Matthew Levering's Did Jesus Rise from the Dead is a welcome addition to the ever-growing literature on the resurrection of Jesus. While some might be sceptical of yet another extensive volume on the resurrection, Levering's contribution is indeed unique. While parts of the book recap previous well-known work on the topic, there is enough new material to interest analytic philosophers of religion, especially those from the Catholic tradition.
The volume is broken up into seven chapters. Chapter 1 discusses how various New Testament scholars recognize that a radical departure takes place in the world-view of the early followers of Jesus. The idea that the advent of Jesus ushered in a hybrid age which saw Jesus resurrected in eschatological form is not something that the disciples would be likely to have come up with on their own. Levering brings up the esteemed scholar Dale Allison as an example of someone who thinks that the radical shift in world-view is evidence that the disciples had an experience of sorts. Allison, however, does not go as far to say that it counts as evidence for the proposition that the disciples witnessed the risen Jesus (45–46).
Typically, it is argued that the Gospel narratives are unreliable. It is often understood that the Gospel accounts are an apologetic and theological reflection of what the disciples experienced. In response to this, Levering points to N. T. Wright's arguments that, on this hypothesis, one would not expect to find women dominating the narrative of the empty tomb; nor would one expect the Gospel writers to attribute ghost-like features to Jesus’ resurrected body (this would not help their cause in arguing against the proto-Gnostics). Furthermore, there is very little theology in the Gospels, and as Wright points out, the writers fail to make any reflections on how the resurrection of Jesus relates to the Old Testament (52–54).
Chapter 2 discusses the reliability of the Gospels by utilizing Richard Bauckham's and Joseph Ratzinger's work. Convinced by Bauckham's work and his use of Thomas Reid, Levering argues that testimony is a way by which we come to know many propositions. We therefore should not minimize or be overly sceptical of the testimony found in the Gospels, at least if they were written by eyewitnesses. Bauckham, of course, has made plausible arguments that the Gospel accounts were indeed eyewitness accounts. For example, Bauckham makes much of the appearance of the name ‘Clopas’ in both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John, as the name was extremely rare during the Second Temple period. Agreeing with Bauckham, Levering argues that the traditions of the stories where Clopas is mentioned probably originated from Clopas himself or from someone who knew Clopas (68). Moving on from explicating Bauckham's work, Levering uses Ratzinger's work on the liturgy to argue that Christian liturgical practices would not make sense without the heart of the Gospel accounts being reliable. For Ratzinger, the eucharist gets its meaning from the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (82–84).
The book takes a theological turn in chapter 3. Using Aquinas's commentary on the Gospel of John as a framework, Levering shows how the Old Testament themes of sin, judgment, and redemption are prevalent themes. From a Jewish point of view, then, Levering thinks that we should not be surprised to see this theme played out in a person, specifically Israel's messiah. I must say that it is not obvious to me how this would be evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, unless we assume the reliability of the Old Testament. Nonetheless, the chapter makes some interesting points.
In chapter 4, Levering emphasizes that throughout the ministry of the apostles and the early Church, there were many times when the apostles could have simply watered down their message about the resurrected Jesus. The reaction to a body resurrecting in their time would be similar to ours in that it is not easy to convince people that it happened. But neither the apostles nor the early Church changed the strange claim of a resurrected body to become something more palatable. For Levering, this counts as some evidence for the historical claims made by the apostles (139).
Chapter 5 takes yet another sharp turn. Levering's concerns here relate to the standards that we should be using when analysing the evidence for the resurrection. While Levering warns against being too optimistic about what sort of certainty historical inquiry can give us, he firmly rejects a pessimistic view that denies that the resurrection of Jesus is historically probable. So, while historical arguments for the resurrection are important, there is room for faith and how it informs the Christian's credence and her overall knowledge about the resurrection.
Chapter 5 sets up chapter 6 nicely. While in chapter 5 Levering concerns himself with what historical inquiry can achieve, in chapter 6 Levering concerns himself with how we should approach historical inquiry pertaining to the resurrection. Again, following Ratzinger, Levering argues that we need to approach the resurrection question by utilizing the neglected tool of contemplation. Ratzinger is not impressed with contemporary searches for the historical Jesus. Ratzinger thinks that all of the purely historical models contradict each other and the whole enterprise is futile. In contrast to this, when we contemplate the Jesus of the Gospels, we see a coherent picture. This gives us some reason to prefer the Gospel accounts and to see them as reliable (177).
In the final chapter, Levering entertains what he takes to be an important objection to his thesis. Philosophers of religion will recognize the objection as a version of the problem of divine hiddenness. Levering asks, ‘If Jesus has risen from the dead, why not manifest to all generations?’ (185). In response Levering argues that God desires for us to rely on Him and He wants us to get ready for the fullness of the eschaton. If Jesus were to appear to every generation, we would not be so focused on relying on God and we might think that we are in the eschatological age to come. As Levering puts it, ‘Since the terminus of the New Exodus is where Christ is now, obviously the risen Christ would mislead us if he stayed on earth. Instead, he must be present to us in ways that spur our journey in and toward him and that already give us a foretaste in the Spirit of the consumption of our journey’ (205).
While, overall, the book makes an important contribution to the resurrection literature and was a joy to read, I found the final chapter to be one of the weaker chapters. It is not clear to me that if Jesus appeared once every generation people would be led astray or that they would not be spurred to prepare for the eschaton through transforming their lives and living out the kingdom in this present evil age. In fact, it seems to me that this might actually encourage a subject to rely on God more and to refocus their attention on their spiritual life. For example, let us imagine there is a college football player trying to get drafted into the National Football League; we can call him John. John practises football every day. He also continually lifts weights and eats appropriately. Nonetheless, John can sometimes feel drained and he needs more motivation. A visit from a professional football player – say the former starting defensive end of the Kansas City Chiefs, Michael DeVito – would probably re-energize him to continue practising hard in preparation for a future career. In the same way, Jesus appearing visible to everyone in every generation would probably do precisely this. It would energize the Church to complete its mission.
I propose that Levering instead endorse something akin to the thesis of sceptical theism and motivate the thesis by appealing to the Thomistic conception of God. God is not a being but is Being. He is metaphysically simple and can only be known analogically. Our thoughts are not like God's thoughts and our ways are not like His ways. We are simply not in the position to judge whether God, if He exists, would probably will there to be more evidence for His Son's resurrection. This especially seems to be the case if we follow the Thomistic tradition and reject the view that God is a moral agent.
