re: a critique or re-restructuring of apologetics: If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.
Contemporary apologetics is right that resurrection is the resurrection is the definitive miracle, but this is not because of it taking the greatest amount of power but because it is where we get the clearest view of the divine plan.
“Apologetics” is a defense. It wards off attacks. It is valuable here it can create conditions for faith to work, but it does not plant seeds, water, or cause growth.
What about Alexis Carrel? The conversion of Mexico by the Tilma? These two are defenses: a greenhouse is a defensive structure, even where a thing only grew after being taken into it. Reason can be a greenhouse of faith, it is not the battering ram against the gates of hell (cf. Mt. 16:18).
Objection: Who can follow this muddle of miracle, reason, apologetics?