Dale Allison on the Resurrection Part Two

Kevin Harris: Up next, David brings up Allison's apparently favorite example of non-Christian miracles that allegedly have comparable historical support—rainbow bodies. This is clip number four.

As for his statement about rainbow bodies, his mentioning them gives me an opportunity to discuss what some might regard as one of Allison's more unique contributions to the resurrection debate. Allison claims that the evidence for the Buddhist phenomenon of so-called “rainbow bodies” is comparable to the evidence for the resurrection. It is a somewhat common strategy in replying to resurrection arguments that some other religion has miracles which are attested as well or better. Rainbow bodies are Allison's preferred example, as he goes on for the entirety of chapter 12 of his book explaining why, if you think that the evidence for Jesus’s resurrection is rationally compelling, then you should similarly find yourself rationally compelled to believe in rainbow bodies.

The phenomenon of rainbow bodies involves a body, typically after death, rapidly shrinking or dissolving over a period of days until it disappears. This is supposed to indicate that one has achieved a profound state or level of spiritual realization. Allison believes that this example should give Christian apologists pause to think, as he explains: what would follow if every single one of the stories from Tibet is a hagiographical fabrication or the product of pious hocus-pocus?

A Christian wanting to defend the uniqueness of Jesus’s resurrection might think this the obvious view to back. Yet to my mind, the apologist should here be ill at ease. Would not rejection of all the non-Christian stories reinforce the skeptic’s repeated insistence that religious sincerity and eyewitness testimony do not ensure historical truth? If Tibetan bodies never mysteriously dissipate in a few days, but rather, against multiple testimonies—some of it indisputably firsthand—invariably succumb to the usual phases of biological decay, then some must be, if not liars, then deluded victims of someone’s misperception or trickery.

And surely, the more examples of such delusion or deceit surrounding dead bodies that one can amass, the more confident skeptics will be in rejecting the testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.

Dr. Craig: The question here is the historical credibility of these stories. I doubt that anyone who is not a Tibetan Buddhist—especially a naturalist—thinks that these incidents actually happened. They are on the same level as ghost stories, sightings of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, alien abductions, and so on and so forth. And so the question is: if these Tibetan tales are not historical, what are they? Well, I would say they’re either lies or legends. And then the question will be: Is it an equally good explanation of the historical evidence for Jesus’ empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection that these were lies or legends? Both I and Allison would agree that that is not a plausible explanation in the case of the New Testament accounts.

Kevin Harris: It brings up the issue of miracles in non-Christian religions. David makes two points about that. Here’s the first point, clip number five.

Now, the example of rainbow bodies is by no means a special case. Skeptics have appealed to a large number of cases which are supposedly comparable to the resurrection of Jesus. There are always two points to make in response to these sorts of arguments, which apply to Allison’s example of rainbow bodies as well.

The first is that not all miracles are equal in terms of what they can establish. Not all miracles confirm the truth of the religions in which they may occur. There is no reason to suppose that the Christian God, for example, could not miraculously heal the child of Muslim parents. Just because the miracle happened within a Muslim family, it does not therefore confirm Islam. So we have to distinguish between miracles which corroborate doctrines and miracles which do not.

The defender of Jesus’ resurrection does not need to reject every last miracle in every other religion. He just needs to show that Jesus’ resurrection can support Christian doctrines. And since Jesus said that his resurrection would be the one sign that his teachings were true, that’s pretty easy to establish. The defender of Jesus’ resurrection would probably want to contest any miracles which would corroborate doctrines which conflict with Christianity.

Several things there. I’ve considered that God’s grace could extend into, for example, a Muslim community in a special way. But it does seem likely that God would not want to potentially confirm their false views through a miracle.

Dr. Craig: I think the big difference here is that miracles in non-Christian religions always occur in a context of belief and expectation, and that is not the case for the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The third point in my case for the resurrection of Jesus is that the disciples came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary. And that serves to differentiate them from non-Christian miracles.

Kevin Harris: Here’s the second point that Pallmann makes about non-Christian miracle claims. Clip number six.

As a second point, and probably more importantly, the evidence for these other miracles actually needs to be on par with the evidence for the resurrection if the critic is to have an argument. And here is where I maintain that Allison’s example of rainbow bodies is not comparable to the resurrection.

In the first place, I don’t agree with Allison that we are dealing with multiple attestation. He gives three examples of this phenomenon in his book, but in each case, they are reported by just one source. In one instance, the source claims that three Tibetan monks could corroborate the story, but in this case, the three monks only saw the shrinking body as it lay covered by a blanket. So while they assumed that what they saw was a body, they did not actually confirm this. Consequently, it’s quite easy to see how they could have been deceived.

In addition to a lack of multiple attestation to any particular instance of a rainbow body, we don’t have comparable grounds for thinking that any of the witnesses would not have lied in this case. This phenomenon of rainbow bodies is perfectly acceptable within Buddhist communities, and so, unlike the apostles when they proclaimed the resurrection, the witnesses in these cases were not opening themselves up to a serious threat of persecution and death for the most part.

We can look at what Allison has to say about all this, but a counterexample involving a non-Christian miracle claim should at least have evidence on par with the resurrection claim, as Pallmann says. He gives reasons that rainbow body claims aren’t as compelling as claims for the resurrection. Is this a good reply to those who would use various miracle claims against the resurrection?

Dr. Craig: Well, as I say, no one who is not a Tibetan Buddhist thinks that these incidents actually happened. That’s not the issue. The question is whether the explanations given for these are equally applicable to the facts concerning Jesus’ resurrection. And I think that Pallmann is correct to say that deception or lying would not be credible explanations in the case of the disciples. In fact, that’s just the old conspiracy theory of 17th-century deism that no one would accept today.

Kevin Harris: Pallmann concludes with some thoughts on Allison’s appeal—or being attracted—to both Christians and skeptics. Clip number seven.

Allison has become something of a darling of both several apologists and counter-apologists. He is praised by many on both sides as a refreshing beacon of honesty. The reason for this, I suspect, is that Allison comes to very middle-of-the-road conclusions. He defends aspects of both the apologetic and skeptical approaches to the resurrection.

But I would suggest that there is a very important distinction between being moderate and being honest. It seems to me that many people on both sides have mistaken Allison’s moderation for a sign of honesty. This is not to suggest that I think Allison is dishonest or anything like that, but it is to suggest that Allison is subject to the exact same biases and methodological blunders as anyone else. And while his book certainly deserves to be widely read, it also deserves as much criticism and critique as any other book on this subject.

Mike Licona reminds us that even humility can be employed immoderately, resulting in agnosticism that forfeits itself against mounting evidence that threatens it.

If you could sum it up for us, Bill, comment on Pallmann’s analysis of Dale Allison’s moderation and his impact on both Christians and skeptics, particularly in this book.

Dr. Craig: I think Allison is ruthlessly objective. It’s not that he’s moderate. I myself find him to be hyper-skeptical when it comes to the New Testament documents, which, as I say, makes his affirmation of the central facts undergirding the resurrection all the more impressive. In my published work, I’ve tried to show that his skepticism is often unjustified. But Allison is very honest and very objective, and he himself welcomes criticism. So this man is a scholar that deserves our respect and attention.

Hello, this is William Lane Craig. Credible sociological surveys have revealed an unexpected resurgence of openness and interest among students in the existence of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. More than any other Christian ministry, I believe that Reasonable Faith is strategically positioned to supply the evangelistic and discipleship tools to help further this young generation.

During the last year, we’ve continued to produce our animated videos. We have a wonderful series of videos on the existence of God and the evidence for Jesus. And now we’re producing an ongoing series on the attributes of God—just releasing the video on divine omniscience, and the next one to come out will be on divine omnipotence.

We’ve also got a new Equip course on the atonement and have developed an app so that you can download these courses and access them easily using your mobile device. We have now over 255 local Reasonable Faith chapters all around the world—from Europe to Nepal to Australia to Muslim countries. And these chapter directors who lead these studies are vetted, qualified people—extraordinarily talented, committed to the task of worldwide evangelism and discipleship.

All of this is undergirded by my years of scholarly research which is bearing fruit now in my five-volume Systematic Philosophical Theology. I am currently working on the final volume. It is this sort of depth that undergirds our popular-level material for student and lay audiences that helps to make Reasonable Faith so effective and so strategic in reaching this younger generation.

This fall, we’re having our annual matching grant campaign. A group of donors is donating $250,000 to match your donation to Reasonable Faith given between now and the end of the year. Dollar for dollar, every gift will be matched up to $250,000, and this will put us in a good position for beginning the new year.

So, I hope you’ll give prayerful consideration to including Reasonable Faith among the Christian ministries and charities that you support. Thank you so much for your interest and for your support in this strategic ministry.^[1]