Uploaded March 2024 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
Advocates of a less "maximalist" approach to arguing for the resurrection will often cite liberal scholars who supposedly acknowledge that the disciples of Jesus had resurrection appearance experiences. This type of citation is meant to show that there exists an "appearance fact" that is acknowledged already by a majority of scholars, including these liberals, and that serves as a very helpful basis for an inference to the best explanation that Jesus really rose from the dead.
While Dr. William Lane Craig does not consider his approach to the resurrection to be a "minimal facts" approach, it is in the larger sense "minimalist," in that he argues that a strong evidentialist case can be made without defending Gospel reliability. He also uses quotes such as the one I focus on here to argue that even very liberal scholars acknowledge the resurrection appearances of Jesus.
But again and again we find that these quotations from liberal scholars mean far, far less than they appear to mean when read isolated from their context. A very striking example of this is a quotation from Norman Perrin given in Dr. Craig's presentation linked below. Dr. Craig implies that one would have to resort to extremely implausible theories such as hallucinations to explain away the "appearances" supposedly acknowledged by Perrin. But I argue in this episode that no hallucinations would be required to explain away what Perrin really means to "admit."
The quotation from Dr. Craig from Norman Perrin, which I discuss in this episode, is found here:
reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-christ/doctrine-of-christ-part-40
Perrin's book is found here. I am reading from the conclusion, pp. 80 and following. Perrin's book can be electronically checked out fully legally from Open Library.
openlibrary.org/works/OL5920323W/The_Resurrection_according_to_Matthew_Mark_and_Luke?edition=key%3A/books/OL4902689M
Advocates of a less "maximalist" approach to arguing for the resurrection will often cite liberal scholars who supposedly acknowledge that the disciples of Jesus had resurrection appearance experiences. This type of citation is meant to show that there exists an "appearance fact" that is acknowledged already by a majority of scholars, including these liberals, and that serves as a very helpful basis for an inference to the best explanation that Jesus really rose from the dead.
While Dr. William Lane Craig does not consider his approach to the resurrection to be a "minimal facts" approach, it is in the larger sense "minimalist," in that he argues that a strong evidentialist case can be made without defending Gospel reliability. He also uses quotes such as the one I focus on here to argue that even very liberal scholars acknowledge the resurrection appearances of Jesus.
But again and again we find that these quotations from liberal scholars mean far, far less than they appear to mean when read isolated from their context. A very striking example of this is a quotation from Norman Perrin given in Dr. Craig's presentation linked below. Dr. Craig implies that one would have to resort to extremely implausible theories such as hallucinations to explain away the "appearances" supposedly acknowledged by Perrin. But I argue in this episode that no hallucinations would be required to explain away what Perrin really means to "admit."
The quotation from Dr. Craig from Norman Perrin, which I discuss in this episode, is found here:
reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-christ/doctrine-of-christ-part-40
Perrin's book is found here. I am reading from the conclusion, pp. 80 and following. Perrin's book can be electronically checked out fully legally from Open Library.
openlibrary.org/works/OL5920323W/The_Resurrection_according_to_Matthew_Mark_and_Luke?edition=key%3A/books/OL4902689M
