Description
Title: Paul and the Resurrection: Testing the Apostolic Testimony
Author: Joshua A. Pagán
Publisher: 1517 Publishing (2020, Kindle edition)
Pages: 113
Rating: 5 of 5 stars
From the Publisher: Opponents of Christianity have formulated a variety of hypotheses to account for Paul’s experience on the Damascus Road. Some propose that Paul was deceptive; others argue that he was deluded; and still others contend that he came to believe a legendary development. Yet according to the Christian hypothesis, Paul’s claim to have encountered the risen Jesus is dependable, and his testimony can be shown to withstand the scrutiny of critics. In this innovative, interdisciplinary study, Pagán combines the analytic tools of history and philosophy to explore and evaluate competing explanations of Paul’s belief in the Resurrection of Jesus.
Review
Paul and the Resurrection is a brief book, whose size belies its value to the topic of the resurrection of Christ. From the outset, the author was clear and comprehensive in outlining the methods he would use to assess Paul’s belief in the resurrection of Jesus. I appreciated Pagán’s efforts to define terms clearly and to outline each step he used to arrive at his conclusions.
The Introduction explains the importance of Paul to the study of the resurrection of Christ:
“In Paul we find more than a key feature of the Resurrection narrative; he provides us with the primary source material of historiographical analysis. Paul furnishes the earliest and best-attested evidence for the Resurrection, and his epistles are indispensable as independent corroboration of the gospel narratives.”
Pagán lays out four hypotheses that serve as possible explanations for Paul’s belief in the resurrection: Deception, Delusion, Development, and Dependability. The author then establishes the importance of these explanations:
“If Paul’s testimony is best explained by any of the first three hypotheses, then one is forced to concede that he offers no contribution to the biblical evidence for the miracle of Jesus’ Resurrection. Alternatively, if Paul can be vindicated as dependable, then his eyewitness report must be treated as incontestable in the case for the early Christian confession that Christ was ‘raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.’”
Pagán unveils his thesis in three parts: (1) Selection of Historical Data; (2) Presuppositions of Method; and (3) Comparative Evaluation of Hypotheses. In part 1, the author justifies his use of the Scriptures as primary source documents. Part 2 explains the methodology used and provides the rationale for considering supernatural causes in the study of history. Part 3 applies historical methods to the evaluation of the four hypotheses described in the preceding section.
By evaluating Paul’s Resurrection Belief (PRB), the author delimits the study and makes his argument more straightforward to defend. Although I haven’t read as much in this area as the author, I’ve never come across an abductive argument that narrows its focus solely to Paul’s beliefs and their importance to the resurrection. In my opinion, this feature represents a distinctive approach to defending the resurrection.
The simplicity of PRB is a strength of the author’s approach since it narrows the scope of what the argument must address and defend. Of course, by circumscribing the argument to the beliefs of a single person, the argument doesn’t have the weight of testimony that it might have if it were depending on many witnesses. Nevertheless, the author mitigated this limitation by noting the strength of Paul’s testimony (i.e., his conversion came relatively soon after Jesus’ death and resurrection, his epistles represent the earliest documents of the New Testament, etc.). The author also dealt with the potential limitation of having fewer witnesses by discussing the importance of “cumulative evidentialism” later in the book. However, if one heads in that direction, one must also expand the list of variables (and arguments) that must be developed.
The author’s defense of miracles against common objections was robust. In fact, Pagán covered a great deal of ground, given the limited space he allotted to addressing these objections. I also appreciated the chapter that covered the accuracy and reliability of the primary source material. The topic of “reliability” has been a special interest of mine over the past few years. I think that Bible historians often hinder their own efforts to interpret supernatural elements within the biblical text. They do this by narrowing the scope of their historical methods in such a manner that they can only arrive at naturalistic causes. Like me, Pagán appears to be interested in finding an optimal balance between the practice of a rigorous historical method and avoiding being trapped within a methodology that defaults to naturalistic causes and eliminates supernaturalism by definition.
The author acknowledges the fact that the abductive argument includes the following major, if implicit, presupposition: “an argument for Jesus’ return from the dead can be given fair trial only within the analytic framework of a worldview that presupposes God’s existence and his capacity for special intervention in the course of human affairs.” This presupposition is why the author needed to address biblical accuracy and reliability, as well as the topic of miracles in the first place. Ultimately, all supernatural issues are tied to God’s existence and will plague every argument that doesn’t address such a presupposition up front. I think the author did as well as anyone in ameliorating the downside of this presupposition.
I came away asking myself the following question: Can a non-theist be rationally justified in denying the Dependability hypothesis? A non-theist does not need to shoulder a burden of proof unless they make an independent truth claim. Indeed, the non-theist may elect not to support any of the explanations for PRB. The Christian theist must “own” the argument and its burden of proof. Moreover, the non-theist can object that the Christian theist has not presented or defended the existence of a supernatural realm or supernatural Being that serves as the source of PRB.
Pagán provided a lot of valuable advice for non-theists to consider, such as the benefits of being open-minded to a broader potential sphere of knowledge. In many ways, he gave the non-theist every reason to take the existence of God, special revelation, miracles, and supernaturalism seriously. He clearly showed the weaknesses of the Deception, Delusion, and Development hypotheses while also demonstrating the plausibility, explanatory scope, and explanatory power of the Dependability hypothesis (given the existence of the God of Christian theism).
This book was exactly what I like to see in academic writing. There is no need for scholarly works to be riddled with unnecessary jargon and technical terminology. Paul and the Resurrection represents a scholarly work that is accessible to both the motivated layperson as well as scholars and pastors.
Reviewed by David P. Diaz, Ed.D.
