2005 - Gary R. Habermas - Resurrection Research From 1975 to the Present

8/13/2019 2005 - Gary R. Habermas - Resurrection Research From 1975 to the Present

1/21

Liberty University

DigitalCommons@LibertyUniversity

Faculty Publications and Presentations School of Religion

1-1-2005

Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present:What Are Critical Scholars Saying?

Gary R. HabermasLiberty University, [email protected]

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Religion at DigitalCommons@Liberty University. It has been accepted for

inclusion in Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Liberty University. For more information,

please [email protected].

Habermas, Gary R., "Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What Are Critical Scholars Saying?" (2005). FacultyPublications and Presentations. Paper 9.http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs/9
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubshttp://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sormailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sorhttp://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubshttp://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/


2/21

RESURRECTION RESEARCH FROM 1975TO THE PRESENT: SWHAT ARE CRITICAL SCHOLARS SAYING?

ournal for the Study of the istorical esusVo l . 3.2 pp. 135-153Gary R. Habermas DOI: lo.i 177 / I47686900505 8I92e 2005 SAGE PublicationsLib e r t yUniversity London, Thousand Oaks. CA

Lynchbu rg , VA, USA ^^d New Delhihttp://JSHJ.sagepub.coni

ABSTRACTAn overview of resurrection research in Europe and North America during the last30 years indicates sotne expected as well as some surprising trends. This studyhighlights six of these major research areas. The works of two representativescholars, J.D. Crossan andN.T. Wright, provide interpretive angles on these sub-jects.The article concludes with some comments on what istaken to be the singlemost crucial development at present, that after Jesus death his followers hadexperiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. These earlyChristian experiences need to be explained viably.

Key words: Christology, continental theology, naturalistic theories, pre-Paulinecreeds, resurrection, skeptical scholars, spiritual body

During the last30 years,perhaps the most captivating theologicaltopic,at least inNorth America, is the historicalJesus. Dozens of publications by major scholarshave appeared since them id-19 70 s ,bringing Jesus and his culture to the forefrontof contemporarydiscussio ns. The apostle Paul has been the subject of numerousadditional studies. Almost unavoidably, these two areas make it inevitable thatthe subject ofJesus resurrection will be discussed. To the careful observer, thesestudies are exhibiting some intriguing tendencies.

Since 1975, well over 2000 scholarly publications on the death, burial andresurrection of Jesus have appeared. Overthe last fiveyears,I have tracked thesetexts,which were written in German, French and English. Well over 100 sub-topics are addressed in the literature, almost all of which I have examined indetail . Each source appeared from the last quarter of the twentieth century to thepresent, with more being written in the 1990s than in other decades. This con-temporary milieu exhibits a number of well-established trends, while others are


3/21

136 Joum al for the Study of the Historical Jesusjust b ecom ing recogn izable. The interdisciplinary flavor is noteworthy, as we ll.M ost of the critical scholars are theologians or New Testament scholars, while anumber of philosophers and historians, among other fields, are also included.This essay is chiefly concemed with commenting on a few of these mostrecent scholarly trends regarding the resurrection of Jesus. I will attempt to dofour things here, moving from the general to the specific. This will involve(1) beginning with som e tendencies of a very broad nature, (2) delineating sev-eral key research trends, (3) providing a sam ple interpretation of these researchtrends from the wo rks of two represen tative scho lars, and (4) concluding withsome comments on what I take to be the single most crucial development inrecent thought. My interest here is to ascertain if we can detect som e w idespreaddirections in the contemporary discussions where are most recent scholars head-ing on these issues? Of course, the best way to do this is to com b through theliterature and attempt to provide an accurate assessment.

Some General TendenciesAfter a survey of contem porary scholarly opinions regarding the more gene ralissue of Jesu s Christology, Raymon d Brown argues that the most popular viewis that of mo derate conservatism.^ It might be said, with qualification, that similartrends are exhibited in an analysis of the more specific area of recent scholarlypositions on Jes us resurrection. When viewed asawh ole, the general consensusis to recognize perhap s a surprising am ount of historical data as reported in theNe w Testam entacc oun ts. In particular, Paul s epistles, especially Cor. 15.1-7,along w ith other early creedal traditions, arefrequentlyaken almost at face value .

For the purposes of this essay, I will define moderate conservative approachesto the resurrection a s those hold ing that Jesus was actually raised from the deadin some m anner, either bodily (and thu s extended in space and time), or as somesort of spiritual body (thou gh often undefined). In other words, if wh at occurredcan be described as having happe ned to Jesus rather than only to his followers,this range of views w ill be juxtap osed with those m ore skeptical positions thatnothing actually happened to Jesus and can only be described as a personalexperience of the disciples. Of course, major differences can be noted withinand between these views.

One way to group these general tendencies is by geography and language.For exam ple, on the Europea n C ontinent, recent Germa n studies on the subjectof the death and resurrection of Jesus are more nu me rous, generally more the o-


4/21

Habermas Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present 137still includes many moderate and conservative stances. French studies, on theother hand, appear less numerous, more textually oriented, and tend to reachmore conservative conclusions.

For example, German works of approximately the last 30 years include themore critical stances of Hans Conzelmann,^ Willi Marxsen,'* Gerd Ludemann,^Ingo Broer^ and the early Rudolf Pesch. But they also encompass more numer-ous works by Wolfhart Pannenberg,^ Jiirgen Moltmann,^ Martin Hengel,' JacobKremer, Walter Kunneth'^ and Ulrich Wilckens.'^

3. Hans Conzelmann, /Corinthians(trans. James W. Leitch; Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1975).4. Willi Marxsen,The Resurrectiono fJesus ofNazareth(trans. Margaret K ohl; Phila-delphia: Fortress Press,1970);JesusandEaster:Did GodRaise theHistorical Jesus rom the

Dead?(trans. Victor Paul Furnish; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990).5. Gerd Ludemann,The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology (trans.John Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994); Gerd Ludemann withAlfOzen,WhatReally Happened loJesus(trans. John Bowden; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995);Gerd Ludemann,T heResurrectionofChrist:AH istoricalInquiry(Amherst,N Y: Prometheus,2004).See also Hansjurgen Verweyen(ed.),OsterglaubeohneAuferstehung? Diskussion mit

GerdLudemann(Freiburg: Herder,1995)and the lengthy book reviewbyAndreas Lindemannin Wegezum Menschen46 (November-December 1994), pp. 503-13.6. Ingo Broeretal., Auferstehung Jesu AuferstehungderChristen.Deulungen desOsterglaubens (Freiburg: Herder, 1986); Broer and Jurgen Werbick, 'DerH err istwahrhaftauf-erstanden (Lk 24,34):BiblischeundsystemalischeBeitrdge zur Enlstehungdes Osterglaubens(Stuttgarter B ibelstudien, 134; Stuttgart: Verlag K atholisches Bibelwerk, 1988).

7. Rudolf Pesch, 'Zur EntstehungdesGlaubensan dieAuferstehung Jesu',TheologischeQuartalschrift153(1973),pp .219-26; 'Materialien und BemerkungenzuEntstehung und Sinndes Osterglaubens', in Anton Vogtie and Pesch,fVie kam es zum Osterglauben?(Dusseldorf:Patmos-Verlag, 1975).8. Wolfhart Pannenberg, 'Die Auferstehung Jesu:Histode und Theologie',Zeitschrift

fiirTheologieund Kirche91(1994), pp. 318-28;Die Auferstehung Jesu und die ZukunftdesMenschen(Munich: Minerva-Publikation, 191S);JesusGodandMan(trans.Lewis L. W ilkinsand Duane A. Priebe; Philadelphia: Westminster, 2nd edn, 1977).9. Jurgen Moltmann, TheWayof JesusChrist:Christology in Messianic Dimensions(trans.Margaret Kohl; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).10. Martin Hengel,'1stder Osterglaube noeh zu retten?'Theologische Quartalschrift153(1973),pp. 252-69;TheAtonement{trans.John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981);'Das Begrabnis Jesu bei Paulus und die leibliche Auferstehung aus dem Grabe', in FriedriehAvemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger (eds.),Auferstehung Resurrection(Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001).11. Jacob Kremer,Die OsterevangelienGeschichten um Geschichte(Stuttgart: VerlagKatholisches Bibelwerk, 2ndedn,1981); 'Zur Diskussion liber dasleere G rab ', inE.Dhanis


5/21

13 8 Journal for the Study of the istorical JesusExamples of the French writings would be the works of Francis Dumvell,''*

Xavier Leon-Dufour'^ and Jean-Marie Guillaume,'* Guillaume is typical ofsome of the more exegetical French studies, concluding that there are primitive,pre-synoptic traditions behind Gospel accounts such as the women discoveringthe empty tomb, Peter and John checking their claim, the proclamation in Lk,24,34 that Jesus appeared to Peter, as well as Jesus' appearance to the discipleson the initial Easter Sunday,

As has been the case for decades, British publications on the subject oftenreach rather independent conclusions from Continental thinkers. There are also awide range of positions represented here, some of which differ from mainlineconclusions, such as the works of Michael Goulder,'^ G.A, Wells and DuncanDerrett,^ Still, the majority of British writings support what we have called themoderate conservative position. Examples are the publications of ThomasTorrance,^' James D,G, Dunn, ^ Richard Swinbume^^ and Oliver O'Donovan, *Most recently, the writings of N,T, Wright^^ have contributed heavily to thisoutlook.

North American contributions include both the largest number and perhapsthe widest range of views on Jesus' resurrection. These extend from the more

14. Francis X. Durrw ell,La Resurrection de Jesus: M ystere de Salut(Paris: Les EditionsduCerf , 1976).15 . Xavier Leon-Dufour, Resurrection de Jesus et Message Pascal (Paris: Seuil, 1971).16 . Jean-Marie Guillaume,Luc Interprete des Anciermes Traditions sur la Resurrection

de Jesus (Etudes Bibliques; Paris:J.GabaldaetCie, 1979).17 . Guillaume,Luc Interprete desAnciennes Traditions,esp. pp.50-52 ,65 ,201 ,265-1 A.18 . M ichael Goulder, 'Did Jesus of Nazareth Rise from the D ead ?', in Stephen Barton andGraham Stanton (eds.).Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie H oulden (London: SPCK,

1994); 'The Baseless Fabric of a Vision ', in Gavin D'Costa (ed.).Resurrection R econsidered(Oxford: Oneworid, 1996), pp.48-61; 'The Empty Tom b' , Theology 79 (1976), pp. 206-14.19. G.A. ^sXh, A Resurrection Debate {Londo n:Rationalist Press, 198 8);The H istoricalfv/cfenceybrye^M,? (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1988); Z)i(yye. M5xK/. (London: Pemberton, 1986).20. Dun canM . Derrett,TheAnastasis: The Resurrection o f Jesus as an Historical Event(Shipston-on-Stour: P. Drinkwater, 1982).21 . Thom as Torrance,5/?ace, Time and Resurrection {GTunAK apiAs: Eerdmans, 1976).22. James D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Louisville: Westminster, 1985); Jesus

Remembered(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).23. Richard Swinburne,T he Resurrection of Go d Incarnate(Oxford: Oxford University

Press,200 3); 'Eviden ce for the Re surre ction', in StephenT.Davis, Daniel Kendall and GeraldO'Collins (eds.). The Resurrection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 191-212;


6/21

Habermas Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present 139skeptical ideas of John Dominic Crossan^* and Marcus Borg, to the more mod-erate studies by Reginald FuUer,- Pheme Perkins^' and Raymotid Brown, tothe more conservative voices of William Lane Craig ' and Stephen Davis,^^ Mypublications would fit the latter category,^^

A rough estimate of the publications in my study of Jesus' resurrectionamong British, French, and German authors (as well as a number of authors fromseveral other countries-'''), published during the last 25 or so years, indicates thatthere is approximately a 3.1 ratio of works that fall into the category that we

26 . John Dominic Crossan, 'Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16.1-8)',inW erner H.Kelber(ed.).ThePassion inMark:Studies in Mark;4-;(5 (Philadelphia: FortressPress,1976),pp. 135-52;Jesus:ARevolutionary Biography (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1994);TheHistoricalJesus SanVrancisco: HarperCollins, 1991);TheBirthofC hristianity:DiscoveringwhatHappene d in theYears Immediately after the Executionof Jesus(San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1998).

27 . Marcus Borg andN.T.Wright,The MeaningofJesus: TwoVisions(San Francisco:Harper Collins, 1999), Parts 3-4; Marcus Borg, 'Thinking about Easter',B ible Review10.2(April 1994), pp. 1 5,49 .

28 . Reginald H. Fuller,The Formationof heResurrection Narratives(Philadelphia: For-tress Press, rev. edn,1980);Fuller, Eugene LaV erdiere, JohnC.Lodge and Donald Senior,ThePassion, Death, andResurrectionofheLord:A Commentary onth eFour Gospels(Mutidelein,IL:Chicago Studies, 1985); Fuller, 'John 20 .19-2 3',Interpretation32 (1978), pp. 180-84.

29 . Pheme Perkins,Resurrection:N ewTestament Witnessand Contem porary Refiection(Garden C ity, NY: Doubleday,1984); 'IHave Seen the Lord (John20.18):Women WimessestotheResurrection',Interpretation46(1992), pp. 31-41; 'Reconciling theResurrection',Commonweal(5 April 1985), pp. 202-205.

30 . Raymond E. Brown, TheVirginal Conceptionan d BodilyResurrectionofJesus(NewYork: Paulist Press,1973);ARisenChrist inEastertime:Essays ontheGospel Narrativeso fthe Resurrection(Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991); r/ieDeatho fhe Messiah(2vols.;Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1994).

31. William Lane Craig,Assessing the NewTestament Evidence or theHistoricityof heResurrectionof Jesus Lev/hton,}^Y:Mellen, 1989);TheHistorical Argum ent o r theResur-rectionofJesus Duringthe Deist Controversy(Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1985).

32 . Stephen T. Davis,RisenIndeed:Making Senseof theResurrection(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1993); Davis, Kendall, and O 'Collins,Resurrection,pp. 191-212.

33 . Some examples include Gary R.Habermas, The Risen Jesusand Future Hope(Lanham,MD:Rowman Littlefield,2003);Habermas and AntonyG.N.Flew,ResurrectedAn Atheistand Theist Dialogue(Lanham, MD: Rowman&Littlefield, 2005); Habermas,'Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions',ReligiousStudies25 (1989), pp. 167-77;Habermas, 'The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic ResponsestoJesus'


7/21

140 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesushave dubbed the moderate conservative position, as compared to more skepticaltreatmen ts. Of course, this proves nothing c once ming wh ether or not the resur-rection actually occurred. But it does provide perhaps a h in t- a ba rometer, albeitquite an unofficial one , on where m any of these publications stand.

By far, the majority of publications on the subject of Jesu s death and resur-rection hav e been written by North A merican authors. Interestingly, my study ofthese works also indicates an approximate ratio of 3,1 o f moderate conservativeto skeptical publications, as with the European publications. Here again, thissignals the direction of current research, ^

Some Specific Research TrendsI will note six particular areas of research that demarcate some of the mostimpo rtant trends in resurrection research today. In particular, I will feature areasthat include som e fairly surprising developm ents.

First, after a hiatus since their heyday in the Nineteenth and early Tw entiethCenturies, recent trends indicate a limited surge of naturalistic explanations tothe historicity of Jes us resurrection. Almost a dozen different altemative theseshave emerge d, either argued or suggested by m ore than forty different scholars,with som e critics endorsing m ore than one theory. In place of the resurrection,both intemal states of mind (such as subjective visions or hallucinations^*) aswell as objective phenomena (like illusions^^) have been proposed,^^ The vastmajority of scholars, however, still reject such proposals,

A second research area concems those scholars who address the subject ofthe empty tom b. It has been said that the majority of contempo rary researchersaccept the historicity of this event,^ But is there any way to be mo re specific?From the study mentioned a bove, I have com piled 23 arguments for the emptytomb and 14 considerations against it, as cited by recent critical scholars. Ge n-erally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological partyline s . To be sure, such a large num ber of argum ents, both pro and con, includevery specific differentiation, including some overlap.

35 . These percentages reflect only those publications that answer this specific question,where I have conducted a detailed investigation.36 . Such as the hypotheses of Llidemann or Goulder above.37 . Goulder also raises this question.


8/21

Habermas Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present 141Of these scholars, approximately 75 per cent favor one or more of these

argum ents for the empty tom b, while approx imately 2 5 per cent think that oneor more argum ents oppo se it. Th us, wh ile far from being unanim ously held bycritical scholars, it may surprise some that those w ho em brace the empty tombas a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority.

By far the most popular argument favoring the Gospel testimony on thissubject is that, in all four texts, women are listed as the initial witnesses. Con-trary to often repeated statements,'' first-century Jewish wom en were able totestify in some legal ma tters. But given the general reluctance in the M editerra-nean world at that time to accept female testimony in cmcial matters, most ofthose scholars who comm ent on the subject hold that the Gospels probably w ouldnot have dubbed them as the chief witnesses unless they actually did attest tothis even t.'

Third, without question, the most critically respected witness for Jesu s' resur-rection is the apostle Paul. As No rman Perrin states, 'Paul is the one witness wehave who m w e can interrogate'. ' '^ And1 Cor. 15.3-8 is taken to be the strong estevidence for the historicity of this event. How ard Clark Kee boldly asserts thatPa ul's testimony here 'can be critically exa min ed.. .just as one wou ld eva luateevidence in a m ode m court or academ ic setting'.' '-' For several strong reasons,''' 'most scholars w ho address the issue think that this testimony predates any N ewTestament bo ok. M urph y-O 'Conn or reports that a literary analysis has produced

40 . Michael Goulderavers:'Only male witnesses are validinJewish jurisprudence' ('TheEmpty Tomb', p. 211).

41 . Forthecircumstances under which Jewish women could testify, including the conclu-sion that this Gospel report nonetheless provides evidence for the empty tomb, see especiallyCarolyn Osiek, 'The Women at theTomb:What are they Doing There?'ExAuditu9 (1993),pp.97-107.

42. Norman Perrin,The Resurrection according loMatthew Mark andLuke(Philadel-phia: Fortress Press, 1977), p. 83.43 . Howard Clark Kee,What Can We Knowabout Jesus?(Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, 1990), pp. 1-2.44. For example, Paul precedes the text by using the equivalent Greek for the technical

rabbinic terms 'delivered' and 'received', which traditionally were the way that oral traditionwas passed along (see also1Cor. 11.23). Further, the reportappearsinastylized, parallel form.The presence of several non-Pauline terms, sentence structure, and diction all additionallypoint to a source priortoPaul. Also noted are the proper names of Cephas and James (includ-ing the Aramaic name Cephas [cf. Lk. 24.34]), the possibility of an Aramaic original, otherSemitisms such as the threefold Kai OTI ('and that', like Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrewnarration), and the two references to the Scriptures being fulfilled. See Pinchas Lapide,The


9/21

142 Joumal for the Study of the Historical Jesus'complete agreement' among critical scholars that 'Paul introduces a quotationinv. Sb...' '

Paul probably received this report frotn Peter and James while visititig Jeru-salem within a few years of his conversion.''^ The vast majority of criticalscholars who answer the question place Paul's reception of this material in themid-30s CE.'' Even more skeptical scholars generally agree. * German theologianWalter Kasper even asserts that, 'We have here therefore an ancient text, perhapsin use by the end of 30 AD.... *' Ulrich Wilckens declares that the material

45. Murphy-O 'Connor, 'Tradition and Redaction in Cor15 .3-7',p.582.Fuller agrees:'Itis almost universally agreed today that Paulis here citing tradition' {Formationof theResurrectiortN arratives.,^,10).

46. Ihave outlined the case elsewhere,forinstance, in Habermas,The RisenJesus andFutureHope,ch.1;'The Resurrection Appearances ofJesus',in Douglas Geivett and Gary R.Habermas(eds.).InDefenseo fMiracles(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), pp.262-75.

47. For just a few of these scholars, see Hans Grass,Ostergeschehenu nd Osterberichte(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Rupert, 2nd edn, 1962), p. 96; Francis X. Dum vell,L a Resur-rectionde Jesus,p.22;Reginald Fuller,TheFoundationsof New Testament Christology(NewYork: Scribner's, 1965), pp. 142,161;CH . Dodd,T heApostolic PreachinganditsDevelop-ments(repr.; GrandRapids:Baker, 1980),p.16;Oscar CuUmann,The EarlyChurch:Studiesin Early ChristianH istory andTheology(ed.A.J.B.Higgins; Philadelphia: WestminsterPress,1966),pp. 65-66; Parmenberg,Jesus:God and Man,p. 90; Brown,Virginal Conceptiona ndBodily Resurrection,pp.8 1,92; Peter Stuhlmacher,Jesus ofNazarethChristofFaith(trans.SiegfriedS.Shatzmann; Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,1993),p.8; Helmut Merklein, 'D ie Auf-erweckung Jesu und die Anfange der Christologie (M essias bzw. Sohn Gottes und Menschen-sohn)',Zeitsehriftfurdie Neutestamentliche Wissenschaftu nd die Kunde der Alteren Kirche72 (1981), pp. 1-26 (2); John P.Meier A MarginalJew:Rethinking theH istorical Jesus,III.CompanionsandCompetitors(NewYork:Doubleday,2001),p.139;Dunn,The Evidence orJesus,p.70; LeanderE.Keck,WhoisJesus History in Perfect Tense(Columbia,SC:Univer-sityofSouth Carolina, 2000), p. 139; C.E.B. Cranfield, 'The ResurrectionofJesusChrist',Expository Times 101 (1990),pp.167-72 (169).O'Collinsthinks that no scholars date Paul'sreceptionofthis creed later than the 40s CE, which still would leave intactthemajor con-clusions here (O'Co llins,WhatAre TheySaying?,p.112).

48. Conzelmann,/ Corinthians,p. 254; Ludemann,The Resurrection of Jesus,p.38;Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, TheFiveGospels(New York: Mac-millan, 1993),cf.pp.18,2 4; Michael Goulder, 'The Baseless Fabric of a Vision', inD'Costa,ResurrectionReconsidered p.4 8; Jack Kent,The Psychological Originso fIhe ResurrectionMyth(London:OpenGate, 1999), pp. 16-17;A.J.M. ^eMerhum, BeyondResurrection(Pea-body, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), pp. 111, 274 n. 265 ; Thomas Sheehan,TheFirstComing:


10/21

Habermas Resurrection Resea rch from 1975 to the Present 143'indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitiveChristianity'.^

Fourth, w hile this pre-Pauline ereed provides crucial m aterial, it is not theonly instance. For exam ple, many scholars think that the book of Acts co ntainsmany early confessions, embedded in the se rm on s. These creeds are indicatedbybrief theologically unadorne d wording that differs from the autho r's norm allanguage. Although this is more difficult to determine, it appears that mostcritical scholars think that at least some reflection of the earliest Christianpreaching is encased in this material. This can be determined not only by theman y au thors w ho affirm it,^^ but also becau se it is difficult to find many w hoclearly reject any such early reports among the Acts sermons. The death andresurrection appearanc es of Jesus are always found at the center of these tradi-tions.Gerald O 'Collins holds that this sermon content 'incorporates resurrectionformulae which stem from the thirties'. '-' John Drane adds: 'The earliest evi-dence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the timeimm ediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place . This isthe evidence con tained in the early serm ons in the Acts of the Apostles.'^''

Some contemporary critical scholars continue to underplay and even dis-parage the notion that Jesus was raised bod ily. But a fifth, seeming ly little recog-nized and even surprising, factor in the recent research is that many recentscholars have been balancing the two aspects of Pau l's phrase 'spiritual bo dy ',with perhaps even a majority favoring the position that, according to the N ewTestam ent writers, Jesus appeared in a transformed body . Though he rejects the

50 . Wilckens,Resurrection,p. 2.51 . Forthesermon segm ents that may contain this traditional material, see Acts1.21-22;2.22-36; 3.13-16; 4.8-10; 5.29-32; 10.39-43;13.28-31;17.1-3,30-31.Other early creedal texts

are found throughout the New Testament, especially in Paul and the other epistles.52. For just some of the critical scholars whofindearly traditional material in Acts, seeMax W ilcox,The Semitismsof Acts(Oxford: Clarendon P ress, 1965),esp.pp. 79-80,164-65;Gerd Ludemann,EarlyChristianityAccording to the Traditions inActs:A Commentary(trans.John Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 47-49, 112-15; Merklein, 'Die Auf-erweckung Jesu und die Anfange der Christologie', p. 2; O 'Collins,Interpreting the Resur-rection, pp. 48-52; John E. Alsup,The Post Resurrection Appearance Storiesof the GospelTradition: AHistory of Tradition Analysis with Text Synopsis(Calwer Theologische M ono-graphien,5;Stuttgart: Calwer V erlag,1975),pp.64-65,81-85;Dodd,The Apostolic Preachingand itsD evelopments,pp.17-31;Brown,AnIntroduction toN ewTestamentChristology,pp.112-13, 164; Fuller,Eormation of theResurrection Narratives,pp. 44-45; Perkins,Resur-rection,pp. 90,228-31;Durrwell,La Resurrectionde Jesus,p.22;M. Gourgues,A La Droite


11/21

144 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesushistoricity of the resurrectioti, Lud em ann even proc laims: I do not question thephysical nature of Jesu s appearance from h ea ve n... . Pa ul.. .asserts that Chris-tians will receive a transformed physical body like the one that the heavenlym an Christ has (cf. 1 Cor 15.35-49). ^ W right agrees: the re can be no question :Paul is a firm believer in bodily resurrection. He stands with his fellow Jewsagainst the massed ranks of pagans; with his fellow Pharisees against otherJews. ^ Many other scholars have spoken in support of a bodily notion of Jesusresurrection.^

Sixth, the vast majority of contemp orary theo logians argue in some sense thatJesus resurrection vario usly ev idenc es, leads to, or otherwise ind icates the truthof Christian theology. Some prefer a non-evidential conn ection between this eventand doctrinal truths, while others favor som e level of entailm ent betwe en them .

Even skeptical scholars frequently manifest this connection. W illi M arxsenis an exam ple of the tenden cy to find significance in Je su s resurrection . Thou ghhe rejects the historicity of this event, he thinks that, Th e answ er may be that inraising Jesus God acknow ledged the one who w as crucified; or that God endorsedJesus in spite of his apparent failure; or som ething sim ilar. Im m ediately afterthis,Marxsen rather amazingly adds: W hat happ ened.. .was that God endorsedJesus as the person that hewas: during his earthly lifetime Jesus prono unce d theforgiveness of sins to men in the name of God. He dem anded that they co m mittheir lives entirely to Go d.. . I could easily add a whole catalog of other state-ments. ^ Though this is from a mu ch older text, Marxsen closes his later volum e

55. Gerd Ludemann, Closing Response , in Paul Copan and Ronald Tacelli {eds,), JesusResurrection:Fact orFigment (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 151.56 . Wright,The Resurrectionofthe Sono fGod p. 272; cf. p. 321. In this volume, perhapsW right s m ajor em phasis is the bodily nature of resurrection in general, and Jesus resurrec-tion, in particular (see next note). See also N.T. Wright, Ear ly Traditions and the Origin of

Christianity , Sewanee TheologicalReview ^\ (1998), pp. 130-35.57. The best current treatment is Wright, TheResurrectiono fhe Sono fGod pp .32-398.Also exceptional is RobertH. Gundry, SomainBiblical Theology:WithEmphasisonPaulineAnthropology(Cambridge: C ambridge University Press, 1976), esp. ch. 13. Compare CarolineWalker Bynum,The Resurrectiono fIheBodyin WesternC hristianity, 200-1336 (New York:Columbia University, 1995); Stephen Davis (pp. 126-47) and William Alston (pp. 148-83),both in Davis, Kendall and O Collins, Resurrection; Joseph A . Fitzmyer, The Resurrection ofJesus Christ According to the New Testam ent , TheMonth, 2nd NS, 20 (1987), pp. 408-4 09;Cranfield, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ ,p . 170; Norman Kretzmann, Resurrection Resur-rected , in Eleanore Stump and Thomas F lint (eds.),H ermes and Athens(Notre Dame: NotreDame University Press, 1993), p. 149. For a detailed treatment of this point, see Gary R.Habermas, Mapping the Recent Trend toward the Bodily Resurrection Appearances of Jesus


12/21

Habermas Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present 145on the resurrection on a related point, with 'Je su s' invitation to faith' declaringthat, in some se nse , it migh t be said that Jesus is still present and active in faith,encouraging us to bring reconciliation, forgiveness and peace to others.^'Also more recently, Marcus Borg delineates five areas of New Testamentmeaning that follow from Jes us ' death and resurrection. For instance, what 'maywell be the earliest interpretation' is that the rejection caused by Jesus'execution gave w ay to 'G od 's vindication of Jesu s' as provided by the resur-rection. Another area is Jesus' sacrifice for sin, the literal truth of which Borgrejects, while holding that this picture is still a powerful metaphor for God'sgrace.*

So a number of contemporary scholars realize that multiple truths followfrom the death and resu rrection o f Jesus. It is difficult to avoid a correlation here.When Jesus' actual resurrection is accepted in some sense, related theologicaldoctrines are often accep ted more-or-less directly. Con versely, when the histori-city of Jesus' resurrection is rejected, the corresponding theological doctrinesare often held in less than literal terms.

So where the event of Jes us' resurrection is rejected, one m ight also expectto discover the rejection of certain theological concep ts, too. For instance, onemight reject claims regarding Jesus' self-consciousness, or the exclusivity of histeachings, if the historical resurrection has also been discarded. On the otherhand, if the resurrection actually occurred, and doctrine follows from the event,this wou ld seem to place Jesu s' theology on firmer grounds, as well. In keepingwith Borg's remark above, perhaps the earliest New Testament witness is thatthe doctrine relies on the event.

These six developments indicate some of the most recent trends in resur-rection research. We w ill retum below to an add itional area that is drawn fromseveral of these trends.

A C omparison of Two Scholars: Crossan and WrightAs an example of these recent trends, I will compare briefly the ideas of twoseemingly different scholars, John Do minic Crossan andN.T.W right. We w illcontrast some of their view s on Jesu s' resu rrection , following the specific list oftopics that we provided above . This will indicate som e of their major differ-ences, but perhaps some un expected similarities, too. Such w ill also serve as asample demarcation from the recent theological scene.


13/21

146 Journal for the Study of the Historical JesusNe ither Crossan nor Wright espouse naturalistic theories specifically regard -

ing the resurrection appearances.* W right is much m ore outspoken in hisopposition to these altemative h ypothese s, referring to them as false trails .*^Crossan has also recently agreed that the disciples, in some sense, exp eriencedthe risen Jesus and that natural substitutes are unconvincing.*^ Here w e have anindication of the com ment above that postulating natural altematives is a minor-ity option among recent scholars.

Regarding the empty tom b, there is definitely a contrast between these twoscholars. Crossan thinks that the empty tomb narrative in Mark s Gospel wascreated by the author,* although he concedes that Paul may have implied thisevent.*^ On the other hand, W right thinks no t only that the em pty tom b is his-torical, but that it provides one ofthe two major pillars for the historical resur-rection appearances.**

Both Crossan and Wright agree without reservation that Paul is the best earlywitness to the resurrection appearances. They both hold that Paul was an eyew it-ness to what he believed was a resurrection appearance of Jesus. Further, theyshare the view that Paul recorded an account in Cor. 15.3-7 thathehad receivedperhaps decades before writing the letter in wh ich it appears, and that the apostleprobably leamed it during his early visit to Jemsalem, just a short time afterJesus death.*^Both scholars include comparatively little discussion regarding the otherearly creedal passa ges in the New Testament that confirm the pre-Pauline reportof the death and resurrection of Jesus in Corinthians 15, but they do at least

61. While Crossaniswell known for his view that Jesus dead body was probably buriedinacommon grave Jesus,pp. 152-5 8) , this is actuallyanaltemative burialaccount.It doesnoteven address the resurrection appearances, since, conceivably, Jesus could have been buriedother than in a traditional tomb and still have been raised from the dead.

62. N.T . Wright, C hristian Origins and the Resurrection ofJesus: The Resurrection ofJesus as a Historical P roblem ,Sewanee Theological Review 41(1998), pp. 107-23 (119).63 . Inarecent dialogue, Crossan indicated thathedoes not think that altemative responsesare good explanations for the appearances to the disciples. (See Stewart,The Resurrectionof

Jesus. Still, it could be pointed out that Crossan s comparison of the resurrection appearancesto dreams or visions of a departed loved, however normal, still involves the reliance on anatural scenario instead of the New Testament explanation. (John Dominic Crossan, TheResurrection of Jesus in its Jewish Co ntext ,Neotestamentica 2>1 [2003], pp. 29-57 [46-47]).64. John Dominic Crossan,WhoK illedJesus? Exposing the RootsofAnti-Semitism in theGospel Storyofthe DeathofJesus (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1995), pp. 185, 209.


14/21

Habermas Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present 147acknow ledge a few texts. Wright has slightly more to say here, but Crossan doesnot dispute this data.*^

Perhaps m ost surprisingly, both W right and Crossan emb race the claim thatthe earliest Christian writings taught that Jesus appeared in a bodily manner.This is the case for several reasons, such as this being the predominan t Jew ishview at the time. Most of all, this was the clear meaning of the terms. Wrighthas argued passionately for over 500 pages that, for pagans, Jews and Christiansin the ancient M editerranean w orld up until the second cen tury AD, the term savc(OT aais ( resurrection ) and eysipco ( to raise up ) and cognates such asE ^av ao Ta ois ( resurrection ), almost without exception indicate a resurrectionof the body. Interestingly, when the ancient writers who rejected (and evendespised) this doctrine utilized these same terms, they spoke only of a hodilyafterlife. W hen w riting abou t the soul or spirit living after death, pagan au thorsused different words.* Even Paul clearly held that Jesus body was raised,agreeing with the other New Testament authors.^

On all three occasions when W right and Crossan have dialogued c oncem ingthe resurrection, Crossan ha s noted his essential agreement w ith Wrig ht s majorthesis regarding the meaning of bodily resurrection. ^ In fact, Crossan n otes thathe w as already thinking along these same lines .^^ Crossan even agrees withWright that Paul thought that Jesus appearance to him w as also bodily in nature.Crossan and Reed explain that, T o take seriously Pau l s claim to have seen therisen Jesus, we suggest that his inaugural vision w as ofJesus body simultane-ously woundedandglonfizA, Although the Acts accounts claim that Paul saw aluminous vision, Crossan and Reed decided to brac ket that blinded-by-lightsequence and imagine instead a vision in which P aul bothsees and hears Jesusas the resurrected Christ, the risen Lo rd . As a result, to take seriously the ear-liest Christian teachings would, at the very least, address the bodily nature oftheir claims.

Lastly, both Crossan and W right readily agree that the resurrection of Jesusin some sense indicates that the truth of Christian be lief ought to lead to its theo -logical outworking s, including the radical practice of ethics. As Crossan states.

68. Wright, The esurrection of the Son of God , pp. 453-56; Crossan, The HistoricalJesus,p. 364, cf. pp. 293-94; Crossan and Reed, In Searcho f Paul, p. 341.69. Wright, The esurrectionof the Son of God, pp. xvii-xix, 31 ,71, 82-83, 200-206.70. Wright,The esurrectionof he Son of God chs.5 -8 , especially pp. 273,314,350-74.71. Wright, The esurrectiono f the Son of God, chs. 9-1 0, especially pp. 424, 476-79.72. Crossan, Mode and Meaning in Bodily Resurrection Faith , in Stewart,The Resur-


15/21

148 Journal for the Study of the Historical JesusTom and I agree on one absolutely vital implication of resurrection faith.. .thatG od s transfiguration of this world here below has already started . To be sure,Cro ssan s chief emphasis is to proceed to the meaning of Jes us resurrection inthe world today , contending that we must live out the literal implications of thisbelief in peac e through justic e . Just as Jesus appearances inspired the discip lesproclamation of G od s victory over sin and the powers of Ca esa r s em pire, wemust prom ote G od s Great Clean-Up of the earth and take back God s worldfrom the thugs .^^

Wright argues that, for both the New Testament authors like Paul and John,as well as for us today, the factieity of Jesus resurrection indicates that Chris-tian theology is true, including doctrines such as the sonship of Jesus and hispath of eternal life to those who respond to his me ssage . The resurrection alsorequires a radical call to discipleship in a torn world, including responses to thepolitical tyranny of conservatives as well as liberals, addressing violence, hunger,and even death. As Wright says, Easter is the beginning of Go d s new w orld ...But Easter is the time for revolution .^^

So there is at least general agreement betw een C rossan and W right regardingmost of the individual topics which we have explored above. There is at leastsome im portant overlap in each of the six categories , except for the historicity o fthe empty tomb. Theamountof agreement on some of the issues, like the valueof Pau l s e yewitness testimony to a resurrection ap pearance, his report of anearly creed that perhaps predates him by a couple of decades, as well as hisknow ledge of the m essage taught by the Jerusalem apostles, is rather incredible,especially given the different theological stances of these two scholars. Theemerging agreemen t conc eming the essential nature of Jes us bodily resurrec-tion, especially for Paul and the New Testament authors, is a recent twist thatwould have been rather difficult to predict just a few yearsago. And both scholarsargue for the believ er s literal presence in righting the wo rld s w rongs, becauseof Jes us resurrection.

Still, we must not be so caught up in the areas of agreement that we gloss overthe very crucial differences. We h ave noted the disagreements co ncem ing theempty tom b, along w ith my suggestion that Crossan essentially holds a naturalaltemative to the resurrection. So, the most glaring difference conc em s w hetheror not Jesus was actually raised from the dead. W hile Wright clearly holds thatthis is an historical event of the past, Cross an s position is much more difficult

75. Crossan, Mode and Meaning , see especially the Conclusion and the preceding


16/21

Habermas Resurrection R esearch from 1975 to the Present 149to decipher. Still, in spite of the wide ag reement even in some very crucial areas,Crossan has clearly said that he does not think that the resurrection is an histori-cal event.'^For Crossan, at a very early date, the resurrection appearances were held byPaul and the disciples to be actual, bodily events. Though he personally rejectsthat view, Crossan accepts Je su s' resurrection as a metaphor. Perhaps sheddingsome further light on his position, Crossan has affirmed what appears to be acrucial distinction. He rejects the literal resurrection of Jesus at least partiallybecause he does not believe in an afterlife, so he has no literal category intowhich the resurrection may be placed.'^

The Disciple s Belief that T hey Had Seen the Risen JesusFrom considerations such as the research areas above, perhaps the single mostcrucial development has emerged. W ith few exceptions, the fact that after Jesus'death his followers had experiences that they thought were ap pearances of therisen Jesus is arguably one of the two or three mo st recognized events from thefour Gospels, along with Jesus' central proclamation of the Kingdom of Godand his death by crucifixion. Few critical scholars reject the notion that, afterJesus' death, the early Christians had real experiences of some sort.

Reginald Fuller asserts that, 'Ev en the most skeptical historian has to postu-late an x ' in order to account for the New Testament data namely, the emptytomb,Je sus ' appearances, and the transformation of Jesu s' disciples.^ Fullerconcludes by pointing out tbat this kerygm a 'requires that the historian postulatesome other event' that isnotthe rise of the disciples' faith, but 'th e cause of theEaster faith'. What are the candidates for such a historical explanation? The'irreducible historical minimum behind the Easter narratives' is 'a well-basedclaim of certain disciples to have had visions of Jesus after his death as raisedfrom the dead'. However, it is explained, this stands behind the disciples' faithand is required in order to explain what happened to them.^'

Fuller elsewhere refers to the discip les' beliefinthe resurrection as 'on e ofthe indisputable facts of history '. What caused this belief? That the disciples' hadactual experience s, characterized as appearances or visions of the risen Jesus , no

78 . Crossan, 'Mod e and Mean ing', Part I; 'Resurrection of Jesus in its Jewish Co ntext',pp .46-47.


17/21

150 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesusmatter how they are explained, is 'a fact upon which both believer and unbe-liever may agree',^^

An o verview of contemporary scholarship indicates that Fuller's conclusionsare well-supported, E ,P, Sanders initiates his discussion inTheHistorical Figureof Jesusby outlining the broad parameters of recent research. Beginning w ith alist of the historical data that critics know, he includes a number of 'equallysecure facts' that 'ar e almost beyond d ispu te'. One of these is that, after Je su s'death, 'his d isciple s.. .saw him'. ^ In an epilogue, Sanders reaffirms, 'That Jes us 'followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judg em ent, afact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not kno w,'^''

After beginning with a list of 'a few assorted facts to which most criticalscholars subsc ribe', Robert Funk men tions that, 'Th e conviction that Jesus wasno longer dead bu t was risen began as a series of visions',^^ Late r, after listingand arranging all of the resurrection ap pearanc es. Funk states that they catmotbe harmonized,^^ But he takes more se riously the early, pre-Pauline confessionssuch as lCor, 15,3-7,^''

John M eier lists 'the claim by some of his disciples that he had risen from thedead and appearedt them ' as one of the 'empirically verifiable historical claim s',Paul, in particular, was an eyewitness to such an appearance, and James, thebrother of Jesus, appears in the pre-Pauline list of appearances,^^James D ,G. Dunn a sserts: 'It is almost impossible to dispute that at the his-torical roots of Christianity lie some visionary experiences of the first Christians,who understood them as appearances of Jesus, raised by God from the dead'.Then Dunn qualifies the situation: 'By resurre ction they clearly meant thatsomething had happenedt Jesushimself God had raisedhim,not merely reas-sured them.He was alive a gain , , , , '^ '

Wright asks how the disciples could have recovered from the shatteringexperience of Jesus' death and regrouped afterwards, testifying that they hadseen the risen Jesus, while being quite willing to face persecution because o f thisbelief What was the nature of the experience that dictated these developm ents?^

82. Fuller, oundationsof NewTestamentChristology,p . 142.83 . E.P.Sanders,TheHistorical igureof Jesus {honAon.?tr\gum^oo ^s, 1993),p.11;

cf. pp. 10-13.84. Sanders,Historical igureo fJesus,p. 280.85. RobertW Funk,Honest to Jesus(San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), pp. 32 ,40 ,

as well as the entire context here.86. Funk,Honest toJesus,pp. 266-67.


18/21

Habermas Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present 151Bart Ehrman explains that, 'Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatso-

ever speaking about the belief in Jesus' resurrection, since this is a matter ofpublic record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came tobelieve that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution,' Thisearly belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity,

As we have mentioned throughout, there are certainly disagreements aboutthe nature of the experiences. But it is still erueial that the nearly unanimousconsent'^ of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesusthought that they had seen the risen Jesus,

It must be noted carefully that this conclusion doesnotrest on the scholarlycritical consensus, but on thereasonsfor the consensus, such as those pointed

91 . Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic P rophet of the New Millennium (New York:Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 231.

92. In my study referred to above, virtually every critical scholar recognizes this fact, orsomething very similar. It is very difficulttofinddenials of it. This is evident even if we listedjust someof the more skeptical researchers who hold this, suchasLudemann, The Resur-rectionof Jesus, pp. 37,50,6 6; Borg, T hinking about Easter ,p. 15; Crossan, Resurrection ofJesusin itsJewish Contex t ,pp.46-47; Funk, HonesttoJesus, pp. 40,270-71; MichaelGoulder, The Baseless FabricofaV ision ,inD'Costa,ResurrectionReconsidered p.48;Rudolf Pesch, Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu: Ein neuer Versuch ,Freiburger Zeitschrift fiir PhilosophieundTheologie 30(1983),pp. 73-98 (87); HelmutKoester,Introduction to theN ew Testament. II. HistoryandLiteratureof EarlyChristianity(Philadelphia: Fortress Press,19 82), p . 84; Anton Vogtie in Vogtie and Pesch,Wie kameszumOsterglauben?(Dusseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 19 75), pp. 85-98; James M. Robinson, Jesusfrom EastertoValentinus(or to theApostles Creed ) , Journal of B iblicalLiterature 101(1982), pp. 5-37 (8, 20); Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House,19 79), pp.3-12; Wedderbum, Beyo nd Resurrection, pp. 47, 188; Ehrman, Jesus, pp. 227-31;Kent,Psychological Originsofthe ResurrectionMyth, pp. 16-17; JohnHick,Deathand EternalLife(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 19 94), pp. 171 -77; Conzelmann,1 Corinthians,pp. 258-66; Sheehan,The FirstComing ^.91 ; Hans Werner Bartsch, Inha ltundF unk tiondesUrchristlichen Osterglaubens ,AfewTestamentStudies26(19 80), pp. 180,190-94; Perdn,TheResurrection according toMatthew,Mark and Luke,pp. 80-83; J.K. Elliott, The F irst Easter ,HistoryToday 29 (1979), pp. 209-20; Michael Grant,Jesus:AnHistorian s Review o f theGospels NewYork:Scribner s, 1977), p. 176; Hansjurgen Verweyen, Die Ostererscheinungenin fundamentaltheologischer Sicht ,ZeitschriftiirKatholische Theologie103(1981), pp. 428-45 (429); Alsup,Post Resurrection AppearanceStories, p. 274; John Shelby Spong,Resur-rection: MythorReality?(San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1994), pp. 51-53, 173; MichaelMartin,The Case against Christianity(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), pp. 83,90;Wells,Did JesusExist?, pp . 32,207 ; James Keller, Response toDavis ,Faithand Philosophy7(199 0), pp. 112-15(114); Traugott Holtz, Kenntnis von Jesus und KenntnisJesu: Eine Skizze


19/21

152 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesusout above, A variety of paths converge he re, including P au l s eyew itness com -ments regarding his own experience 1Cor, 9,1 ; 15.8), the pre-Pauline appear-ance report in 1 Cor. 15.3-7, probably dating from the 30s CE, Pa ul s secondJerusalem m eeting with the major apostles to ascertain the nature of the Gospel(Gal, 2,1-10), and Pau l s knowledge of the other apo stles teachings about Jesusappearances (1 Cor. 15 .9-15, especially 15.11). Further, additional reasons in-clude the early Acts confessions, the conversion of James, the brother ofJesus,the transformed lives that centered on the resurrection, the later Gospel accounts,and, most scholars wo uld agree, the empty tom b. This case is built entirely oncritically ascertained texts, and confirmed by many critical principles such aseyew itness testimon y, early reports, multiple attestation, discontinuity, em bar-rassment, enemy declarations, and coherence. ^

These same data indicate that Jes us followers reported visual experiences,witnessed by both individuals and groups. It is hardly disputed that this is atleast the New Testam ent claim. The vast majority of scholars agree that thesepersons certainlythoughtthat they had visual experiences of the risen Jesus. A sHelmu t Koester maintains , W e are on much firmer ground w ith respect to theappearances of the risen Jesus and their effect. In addition to Paul, that Jesusappeared to others (Peter, Mary Magdalene, James) cannot very well be ques-tioned , ^The point here is that any plausible explanations must accoun t for the dis-ciple s claims, due to the wide variety of factors that argue convincingly forvisual experiences. This is also recognized by critical scholars across a widetheological spectrum. As such, both natural and supematural explanations forthese occurrences must be entertained. Mo st studies on the resurrection concen-trate on cognate issues, often obstructing a path to this matter. What reallyhappen ed? I certainly cannot argue the options h ere, but at least the possibilitieshave been considerably narrowed.

ConclusionThis study maps out some of the theological landscape in recent and currentresurrection studies. Several intriguing trends have been no ted, taken from thesecontemporary studies.

Mo st crucially, current scholarship generally recognizes that Jes us earlyfollowers claimed to have had visual expe riences that they at least thought w ereappearances of their risen M aster. Fulle r s com men t may b e recalled that, as


20/21

Habermas Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present 153can acce pt [t]hat these experiences did occu r , Continuing, Wright asks: Ho w,as historians, are we to describe this eve nt,,,? History therefore spotlights thequestion: what happened? ^We cannot entertain the potential options here regarding w hat really happened,although we have narrowed the field. But due to the strong support from avariety of factors, these early C hristian ex periences need to be explained viably,1 contend that this is the single most crucial develop men t in recent resurrectionstudies.


21/21

2005 - Gary R. Habermas - Resurrection Research From 1975 to the Present

Documents

Transcript of 2005 - Gary R. Habermas - Resurrection Research From 1975 to the Present