingour ideasof what is naturally
possibleor by admittingthat we havea uniqueand uniquelyimportantcase of a super-
natural intervention transcending natural impossibilities. (7-8)

Flew then argued that the resurrection was not such a case, but his willingness
to discuss the theoretical possibilities opened the way for Habermas, Miethe, and
Beck to badger him with their repeated reviews of the "historical evidence" they
were proposing.

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.199 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:20:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEW ESSAYS 217
Habermas, for his part, took Flew's opening and zeroed in on the "known
historical facts"that provide"evidencefor the resurrection"(19). There are twelve:
(1) Jesusdied due to the rigorsof crucifixionand (2) wasburied.(3) Jesus'deathcaused
the disciplesto despairand lose hope. (4) Althoughnot as frequentlyrecognized,many
scholarshold that Jesuswas buriedin a tomb that was discoveredto be emptyjust a
few dayslater.Criticalscholarsevenagreethat (5) at this time the discipleshad realex-
periencesthat theybelievedwereliteralappearancesof the risenJesus.Becauseof these
experiences,(6) the disciplesweretransformedfromdoubterswho wereafraidto identify
themselveswithJesusto boldproclaimers of his deathandResurrection,evenbeingwilling
to die for this belief. (7) This messagewas centralin the earlychurchpreachingand (8)
wasespeciallyproclaimedin Jerusalem,whereJesushad died shortlybefore.As a result
of this message,(9) the churchwas born and grew,(10)with Sundayas the primaryday
of worship.(11)James,the brotherof Jesusanda skeptic,wasconvertedto the faithwhen
he also believedhe saw the resurrectedJesus.(12)A few yearslaterPaul the persecutor
of Christianswas also convertedby an experiencethat he, similarly,believedto be an
appearanceof the risen Jesus. (19-20)
With these "corehistorical facts"(23) thus set forth, and Flew apparentlywilling
to discuss the question of the evidence for each of them on its own merits, the
debate came to focus on such questions as: How we know whether Jesus was
really dead (to ward off the old nineteenth-century "swoon theory"); whether
Paul saw a resurrectedbody or had a spiritual hallucination; whether Paul saw
the same thing that Peter saw; whether Peter's vision occurred in private (thus
possibly being an hallucination) or in company with the other disciples (thus
being a vision of something "objective"); whether the tradition Paul claims in
1 Corinthians 15 was "early" or "late," based on primary (if so, authentic) or
secondary (if so, corrupt) reports; whether the gospel stories of appearances at
the empty tomb can be consideredeyewitnessreportsor later recapsfrom memory;
and, yes, whether the shroud of Turin should not be entered as strong "external"
evidence?
The reader may well wonder how questions such as these could possibly sus-
tain heated intellectualenergy for two days of conversationor 190pages of printed
protocol. The answer must be that the terms of the debate were inauthentic to
begin with, and that the phrasing of the questions produced chimeras in the place
of the real issues underlying the whole affair. The debates were not really about
the possibility of miracles in the context of our present views of history and the
natural order. And they were certainly not about how to judge the reliability of
historical evidence for anything. They were, instead, about attitudes to be taken
toward one specific and incomparable event, an event that was understood to
have no analogue and therefore could be discussed in total isolation from the
way in which all the rest of the world was known to work. It was in fact the no-
tion of uniqueness that had to be protected if Jesus' resurrection was to retain
its Christian significance.Both Habermas and Flew agreed upon that point, Flew
playing into Habermas's hand by toying with the idea of the "exceptional case"
(7), and Habermas consistently turning away from any argument by analogy that
Flew occasionally sought to introduce.The result was a jostling match in a swamp,

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.199 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:20:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
218 REVIEW ESSAYS

Flewrestinghis case on the requestfor moreand betterevidencethat he knew

wouldnot, could not be forthcoming(34), Habermastakingeveryturnto pro-
nounce once more upon the impossible.
Theintelligencepresentedhereis verylightweightandextremelyembarrassing.
This is true for both contentions,eventhoughFlew frequentlyofferedobserva-
tions that mighthavebeenelaboratedwith some profit.Flewknew,for instance,
that Habermashadturnedthe processof proof around,as if he werenot coming
at the issuedeductivelyfroma Christianpoint of view.Flewalso knewthat the
variouswaysin which"the"resurrectionwastalkedaboutin the NewTestament,
in additionto the texts being suspectas highly interestedinterpretivereports,
weresimplynot all referringto the sameimaginativeconfigurations.Had he been
able and willing,Flew might havepressedthese points to good advantage.But
Flewreallywasnot able,eitheras an historianof earlyChristianityor as a modern
historianof religion,to do so. And he was, apparently,not willing. He knew
that Habermascould not affordto budge at any point without scuttlingwhat
Habermasunderstoodto be the Christianfaith. So Flew graciouslyplayedhis
role as the gadflyof no consequenceand let his partnertake the lead.
SinceHabermasis consideredto havewon the debatefor the affirmative,his
argumentsneedto be counteredwitha bit moredirection.Threepointsareeasily
made.The firstis that his reconstructionof the "historicalevidence"is nothing
morethana rehearsalof the Christianmythof origins.Thismythis an amalgam
of disparatetraditionsfrom the firstcentury,no traditionof whichalone con-
tainedall of the elementsHabermasincludesin his scenario.Withthe exception
of the firstitem (that Jesuswas crucified),moreover,thereis nothingin the list
that does not rest on a romanticizedconflationof the gospel narratives.That
is very shakygroundupon which to reconstructthe early historyof the Jesus
movements."Criticalscholars,"to use Habermas'sterm,will know,for instance,
that thereis no mentionof Jesus'disciplesin Q1or Paul (the pre-Markantradi-
tions from the firstforty years),that the messageof Jesus'deathand resurrec-
tion was not "central"for Q, the pre-MarkanJesus traditionsreflectedin the
pronouncementstoriesor the miraclestories,or for the movementsthat culti-
vatedthe Gospel of Thomas or the Didache,that we have no evidencewhat-
soeverfor the messagethat was"proclaimedin JerusalemwhereJesushad died
shortlybefore,"or that, as a matterof fact, peoplejoined the Jesusmovement
only becausethey becameconvincedof Jesus'resurrection.That the disciples
"despaired," "hadrealexperiences"that they "believedwereliteralappearances
of the risenJesus,"andthusweretransformedinto preachersof the resurrection,
is simplynot a statementanycareful,criticalhistorianwouldmake.It is manifestly
an apologeticreiterationof the Christianmyth.
The secondpointto be madeis that Habermas'smainstrategywasto marshal
scholarlyauthoritiesin supportof hiscontentions,makingsurethatthoseknown

1. Q fromthe GermanQuelle,"source,"refersto the collectionof the sayingsof Jesusthat Mat-

thew and Lukeused in the compositionof their gospels.

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.199 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:20:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEW ESSAYS 219
to be of a more"liberal"persuasionwereincludedin the rosterand cited. This
resultedin sweepingdeclarationsabout "all criticalscholarsagreeing"(19-25)
withhim on this or that point. As a New Testamentscholar,this reviewerfound
Habermas'sstrategyto be dishonestand offensive.Justas Habermaspositioned
himselfto claim the legacyof logic and reason for himself and against Flew,
so he usedthe traditionof criticalscholarshipagainstitself and for his own pa-
rochialpurposes.Thereis nothing in the book, not a single observation,that
allowsthe readerto see what criticalscholarsactuallyhave been up to, much
less that advancesthe cause of that scholarship.
And third,the way in which Habermastreatsthe texts he cites as evidence
violates fundamentalcanons of criticalscholarship.Philology is practicedby
Habermaswithoutcomparisonwith the culturesof context.(An exampleis his
referenceto "theGreekwordhorao,"a wordof multipleconnotationand usage,
whilearguingfor a quitespecificdenotationarrivedat solelybyconflatingChris-
tian texts [57]). Criticaldefinitionof literaryformsis practicedonly wherecon-
venient.(An exampleis his adamancyabout 1 Corinthians15:3-5 beinga "creed"
[91-94],while refusingto considerthe curiositythat Paul'sreportof his own
visionis givenas partof this creedal"tradition" he "received,"
an obviousinvita-
tion to morecriticalinvestigationas Pannenberghimselfwasconstrainedto point
out [134].)The samepoint could be madeand illustratedfor Habermas'shighly
selectiveuse of other standardcriticalprocedures,such as redactioncriticalin-
vestigations,social-historicalsituating, rhetoricalassessments,and some ac-
knowledgmentof the pluralmovements,views,andliteratureswenowknowwere
characteristicof early Christianity.In everycase Habermas'sselectionis self-
serving,broughtin to supporthis contentionthatthe standardpicturewithwhich
he beganis the only pictureworthconsidering.Thisis the practiceof Protestant
apologetic,not a contributionto scholarship.

Whilethisis hardlythe properplaceto developan alternative proposal,the readers

of History and Theorywho are not New Testamentscholarsdo deservesome
plaintalk aboutthe wayin whichcriticalscholarsapproachthe issuesthat have
beenraised.The firstthingto be said is that criticalscholarsrecognizediversity
amongthe manyexperimentalmovementsof earlyChristianity.Theseareplaced
in the contextof theirlargerculturalworldsandinvestigatedwithrespectto their
own social histories.The writingsof the New Testamentare understoodto be
only a small selectionof the literaryproductionof these groups.And, what is
of firstimportancefor the presenttopic,referenceto Jesus'resurrectionwasnot
a common persuasion.
The notion of Jesus'resurrectionwas only one among many waysin which
early Jesusmovementsand Christiangroupsimaginedtheir beginnings.Some
imageof Jesusfiguredin the picturesof beginningsthat all of theseearlymove-
mentsimagined,butthe Jesusimageswerequitediverse.Theyrangedfromprofiles
of a teacher,throughvariouscharismaticimageries,to a martyrwho had died
for the causeof the newcommunitythat had emerged.In eachcaseit is possible

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.199 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:20:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
220 REVIEW ESSAYS

to tracea few stagesthroughwhichthe earlierimaginationswereenhancedin

the processof socialexperienceand reflectionupon it. Thusthe teacherbecame
a prophetin the Q tradition,and a lawyer-legislatorin the traditionof the
pronouncementstories;the charismaticJesus becamea workerof miraclesin
sometraditionsanda revealerof esotericknowledgein others;andthemartyrology
waselaboratedinto the cosmicmythof the destinyof the Son of God in certain
Hellenisticcongregationsto whom Paul addressedhis letters.
It is extremelyimportantto recognizethat, in eachcase of reimaginingJesus,
early Christiansrequisitionedpatternsof characterizationthat wererecogniz-
able in the culturesof contextat large.Mythmakingis, after all, morea matter
of rearrangingtraditionalimagerythan a creationde novo. This is true even,
and especially,in the case of a novelsocial experiment.Thus none of the many
notionsaboutJesus'resurrectionand subsequentdestinywaswithoutprecursor
somewherein the culturaltraditionsthatimpingeduponthe newChristianmove-
ments.EarlyChristianitymay havebeen a novel social experimentand it may
havecome up with mythicimaginationsand ritualpracticesthat weredistinctly
differentfromthoseof its neighbors.Butit wasnot forthatreasonincomparable,
that is "unique,"in the radicalsense in which Habermaswantsto understand
it. And it did not makeup the idea of resurrectionon the basisof an unexpected
experienceof a uniqueand incomparableevent that neededthereforea brand
new name.The languageof resurrectionwas not of Christiancoinage,and all
of the variouswaysin whichearlyChristiansimaginedJesus'resurrectionhave
parallelsin other Hellenisticliteraturesand religions.
Criticalscholarsregularlydistinguishfour main types of referenceto what
Habermascalls "the"resurrection.The firstis the brief, formulaic,creedal-like
referencecustomarilycalled kerygmatic.An exampleis the "tradition"cited in
1 Corinthians15:3-5,aboutwhichHabermasandFlewspenta greatdealof time
arguing,"thatChristdied ... and wasraised... ." The secondis the briefstate-
ment that someone"saw"Jesus (afterhis death)or, since the Greekcan easily
go the otherway,that Jesus"appeared" to someone.An examplewouldbe the
list of appearancesaddedto the kerygmaticstatementin 1 Corinthians15:5-8,
the textoverwhichHabermasandFlewarguedthe most. Thethirdtypeof refer-
ence to the resurrectionis the narrativeof the emptytomb. The only pureex-
ampleof this type is the storyat the end of Mark'sgospel.And the fourthtype
of referenceis the storyof a post-resurrection appearanceof Jesusin whichhe
converseswith his disciplesand givestheminstruction.Examplesof this would
be the storiesat the end of Matthewand Luke,as wellas the storiesat the begin-
ningof manygnostictreatises.Thesefourtypesshouldnot be conflatedin order
to constructa singlewitnessto a commonpersuasion,as Habermasdoes. Each
shouldbe recognizedas a differenttype of statementand investigatedin relation
to its significancefor those who madeit at specificjuncturesof social and ideo-
logical history.In general,criticalscholarsparsethese out as follows.
The kerygmaticformulationswerespecificto the Hellenisticcongregationsof
northernSyriaand Asia Minorinto whichPaul was converted.The logic of the
formulawas derivedfrom Hellenistic-Jewishmartyrologyaccordingto which

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.199 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:20:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEW ESSAYS 221
one "died for . . ." a city, country, law, or ethical teaching. The Hellenistic con-
gregationsof the Jesuspeopledevelopeda martyrologyfor Jesusas theirfounder
figurein orderto "justify"the kindof ethnicallymixedcommunitytheyhad be-
come. The notion of resurrectionbelongedto this martyrmyth.To say that the
martyrhadbeen"raised"(thatis, "toheaven,"or "toeternallife,"or "toa trans-
formedstatus,"or "to a higheroffice")meantthat the martyrhad been right,
wasnowvindicated,hadnot beendestroyedby those who had wrongfullykilled
him. At firstthe congregationsof the ChristtreatedJesus'death, not his resur-
rection,as the foundingevent "forthem,"regardinghis resurrectiononly as a
sign of Jesus'own destiny,vindication,and continuingauthority.Later,how-
ever,once the mythwas in place,it was also possibleto think the thoughtthat,
not only hadJesus"diedfor"the community'sjustification,he had been"raised
for"the community'svindication(or "justification," the Greekdikaiaomeaning
either)as well (Romans4:25).So the earliestimaginationof the resurrectionof
Jesus was a mythicimagination,workedout in the processof rationalizinga
new social experiment.One did not need any dramatic,visionarysurprisesto
think such a thought. The developmentof the mythwas, moreover,limitedto
the specificform of social formationthat took place in the highly Hellenized
diaspora.Thereis no evidencefor sucha myth,no interestin the vicariousdeath
of Jesus, no referenceto the resurrectionof Jesus, in the Jesus movementsof
Palestineand southernSyriabeforeMark'stime (70s C.E.). Markis the author
who combinedthe nonkerygmaticJesustraditionswith the logic of the martyr
myth when he gave narrativeform to the kerygmaand wrote his gospel.
The visionreportsareanothermatteraltogether.Sincetheyhavetheirearliest
attestationin the lettersof Paul, one mightthink that they shouldthereforebe
understoodin the shadowof the martyrmyth. In antiquity,an "appearance"
(or "vision")was understoodto be that of a spiritualbeing, such as an angel
or a god. (Lots of people had such visions, it should be noted. And therewere
severalgenresby whichto imagine,report,or fictionalizethem.)Some scholars
haveemphasized,therefore,thatthe appearancesof Jesuspresupposethe martyr
myth,thatwiththe mythin placeit wouldnot be surprisingfor someearlyChris-
tiansto haveexperienced visionsof thetransformed Jesus.Thisapproachis sound,
and most scholarsseemto treatPaul'sreferencesto his own visionsprettymuch
on this model. The troublebeginswith Paul'sreportof the visions(or appear-
ances)to Peter,the twelve,five hundredbrothers,James, and all the apostles,
in the list that ends with his own vision (1 Corinthians15:5-8).The reasonthis
reportdoes not fit the patternof explanationjust suggestedis that it seemsto
invertthe myth/visionsequenceand locate the appearances,not mythmaking,
at the beginningof the Christianmovement.
Theimportanceof this textfor Habermas'spictureof Christianoriginsis very
great.It is the only textthereis that linksthe kerygmawith Peterand the pillars
in JerusalembeforeMatthewand Luke wrotetheir gospels towardthe end of
the firstcentury.Otherreferencesto Peterand the Jesus people in Jerusalem,
such as Paul'sown accountof his visit there(Galatians2), do not lead one to
picturethem as kerygmaticChristians.It is thereforenot surprisingthat it was

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.199 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:20:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222 REVIEW ESSAYS

this very text that bore the brunt of the debatebetweenFlew and Habermas,
Habermasreturningto it again and again to arguefor the importanceof the
resurrection forChristianorigins.Theembarrassment is thatmanycriticalscholars
also takethis reportveryseriously,and that Habermaswas quitecorrectto re-
mindus of that. The reasonit has been takenseriouslyis that it is the only text
thatsupportsthe traditionalpictureof ChristianoriginswithPeterin Jerusalem.
Scholarshavenot wantedto give that pictureup becauseit providesthe only
schematicoutlinein place for imaginingthe spreadof Christianityin the first
centuryand for locatingall of the otherbooks, groups,and social historieson
a commonmap. It is becauseof this circumstancethat Habermascan get away
withhis claimto be in touchwithcriticalscholarship,eventhoughmostresearch
scholarswouldwitherif confrontedwithHabermas'scontentiousanduncritical
rehearsalof the common scheme.
This meansthat Habermasdid touch a verysensitivenerveending,not only
for Christiansat largewho wouldbe embarrassedby his fundamentalisttenor,
but for NewTestamentscholarsin generalwho havenot comecleanon this issue.
He shouldnot be allowedto take the field with banners,however,and that for
a verysimplereason.Christianoriginsmakesmuch more sense the other way
around,with social formationfirst,mythmakinga part of the process,and pri-
vatereligiousexperiencesof a specificallyChristiannuancedependentuponthat
ethos.
The factthat Paul'sreportis the sole foundationfor the Easteroriginhypoth-
esis, the fact that thereis so much evidencefor nonkerygmaticforms of early
Jesusmovements,and the fact that otherreferencesto the resurrectionof Jesus
can be betterunderstoodin termsof the morenormalpatternsof social forma-
tion andmythmakingshouldmakeone suspiciousof the reportitself.As a matter
of fact, the reportturnsout to be quiteself-serving.By attributingappearances
to the Jerusalemleaders,Paul achievedtwo importantobjectivesin his letter
to the Corinthians,objectivesthat counteredwhat he consideredto be serious
challengesto his authority.One objectivewas to arguethat he also should be
regardedas a founderfigureamongthe founderfigures.He did that by adding
himselfto the list as the "lastof all"to receivesucha vision. The otherobjective
wasto claimthat his versionof the gospelwasthe standardfromthe beginning.
He achievedthat end by tackingthe list of appearancesonto a recitationof the
kerygmaas he preachedit, therebysuggestingthat the Jesus who appearedto
all of the apostleswas the Christof the kerygmaas Paul proclaimedhim. Even
Peter,on this rehearsalof Christianorigins,becamea witnessto Paul'sgospel,
not Peter'sown. Readin the lightof Paul'searlierpolemicagainstPeterin Gala-
tians 2, this myth of Christianoriginscan be seen to solve Paul'sproblemof
authorityquitenicely.Thereis thereforeeveryreasonnot to use it for a scholarly
reconstructionof Christianorigins. Paul himself was the one who turnedthe
myth/visionsequencearoundin orderto redefinethe categoryof appearance
and limit it to apostolicexperience.His readersin Corinthwill not have been
so fortunate.Theywill havehad to learnaboutthe Christby takingPaul'sword
for it. The vision reportsfunction, after all, not to guaranteethe resurrection

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.199 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:20:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEW ESSAYS 223
of Jesus (the notion and meaningof which are based on other considerations
and experiencesaltogether),but the legitimacyof Paul'sclaimto be a preacher
of the gospel!
As for the empty tomb story,that is best seen as Mark'sown fiction, com-
posed on the occasionof writingthe gospelin the aftermathof the JewishWar,
a narrativedesignedto mergethe nonkerygmaticJesus traditionswith a mar-
tyrologyderivedfromthe kerygma.The post-resurrection appearancestoriesin
Matthewand Luke,then, are embellishmentsof the gospel genre,fillingin the
emptyspaceat the end of Mark'sstorywith scenessuggestiveof continuityin-
stead of ruptureat the beginningof the Christiantime. That time, the time of
the beginning,wasremovedfromMatthewand Lukeby three-quarters of a cen-
tury.The storiesof the post-resurrection appearancesthey imaginedand told
make sense for theirtime. They are of no valueto the historianwho wishesto
reconstructand understandthe early historyitself.2

TheResurrectionDebatemaybe a marketablecommodity.Harperand Rowat

least seems to think so. But this reviewerwonderswhat its value actuallymay
be. The book is pitchedto the averageconservativeChristianreader,so presum-
ablytheywill readit. I do findit difficultto assesswhatdifferencesucha reading
will make,though,otherthanto fortifypersuasionsalreadyin place.The persu-
asion that I fear will be most fortified,however,is not the expectedone. It will
not be a strongerChristianconvictionabout the realityof the resurrection,for
theeffectivepowerof thatbeliefhasneverrestedon the kindof reasoningpresented
in this book. The persuasionthat might well be enhancedis ratherthe under-
lyingcynicismof the fundamentalistwith respectto intellectualendeavor,espe-
ciallyin the fieldof religion.Habermastrafficsin the languageand logic of the
philosophictradition.But,whenit comesto NewTestamentstudies,he disrespects
as a whole the findingsof the scholarswhom he cites and he violatesthe prin-
ciples of discoursethat allow for membershipin their guild. He is a preacher,
pureandsimple,not an historianof religion.So the lessonmaybe simpleafterall.
The lessonis that religiousstudiesarein troubleif this is takento be an illus-
trativeexample.History and Theoryshould not, in my estimation,havegiven
this book the time of day. And I should not have given the book any serious
considerationfor History and Theory.If our accidentalinvestmentsare to be
redeemedat all, it will be to take the chanceto look one anotherin the eye and
say out loud that doing theologyis one thing, and studyingreligionsomething
else; that this book does not contributeto the study of religion,and may not
evendo muchfor theology;that the academyshouldbe aboutthe studyof reli-
gion, not about apologeticsin academicgarb.Perhapsit is time to see this and
sayit withclarityand firmness.New Testamentscholars,especially,shouldtake

2. Readerswho wantto see how historiansof religionworkthat historyout mightbe interested

in BurtonMack,A Mythof innocence:MarkandChristianOrigins(Philadelphia,1988),andJona-
thanZ. Smith,DrudgeryDivine:On the Comparisonof EarlyChristianitiesand the Religionsof
LateAntiquity(The JordanLectures:Universityof London, 1988;forthcoming).

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.199 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:20:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
224 REVIEW ESSAYS

the warning very seriously, attracted as we frequently are by the old hermeneu-
tical circle. But look. Fudging on the resurrectioncan only lead to this dead end.
So colleagues, it's time. Readers, take care. And Harper and Row: you should
really be ashamed. This kind of sensationalism is not worthy of your house.

BURTON L. MACK
ClaremontGraduateSchool

By Hans Blumenberg.Translatedby
ThE GENESIS OF THE COPERNICAN WORLD.
RobertM. Wallace.Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press, 1987. Pp. xlviii, 772.

Thisis the thirdmassivevolumeby HansBlumenbergto appearin Englishtrans-

lation (all by R. M. Wallace)in recentyears,the previoustwo havingbeen The
Legitimacyof theModernAge (1983)and Workon Myth(1985).Wallacedeserves
greatcreditnot only for undertakingthe translations,but also for his introduc-
tions to the threevolumes,whichprovidedistincthelp in easingthe readerinto
this importantbut often difficultand complexbody of work.
The threevolumesare deeplyrelated,both methodologicallyand in the con-
clusionsoffered;manytopics that are only hintedat or dealt with cursorilyin
one volumearedevelopedin detailin another.Blumenberg'sfundamentalcon-
cernis withthe "historyof consciousness." By "consciousness" he means,roughly,
an epoch'sconceptionof itself, of the contextin whichit exists,andof its history
and goals. (The conceptof an "epoch"used in The Genesisof the Copernican
Worldis examinedmore fully in Legitimacy.')In all threebooks, Blumenberg
seeksto understandthe emergenceof an epoch'sself-consciousnessthroughat-
temptsto deal with problemsfacedby an earlierepoch, eitherin its confronta-
tions withthe immediatelysurroundingworld(an aspectemphasizedheavilyin
Workon Myth)or with basichumanneeds,or with the tensionsin that epoch's
viewsof the world(the majorfocus in Legitimacyand the workunderreview).
Thus, in Workon Myth, the roots of both reasonand myth are locatedin hu-
manity'shavingcome "closeto not havingcontrolof the conditionsof [its]exis-
tence,"and,moreimportantly,to its havingbelievedthatit "simplylackscontrol
of them"2-a conditionBlumenbergtraces,in that book, to the emergenceof
earlyhumanspeciesfromthe forestinto the open savannah.TheLegitimacyof
the ModernAge analyzesvariousfacets of the questionsof the nature,roots,
and uniquenessof "modernity," the self-consciousnessof the presentepoch.
The book underreviewherestandsbetweenthe othertwo, in fillingin what
Blumenbergsees as a crucialstep in the transitionfrom earlierthoughtto the
developmentof modernconsciousness.Herehe is concernedwith a particular

1. Hans Blumenberg, The Legitimacy of the Modern Age [19661, transl. R. M. Wallace (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1983), part IV, chapter 1.
2. Hans Blumenberg, Workon Myth [1979, 19831,transl. (of second edition) R. M. Wallace (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1985), 3-4.

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.199 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:20:29 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions