As indicated in Appendix 1, we distinguish between a miracle-claimand 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 ifa 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
41 For details on historical methodology and inductive research, see Appendix 1.
42 William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion?(Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1972), pp. 29–30, 70–71.
43 This charge is also investigated in depth in Appendix 1.
44 Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980; Lanham: University Press of America, 1984).
is entirely different from the assertion that historical inquiry cannotdo 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 prioriobjection 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
