Scholars Crossing

LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations

Spring 2001

On the Resurrection Appearances of Jesus

Gary R. Habermas
Liberty University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons, Ethics in
Religion Commons, History of Religions of Eastern Origins Commons, History of Religions of Western
Origin Commons, Other Religion Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of
Religion Commons

Recommended Citation
Habermas, Gary R., "On the Resurrection Appearances of Jesus" (2001). LBTS Faculty Publications and
Presentations. 335.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/335

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in
LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
 76 PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI GARY R. HABERMAS 77

nor does the empty tomb pericope (surprisingly!) involve any lament. Evan Fales's Strategtj
Neither is Ishtar's joumey into the underworld to bring back her husband
Tammuz from the realm of the dead analogous to the discovery of the empty Fales's response to our volume In Defense of Miracles is multi-faceted.
tomb. In the Osiris myth his wife Isis searches for the pieces of his dis- Besides his philosophical expeliise, other interests are manifested through-
membered body and buries them throughout Egypt (which serves to explain out his critique. In the chapters that bear on New Testament concems, espe-
why so many burial sites for Osiris are claimed!); but the empty tomb nar- cially treatments of the historical Jesus, Fales repeatedly draws from recent
rative involves no such search for the body because the place of Jesus' inter- anthropological and sociological studies. He asserts that "NT scholars often
ment is Imown. Thus, it is long stretch to see such myths as underlying the ignore this infonnation" (30).
narratives when much closer at hand are the actual women followers of Fales's response to my chapter seems to incorporate two chief points
Jesus, who in accordance with Jewish custom would do precisely what they challenging my claim that Jesus' disciples saw Him again after His death. (1)
are pOlirayed as doing. There are numerous parallels to Jesus' death and resurrection in ancient near-
11. The Jewish polemic. Fales denies that we know what the earliest Eastem (ANE) religions and/or in contemporary settings. Fales is especially
Jewish polemic was against the proclamation of Jesus' resurrection. All we interested in the fonner, citing examples like "Marduk/Tammuz, Osiris,
have is a single, uncorroborated, Christian StOlY which is probably a legend. Bacchus, Attis, and Adonis." (2) The "functional role of mystical experi-
My point, however, in no way assumes the historicity of Matthew's guard ences" is not at all to address the objectivity of the episodes themselves, but
StOlY. Rather what is important is that Matthew is so exercised by an alle- to accredit those who have them. Thus, the crucial item is that these experi-
gation which was "widely spread among the Jews to this day" (Mt 28.15) ences are the means by which the recipients are given authmity among their
that he includes a lengthy addition to the Markan empty tomb nan-ative in peers. The apostle Paul serves as "a most interesting case study" on which to
order to refute it. I have elsewhere argued on the basis of vocabulary and test these last ideas. Fales thinks that this early church leader manifests pre-
tradition history that this dispute is, indeed, early.23 And the tradition shows cisely the SOli of quest for authority that helps to explain his emphasis on the
that even the opponents of the nascent Cluistian movement recognized that resurrection appearances of Jesus. While evaluating mystical expeliences,
Jesus' body was missing. Fales relies heavily on the work of I. M. Lewis. In particular, Lewis differ-
In ShOli, we have good reasons for accepting the empty tomb as part of entiates between two different mystical strains. The first, peripheral mysti-
our picture of the historical Jesus, whereas Fales's religionsgeschichtliche cism, is chiefly manifest among groups of persons (mostly women) who are
altemative lacks credibility. downtrodden and marginalized by their societies, and who experience pos-
session by a supematural being. The second, central mysticism, is presum-
ably a more mainline variety. These persons are said to be recruited by the
On the Resurrection Appearances of Jesus gods and thrust into leadership positions, seemingly against their wills. I
For Fales, Paul is a combination of both types. The apostle was a cen-
GARY R. HABERMAS tral mystic when functioning in his own Jewish culture, but was a peripher-
Department of Philosophy and Theology al mystic when seen against the backdrop of the dominant Greco-Roman
Liberty University society around him.'
Lynchburg, Virginia I will respond to each of these two main charges. As in my original
chapter, as well as in Fales's reply, I will simply note that I am only able to
In this essay I will evaluate Evan Fales's approach to the resurrection provide an outlined response here. Many more details may be obtained from
appearances of Jesus. His strategy is creative and lively, employing a con- my other writings on these sUbjects.
siderably different approach from that of most contemporary scholars, hence
I 1. M. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion: A Study of ShaminislIl and Spirit Possession, 2d ed.
its provocative nature.
(London: Routledge, 1989), 25-3\. As Lewis states, "religious leaders turn to ecstasy when
they seek to strengthen and legitimize their authority" (29). Cf. Steven E. Ozment's angle that
"the mystical enterprise ... can be adopted for the critical purposes of dissent, reform, and even
revolution." See Ozment's lYJysticisll1 and Dissent: Religious ideolog)' and Social Protest in the
OJ See my "The Guard at the Tomb," Nel!! Testament Studies 30 (1984): 273-81. Sixteenth Centwy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973),8.
, For Fales's treatment here, see "Can Science Explain Mysticism?" Religious Studies 35
(1999), 213-14.
78 PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI GARY R. HABERMAS 79

Ancient Parallels to Jesus' Resurrection Judeo-Christian beliefs that it is exceptionally difficult to make compar-
isons. 5 Certainly one cannot casually refer to the ANE religions and begin
Fales seems to think that resunection stories in the ancient mystery reli- making asseliions regarding their relation to historical religions. From the
gions, in pmiicular (and/or contemporary reporis), somehow explain the outset, we find grave difficulties with these sorts of comparisons, from both
early Christian teaching of Jesus' resunection. Reliance on the development philosophical as well as historical perspectives.
of myths and/or legends in the ancient world was a popular thesis late last Third, and perhaps even more damaging, the tale of Isis and Osiris
century, especially in the Religiollsgeschiclzte school of thought. But such seems to be the only known case among the mystery religions where there
hypotheses have been dismissed today by the vast majority of critical exists both clear and early evidence that a dead god was said to be resusci-
researchers. As we will see, there are strong reasons for this. tated, which is dated prior to the middle or late second century AD. As far
With Fales, though, it is exceedingly difficult to decipher exactly why as is known, the other "resunection" stories aCllmlly postdate the Christian
he introduced the ANE religions. In what direction should we take these sto- message. On occasion, the mystelY religions were even inspired by Christian
ries? Does he think that they are rivals to the historicity of Jesus' resunec- teachings."
tion? If so, in what sense? Are they explanations of how these New Fourth, the case ofIsis and Osiris, the best known and most influential
Testament accounts arose? Of how they function? To show how quickly ANE scenario, provides little grounds for influencing Christianity. The sim-
myth can arise? To find areas of commonality? To point out the non-his- ilarities are few, while often being diametrically opposed to the Christian
torical genre? All of the above? In the case of any contemporary rivals to gospel. Although the story varies so widely that it is viliually impossible to
Jesus' resurrection, Fales is even more elusive.] He needs to more carefully put a single sequence together, Isis rescues Osiris (her husband, brother, or
detail his intentions, especially since this is one of his central theses. son!) after he is cut up into fourteen pieces and floated down the Nile River!
Granted, Fales is limited in what he can say. Still, he mentions the ANE She finds all of the pieces except one and resuscitates him by any of sever-
scenario many times throughout his critique, yet without detailing the spe- al methods, including beating her wings over his body. In the ancient world,
cific sense in which these myths supposedly rivallrefute/explainlparallel the the crux of the story is Osiris' death and the mou111ing afterwards, not any
resunection accounts. While it is difficult to know exactly, I will offer a resuscitation. FUliher, either Isis or Horus, their son, rather than Osiris, is
number of general comments. the real hero. This myth is another of the vegetation gods with a non-linear,
First, the philosophical differences between the ANE religions and non-historical patte111 of thought. 7
Christianity are immense. The f01111er chiefly began as celebrations of the Moreover, Osiris does not remain on emih after Isis perf0l111S her magic;
seasonal changes. Heroic stories arose, patte111ed after the dying vegetation he either descends to the underworld or is called the sun.' Even critical
in the Fall and its "rising" in the Spring. At their foundations, these systems scholar Helmut Koester fil111ly states, "it is never said that [Osiris] rose.'"
eschew linear philosophies of history in favor of cyclical, seasonal patte111s. For reasons like these, it would be exceptionally difficult to substantiate any
Second, the gods and goddesses, like Dumuzi and Inanna, Tammuz and charge of inspiring the New Testament teachings of Jesus' death'O and resur-
Ishtar, Isis and Osiris, were not even historical persons-they never lived. rection.
In perhaps the best known account of Isis and Osiris, Plutarch even cautions
that one ought not believe that any of these tales happened like they are 5 For the details here, see Bruce M. Metzger, "Methodology in the Study of the MystelY

reporied. Later he states that, "We must not treat legend as if it were histo- Religions and Early Christianity," in his Historical and Literw)' Studies: Pagan, Jewish. and
Christian (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), chapter 1, esp. 13,23.
ry."" These differences are in such stark contrast to the historical nature of
"Ibid., 11,20-22; Edwin Yamauchi. "Life, Death and the Afterlife in the Ancient Near East"
in Richard L. Longenecker, ed .• Lire in the Face a/Death (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998),
21-50. Giinter Wagner, Dos Religionsgeschichtliche Problem von Romer 6. 1-11 (ZUrich:
; Because Fales barely mentions contempormy cases, without specific details, I will simply Zwingli Verlag, 1962). Cf. s. H. Hooke, Middle Eastern Mythology (Baltimore, MD: Penguin,
respond that I have investigated the subject elsewhere: Gmy R. Habermas, "ResulTection 1963), 20-22, 40.
Claims in Non-Christian Religions." Religious Studies 25 (1989),167-77. 7 For these and many other details, see R. E. Witt, Isis in the Greco-Roman World (Ithaca,

, See Plutarch, Isis and Osiris (Loeb Classical Library ed.), 11 and 58, respectively. Myths NY: Cornell University Press, 1971), 17-18,27,36-40,45.162, 194; Hooke, Middle Eastern
can still inclucle real historical events, either generally or specillcally. Cf. Levi Strauss, }dythology, 19-23, 39-41. 65-70.
Structural Anthropology, Vol. 2, trans. Moniql1e Layton (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, " Ibid., 68: Metzger, "Mystery Religions and Early Christianity," 20.
1976),268, '! Helmut Koester, Introduction to the Nell' Testament, Vol. 1: HistOlY, Culture, and Religion

of the Hellenistic Age (Philadelphia. PA: Fortress. 1982), 190: cf. also 193.
10 Martin Hengel maintains that, "the Christian message fundamentally broke apart the cus-

tomary conceptions of atonement in the ancient world ancl did so at many points," For several
80 PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI GARY R. HABERMAS 81

Other problems abound with Fales's suggested mythical thesis. Fifth, cannot be the direct cause of the early resulTection teaching, which is "not
proponents celebrate barely possible similarities (along with some amazing- to be derived from this natme-myth, because it has its most direct source in
ly farfetched comparisons) between Christianity and the mystery religions. the historical fact of the death of Jesus, and the following visions seen by His
But the great differences between all of these tales and the New Testament disciples."17
are frequently ignored. Otto Pfleiderer, a proponent of the Religiol1- In sum, to prove that New Testament writers were substantially inspired
sgeschicllte school, even acknowledges the accuracy of this concern. 11 by the mystery religions is fruitless, according to most scholars. IS The ANE
Sixth, scholars realize that these legends exercised very little influence approach just will not do, and for many weighty reasons. Oxford University
in first century Palestine. Historian Michael Grant notes this major problem scholar N. T. Wright states forcefully that finding parallels between
for the mythical thesis: "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the Christianity and "the mystery religions is an attempt to turn the clock back
deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seems so entirely foreign that the emer- in a way now forbidden by the most massive and learned studies on the sub-
gence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit."12 The issue ject." This is why the mystelY religion approaches "have failed, as viltual-
here is Fales's cross-cultural comparisons to the first centmy Jewish milieu ly all Pauline scholars now recognize."I,!
without empirical data.
In my chapter to which Fales is responding, I detailed several other seri-
ous problems with the legend theory. The Christian proclamation of Jesus' Paul: Authority Seeker or Resurrection Witness?
death and resulTection was both early and based on eyewitness reports,
chiefly that of Paul in 1 Cor 15:3ff. Adequate account must be made regard- Fales's second major charge is that the purpose of mystical experiences
ing the testimonies of those who claimed to actually see Jesus alive after his is to accredit a claim to authority. Therefore, Paul's resurrection appearance
death. \3 The New Testament language is that of sight. 14 Gerd Ludemann, an was not about the objectivity of his experience, but served to justifY the
atheistic New Testament scholar, asserts: "ophthe is a verb of seeing and apostle's claim to speak for God. Pinpointing our chief difference here,
Paul must have expected the Corinthians to understand the ternl historically Fales states: "What Paul absolutely needed ... was to legitimate a claim of
.... " Paul is speaking of "his own active sensual perception .... "15 independent authority. . . . Habennas would say Paul got the authority
Fales wants us to think that Paul's testimony makes little difference. because he had the vision. I would suggest that he had the vision because
But the vast majority of critical researchers reject his approach. As Wolfhart he needed the authority" (32).
Pannenberg asselts regarding the early, eyewitness evidence for Jesus' res- Providing some details, Fales notes that, among the Jewish people,
ulTection appearances: "Under such circumstances, it is an idle venture to "Paul apparently was, initially, an up-and-coming young politico." But
make parallels in the history of religions responsible for the emergence of among the Romans, he was "a member of a subjugated and marginalized
the primitive Christian message about Jesus' resulTection."16 Even Otto group." To the church, he was "an outsider ... a fonner enemy" (32). This
Pfleiderer, an advocate of the ANE thesis a cent1UY ago, agrees that myths explains Fales's view that Paul was both a peripheral and a central mystic.
It seems that, in addressing Paul's situation, Fales has forced his anthro-
pological hypothesis concerning the function of mystical experiences to fit
examples, see Hengel's The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrille in the New Testament,
the data at all costs. But Paul's particular case just cannot be explained in
trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1981), 31-32.
II Otto Pfleiderer, The Early Christian Conception of Christ: its Significance and Vaille in
this manner. Even on Fales's own reconstruction, he has failed to make his
the Histol}' of Religion (London: Williams and Norgate, 1905), 153-54, 159. For many other case. There are many reasons why this is so.
examples of differences, see Metzger, 12-23. First, Fales's thesis presents an extremely insufficient social justifica-
11 Michael Grant, JeslIs: An Historian s Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner's, 1977,
tion for Paul to legitimate his authority as a Christian. If Paul desired to
1992), 199. Cf. Hooke, Middle Eastern Mythology. 174.
upgrade his marginalized Jewish status, he should have moved toward the
lJ Gary R. Habennas, "The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus," in in Defense of Miracles,

262-70. predominant Roman establishment instead of to fledgling Christianity,

" Details are provided by Gerald O'Collins, interpreting the Resllrrection: Examining the
Major Problems in the Stories ofJeslls' Resllrrection (New York: Paulist, 1988), 12-19. 17 Pfleiderer, The Early Christian Conception of Christ, 157-58; cf. 77-78.
IS Gerd Liidemann, The Resllrrection of Jeslls: Histol}l, Experience, Theology, trans. John
" Metzger, "Mystery Religions and Early Christianity," 4-24. See also the sources in notes
Bowden (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1994),37,50, respectively. 10-19, each of which disagrees with Fales in one or more key areas.
", Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jeslls-God and },;]an, trans. Lewis Wilkins and Duane Priebe 1'J N.T. Wright, What Saint Palll Really Said: WCIS Palll of TarslIs the Real FOllnder of
(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1968),91 (Pannenberg's emphasis). Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 173, 172, respectively.
 82 PHILO SOPHIA CHRISTI GARY R. HABERMAS 83

which was politically, socially, and economically inferior to both. Paul's would care to check it out, Paul is making a claim about those who saw
Roman citizenship would have helped facilitate his move, too. Fmther, in Jesus-a claim that does not further his own authority. Paul is clearly assert-
the First Century, Jews had a status that generally allowed them fi'eedom to ing the historicity of Jesus' appearances, not positioning himself. Here is
worship on their own temlS. However, Jews distanced themselves from another marker indicating that Fales's presuppositions are getting in the way
Christians, occasionally pointing them out to Roman authorities as the new- of his historical research, especially when he admits that he "cannot prove"
comers with the strange doctrine. So, in Fales's tenns, such a move only led his authority thesis here (33). Jesus Seminar scholar John Kloppenborg
Paul to greater subjugation! And Paul certainly Imew this, for he was the thinks that Paul was interested in aligning himself with the other apostles.
one leading the charge! Celtainly, the apostle did not thereby move beyond "[H]owever, this is clearly a secondary issue," while Paul's primary motive
his peripheral statns; he actually traded an honored position for a more infe- was "to support the argument conceming the reality of the resurrection.""
rior one! This was not the smartest social move he could have made. Fifth, Fales hypothesizes all of this about Paul ·without allY specific his-
Second, judging Paul by Fales's proposal vastly underestimates the torical justification for doing so. He admits that empirical subjects are not
depth and the "Jewishness" of the apostle's theology. He was a zealous his fOlte." Critics can do all of the guesswork they want, but their attempts
Pharisee, a "Hebrew of Hebrews" who had devoted his life to studying the are mere conjechlre unless they are linked to the early data. But we have no
Old Testament Law, enacting his beliefs by persecuting the church (Phil. evidential indications that Paul's conversion was due to anything other than
3: 1-6). Theology and purity were his primary concems, not making a move what he claimed: a life-changing appearance of the resurrected Jesus.
to a blasphemous sect, for any reason! But for Fales, Paul's primary con- So Fales has failed to provide any demonstration of the authority thesis
cem was to position himself authoritatively in the Christian community. crafted after the mamler of I. M. Lewis, and applied to the apostle Paul's
This fails to accord with what we lmow conceming Paul and his theological conversion. He admits elsewhere that no altemative theory has yet been able
situation. to provide "conclusive evidence" either for Lewis's own approach or for
Third, and most crucially, given these Jewish convictions and "any other naturalistic account of mystical experiences," the category in
Christianity's heretical beliefs, Paul had no motivation to convert to which he places Paul's resurrection appearance.21 He has challenged the
Christianity, either. Without such an catalyst, Paul's desire to move from "an views of many critical Pauline scholars, but without proving his case.
up-and-coming young politico" in Judaism to "an aspiring leader" of the Thus, the case for the early, eyewitness testimony for Jesus' resurrection
Christian church is groundless. Fales gets the cart way out in front of the appearances sketched in my chapter, and detailed elsewhere, still stands. It
horse here. His scenario provides no impetus for Paul to need a vision to is supported by other data besides, like that for the empty tomb. It is obvi-
gain the authority. Moreover, Paul proved on several occasions that he was ous why Fales objects to Bill Craig's thesis, too. He must reject this evi-
more than willing to die for his faith (2 Cor. 11 :23-29; Phil. 1:21-23). Later, dence at all costs, for it also plays havoc with his authority thesis.
he died as a martyr (Clement 3:l3-15). These are just a few pointers to the
fact that, as he explains, Paul's conversion relies on a real experience of the
risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1; 5:8). Additional Considerations
Fourth, there are textual indications from Paul's list of resurrection
appearances in 1 Cor. 15 :3-8 that the authority motif was not his chief inten- I would like to address a few other issues pursued by Fales. He hearti-
tion. Fales poshllates that Paul ordered the appearances to signify "the rel- ly approves applying naturalistic hypotheses to Christianity's supemahlral
ative authority of the apostles," particularly Peter and James (33). But on claims (12, 17,20,26,34). Yet in describing the state of critical scholarship,
this thesis, we have already seen that it is very difficult to explain Paul's spe- he repeatedly misjudges the current scene, and widely so. For example, he
cific language.'" Additionally, the listing of others to whom Jesus appeared decries my emphasis on addressing hallucination theses, calling this
is also problematic.
Fales responds that the appearance to the 500 followers "is, obviously,
1l John Kloppenborg, "An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline FOl111lda in I Cor 15:3b·5 in Light of
chaff' (34). But he entirely misses the point that, whether or not anyone Some Recent Literature," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978), 359n45. Interestingly,
Kloppenborg also uses Paul's comment about the appearance to the 500 to make his point, since
'" See Gerald O'Collins and Gerd Ludemann above on Paul's language of literal sight. it "has nothing to do with the idea oflegitimation of apostolic authority" (360n45).
"Fales, "Can Science Explain Mysticism0" 216.
1] Evan Fales, "Scientific Explanations of Mystical Experiences." Religious Stlldies 32
(1996),311, cf. 303.
84 PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI GARY R. HABERMAS 85

methodology "much too naive" (34). Then he rather self-assuredly chastis- purpose of increasing the authority of individuals, while some are simply
es me and the "fundamental apologetes" who are "unaware of naturalistic faked. 26 Still others do not survive the results of historical criticism. 27
explanations outside [their] nanow ambit .... But it is surely time for this But Fales also speaks as if the New Testament repOlis of Jesus' resur-
community to expand its horizons" (34). rection appearances were perhaps claims to something akin to ethereal
Apparently Fales has not spent much time researching these issues. I visions of light. We can only briefly note here that some of the most recent
am cunently cataloging approximately 1,100 critical sources on the resur- studies indicate that even Paul's notion is that of bodily appearances of
rection published during the last 25 years and the results are intriguing. Jesus. Though changed, Jesus' body occupied space and time.'s This direc-
Naturalistic theses regarding Jesus' resunection were most popular during tion further distances Jesus' appearances from these "visions of divine fig-
the Nineteenth Century. They have been comparatively unpopular, even ures."29
among critics, during the Twentieth. But the last two decades have wit- Fales repeatedly mentions New Testament discrepancies as a chiefrea-
nessed a small resurgence ofthese altemative theses. Ofthe most recent nat- son for disregarding the resunection's facticity. But as I pointed out in my
uralistic efforts among philosophers and theologians, hallucinations are by chapter in In Defense of lvIiracles (and everywhere else I present a case for
far the most popular approach.24 the resUlTection), my methodology is always to argue from facts that the vast
In contrast, Fales's ANE suggestions have largely been rejected during majority of both believers and unbelievers share as historical. JO It is cmcial
most of this century though not, as he suggests, for lack of research. As I to understand that, among other things, this method bypasses the disputed
mentioned, the Religiollsgeschichte school pursued it at great length, but the portions in favor of the best attested data. This is where we find the
vast majority of critical scholars have judged that it cannot account for the strongest evidence for the resurrection.
New Testament data. In attempting to explain the nature of mystical experiences, Fales dis-
Tme, popularity is not the test for research. But Fales chose to make an cusses the ground-breaking neuro-physiological research of Wilder Penfield
issue of the direction taken by evangelical apologists and our responses to a that reproduced certain mystical sensations in his patients. 31 What Fales
nanow group of our "pet" altemative theses. But as it tums out, he is the one neglected to report is that these very experiments, which he seems to think
who is unaware of what critics are saying. His seeming belligerence along
the way, especially in his last paragraph, simply heightens his enor. Fales or, Fales states repeatedly that his approach is taken for granted in anthropology. I do not
apparently thinks that the mass hallucination theory is fairly useless, but, of doubt that reported visions might frequently serve an authoritarian purpose. But such a mle
course, apologists need to respond especially to the most CUlTent challenges. cannot be uni/ormly assumed. Such a conclusion should only be drawn on a case by case basis
when warranted by the empirical data. For instance, Fales recommends and relies quite heav-
On a related note, Fales asserts that reported "visions of divine figures ily on Rowan Williams's "excellent biography" Teresa ofA vila (Han'isburg: Morehouse, 1991),
are a cOlllinonplace phenomenon" (18). Yet, he fails to thoroughly distin- apparently thinking that William's presentation has affinities to Lewis's thesis (Evan Fales,
guish the many varieties of such repOlis, either phenomenologically or his- "Scientific Explanations of Mystical Experiences, Part I: The Case of St Teresa," Religious
torically. Arguably the majority of these are not even meant to be taken lit- Studies 32 [1996], 152-53). Yet Fales seems unaware that Williams does not treat Jesus' resur-
erally, as in the mystery myths. Later, followers of Isis and other mystery rection appearances in the same manner. See Rowan Williams, Resurrection: interpreting the
Easter Gospel (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1982), 104-119.
figures pursued visions while in states of incubation, reporting that they saw 17 See the details in Habennas, "Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions," above.

these gods in their dreams. 25 As Fales says, many other accounts serve the 21l For some examples, see NT Wright, "Early Traditions and the Origin of Christianity,"

Se'wanee Theological Revie'w 41:2 (1998); Stephen T. Davis, ", Seeing' the Risen Jesus" and
William P. Alston, "Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection," both in The Resurrection: An
interdisciplinGlY Symposium on the Resurrection a/Jesus, ed. Stephen Davis, Daniel Kendall,
14 For some examples. this is Liidemann's view, above; also Michael Goulder, "The Baseless and Gerald O'Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), For an older but still authori-
Fabric of a Vision" in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D'Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, tative and well-reasoned treatise, see Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology with
1996); Jack Kent, The Psychological Origins 0/ the Resurrection lYJyth (London: Open Gate, Emphasis on Pauls Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), esp, Chap.
1999). 13 on Paul's treatment of Jesus' resurrection body.
" Incubation involved some rather severe fOTIl1S of bodily deprivation and isolation, both 20 Another such contrast is Teresa of Avila's view that mystical reports of "physical experi-

known experimentally to be practices that stimulate hallucinations and mystical experiences, in ences are the most suspect of all," and are the most likely to be faked (Williams, Teresa, 131,
addition to their own claims that these visions were manifested in dreams. Further, it is thought cf. 135). Her mystical images, then, were in contrast to Jesus' fleshly, historical incarnation
that overzealous priests even impersonated some of the gods. See Witt, isis in the Greco- ( 133-35).
Roman World, 22, 54, 153, 158-64, 189-92, 195-96; Koester, introduction to the New llJ Habermas, "The ResUlTection Appearances of Jesus," 262-63, 274-75.

Testament, Vol. I, 189-91. ]I Fales, "Can Science Explain Mysticism?" 222-23.

86 PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI GARY R. HABERMAS 87

contribute to a worthy nahlral explanation of mystical experiences, con- Fales begins his essay with a plea for "some modesty," while warning
vinced Penfield himselfto change his monistic metaphysics to dualism, hint- the reader that his comments will still "sometimes verge on harshness" (7-
ing strongly at the belief in life after death!" 8). A few examples of the latter are evident throughout his miicle. This
In the same context, Fales also mentions the subject of near-death expe- reaches an apex in the last condescending paragraph just before his conclu-
riences, apparently as another means of providing a nahlral explanation of sion (34), aimed at myself and "fundamentalist apologetes." Perhaps some
mystical experiences. J3 But here he does not repOIi the voluminous body of of this is due to the impOIiance of his subject.
scientific literahlre that argues at length, among other things, that literally Strangely enough, Fales seems to be most sure of himself in areas where
dozens ofNDEs are unexplained by nahu'al means. Some of these accounts multiple strands of empirical data convincingly oppose his thesis. Some
provide incredible corroboration of details during extended times (some- instances are Fales's assertions conceming the ANE parallels to Jesus' res-
times even hours!) without measmable heart and/or brain activity.]· Along ulTection, his rejection of the early and eyewitness testimony for the appear-
with Jesus' resurrection, here is another challenge to natmalism on the topic ances especially as supplied by Paul, Fales's insistence that Paul had a vision
of life after death. because he needed authority in the early church, and his denunciation of hal-
Other subjects could be mentioned, due to Fales's far-ranging com- lucination theses as a figment of the apologist's own thinking. Incredibly,
ments.]' But these will have to suffice for this discussion. he complains that Moreland needs to support his claims with arguments
(14), when empirical evidence is the very thing that Fales so frequently does
not provide in his response to Jesus' appearances! I think that Fales is mis-
Conclusion taken in vimmlly every major argument that he makes. I have attempted to
give some of my reasons for this conclusion.
Evan Fales and I disagree conceming quite a number of items regarding
the New Testament proclamation of the historical Jesus and his resulTection
from the dead. However, this does not nullify the fact that his essay is fresh,
creative, and thoughtful, bringing his background to bear on the subject of
miracles.

Wilder Penfield. The Mystel}' (4' the Mind (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1975), esp. 76-90.
}J Fales, "Can Science Explain Mysticism?" 223.
'" For just a sampling, see Michael Sabom, Recollections a/Death: A Medical Perspective
(New York: Harper and Row. 1982); Michael Sabom, Light and Death (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1998); Ian Stevenson and Bruce Greyson, "Near-Death Experiences: Relevance to
the Question of Survival After Death," Joumal olthe Alllericanlvledical Association 242 (July
20, 1979): 265-267: Melvin Morse, "Near Death Experiences and Death-Related Visions in FF Bruce, Jesus alld Christian Origills Outside the Nell' Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Children: Implications for the Clinician," Current Problems in Pediatrics 24 (Februmy, 1994): Eerdmans, 1974); Edwin Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the
55-83; Gary R. Habermas and J.P. Moreland, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Evidence?" in Jesus Under Fire, cd. Michael Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, MI:
IlIIlIIortalil), (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), esp. Chaps. 7-9; Gary R. Habennas, "Near Death Zondervan, 1995); R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
Experiences and the Evidence-A Review Essay," Christian Scholar:, RevielF 26 (Fall 1996): 1986); Gmy R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient EVidence/or the Li/e a/Christ (Joplin,
78-85. MO: College Press, 1995), esp. Chap. 9. I also wish I had the space to discllss many other
1j For instance, he tells Geivett: 'There is no nonChristian evidence that Jesus was a figure issues. Among these are Fale's charge that "no serious Bible scholar would agree" with the
of any significance in first-century Judea .... " (19). Space does not permit a discussion of the consistency of the Gospels (21), his suggestion that the New Testament is inconsistent regard-
more than one dozen secular references to several dozen aspects of Jesus' life and early ing evelY aspect of Jesus' passion "save only that Jesus was killed" (19), his denial of virtual-
Christianity. These are recorded within 100-150 years or so by several ancient historians, a ly every critically-acclaimed historical fact surrounding the events after the crucifixion (27), or
Roman governor, and two Roman Caesars, among others. The resurrection is even mentioned his charge that Paul regularly disagreed with other apostolic leaders (32). In sllch examples,
more than once. This is an incredible number of reports for an individual in the ancient world. Fales prefers sweeping generalizations and brief denunciations instead of careli.ll discllssion of
Although generally brief, it is difficult to understand why there was such widespread knowl- his claims, all ofwbich are grave misreadings of the data. It is true tbat he, likewise, has insuf-
edge of Jesus if he were not much more prominent than Fales indicates here. See ficient space. But, after all, he chose to bring them lip in the first place!