Article

Pacifica

On comparing the 2014, Vol. 27(2) 184205

! The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
resurrection appearances sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1030570X14544927
with apparitions paa.sagepub.com

Glenn B. Siniscalchi
Notre Dame College, South Euclid, OH, USA

Abstract
After building a historical case for the post-mortem appearances of Jesus, I discuss the
current landscape of apparitions research within the field of parapsychology. A balanced
comparison of these two visual phenomena indicates that there are many more differ-
ences than similarities that might obtain between them. Because the resurrection
appearances were seen as unique irruptions of the divine in human history, apparitions
cannot be used as the primary basis for understanding the nature of the appearances. By
interacting with Dale Allisons references to apparitions and, by extension, the historical
credibility of the resurrection of Jesus, the argument of this article seeks to reinstate the
uniqueness of the resurrection appearances.

Keywords
apparitions, apologetics, Dale Allison, resurrection, skepticism

The historical case for the resurrection of Jesus depends on establishing the earliest
disciples experience of what they at least thought were appearances of the risen
Lord. These experiences occurred over a period of time to individuals, groups and
even enemies of Jesus and his closest followers. As Bart Ehrman observes: some of
his disciples claimed to have seen him alive afterward. Among those who made this
claim, interestingly enough, was Jesus own brother James . . . Paul claims that he
himself saw Jesus after his death.1 In another one of his books, he writes: There is
little doubt, historically, about what converted Paul. He had a vision of Jesus raised

1 Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford
University, 1999), 229, 230; and Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene (Oxford: Oxford
University, 2006), 111.

Corresponding author:
Glenn B. Siniscalchi, 16 Venus Way Sewell, NJ 08080, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Siniscalchi 185

from the dead. That is what he himself says, and it is recorded as one of the key
incidents in the book of Acts.2 Pauls experience was so signicant that he sought
to convert the Gentiles to Christ. His theology was heavily centered around Jesus
saving death and resurrection.
Many theologians have explained these visual experiences in a variety of ways.
One of the more controversial theses has been recently oered by Dale Allison. He
has become the most salient representative of the apparitions hypothesis in recent
years, aunting the research in parapsychology with the purpose of defusing the
historical arguments in defense of Jesus resurrection.3
After building a historical case for the appearances, I will briey discuss the
current landscape of apparitions research in the eld of parapsychology.
A balanced comparison of apparitions and the New Testament evidence for the
appearances reveals that there are more dierences than similarities that might
obtain between them. Because the earliest Christians considered the appearances
as unique irruptions of the divine in human history, apparitional experiences
cannot be extrapolated as the necessary and primary basis for understanding the
appearances. By interacting with Allisons work on apparitions and, by extension,
the historical credibility of the resurrection of Jesus, this article seeks to reinstate
the uniqueness of the Easter appearances.

The reality of the appearances

There are many lines of evidence in support of the appearances. The earliest and
most reliable testimony is found in the ancient creed of 1 Cor. 15:38.4 Exegetically
speaking, it is well known that the wording for received and passed on in verses
35 were technical standard terms for the handing down of sacred tradition in
rabbinic Judaism.5 Paul is therefore trying to convince his readers in the most
solemn way possible that Jesus appeared to Peter, the Twelve, the 500, James,
etc.6 Ehrman himself says that Pauls list of percipients, coupled with the ve

2 Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, 111.

3 For older works that make this connection between parapsychology and the resurrec-
tion, see James Hyslop, Psychical Research and the Resurrection (Boston: Small,
Maynard, 1908); Michael C. Perry, The Easter Enigma: An Essay on the Resurrection
with Special Reference to the Data of Psychical Research (New York: Faber and Faber,
1959); Paul Badham, Christian Beliefs About Life After Death (New York: Harper and
Row, 1976), 1864.
4 For a discussion, see Gerald OCollins, The Appearances of the Risen Christ: A
Lexical-exegetical Examination of St. Paul and Other Witnesses, Irish Theological
Quarterly 79(2) (2014): 12841.
5 Cf. Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
(New York: Paulist, 1973), 81.
6 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkens and Duane A.
Priebe (2nd edition; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 89; N. T. Wright, The
Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis; Fortress, 2003), 325.
186 Pacifica 27(2)

hundred in verse 6, was written deliberately for apologetic purposes.7 Wolfhart

Pannenberg agreed with his assessment: The appearance to the ve hundred breth-
ren at once cannot be a secondary construction to be explained by the development
of the history of traditions, because Paul calls attention precisely here to the pos-
sibility of checking his assertion by saying that most of the ve hundred are still
alive.8 There is hardly any reason for Paul to mention the 500 unless he wanted his
readers to question them as living eyewitnesses of the appearances.
An analysis of the creedal list indicates the extramental and bodily nature of the
appearances.9 Any neutral observer who did not have faith in Jesus could have seen
an appearance (e.g. Paul, James, the 500).10 As Stephen Davis argued, The sugges-
tion that only the eyes of faith could see the Risen Jesus seems a twentieth
century import, quite foreign to New Testament tradition.11 Daviss contention
is bolstered by the fact that Jesus appeared to enemies and perhaps those who were
indierent to him during his earthly ministry. Moreover, the creed can be traced
back well before Paul wrote this letter (5556 CE). He probably received the creed
from the other apostles when he visited Jerusalem in 36 AD (Gal. 1:18). It is also
possible that he received it earlier in Damascus. Not to be overlooked, the sources
used by the author(s) of this formalized creed must stretch back even further to the
original events (i.e. the appearances). N. T. Wright, for instance, states that it was
probably formulated within the rst two or three years after Easter itself and is
the earliest Christian tradition.12 Walter Kasper concurs; it goes back to 30
AD.13 James Dunn dates it to within months of Jesus death.14 The atheist
critic, Gerd Ludemann, says it can be traced back to within 30 and 33 A.D.15
Usually in ancient history one or two sources render the reported fact and/or
event unimpeachable. To be sure, ancient historians do not usually have all that
much material to work with. But in the case of the appearances, New Testament
scholars have many sources at their disposal, including Pauls letters and the four
Gospels. This fact alone increases the likelihood of the appearances. Let us now
turn to the testimonies of the Evangelists.

7 Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, 135.

8 Pannenberg, Jesus God and Man, 97.
9 Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, 90, 91; Wright, The
Resurrection of the Son of God, 378, 383; Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene,
135.
10 Stephen T. Davis, Seeing the Risen Jesus, in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall and
Gerald OCollins (eds) The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the
Resurrection of Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University, 1997), 12647.
11 Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 24.
12 Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 319.
13 Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Green (Mahwah: Paulist, 1976), 125.
14 James Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 855.
15 Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John
Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38.
Siniscalchi 187

While others might argue that the Gospels were written too far after the events
reported in them, many scholars have rightly argued that there may have been an
insucient amount of time for legends to develop substantially because of the
living apostolic restraints at the time. More than one or two generations would
have been needed for the Evangelists to completely refashion their depictions of
Jesus. Certainly, it is well known that later datings of the Gospels do not necessa-
rily render them completely unreliable. Though many scholars do not believe that
we have eyewitness accounts, a strong case can be made for the eyewitness tradi-
tions behind them.16
For example, the prominence of women in the appearance narratives lends
credibility to the reality of the appearances (Matt. 28; John 20). As James Dunn
claims: Pauls omission of any women witnesses in his 1 Cor. 15 list may reect
something of the same bias. In what has the appearance of being a fairly formal list
of witnesses, the inclusion of appearances to women would be regarded as a weak-
ening of the claim not a strengthening. Contrariwise, the inclusion of such testi-
mony elsewhere, despite the bias against women as witnesses, is all the more
impressive.17 Because women were regarded as inferior to men at the time, they
were, for all intents and purposes, unable to be counted as legal witnesses. If the
narratives were purely legendary then the evangelists would have probably made
men the original percipients of the appearances, not women.
Second, the diverse reporting of the appearances does not give the impression
that they were contrived or wholly fabricated. Dunn continues: Particularly in
Matthew, Luke, and John 21, there has been no real attempt to provide a sequence
or structured listing. Overall, the impression is given of a number of reported
sightings which occurred on what might otherwise be called a random basis.
The writers (esp. Matthew) make hardly any attempt to pacify the doubts of the
original percipients. Therefore, the appearances were most likely part of the ori-
ginal eyewitness testimony.18 Nowhere in the New Testament are the appearances
described as a miracle, as an event of salvation, or as a deed of God, a fact which
tends to support the plausibility of the report for the disinterested reader.19 The
Evangelists composed their narratives to primarily relay theological lessons, but
signs of historicity can certainly be traced in them.
A nal line of evidence stems from the multiple sources from which the appear-
ance traditions originate. All four Gospels give witness to them, including the ones
found in the Pauline corpus. The appearance to Peter is independently attested to
by Paul and Luke (1 Cor. 15:5; Luke 24:34); the appearance to the Twelve is
mentioned by Paul, Luke, and John (1 Cor. 15:5; Luke 24:3643; John

16 Cf. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness
Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
17 James Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Louisville: Westminster, 1985), 70.
18 Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus, 70.
19 Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1982; reprint, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2002), 100.
188 Pacifica 27(2)

20:19, 20); and the appearances in Galilee are mentioned by Mark, Matthew, and
John (Mark 16:7; Matt. 28:16, 17; John 21).
Moreover, both 1 Cor. 15:35 and Mark 15:3716:7 (and Acts 13:2831) share
some sequential similarities: the rst episode that is mentioned is the crucixion;
the second is the burial; third is the resurrection; and fourth is the appearances.
Thus the appearance narratives all seem to presuppose that Jesus appeared to
dierent individuals, groups and even enemies of Jesus and his closest followers.
Many dierent individuals experienced Jesus at dierent times and places under
radically dierent circumstances.20
Sometimes critics have argued that the narratives preclude the possibility of
historicity because they contradict one another. But this complaint is no more
signicant than an event reported by a number of individuals with dierent per-
spectives. Dierent theological emphases might correspond to dierent gures and/
or past events. Although it may be the case that no details in these narratives can be
harmonized, this does not mean, tout court, that they are contradictory. As Kasper
stated convincingly: these irreconcilable divergences. . .agree on one thing: Jesus
appeared to certain disciples after his death; he proved himself living and was
proclaimed to have been risen from the dead. That is the centre, the core, where
all the traditions meet.21 Notwithstanding the legends, exaggerations, and the
obvious use of imagination in the gospels, this does not preclude the possibility
of historicity. As Craig Blomberg writes: the similarities far outweigh the dier-
ences. And of the dierences which do appear, many simply reect varying theo-
logical interpretations of the same historical events without calling into question
the fundamental historicity of the events themselves.22
Considering that the appearances were in history, but still had a mysterious,
eschatological quality about them, we should not be surprised to see at least some
contradictions in the relevant New Testament texts. So, it would be a mistake to
consider the narratives purely legendary because they are not word for word
translations of what the risen Jesus said or did. Nor is it a problem that the
narratives do not agree about the chronology of reported events. We must also
keep in mind that we are dealing with texts that have been analyzed and pulled
apart, if you will, more than any other work of literature in the past 300 years.
Clearly we should expect to see a few contradictions in them. Be that as it may,
no reputable historian who nds a few contradictions in their sources would
automatically conclude that the narratives are purely legendary.

20 They percipients saw Jesus at Jerusalem (Matt. 28:9, 10; Luke 24; Acts 1; John 20); at
Galilee (Mark 16:7; Matt. 28:7, 16); at Damascus (Gal. 1:1517; Acts 9:2226); at the
grave (John 20:1926); on the way (Matt. 28:9, 10; Luke 24:1315); at the disciples
gathering (Luke 24:36ff.; John 20:1926; on the mountain (Matt. 28:16, 17); and in the
open air at Bethany (Luke 24:50, 51; Acts 1:3ff.).
21 Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 129. Cf. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 614.
22 Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1987), 43. Cf. 131, 143.
Siniscalchi 189

Some contradictions may provide greater weight to the reliability of the central
events reported in them.23 These kinds of contradictions might give the careful
reader the strong impression that the stories were not contrived in order to
promote a false agenda.
What is more, these conclusions about the historicity of the appearances are
not all that controversial in the guild of New Testament scholars. As E. P.
Sanders contends: That Jesus followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experi-
ences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the
experiences I do not know. Says Sanders: Finally we know that after his
death his followers experienced what they described as the resurrection: the
appearance of a living but transformed person who actually died.24 Ludemann
asserts that It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples
had experiences after Jesus death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen
Christ.25
The nature of the appearances is somewhat nuanced by the earliest percipients
beliefs about the nature of Christs risen body. Thus the appearances were seen as
unique historical occurrences:

It is, therefore, impossible to categorize the Easter appearances in any available

this-worldly language, even in that of religious mysticism. It is not really satisfac-
tory to call them objective visions, for that introduces a nominal form which the
New Testament, apart from the otherwise explicable exception in Acts 26:19, is
careful to avoid. The ultimate reason for this diculty is that there are no cate-
gories available for the unprecedented disclosure of the eschatological within
history.26

23 Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1997),
354, maintains: The four Gospels prove remarkably divergent as to what they include
about Jesus resurrection. Still they agree on the basics to such an extent that they
constitute considerable corroboration of the historicity of the event itself. See his
citation in the footnotes by H.E. Stier, cited and translated by Hugo Staudinger,
The Trustworthiness of the Gospels (Edinburgh: Handsel Publishing Press, 1981):
The sources for the resurrection of Jesus, with their relatively big contradictions
over details, present for the historian for this very reason a criterion of extraordinary
credibility. For if that were the fabrication of a congregation or of a similar group of
people, then the tale would be consistently and obviously complete.
24 E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1993), 280. Cf. 11,
13.
25 Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?: A Historical Approach to the
Resurrection (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 80.
26 Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan,
1971), 33. See also John E. Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the
Gospel Stories of the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK, 1975), 273, 274; Pannenberg,
Jesus God and Man, 95.
190 Pacifica 27(2)

The appearances were interpreted as unique divine acts in history, commissioning

the disciples as apostles and leaders in the earliest churches (cf. Matt. 28:1820; 1
Cor. 9:1; 15:311).27
The exegetical details in the gospels and Pauls letters are not as signicant as the
emphasis placed on the uniqueness of the appearances. Indeed, the resurrection
appearances ceased (John 20:29; 1 Pet. 1:8) and should be distinguished from later
Christic visions in the earliest Christian communities. Gerald OCollins, for
instance, carefully delineated the appearances from other early Christian experi-
ences of the risen Jesus.28
In earliest Christianity the nature of the appearances served as conclusive proof
(Rom. 1:14) that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead (and not ascended,
assumed, or immortalized unto heaven). As Ehrman says:

Historians, of course, have no diculty speaking about belief in Jesus resurrection,

since this is a matter of public record. It is a historical fact that some of Jesus
followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execu-
tion. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the apostle Paul, claims
to have seen him alive after his death.29

Notice that no other view of the afterlife is armed and defended by the earliest
Christians. Without this belief, Ehrman says that the religious movement [Jesus]
started would have died with him. There never would have been a Christianity.30
Unlike Second Temple Judaism, belief in the resurrection was at the front and
center of the newly formed Christian heresy.
Not only is faith in the resurrection unanimous and unambiguous, but the
sources describing this belief are sober, critical and reserved, without a shred of
extravagant enthusiasm which we would expect to hear in legendary accounts.31

27 For a discussion, see Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and
Contemporary Reflection (New York Doubleday, 1984), 195214.
28 Gerald OCollins, Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental and Systematic
Examination of Christs Resurrection (New York: Paulist, 1987), 11618. OCollins
delineates the appearances from ecstasy (e.g. Acts 10:916; 2 Cor. 12:24); dreams
(e.g. Matt. 1:20, 2:12, 13, 19, 20, 22); how the mind grasps the truth about Jesus (cf. 2
Cor. 3:14); experiences of Jesus in the power of the Spirit (Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 3:17, 5:17);
revelations (1 Cor. 12:1, 15:38; cf. 2 Cor. 12:7); experiences of Christ in Word and
sacrament (Luke 24:30ff.); experiences of the risen Lord in the community (Matt.
18:20, 1 Cor. 12:27); experiences of Christ in those suffering for righteousness
(Matt. 25:3146); understanding Jesus as the one who would one day come in the
clouds of glory (Mark 13:26, 14:62); and experiences of the imaginative vision of
Christ that Stephen and/or Paul had (Acts 7:55, 56; Acts 22:1721).
29 Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament (3rd editon; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2004), 276.
30 Ehrman, Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene, 49.
31 Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125.
Siniscalchi 191

Phrases referring to believing in the resurrection are probably the oldest and most
distinctive in earliest Christianity. As OCollins rightly states: The primary claim
was not that Jesus cause continued or that the disciples had been raised to a new
consciousness and the life of faith. . .but that the crucied Jesus had been personally
brought from the state of death to that of a new and lasting life.32 Indicated by the
Greek words egeirein, a transitive verb that means to awaken or to raise up, and
anistemi, which means to arise, reference to Easter faith has many Scriptural
references.33
Let us now turn to the positive case for apparitions.

Apparitions and appearances

Sometimes the eld of parapsychology is considered a pseudo-science, but this
contention seems to be receding in certain quarters of the scientic community.
Harvey Irwin and Caroline Watt explain: Historically speaking there has been a
clear progression in parapsychology from the collection of anecdotal material to
the experimental investigation of laboratory analogues of psi phenomena. Thus a
major element in parapsychologists eorts to put their discipline on a scientic
footing is the recourse to the scientic method.34 To understand the legitimacy of
parapsychology, we should rst understand how it developed.
Parapsychologists make a distinction between parapsychological phenomena
and the paranormal processes that may underlie these experiences. The term para-
normal refers to the operation of factors that are currently unrecognizable to
conventional science. The more that these experiences are subjected to the scientic
method, the more the discipline moves away from the esoteric to the realm of
science. Parapsychologists maintain that parapsychological experiences can be
explained in a variety of ways. Some posit the existence of other dimensions
beyond space and time. Others refer to the dynamics involved with quantum
mechanics. The use of the scientic method and the use of technology that is
typically used in science have also bolstered parapsychologys reputation.
Parapsychological experiences started to be studied in laboratories in universities
in Europe and the USA in the 20th century.
Second, science is not merely centered around the use of the scientic method. It
is also a social activity. Thus another achievement happened when societies such as
the Society for Psychical Research (England, 1882) and the American Society for
Psychical Research (1885) were formed. The work of Joseph Rhine at Duke (1927)

32 Gerald OCollins, The Resurrection of Jesus, in Rene Latourelle (ed.) Dictionary of

Fundamental Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1994), 76976, p. 769.
33 Rom. 4:24, 25, 6:4, 7:4, 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:14, 15:4, 12, 20; 1 Cor. 6:14, 2 Cor. 4;14, Gal. 1:1,
Col. 2:12, 1 Thes. 1:10; Eph. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:8; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 1:21; Acts 3:15, 4:10,
5:30, 10:40, 13:30, 37.
34 Harvey J. Irwin and Caroline A. Watt, An Introduction to Parapsychology (5th edition;
Jefferson: McFarland, 2007), 247.
192 Pacifica 27(2)

and S. G. Soal in London (1925) soon followed.35 Eventually the

Parapsychological Association was formed in 1969 as an aliate member of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Thus another similar char-
acteristic of science and parapsychology is that of professionalism. As Irwin and
Watt explain: Part of the eort to achieve scientic status for modern parapsy-
chology has been directed to the growth of professionalism, the full-time employ-
ment of suitably trained personnel in parapsychological research.36 By the early
1980s journals such as The Journal of Parapsychology (1937), European Journal of
Parapyschology (1975) and Psi Research became leading forums dedicated to pro-
moting the eld by observing the normal process of peer-review, debating the
current research in parapsychology.
Most apparitional experiences are documented in anecdotal reports. Unlike
experimental evidence, which is controlled under laboratory conditions, anecdo-
tal evidence can only be provided by eyewitnesses who merely pass on the
information related to their unique experiences. Whether the experience can
be explained by paranormal processes is hotly debated in parapsychology.
Sometimes these experiences are explained by naturalistic processes such as
hallucinations. But in other cases paranormal explanations seem to makes
sense of the data.
Apparitions should be distinguished from mirages, illusions and, more proble-
matically, hallucinations (which usually stem from drug use and/or mental ill-
ness). One of the criteria used to delineate apparitions from hallucinations or
illusions is that new information is sometimes gleaned from the apparitional
experience (perhaps the percipient learns something from the encounter that
could not have been ordinarily known). Another criteria is that apparitions are
sometimes seen by many people at once, whereas hallucinations cannot be collec-
tively shared.
Apparitional research has resulted in what might be called a taxonomy of appa-
ritional experiences.37 The rst type is usually called an experimental apparitional
experience. In these cases the living can somehow make themselves seen to someone
else in another location. Though very few examples are discussed, these occurrences
almost always happen to experients who are asleep or in a trance-like state.
Experimental apparitions have led some parapsychologists to maintain that at

35 For a discussion of this development, see Alan Gauld, The Founders of Psychical
Research (New York: Schoken, 1968).
36 Irwin and Watt, An Introduction to Parapsychology, 248.
37 Henry Sidgwick et. al. Report on the Census of Hallucinations, Proceedings for the
Society of Psychical Research 10 (1894), 25422; George N. M. Tyrrell, Apparitions
(New York: Collier, 1963), 356; Charles Green and Celia McCreery, Apparitions
(London: Hamish Hamilton, 1975); Erlendur Haraldsson et al., National Survey of
Psychical Experiences and Attitudes Towards the Paranormal in Iceland, in J. D.
Morris et al., (eds) Research in Parapsychology (Metuchen: Scarecrow, 1977); John
Palmer, A community mail survey of psychic experiences, Journal of American
Society of Psychical Research 69 (1979): 226339.
Siniscalchi 193

least some apparitions are not merely subjective.38 However, almost two-thirds of
all apparitions reported are of the dead, not the living.39
A second type is known as crisis apparitions. These meetings occur when the
person represented by the apparition is in some sort of crisis (such as an accident or
is near death). As a general rule of thumb, parapsychologists hold that these
experiences occur within 12 hours before or after the crisis begins. These appari-
tions are very short lived, meaning they do not reoccur over an extended period of
time. In many cases the percipient does not expect or think about the person
represented by the phantasm.
A third category is known as the postmortem apparitional experience. Almost all
of these represent someone who has been dead for at least 12 hours. Based on the
famous Chan case (1927), the persons involved with these apparitions have been
known to exchange unknown information to the experient(s). Irwin and Watt
write: Note also in this case the apparition had both a visual and an auditory
component. As with the other types of apparition, the gure is lifelike and appears
suddenly and unexpectedly.40 Sometimes these experiences appear in a dream; but
in other cases the apparition appears in ordinary circumstances. They are some-
times seen by a group of people, although all experients may not see the phantasm.
Most apparitions are experienced visually, in about four-fths of the reported
cases.41
The fourth category is known as the common ghost experience (otherwise known
as a haunt). In these cases a gure appears in the same locality over an extended
period of time. Given this description of hauntings, usually many dierent people
have the chance to see them. Ghosts do not show much awareness of the living.
These characteristics seem to evade the common depiction of ghosts in folklore.
Additionally, ghosts seem more somnambulistic in their movements. Some ghosts
reportedly perform the same actions in the same location on each occasion they are
experienced.42 They perform the same behavior whether they are seen or not.
With this fourfold classication of apparitional experiences in mind, we should
focus on the postmortem apparitional experience if we are going to make sense out
of the appearances. Like many of the reports describing apparitions, the resurrec-
tion appearances happened over a period of time, not within 12 hours after Jesus
death. Thus the other types of apparitional experience do not resonate with the
reports given by the New Testament data. Andrew MacKenzie and Jane Henry
rightly observe: The hardest apparitions to explain by normal means are crisis
apparitions where information about the death of a person appears to have been

38 Cf. Scott D. Rogo, Apparitions, hauntings, and poltergeists, in Edgar D. Mitchell

and John White, (eds) Psychic Exploration: A Challenge for Science (New York:
Putnams, 1974), 37596, pp. 3767; Tyrrell, Apparitions, 1428.
39 Palmer, A community mail survey of psychic experiences, 228.
40 Irwin and Watt, An Introduction to Parapsychology, 197.
41 Green and McCreery, Apparitions, 143.
42 Irwin and Watt, An Introduction to Parapsychology, 197.
194 Pacifica 27(2)

transmitted correctly by the apparition, and collective cases where more than one
person sees the same apparition.43
So if a skeptic is going to focus on apparitions as a substitute for understanding
and explaining the resurrection appearances, the responsible thing to do is cite the
relevant case studies from postmortem apparitions, not haphazardly cite studies
from the other three types. Nor does it seem responsible for critics to patch
together unrelated cases of apparitional experiences if we are going to link them
to the nature of the appearances (simply because the other three types do not
resemble what has been concluded by the New Testament witnesses). Because
the current state of apparitions research within the eld of parapsychology is
highly indecisive and uncertain in this regard, it is exceedingly dicult to extra-
polate individual cases of postmortem apparitional experiences as the exclusive
and/or univocal basis for understanding the appearances.
To make matters more complicated for scholars wanting to emphasize the simi-
larities between apparitions and the resurrection appearances, many of the former
are not easily explained by paranormal processes. Many parapsychologists explain
them away as naturalistic occurrences. There is no general consensus in the com-
munity of parapsychologists heading in either direction about this problem.44 As
MacKenzie and Henry observe: Apparitions can be thought of as nothing more
than hallucinations and the bulk of cases probably are just that.45 For every
apparitional case study that runs parallel to the appearances, another case study
can be cited against it.
There is simply no end to this point-counterpoint contest. Consider the follow-
ing case: The apparition itself may appear solid and lifelike or semitransparent. It
may be seen and heard by all present; or some people may not see it, even when
their attention is drawn to the position where it is. It may appear and disappear in
locked rooms.46 Quite naturally, this single report smoothly parallels the appear-
ances. Notice that it says nothing about which of the four types of apparitional
experiences that it might have been. Further, we also have other reports in the
literature where the phantasm ate food and was touched.47 Perhaps, then, Jesus ate
the sh! But, as the parapsychologists Charles Green and Celia McCreery have
emphasized, the referent person represented by the phantasm usually appears
within three meters of the experient(s) and is not previously known by them.48

43 Andrew MacKenzie and Jane Henry, Parapsychology: Research and Exceptional

Experiences (New York: Routledge: 2004), 182.
44 James Houran and Rense Lange, Hauntings and Poltergeists: Multidisciplinary
Perspectives (Jefferson: McFarland, 2001), 4. See also Irwin and Watt, Introduction
to Parapsychology, 201.
45 See also MacKenzie and Henry, Parapsychology, 183.
46 Brian C. Nisbet, Apparitions, in I. G. Guinness, (ed.) Psychical Research: A Guide to
its History, Principles and Practices: In Celebration of 100 Years of the Society for
Psychical Research (Wellingborough: Aquarian, 1982), 90100, p. 92.
47 Green and McCreery, Apparitions, 10213; Tyrrell, Apparitions, 63ff.
48 Green and McCreery, Apparitions, 123.
Siniscalchi 195

Obviously this report paints a picture that runs contrary to the appearance initiated
by Jesus to the disciples and to those who knew of Jesus (such as the apostle Paul).
Other examples can easily be cited. Postmortem apparitional experiences almost
always happen indoors. By contrast, the New Testament writers seem to suggest
that Jesus appeared both inside and outside. Or again, Alan Gauld says that
apparitions (of which of the four types, we are not told) cannot be used as evidence
for life after death.49 Irwin and Watt seem to agree: The spirit hypothesis of
apparitional experiences now is promoted by a minority of modern parapsychol-
ogists.50 Still others maintain that apparitions provide evidence for the afterlife.51
Of course, Catholic theologians have always held that Jesus resurrection serves as
the exemplar and forerunner of our own resurrections from the dead at the escha-
ton. Believing in Jesus resurrection provides with faithful with a necessary ingre-
dient for upholding the eschatological resurrection.
Or again, one of the basic features of the appearances is that they were mission-
inaugurating experiences (cf. Matt. 28:1820). But, in the majority of apparitional
reports (again, which of the four types?), there seems to be no life-changing mission
that accompanies the experience.52 As Brian Nisbet has mused: The genuine appa-
rition. . .is more likely to appear as a normally clothed gure, which is seen for a
few brief moments and then vanishes or gradually fades away. Sometimes a reason
for its appearance can be suggested; but more often there is none.53
Moreover, it should always be kept in mind that most apparitional experiences
in the relevant literature do not resemble the appearances. Only certain cases will
characterize certain (not all) features that run parallel to the appearances.
Apparitions are not usually seen by groups (212 percent), let alone 500 at one
time.54 They are not usually seen by enemies (less than 1 percent of the deceased
appear to one of their former enemies).55 The vast majority of them are unable to
be touched (only 2.7 percent can be touched). And less than 1 percent of the cases
lead the experient(s) to believe that the referent person had been raised bodily from
the dead. Yet all of these characteristics are featured at the origins of Easter faith.
So it would be an exceptionally rare case that an apparition would be character-
ized by all of these features in a series of dierent episodes over a period of weeks
(or much later on, as in the case of Pauls experience of the risen Jesus).
Consequently, when each improbability is multiplied by the other improbabilities,
we arrive at a staggering chance: 1:3,800,000.56 In eect the chance that any one

49 See Alan Gaulds chapter in MacKenzie and Henry, Parapsychology, 21523.

50 Irwin and Watt, An Introduction to Parapsychology, 202.
51 The best current example can be found in Erlender Haraldsson, The Departed among
the Living: An Investigative Study of Afterlife Encounters (Guildford: White Crow,
2012).
52 Haraldsson, The Departed among the Living, 1315.
53 Nisbet, Apparitions, 91.
54 Green and McCreery, , Apparitions, 41.
55 Dale C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus (New York: T & T Clark, 2005), 267, nn.283, 284.
56 0.12  0.009  0.27  0.009 0.0000002644.
196 Pacifica 27(2)

apparition would be described by all four features makes the possibility of a con-
structive comparison between apparitions and the appearances exceptionally
implausible (and irresponsible). Even worse for the chances of constructive com-
parison, it is highly uncertain how any of these cases could be neatly categorized
into any of the four types of apparitional experiences (i.e. crisis, experimental,
postmortem, or common hauntings).
While most parapsychologists condently hold to the reality of parapsycholo-
gical experiences, they are highly divided as to whether paranormal factors can
account for them. Added to this problem is the lack of understanding the indivi-
dual cases of apparitions and how the statistics pertaining to each of them might
compare to the conclusions established about the resurrection appearances. For
every apparitional experience that is similar to the appearances, another case can
be cited to highlight the dissimilarities between them. Although it is not logically
impossible to patch together unrelated apparitional experiences as a control belief
to retranslate the original meanings assigned to the appearances of Jesus, an agnos-
tic position seem to be more justied. Although many parapsychologists are con-
vinced that apparitions occur, there is not enough positive evidence for the nature
of apparitions (and the broader circumstances in which they occur) to make a
constructive comparison between them and the appearances.

New Testament scholarship and the apparitions inference

One New Testament historian who is sympathetic to using the research on appari-
tions to understand the resurrection appearances is Dale Allison. Gerald OCollins
has responded to Allisons references to bereavement experiences, but no scholar
has interacted with Allisons concerns with apparitions and how they might be
linked to the appearances, and the much greater project of arguing for Jesus
resurrection.57 Because some cases of apparitional experiences resonate with the
Easter appearances, Allison claims, historians cannot responsibly deduce the res-
urrection hypothesis as the best explanation of the agreed-upon evidence (namely,
the empty tomb, the appearances, and the origins of the disciples belief in the
bodily resurrection despite their every predisposition to the contrary). Allison
himself agrees with the relevant evidence.58
I am not saying that the apologists claim is that the resurrection hypothesis is
the only explanation of the evidence (which would be tantamount to historically
proving the resurrection), but is merely the best explanation among the dierent
alternatives. For Allison, the inference to the resurrection (cast as an explanatory
hypothesis) would only make sense given the traditional meaning assigned to the

57 Gerald OCollins, Believing in the Resurrection: The Meaning and Promise of the
Resurrection (Mahwah: Paulist, 2011), 1216, 17591.
58 William Lane Craig, Dale Allison on Jesus Empty Tomb, His Post-Mortem
Appearances, and the Origin of the Disciples Belief in His Resurrection,
Philosophia Christi 10(2) (2008): 293301.
Siniscalchi 197

post-mortem appearances. Let us discuss Allisons positions and how they might
aect the inference to the resurrection over its competing casual explanations.
Allison grants that the disciples saw Jesus in a series of appearances in dierent
times and places: These appear to be the facts, and they raise the question of how
we should explain them.59 Thus the emphasis is not exclusively placed on the
disciples interior experience of Jesus. Jesus also saw them.60 After experiencing
the risen Lord (1 Cor. 15:8), Paul believed in a one-to-one correspondence between
the earthly body and the transformed, resurrected body that is to come: there is no
good evidence for belief in a non-physical resurrection in Paul, much less within the
primitive Jerusalem community . . . . Even Paul, in 1 Cor. 15, when defending the
notion of a spiritual body, teaches like 2 Bar. 51:10 the transformation of
corpses, not their abandonment.61 The earliest percipients were convinced that
Jesus had been raised bodily, not just spiritually, or immaterially.62 As such, the
appearances are to be distinguished from later visual phenomena in earliest
Christianity.63
Believing in the resurrection did not mean that the recently deceased was natu-
rally present to the living, but it included ones physical body coming back to life,
never to die again. This view of resurrection does not mean resuscitation, but the
supernatural fulllment of ones physical life. Grace builds on nature and brings it
to perfection. In Wrights memorable words, the Jewish doctrine of the resurrection
meant life-after-life-after-death. Commenting on the possibility of understanding
the resurrection as the natural presence of the deceased, Allison writes: I know of
no evidence for this point of view.64 He also speaks of the widespread belief in the
bodily resurrection of Jesus in earliest Christianity: Because of the multiple attes-
tation and its appearance in Pauls earliest letter, all presumption is in favor of
supposing that we have here, as with God raised Jesus from the dead, a very
primitive way of speaking.65
Anecdotal evidence for apparitions indicates some cases where the referent
person that is represented by the phantasm was seen and heard; seen by many
individuals at a time; seen by some but not all; oered reassurance to the living;
seen as real and/or solid; and seen less and less as time goes on.66 Notwithstanding
these parallels with the appearances, Allison admits that these reports cannot be
used to retranslate the original meaning of the appearances: I eschew explaining
the appearances of Jesus in terms of typical appearances from the dead an
unfeasible task anyway given our limited knowledge and understanding of
59 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 269; cf. 346.
60 Dale C. Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics, Philosophia
Christi 10(2) (2008): 31538, p. 315; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 346.
61 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 317.
62 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 314, 317, 325 n.497.
63 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 260.
64 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 325 n.497.
65 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 230.
66 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 27982.
198 Pacifica 27(2)

apparitions in general but simply ask what light a wider human phenomenon
might shed on some of the issues surrounding the resurrection stories.67
Indeed, he goes on to say apparitional experiences cannot explain the specic
content of the words attributed to the risen Jesus. And of the reported cases, none
of them led to the founding of a new religion.68 Further, because Jesus was a
messianic gure, the appearances took on a dierent kind of signicance to the
original percipients, leading the rst disciples to worship Jesus as the Christ.69
Context begets meaning. An empty tomb, to be sure, does not usually accompany
an apparitional experience either. Allison does claim that apparitions can be used
as a heuristic tool for understanding what happened to Paul and the other perci-
pients.70 Notice that his contentions coincide with the conclusions established in
the rst two sections of this article.
With these apparitional reports in hand, a skeptic might successfully challenge
the historians inference to the resurrection hypothesis over other explanations.
According to Allison:

A skeptic, however, would, with some justication readily respond that these defects
of apparition reports apply equally to the New Testament accounts. For example, can
anyone really come up with proof or even strong evidence that the stories in Luke and
John in which the risen Jesus eats and invites himself to be touched (Luke 24: 3643;
John 20:2429) comes ultimately from eyewitnesses? I freely grant that one cannot
show that they do not; but this is scarcely the same as showing that they do. So are not
these important gospel paragraphs, from an evidential point of view, lacking some-
thing? In other words, just like so many apparitional accounts, they are questionable,
because their origin cannot be established. Many scholars have no problem classifying
Luke 24:3643 and John 20:2429 as later apologetic. Is this not a possibility?71

A disputable issue arises when Allison limits himself to possibilities instead of

taking the initiative to present a defensible position that can account for the
New Testament evidence. In eect Allison has explained everything and so has
explained nothing: one can draw any number of curves through a nite set of
points to create a thousand dierent pictures.72 However, the issue is not whether
historians can construct viable hypotheses that can compete with the resurrection

67 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 285.

68 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 283. Cf. 284.
69 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 232;
James Dunn, The First Christians Worship Jesus? (Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
2010), 24; Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 64,
65; Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005), 151, 1924, 199.
70 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 285.
71 Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics, 329.
72 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 339.
Siniscalchi 199

hypothesis, but whether other hypotheses can outstrip the latter through their use
of defensible arguments.
Allison retorts: even if the resurrection happened, this does not mean that we
can show that it happened; and if the resurrection did not happen, this would not
mean that we can show that it did not happen.73 But no reputable theologian would
seek to demonstrate the resurrection. Rather, theologians usually argue that the
resurrection hypothesis is the best explanation of the data. Representative of this
modest epistemological inference is William Lane Craig:

I do not assert that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is the only reasonable option,
and thus it would be irrational not to believe in it. Rather, I argue that four estab-
lished facts. . .provide adequate inductive grounds for inferring Jesus resurrection,
and that its very dicult to deny that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explana-
tion of these four facts. . . .These statements are carefully chosen and indicate that I
am employing inductive reasoning understood according to the model of inference to
the best explanation. This model holds that there may be a number of reasonable
explanations for a body of evidence, and that one is to choose from this pool of live
options that explanation which is the best, that is, which most successfully meets such
criteria as having explanatory power, explanatory scope, and not being ad hoc . . . .
Again, I did not say that it is irrational to fail to believe in the resurrection.74

The more appropriate alternative to Allisons claim is to develop defensible argu-

ments that might persuade others when looking at the available evidence. Allison
reects on what might count as evidence for the resurrection, and concludes that
some facts are in fact relevant. Why then does he refuse to propose an hypothesis
that can account for these facts? In other terms, Allison deduces what he thinks
should count as evidence (by garnering the relevant evidence to establish the
appearances and the empty tomb, etc.), but he balks at the opportunity to explain
the evidence. Instead he aunts the mere possibility that the appearances might
have been apparitions in order to defuse the apologetic claim.
Undoubtedly a paucity of evidence should drive historians down the path of
epistemological humility. But in some cases humility can be employed immode-
rately. This extreme outlook might fortify an agnostic outlook that militates
against the evidence which is pulling in one direction over the others. Such a
problem is paramount in Allisons work. Even if we have meager evidence for
some purported event, this would not mean that historians should not attempt to
explain the evidence at their disposal. Sometimes a lot of evidence can sometimes
make it more dicult to explain what happened. Thus historians are not forced to
disprove all competing hypotheses before they award historicity to the most

73 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 338.

74 William Lane Craig, Resurrection and the Real Jesus, in Paul Copan (ed.) Will the
Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic
Crossan (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 15680, p. 160.
200 Pacifica 27(2)

defensible explanation. If a single hypothesis seems to stand out among the alter-
natives, historians should accept that explanation.
To be sure, Allison agrees with the biblical evidence in support of the resurrec-
tion appearances. Correspondingly, he should not easily concede to other possibil-
ties. For every apparitional experience that is similar to the appearances, another
case can be cited to highlight the dissimilarities between them. Positively speaking,
theologians have something meaningful to say about the historicity of the appear-
ances. They assess the New Testament writings not as the Word of God but as a
collection of reliable Greek documents coming down to us from the rst century.
Allison himself agrees with the conclusions tentatively established by the critical
historian. Negatively speaking, there is not enough positive evidence to establish
anything signicant about the existence and nature and cause of apparitional
experiences to make a constructive comparison between them and the appearances.
Again, Allison agrees with the latter point in his book.
Allison is well aware that the appearance narratives are not historical in every
detail. And he knows that this circumstantial problem should not preclude one
from arming the historicity of the appearances. Critical realism allows the histor-
ian to arrive at this tentative conclusion. Parapsychologists are equally critical
when analyzing the apparitional experiences of many individuals, but they have
not arrived at equally warranted conclusions about the origin and nature of appa-
ritions. Rather, the established facts within the eld of apparitions research are
practically nil. So it is disanalogous for Allison to compare the skeptical stance of
New Testament scholars about the appearances, and the skepticism that they might
also have toward apparitional experiences. Practitioners within each of these aca-
demic disciplines arrive at dierent conclusions with dierent degrees of certainty
(or uncertainty). These tentative conclusions should direct ones comparisons.
Allison concedes with the conclusions set by both camps.
By appealing to the pre-Easter predictions of Jesus, Allisons next argument is
that a skeptic could hold responsibly that the appearances were originally under-
stood as apparitions but later retranslated into the language of resurrection appear-
ances. Jesus predictions about his resurrection are:

the sort of thing a skeptic would wholeheartedly welcome. Would not the evidence for
the resurrection be stronger if we could believe that Jesus did not forecast his resur-
rection, so that the appearances were utterly surprising, totally unprepared for, and so
out of the blue? . . . I am unsure of the apologetical payo. Keeping in mind that
religious movements tend to interpret events in terms of already established categories
and expectations. . .could one not argue that the disciples, upon having apparitional
encounters with Jesus, interpreted them in terms of resurrection because resurrection
was the category that Jesus had antecedently given them?75

75 Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics, 331. Cf. Resurrecting
Jesus, 347.
Siniscalchi 201

Notice that Allison once again refers to logical possibility of apparitional experi-
ences to explain the appearances. This historiographical problem has already been
addressed in this article. Second, it should be remembered that Allison already
arms the historicity of the appearances. And he disputes the positive meaning
that may be established (albeit tentatively) in the eld of apparitions research. Thus
Allison might wish to play the role of the apologist when facing the skeptical
challenges.
Moreover, the earliest believers probably knew how to dierentiate seeing a
ghost from the risen and crucied Messiah. In 1st-century Palestine, there were
alternative categories that could have been used to describe what happened to
Jesus. If Jesus predicted his resurrection, this would have added weight to the
religiously charged context that is not only needed to successfully advance the
argument for Jesus resurrection, but would have also been useful for understand-
ing the nature of the appearances. Nonetheless, Paul was unaware of Jesus pre-
dictions about his resurrection. Presumably, at least some of the 500 were unaware
of them as well.
Allison responds with another argument. He says that a skeptical world-view
allows one to make the apparitions inference. In Allisons words:

While there is not a sliver of evidence for such a fantastic state of aairs, it cannot be
dismissed as inconceivable, only wholly unlikely for utter lack of evidence . . . . The
hypothetical scenario goes to show that proof of the Christian confession can never be
achieved because possible alternatives can always be imagined. It also raises the
question how Christians have come to the view that invoking space aliens beggars
belief whereas crediting God with a resurrection is sensible. Science ction. . .has
certainly not hesitated to give aliens the power to raise human beings from the
dead, so at least we nd the notion intelligible.76

Allison repeatedly conates the historians use of the best explanation and the
notion of proof.77 He needs to recognize that historically minded apologists usually
cast their argument through the use of the former, not the latter. Nevertheless,
Allison needs to assess Thomas Aquinas natural theology with the positive evi-
dence for aliens in order for his analogy in support of the apparitions hypothesis
to work.
Let us oer an illustration on background beliefs and the role they might play in
arguing for Jesus resurrection. One of the hallmarks of Catholic theology is that
Gods existence can be known with certainty apart from the inuence of divine
revelation. This longstanding belief in the church reached something of a high
point at the First Vatican Council (186970) when the bishops steered a middle
course in response to traditionalism, deism and rationalism, declaring that Gods

76 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 340.

77 For an account, see my Resurrecting Jesus and Critical Historiography: William
Lane Craig and Dale Allison in Dialogue, Heythrop Journal 52(3) (2011): 36273.
202 Pacifica 27(2)

existence can be known by the natural light of human reason: The same holy
mother church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things can
be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural
power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature has
been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.78
According to Catholic teaching, Gods existence is not merely probable, but can
be known with certainty (albeit the term certain is used in the non-mathematical
sense of the word). As a lifelong student of Aristotle, Ralph McInerney urges,
Thomas was convinced that there are sound and cogent proofs of Gods existence.
For Thomas, natural theology is not a possibility. It is a fact. It is the achievement
of pagan philosophy.79 In the Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas himself armed
that demonstrable arguments are to be preferred over probabilistic arguments (lest
we become more of a laughingstock to unbelievers).80 The human mind is capable
of knowing that an unknowable God exists. We can apprehend Gods existence,
but never comprehend it in full. As Denys Turner observes: for Thomas, to prove
the existence of God is to prove the existence of a mystery, that to show God to
exist is to show how, in the end, the human mind loses its grip on the meaning
exists.81
Moreover, if a perfect God had enough reason to create the human race, it
seems natural for him to communicate with them on their own grounds. As
Avery Dulles once reasoned, if God were so cold and detached, it is impossible
to conceive why He would have made the world in the rst place.82 God would try
to help those persons he created by giving them answers to their most vexing
questions about life. The Dionysian principle rings true: a good God would not
remain enclosed within himself, but diuses his goodness outward for the better-
ment of others.83
Furthermore, one of the deepest and most perennial questions that people ask
pertains to life after death.84 These common questions stem from our natural
inclinations. It makes sense that God will concern himself with personal creatures
to give them some answers to help resolve the problem of death. Real needs can
probably be satised. If there is a real need for food then food probably exists. If
there is a real need for camaraderie then friendship can be attained. The same

78 Vatican Council I, Session 3, Chapter 2, On Revelation.

79 Ralph McInerney, Characters in Search of Their Author (Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame, 2001), 66.
80 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 1.9.
81 Denys Turner, Faith, Reason and the Existence of God (Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 2004), xiv.
82 Avery Dulles, Apologetics and the Biblical Christ (New York: Newman, 1971), 71.
83 For more on natural theology and its implications for the argument for Jesus resur-
rection, see my The Probability of Certain Types of Revelation, Heythrop Journal
55(1) (2014): 3144.
84 Cf. Nostra Aetate, n.1, in Austin Flannery (ed.) Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and
Post-Conciliar Documents. (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1975).
Siniscalchi 203

principle holds true about human needs with respect to ultimate concerns. If we
take the questions about human destiny seriously, people must search for clues in
history to get some answers about what lies beyond the grave. In the words of
Walter Kasper:

The question of mans purpose in life cannot be answered from within his own history
but only eschatologically. Implicitly, therefore, in all the fundamental processes of his
life, man is driven by the problem of life and its ultimate purpose. The answer will not
be found until the end of history. For the moment all man can do is to listen to and
look at history and try to nd signs in which that end is portrayed or even anticipated.
Those signs will always be ambiguous within history; they will only become clear in
the light of faiths perceptions of that end of history, just as conversely that perception
must constantly make sure of its own validity in the light of history. Only if the
problem is seen in this comprehensive perspective can the testimonies of the early
Church and of the later church tradition be understood meaningfully.85

In Christianity, life does not end at the grave, but continues on in a bodily life that
is glorious, incorruptible and eternal.
Allison seems to support the conciliar teaching about Gods existence and the
importance of such natural theology: In like fashion, I understand why Richard
Swinburne, in his recent defense of the resurrection, commences by rst seeking to
establish the existence of a certain sort of God and the likelihood of this God
communicating with and redeeming the human race.86 But after showing some
openness to Swinburnes natural theology, he refuses to consider it as an under-
lying philosophical presupposition for doing history and settles for agnosticism
about this natural theology instead.87 Be that as it may, Allison is inclined to
accept a bare deism: I am reluctantly a cryptic Deist. My tendency is to live my
life as though God made the world and then went away. It is hard for me to see the
hand of providence either in history or in individual lives, including my own.88 At
times Allison brushes aside philosophy when it comes to doing history. But phi-
losophy, including the arguments of Thomistic natural theology, deserve to inu-
ence historical thinking and argument, especially in a postmodern age that stresses
academic collaboration and interdisciplinarity. If historians follow Thomistic phi-
losophers in acknowledging good reasons to think that God might reveal himself to
us in a particular way, that could rightly predispose them to see God at work in the
person of Jesus.89

85 Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Green (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1976),
136.
86 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 341.
87 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 351.
88 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 215.
89 Cf. OCollins, Believing in the Resurrection, 16.
204 Pacifica 27(2)

In summary, Allisons reference to aliens as another historical possibility is

disanalogous to support for his case from apparitions as an undercutting defeater
against the case for Jesus resurrection. Unless he can refute Aquinas proofs for
the existence of God and then provide convincing evidence for the existence, nature
and intentions of aliens, the theologian seems to be amply justied in holding to the
resurrection over its rivals. It is highly probable that a theistic God will make a
personal entry into human history in order to provide human beings with answers
to their deepest questions about their nal destiny.90

Conclusion
The main evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus consists of the post-mortem
appearances, the empty tomb and the origin of the earliest disciples belief in Jesuss
resurrection. For the most part, unbelievers and skeptics of Easter faith have taken
these reported facts seriously but try to account for them in purely naturalistic
terms. One objection that seems to be gaining in momentum in recent years is
known as the apparitions hypothesis. A prominent expositor of this position is
the New Testament scholar Dale Allison.
A critical analysis of his concerns about apparitions and how they can be used
by skeptics to undercut the historical apologetic for the resurrection should not
dissuade the historian from holding that the resurrection hypothesis is the best
explanation of the evidence. The appearances occurred to individuals and dierent
groups of people under dierence circumstances. And the best category used to
describe these experiences, according to the New Testament writers, was the bodily
resurrection.
Lest we fall under the heresy of Docetism, the living Jesus did not induce a
projected vision of himself within the minds of the original percipients. Rather, he
made himself seen in bodily form. As Luke said:

While they were still speaking about this, he stood in their midst and said to them,
Peace be with you. But they were startled and terried and thought that they were
seeing a ghost. Then he said to them, Why are you troubled? And why do questions
arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and

90 Cf. Richard Swinburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford: Oxford

University, 2003), 62: No other of the major (or medium sized) religions is founded
on a purported miracle for which there is even a moderate amount of historical
evidence. The atheist turned theist Antony Flew, There is a God: How the Worlds
Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2007), 157,
187, agrees: As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the
combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first class intellectual like St. Paul.
If youre wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to
beat! . . .Today, I would say the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive
than any by the religious competition.
Siniscalchi 205

see, because a ghost does not have esh and bones as you can see I have. (emphasis
mine)91

Because many parapsychologists are indecisive about the nature and cause of
apparitional experiences, it is unfruitful to compare them with the Easter appear-
ances. Given the quality of the New Testament evidence for the nature of the
Easter appearances, one should conclude that they are unique and unrepeatable
occurrences in history, serving as the exemplar of our own resurrections from the
dead at the end of time. One does not need to demonstrably rule out all alternative
explanations before awarding historicity to the best explanation of the evidence.

Author biography
Glenn B. Siniscalchi received his PhD in systematic theology from Duquesne
University, Pittsburgh, PA USA (2013). He serves as Assistant Professor of
Theology at Notre Dame College, South Euclid, OH (2014present). His primary
interests are centered around the relationship between faith and reason, the histor-
ical approach to Jesus resurrection, and the soteriological question concerning the
destiny of the formally unevangelized.

91 Luke 24:3639.