It would seem that Borg has painted himself into a corner here. He realizes that the earliest, eyewitness data dictate, among other details, that Jesus appeared to Paul and many others after his death. Yet, he does not venture an alternative hypothesis such as hallucinations or other subjective conjectures. At any rate, such theses fail anyway.^56 So the chief question is this: how does Borg account for these admittedly real experiences, particularly when they happened to groups of people?
In short, even the minimal amount of information supplied by Borg argues for objective appearances, while contrary suppositions are disproven. This conclusion is further reinforced by both the early, apostolic preaching in Acts, as well as the Gospel narratives. Summary and Conclusion
The Jesus Seminar has made no secret about its contention that the orthodox conception of Jesus is outdated and ought to be rejected. Thus, supernatural events such as the Gospel reports of Jesus’ miracles must at least be seriously questioned, and more likely repudiated.
Zondervan, 1987), especially chapter 13; Craig, chapter 4; Norman L. Geisler, The Battle for the Resurrection(Nashville: Nelson,1989), especially chapters 7–8; Gary R. Habermas and J.P. Moreland, Immortality(Nashville: Nelson, 1992), chapter 9.
55 These affirmations are found in Borg, Jesus, pp. 184–185 and Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” pp. 15, 49.
56 Just some of the roadblocks to explaining Jesus’ appearances as hallucinations (or as otherwise subjective incidents) include the private nature of such psychological phenomena, thereby precluding group citings such as the three reported by Paul in 1Cor. 15:5–7, the negative mental states of the recipients, the variety of persons, times, and places involved, the extent of the disciples’ transformations, the empty tomb, James’ conversion, and Paul’s experience on the way to Damascus.
Yet, seldom are any reasonsgiven for such a stance. Mere theological assertion seems to be the order of the day. Appeals to peer pressure (in the name of the current state of modern scholarship) serve as the impetus and those who dare to disagree are sometimes painted as hopelessly backward. Nevertheless, it is certainly insufficient to simply state one’s view or claim a critical consensus without adequate evidence.
Even worse, informal logical fallacies abound in statements by the Jesus Seminar. Comments about the “secular heavens” start to sound less like reasoned responses and more like a prioripreaching. The lack of careful argumentation begs the question on behalf of the assertions that are made. Rejections of Gospel texts based on author’s styles, ancient parallels, and a pre-modern temperament commit the genetic fallacy. Interestingly enough, some Seminar Fellows appear to recognize such dangers.^57 Unfortunately, this seems to be a minority acknowledgment.
The Jesus Seminar apparently offers no challenges to the basic fact of Jesus’ death. But there are many reasons why Crossan’s doubts concerning the traditional burial of Jesus cannot be substantiated. His surmisals are confronted by almost a dozen items of data.
When discussing the resurrection of Jesus, we have attempted to isolate a single issue: whether Jesus actually appeared to his followers. Both Crossan and Borg might prefer to question the New Testament texts, satisfied with what they think we cannotknow. But we insisted that, when attempting to ascertain the truth of what happened after the death of Jesus, such is an insufficient approach. Rather than be satisfied with this negative tack, we maintain that the minimal amount of historical data is still sufficient to establish the literal nature of Jesus’ appearances, whatever their actual form. These two scholars seem not to realize that their own writings establish a sufficient basis to confirm this truth.
