What do you think?
Rate this book
The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy
480 pages, Paperback
Published February 22, 2024
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 29, 2025
This book is the companion volume that comes prior to William Lane Craig’s ‘Assessing the New Testament Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus.’ The latter volume is arguably the second most scholarly resource on the resurrection in the English speaking world, rivaled only by N.T. Wright’s ‘The Resurrection of the Son of God.’
In this book, Craig traces the history of the argument for the historical resurrection of Jesus, arguing that the historical argument was birthed amidst the rise of deism. Deism by metaphysical fiat ruled out the possibility of miracles, thereby denying the historicity of Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
In response to such a worldview, Christian thinkers such as Hugo Grotius in his ‘De veritate’, Blaise Pascal’s ‘Apologie’, and Jacques Abbadie’s ’Traité’ forcefully argued for the truth claims surrounding Christ’s resurrection.
This book is important in a few ways. For one, it explicates a historic movement and set of philosophical assumptions which would soon give way to so-called higher criticism, which is where we find ourselves today. Additionally, Craig does excellently in explaining philosophical presuppositions in conjunction with the historico-cultural context in which they arose. Thus, this work provides a big picture view of ‘where we are and how we got here.’
I came to be more interested in Reformed history and French thought related to apologetics through reading this book. Though perhaps not widely known today, it was French Reformed thought that spearheaded what we would now refer to as an ‘evidential apologetic’ for the resurrection, contra deism.
It is interesting to think that whereas some modern Reformed thinkers believe that making such a historical case for the resurrection is impious and born out of soteriological conviction that is largely Arminian, this does not conform well with history, thus rendering such a claim a non sequitur. Rather, an evidential historic apologetic was a contribution of Reformed thought and should be prized in my opinion.
Of course, such an argument’s aim should not be to establish apodictic certainty or treated as though it will convert a non-believer. Notwithstanding, such an argument is vital in showing the historicity of the resurrection to be true in addition to confirming a believer in their faith (1 Cor. 15:13-15).
In this book, Craig traces the history of the argument for the historical resurrection of Jesus, arguing that the historical argument was birthed amidst the rise of deism. Deism by metaphysical fiat ruled out the possibility of miracles, thereby denying the historicity of Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
In response to such a worldview, Christian thinkers such as Hugo Grotius in his ‘De veritate’, Blaise Pascal’s ‘Apologie’, and Jacques Abbadie’s ’Traité’ forcefully argued for the truth claims surrounding Christ’s resurrection.
This book is important in a few ways. For one, it explicates a historic movement and set of philosophical assumptions which would soon give way to so-called higher criticism, which is where we find ourselves today. Additionally, Craig does excellently in explaining philosophical presuppositions in conjunction with the historico-cultural context in which they arose. Thus, this work provides a big picture view of ‘where we are and how we got here.’
I came to be more interested in Reformed history and French thought related to apologetics through reading this book. Though perhaps not widely known today, it was French Reformed thought that spearheaded what we would now refer to as an ‘evidential apologetic’ for the resurrection, contra deism.
It is interesting to think that whereas some modern Reformed thinkers believe that making such a historical case for the resurrection is impious and born out of soteriological conviction that is largely Arminian, this does not conform well with history, thus rendering such a claim a non sequitur. Rather, an evidential historic apologetic was a contribution of Reformed thought and should be prized in my opinion.
Of course, such an argument’s aim should not be to establish apodictic certainty or treated as though it will convert a non-believer. Notwithstanding, such an argument is vital in showing the historicity of the resurrection to be true in addition to confirming a believer in their faith (1 Cor. 15:13-15).
Displaying 1 of 1 review