Criswell
Theological Review 4.1 (1989) 159-74
Copyright © 1989 by The
JESUS' RESURRECTION
AND CONTEMPORARY
CRITICISM: AN APOLOGETIC*
GARY R. HABERMAS
There is widespread agreement among
scholars today across a
broad theological spectrum that the resurrection of
Jesus is the central
claim of Christianity. This has long been asserted by
orthodox be-
lievers, based on NT passages
such as 1 Cor 15:12-20. But it is also
admitted by higher critical scholars, as well.
For instance, W. Marxsen
points out that, of all the current issues
which face Christian theology, "the question of
Jesus' resurrection
plays a decisive part; one might even say the
decisive part." In fact, if
we are uncertain or obscure about the faith and
hope which are
"closely connected" to the resurrection, then
"there is a risk of jeopar-
dizing more or less everything
to which a Christian clings."1
He is not alone in such an
assessment. J. Moltmann asserts that
"Christianity
stands or falls with the reality of the raising of Jesus
from the dead by God. In the NT there is no faith
that does not start
a priori with the resurrection of Jesus."2
G. Bornkamm
likewise ad-
mits the ultimate importance
of this event: " . . . there would be no
gospel, not one account, no letter in the NT, no
faith, no church, no
* This is the first of two lectures
read at the Criswell Lectureship Series, Criswell
College,
January, 1989.
1 W. Marxsen,
The Resurrection of Jesus of
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) 12.
2 J. Moltmann,
Theology of Hope, trans. by J. W. Leitch (
Row, 1967) 165.
160
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
worship, no prayer in Christendom to this day
without the message of
the resurrection of Christ. . . ."3
Therefore, considering the issue of
Jesus' resurrection is of prime
importance. I agree with those who assert that the
historicity of this
event is a major question, for it is upon this aspect
that the truthful-
ness of Christian theology depends.4
Repeated treatments and evalua-
tions of this occurrence
appear in Christian studies, but such are
justified both by its centrality and by the new
faces of contemporary
criticism.
In light of this importance, the
major purpose of this essay is
fourfold. First, we will describe several
contemporary approaches to
the resurrection, dividing these into five groups,
or models, for the
sake of clarity. Second, a more-or-less traditional
apologetic for the
resurrection will be briefly
summarized. Third, a contemporary apol-
ogetic will be presented in
order to strengthen further the earlier case
for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.
The force of this latter
effort is that even
by utilizing contemporary critical principles, this
event can still be shown to be historical. In fact,
the major theme of
this essay is to point out how the resurrection can
be historically
demonstrated even by such skeptical standards of investigation.
Fourth,
we will suggest several areas for future concentration in
resurrection studies.
I. Contemporary Approaches
Before turning to an apologetic for
the resurrection, it will be
advantageous to cite various recent
approaches to this event. The over-
all critical approach has changed substantially in
recent decades.
Rarely
held are the naturalistic alternative theories of the 19th-century liberal
theologians, as will be mentioned below (see section
II). Rather,
contemporary scholars have
approached this event from a different
perspective, although they occasionally do revert to
select older
arguments.
3 G. Bornkamm, Jesus of
Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1960) 181.
4 It should be carefully
noted that the historicity of the resurrection is in view in
this essay and not the question of whether the
resurrection was a miracle performed by
God. However, for a refutation of D. Hume and other
naturalistic positions which
disallow miracles, see G. Habermas,
"Skepticism: Hume" in Biblical Errancy (ed. N. L.
Geisler;
resurrection as a miracle, see G. R.
Habermas, The
Resurrection of Jesus: An Apol-
ogetic (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1980; repr., Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
1984),
especially chaps. 2-3.
Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECI10N 161
Today, most critical theologians
find much less history in the
gospels than their 19th-century counterparts, to
be sure. Yet, a sub-
stantial number of historical
facts are recognized with regard to the
death and resurrection of Jesus.
Virtually all scholars today agree
that Jesus died by crucifixion
and that his body was afterwards buried. Due to his
death, his
disciples were despondent, believing that all hope
was gone. At this
point many contemporary scholars add that the burial
tomb was
found empty a few days later, but that it did not
cause belief in the
disciples.
It is virtually unanimous that, soon
afterwards, the disciples had
experiences which they were convinced were
appearances of the
risen Jesus. These experiences transformed their
lives as they believed
that Jesus was literally alive. These experiences
also emboldened
them to preach and witness in
had been crucified and buried only a short time
previously. Here it
was the message of Jesus' resurrection which was
the central procla-
mation for these eyewitnesses.
History also relates that, due to
this testimony, the Christian
church grew, featuring Sunday as the primary day of
worship. Some
scholars add here that one of the early church
leaders was James, the
brother of Jesus, who was a skeptic until he
believed he saw the risen
Jesus.
Basically all agree that a persecutor of the church, Saul of
believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.
These are a minimum number of facts
agreed upon by almost all
critical scholars who study this topic, whatever
their school of thought.
From
this summary, at least eleven separate facts can be considered to
be knowable history (while another is additionally
recognized by
many): (1) Jesus died due to crucifixion and (2) was
buried afterwards.
(3)
Jesus' death caused the disciples to experience despair and lose
hope, believing that their master was dead. (4)
Although not as widely
accepted, many scholars acknowledge several
weighty arguments
which indicate that the tomb in which Jesus was
buried was discovered
to be empty just a few days later.
Almost all critical scholars further
agree that (5) the disciples had
real experiences which they thought were literal
appearances of the
risen Jesus. Due to these experiences, (6) the
disciples were trans-
formed from timid and troubled doubters afraid to
identify them-
selves with Jesus to bold preachers of his death and
resurrection who
were more than willing to die for their faith in
him. (7) This message
was the center of preaching in the earliest church
and (8) was espe-
cially proclaimed in
cently died and had been
buried.
162
CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
As a direct result of this
preaching, (9) the church was born, (10)
featuring Sunday as the special day of worship.
(11) James, a brother
of Jesus who had been a skeptic, was converted
when he believed
that he saw the resurrected Jesus. (12) A few years
later, Paul was also
converted to the Christian faith by an experience
which he, likewise,
thought was an appearance of the risen Jesus.
Such facts are crucial in terms of
our contemporary investigation
of Jesus' resurrection. With the possible
exception of the empty tomb,
the great majority of critical scholars who study
this subject agree that
these are the minimal historical facts surrounding
this event. As such,
any conclusions concerning the historicity of the
resurrection should
at least properly account for them.
Now, it needs to be carefully noted
that the actual resurrection of
Jesus,
in the sense of his exit from the tomb, is nowhere narrated in
the NT.5 The teaching that he actually
rose from the dead was a
conclusion drawn from the fact that he had
literally died, followed by
his appearances in a transformed body to numerous
individuals and
groups.
Therefore, the pivotal fact from our
list, recognized as historical
by virtually all scholars, is the original
experiences of the disciples. It
is almost always admitted that the disciples had
real experiences and
that "something happened." Yet, while
contemporary scholars rarely
employ naturalistic alternative theories, various
views exist concern-
ing the ability to
ascertain the exact nature of these experiences.
At the risk of oversimplification,
at least five models may be
delineated in the contemporary theology of the last
25 years, each
representing a critical position on
the issue of the historicity of the
resurrection appearances of Jesus.
These models move from those
which disallow or seriously question the actual
appearances to those
which firmly support attempts to demonstrate them in
historical
bodily terms.
Granted, there are numerous possible
angles from which to study
and view the resurrection of Jesus (and it is
perhaps true that evan-
gelicals are sometimes guilty of
placing too much emphasis on his-
toricity), so it ought not be
pretended by any means that this is the
only worthwhile perspective.6 Yet, many
evangelicals think that such
5
However, the apocryphal Gospel of Peter (ca.
150-180 A.D.) does record Jesus'
exit from the grave, assisted by two young men
(presumably angels). For the extant
text of this fragment, see R. Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel
Texts (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1982) 78-82.
6 G. O'Collins
notes six contemporary models of the resurrection, only one of
which stresses the aspect of historicity. In a sense, then, I am dividing the historical
aspect into five distinct sections. See What Are They Saying About the Resurrection?
(New
York: Paulist, 1978) 7-34.
Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION 163
is at least a crucial starting point, agreeing
with Paul (1 Cor 15:12-20)
that any theological meaning for this event depends
on the question
of historicity.
It should be carefully noted before
we begin our survey that it is
always risky to attempt to identify the positions of a
broad cross-
section of scholars on almost any issue. This is
particularly true with
regard to the resurrection, since there are numerous
subtle shades of
meaning which may be apparent (or not so
apparent!) even to the
trained eye. In fact, it is rather frustrating
to read certain noted
scholars on this topic and to come away still
attempting to understand
their positions. So, while such is a potentially
hazardous process, it
may be helpful, as long as it is understood that
there will necessarily
be some overlap (since some scholars have
similarities to more than
one model, for instance) and that such can be
identified only in fairly
approximate terms. But even these broader
categorizations may still
serve our purpose, while at the same time revealing
some "strange
bedfellows."
The first model is characterized by
those scholars who manifest
the tendency either to dismiss or at least
seriously to question the
facticity of the resurrection
appearances. While these persons are
more radical in their criticism, they still
generally accept facts such as
those delineated above as historical and usually
(perhaps surprisingly)
reject the naturalistic explanations for the
appearances. Yet, they also
tend to dismiss any literal claims either that
Jesus' tomb was empty or
that he was actually seen by his followers,
preferring only to conclude
that the nature of the original eyewitnesses'
experiences cannot be
ascertained.
For instance, R. Bultmann
and his followers claim that the real
cause of the disciples' transformation is obscured by
the various NT
texts. Regardless, it is not crucial to inquire into
the nature of these
experiences.7 Similarly, W. Marxsen
also believes that the reconstitu-
tion of these encounters
cannot and should not be attempted, includ-
ing whether the disciples
actually perceived appearances of the risen
Jesus.
However, it makes little difference for the chief point, is that,
regardless of what happened, faith is still
warranted.8
Sometimes this first model is more
characterized by what it does
not (or cannot) say than by what it does state. So
it is with the view of
H.
Koester, who asserts -that it is not his. concern to
inquire into the
nature of 1 esus'
appearances. But they can best be characterized as
the "catalyst" that started the early
Christian missionary activity and
7 See R. Bultmann, Theology of
the New Testament, trans. by K. Grobel (New
8 Marxsen, chaps. 3-4,
especially 96, 111, as well as 77, 119, 147, 152.
164
CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
the planting of churches. At any rate, the
resurrection revealed noth-
ing new, but it did change
life for the first believers.9
For H. Kung, the resurrection is not
to be considered as "a
supernatural intervention which can
be located and dated in space
and time." Again, it is "not an event in
human space and human time."
All
that can be known is that Jesus died, followed by the rise of faith
and the Easter message of the disciples. But
nothing objective can be
apprehended or checked out with regard to either the
resurrection
itself or Jesus' appearances.10
In P. Van Buren's earlier thought,
he held that "something hap-
pened" which changed the
disciples' outlook from discouragement to
faith. Although these experiences were more than
subjective and were
expressed in terms of actual appearances of the
risen Jesus, their
nature still cannot be ascertained.11
While some recent trends still
reflect this first perspective, the
position as a whole appears to be much less
popular today. It is quite
possible that the view was heavily influenced by
the work of R.
Bultmann to the extent that it is suffering a
similar fate in terms of the
decrease in new thinkers who are supporting these
options.12 Perhaps
symbolic of this last point is the conclusion reached
by N. Perrin, who
is often viewed as a major American representative
of Bultmann's
position due to his frequent similarities to the
latter's interpretations
on NT topics such as the resurrection of Jesus.
But strangely enough,
in a volume on this subject written at the very
end of his career,
Perrin
concluded that the tradition behind Jesus' appearances was
firmly based. In fact, his synopsis of what actually
happened appears
at least to allow for some sort of objective
visions whereby Jesus
commissioned the apostles for a new
mission. Beyond this, Perrin
9 H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.;
1982)
1.84, 86.
10 H. Kung, On Being a Christian, trans. by E. Quinn
(
1976) 348-53.
11 P. Van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel (New
York: Macmillan, 1963)
126-34.
12 Some scholars hold
positions which are at least related in some regards.
T.
Sheehan's thesis (see part IV below) exhibits a number of similarities to Bultmann's
view, including a clear rejection of the
resurrection of Jesus in any literal sense, as
stated in First
Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (
Random House, 1986), especially part 2. Yet, neither does
Sheehan explicitly espouse a
naturalistic theory. NT exegete H. Conzelmann is another scholar who is strongly
influenced by Bultmanns
work. Some of his thoughts on the resurrection appearances
of Jesus are found in his commentary on I Corinthians, trans. by J. Leitch (
Fortress, 1969), 251ff.
Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION 165
does not think that anything further can be said.13
Here it seems clear
that Perrin has moved beyond Bultmann.
In the second model, scholars are
distinguished from the first
group not only by displaying more interest in the
nature of the
disciples' experiences, but often by the
acceptance of the literal resur-
rection itself.14
But although the naturalistic theories are generally
rejected, this group still insists that these
experiences cannot be his-
torically verified but can only
be accepted by faith.
The theologians and exegetes in this
second model have usually
been influenced by S. Kierkegaard15 and,
in the 20th-century, by K.
Barth, who held that the resurrection should be
accepted by faith as a
literal event, but that it cannot be ascertained
by any historical in-
vestigation. Barth
emphatically rejected the naturalistic alternative
theories and asserted that Jesus appeared
empirically to his disciples,
yet these occurrences happened in a different sphere
of history and
cannot be verified historically.16
Similar views were held by other
neo-orthodox theologians such
as E. Brunner17 and D. Bonhoeffer18
and are also quite popular in
more recent works. For example, G. Bornkamm notes the failure of
naturalistic theories but still, in
a manner reminiscent of Barth, states
that the resurrection appearances can only be
accepted by faith apart
from historical examination.19
Likewise, K. Rahner
points out that just because the resurrection
cannot be incorporated "into the normal world of
space and time,"
this does not mean that this event should be denied.20
For M. Barth,
13 N. Perrin, The Resurrection According to Matthew, Mark and
Luke (Phila-
delphia: Fortress, 1977) 78-84.
14 It is difficult in all
examples below to ascertain those scholars who espouse faith
in literal
resurrection appearances of Jesus to his followers, but it is sufficiently
clear in
several cases.
15 See especially
Kierkegaard's work Philosophical
Fragments, trans. by D. F.
Swenson
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962) chaps. 3-4 and Concluding
Unscientific Postscript, trans. by D. F.
Swenson (Princeton:
1941)
chapter 1 and 86ff., 188-00.
16 The progress in Barth's thought on this idea is very informative. For his
most
authoritative statement of these
views see The Doctrine of the
Reconciliation, Volume
IV,
Part 1 of his Church Dogmatics
(ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance; Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956) especially 334-36,
351-52.
17 See, for examples, E.
Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemp-
tion,
Vol. 2 of Dogmatics, trans. O. Wyon
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1952) 366-72.
18 D. Bonhoeffer,
Christ the Center, trans. J. Bowden (
Row,
1966) 71-77.
19 Bornkamm, 180-86.
20 K. Rahner,
Belief Today, chap. 3 trans. W.
Whitman (
Ward, Inc., 1967) 127.
166
CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
the resurrection of Jesus is certainly an actual historicaf occurrence,
but, in words quite reminiscent of his father,
Karl, it
is an event
which occurs at the boundary of empirical scientific knowl-
edge. . . beyond
the realm of experience and sensation which is acces-
sible to rationality and empirical investigation. . .
. 21
An extremely interesting view (at
least partially because it also
reaches beyond the second model) is the position
of T. Torrance. A
well-known interpreter of K. Barth's
theology,
repeatedly explains his literal acceptance of the
resurrection of Jesus.
He
places even more stress on the historicity of the resurrection than
does Barth, such as his
identification of it as "an event that happens
within history. . . a happening within the same order
of physical
existence to which we belong. ..an
event in space and time. . . ."22
He
even differentiates his position from that of the early Barth,
whom
"not as really historical." A footnote implies that Barth only held such
a view in his earlier stages, dated 1910-31.23
But it should be objected
that Barth continued to
speak of the resurrection having occurred in a
different sort of history long after this.24
At any rate,
agrees with Barth that the
resurrection cannot be proven, but is
"apprehended only by faith."25 Other scholars
also hold similar
positions.26
The third model is characterized by
scholars who generally have
a significant interest in more historical aspects
of the resurrection.
Like
the second position, naturalistic theories are also rejected. But
there are at least two primary differences between
this and the previ-
ous view. Whereas those in
the second model generally state their
appropriation of the resurrection by
faith, those in this third group
often proceed a step further by setting forth a
more-or-less abstract
reconstruction of the historical
nature of the appearances. Addition-
ally, they tend to point out reasons why the empty
tomb is the best
21 M. Barth
and V. H. Fletcher, Acquittal by
Resurrection (
Rinehart and Winston, 1964) vi-vii. Cf. 14-15,29 with 25, 31 for this contrast. For an
intriguing parallel, see K. Barth,
The Resurrection of the Dead, trans.
H. J. Stenning
(New
York: Revell, 1933) 134; cf. 131-42.
22 T.F.
86-88;
cf. also 21,89-91,94-95,171-175.
23
Ibid, 95.
24 See footnote 16; see
also K. Barth, The
Faith of the Church, trans. C. Vahanian;
(ed. J. L. Leuba;
25
26 For example, see H. Thielicke, "The Resurrection Kerygma"
in The Easter
Message Today, trans. S. Attanasio and D. L. Cuder (
1964), especially 59, 70-71, 73, 77.
Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION 167
explanation for the data, as opposed, once again, to
the more straight-
forward statement of belief in it.
The chief difference between these
models, then, is the attempt
of those in the third group to go beyond
more-or-less generalized
statements of faith in the resurrection to get
behind the NT texts in an
effort to ascertain at least a minimalistic
understanding of what really
happened, including the providing of reasons27
for the acceptance of
the appearances of Jesus and the empty tomb.
However, it is still
agreed that the resurrection itself is an
eschatological event and is not
demonstrable by historical
methodology, although it is sometimes
held that it will be verifiable in the future.
It might be said that the popularity
of this third position in recent
decades dates from the 1956 publication of a
volume on the resurrec-
tion by H. Grass. Arguing
that the gospel accounts of Jesus' corporeal
resurrection appearances are
legendary, Grass contended that the
application of critical procedures to the NT texts
reveals that Jesus
actually appeared to his disciples, but in a
spiritual form which would
not even have been photographable.28
Unlike most in this group,
Grass
also rejects the accounts of the empty tomb.29 Other
scholars
have followed this lead in interpreting Jesus'
appearances as spiritual,
rather than physical, phenomena.
J. Moltmann
holds that the disciples witnessed visionary30 ap-
pearances of the risen Jesus,
which involved spoken messages and
charged his hearers with a mission of service in
the world. These
events, which are not actually verifiable, occurred in
eschatological
history and are subject to future verification.31
U. Wilkens likewise
concludes that history cannot determine exactly
what happened. Thus,
while naturalistic theories can be refuted and the
historical facticity of
the empty tomb upheld, Jesus' appearances Were
private revelations,
indications of a future, eschatological existence.32
27 I am not implying that
those in the third model engage in formal apologetics,
which these scholars also eschew. However, regardless
of their intent here, there is a
tendency among some of these individuals to
provide numerous reasons, including
some "evidences," for their position, in
contrast to those in the second model.
28 H. Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte
(2nd ed.;
and Ruprecht, 1962) 93;
226-49; cf. 232.
29
Grass, 93.
30 The term “visions” is
often employed without sufficient care. We are not utilizing
the word as a synonym for hallucinations or some
entirely subjective phenomena.
31 J. Moltmann,
Theology of Hope, trans. J. W. Leitch (
1967) 172, 181, 188, 100, 197-98, 202; Religion, Revolution and the Future,
trans. M. D.
Meeks
(New York: Scribner, 1969) 49-55.
32 U. Wilkens,
Resurrection, trans. A. M. Stewart
(Edinburgh: S. Andrew, 1977),
especially 116-25.
168
CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
R. Fuller notes that the disciples'
transformations necessitate an
adequate cause. This source is Jesus'
appearances, which are his-
torically defined as visionary
experiences of light and auditions of
meaning communicated to the earliest witnesses.
The messages both
proclaimed that Jesus had been raised to a new
eschatological exis-
tence and further, imparted a
mission to his followers, such as Paul's
commission to preach to the Gentiles. Such
phenomena were not
subjective visions, but actual experiences. But
even though they
provided the source for the Easter faith and
message, they are re-
moved from historical demonstration.33
J. Jeremias
similarly holds that the resurrection appearances of
Jesus
were spiritual visions of shining light by which the disciples
experienced Jesus as the risen Lord.34
Preferring to view the resurrec-
tion as an historical
question, G. O'Collins postulates that Jesus' ap-
pearances ought to be termed
"Christophanies" since they involved
manifestations of Jesus as
"glorified and divinized as fully as that is
possible." And once again, such appearances
cannot be known except
in faith.35 Others concur on these and
other similar points.36
The fourth model is comprised of
scholars who hold that the
available textual data is sufficient to
demonstrate the probability that
the tomb was empty and that Jesus was literally
raised from the dead.
Probably
the best known recent theologian to accept this conclusion is
W.
Pannenberg, who argues against naturalistic theories
and, as just
noted, concludes that the historical facts
demonstrate the likelihood of
both the empty tomb and the literal appearances of
Jesus. Yet,
Pannenberg dismisses a corporeal resurrection body
in favor of ap-
pearances which are described in
terms of a spiritual body which
appeared from heaven, but was recognized as
Jesus, who imparted an
audition and, at least in Paul's case, was
accompanied by a pheno-
menon of light.37
33 R. H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives
(
Macmillan, 1971) 46-49, 169-72, 181.
34 J. Jeremias,
"Easter: The Earliest Tradition and the Earliest Interpretation" in
New Testament Theology, trans. J. Bowden (New
York: Scribner's, 1971), especially
308-9.
35 O'Collins,
14,55,62.
36 Interestingly enough,
and although his position is difficult to identify, Jewish
scholar P. Lapide
firmly accepts the facticity of Jesus' resurrection
and the subsequent
appearances even though they are recognized by
faith. Furthermore, he also provides
some good reasons to accept these conclusions. See
P. Lapide, The
Resurrection of Jesus:
A Jewish Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1983), especially 92, 95-99, 118, 125,
127 -28.
37 See, in particular, W.
Pannenberg, Jesus-God
and Man, trans. L. L. Wilkens and
D.
Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), especially
88-106.
Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION 169
A. M. Hunter utilizes textual
considerations and applies some
initial historical investigation to conclude
that Jesus' resurrection can
be demonstrated by the facts.38 J. A.
T. Robinson points out that
while historical studies cannot ascertain the exact
details, they may be
sufficient to formulate a probable case for this
event.39 R. Brown, after
an extensive study of the textual data, likewise
supports the facticity
of Jesus' resurrection.40
J. D. G. Dunn carefully examines the
pros and cons for both the
empty tomb and the resurrection appearances of Jesus.
He concludes
that it is almost impossible to reject the
disciples' visionary experi-
ences, which cannot be
explained by alternative theorization. The
empty tomb, he states, is "almost as difficult
to deny."41 In a similar
but less systematic way, L. Goppelt
also finds that the data favor both
the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances of
Jesus. He
critiques Grass for not going far enough in his
conclusions.42 A. M.
Ramsey
is even clearer in his defense of the empty tomb and the
appearances. He also takes a more positive
perspective on the gospel
data.43
In the fifth and last model to be
discussed, scholars agree with the
previous group that the evidence refutes the
naturalistic theories, that
the tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty
and that Jesus
actually appeared to his followers. But the
primary difference be-
tween the last two models is
that, additionally, the scholars in this fifth
group hold that Jesus rose bodily, as well. There are
many different
conceptions of the term "body," but it
will be specified that the word
is being used here in the sense employed by the
gospels. There we
find that Jesus rose in the same body in which he
was crucified, but
that it had been transformed, as well.
Having very briefly delineated this
last point, it must now be
admitted that it is sometimes very difficult to
ascertain who holds to
this specific concept of Jesus' resurrection body
and who does not.
Some
of the scholars whom we have already discussed also hold that
Jesus
was raised bodily. This appears to be clear, for example, in the
38 For example, see A. M.
Hunter, Jesus; Lord and Savior (
Eerdmans, 1976) 98-107. .
39 J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (
mans, 1917) 120-29.
40 R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection
of Jesus (New
41 J. D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1985) 66-78.
42 L. Goppelt,
"The Easter Kerygma in the New Testament"
in The Easter Message
Today, 44-52.
43 A. M. Ramsey, The Resurrection of Christ (London:
Collins, 1961) 35-74.
170
CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
works of K. Barth and T.
Torrance.44 M. Barth, Goppelt,
and Ramsey
likewise make this point, but at least the last
two regard the view
taken by Luke and John as being too drastic.45
Most of the scholars who comprise
this fifth model are evan-
gelicals. Rather than attempting
to identify each one separately, we
will simply cite examples of distinctive
contributions by some of
those who have written entire volumes on this
subject. G. E. Ladd
and W. Craig have set a defense of the resurrection
in the context of a
brief apologetic for both the gospels and Paul's
testimony, specializ-
ing in their endeavors to
face contemporary critical challenges fairly.46
G.
Osborne has defended the resurrection against the critical ques-
tioning of the NT testimony by
his attempts to inquire concerning any
positive value which can be derived from
redaction criticism.47
D. Fuller, after a masterful survey
of contemporary thought on
the resurrection, has championed Luke-Acts as a
sufficient answer to
critical objections.48 Even though attempted harmonies of the
Easter
traditions in the NT are looked at disdainfully by
most critical schol-
ars, this has not deterred
J. Wenham from comprising one of the most
ambitious works on a possible outline of events.49
Lastly, although not primarily on
the resurrection, at least two
other volumes need to be mentioned. R. Gundry's
influential work on
NT
anthropology has a chapter devoted to the crucially important
subject of Paul's agreement with the gospel
authors on Jesus' resurrec-
tion body. N. Geisler's treatise on contemporary critical challenges to
the belief in miracles serves as an excellent
summary of seldom-
known, but influential, objections to these events.50
Many other evan-
gelicals have also published
defenses of the bodily resurrection of
Jesus.51
44 See K. Barth, The Doctrine of
Reconciliation, 4.1, especially 351-42;
26, 164, 171.
45 M. Barth
and V. Fletcher, 9,11, cf. p. vi; Goppelt,
43, 47-49; Ramsey, 108-9.
46 G. E. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (
1975)
see chaps. 7-8; W. L. Craig, Knowing the
Truth About the Resurrection: Our
Response to the Empty
Tomb
(Ann Arhor, MI: Servant, 1988), especially 44-61,
70-86,
95-108.
47 G. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study (
Baker,
1984), see chaps. 2-6 and 233-72.
48 D. P. Fuller, Easter Faith and History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965),
especially chaps. 7-8.
49 J. Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts
in Conflict? (Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan, 1984).
50 R. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (
Press,
1976;
and Modern Thought (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).
51 For just a few of the
more recent volumes containing these defenses; written at
various levels and for varying audiences, see C.
C. Anderson, The Historical Jesus: A
Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION 171
Contemporary critical thinkers have
generally based their most
crucial discussions on the resurrection almost
exclusively on the writ-
ings of Paul, and 1
Corinthians 15 in particular. Evangelicals have too
long been largely ignored by the critical community
for their "over-
commitment" to the gospel accounts of Jesus'
resurrection appear-
ances as credible sources.
But it is certainly time that evangelical
scholars do a more thorough job stating why we
think these gospel
accounts, in particular, deserve equal emphasis
along with the testi-
mony of Paul and others. To
date, too many evangelicals have been
complacent, largely attempting to write to each
other, repeating old
presentations of evidence for Jesus'
resurrection without really grap-
pling with contemporary
concerns. For this we deserve criticism.52
In retrospect, there appears to be
the possibility of some intrigu-
ing connections between
these five models, although it is difficult to
be dogmatic here. The third group seems to be a
more recent devel-
opment from the second, where
it is possible that the latter was
judged to have placed too much emphasis on the
disjunction between
history and faith. Model four is a modern,
critical defense of the
resurrection which might be viewed
at least partially as a reaction to
the first and second models while not going as far
as the traditional,
orthodox view represented by the fifth group.
Conversely, models
one and five may be viewed as antitheses, while two
and four are
rivals on the issue of historicity.
It is also very important to note
that of these five models, only the
first is generally characterized by a rejection of
(or agnostic attitude
towards) the literal resurrection of Jesus. Just
as significant is the
observation that the first view not only appears to
be losing ground,
but varying positions which support the facticity of the resurrection
appearances are presently quite popular.53
It is for this reason that
Continuing Quest (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972);
Witness of History (Leichester:
InterVarsity, 1985); F. F. Bruce, The New Testament
Documents: Are They
Reliable?
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960); Green, The Empty
Cross of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984); A. J. Hoover, The Case for
Christian Theism: An
Introduction to Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976); C. S.
Lewis,
Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New
York: Macmillan, 1960); P. L. Maier, First
Easter (New York: Harper &
Row, 1973); J. McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San
Bernardino:
Here's Life, 1981); J. W. Montgomery, History
and Christianity (Downers
Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1964,1965);
J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City:
A Defense
of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987); R. Nash, Christian Faith and Historical
Understanding (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1984); C. Pinnock, Set Forth Your Case
(Chicago:
Moody, 1967); and M. Tenny, The Reality of the Resurrection (
Harper & Row, 1963).
52 I am not speaking of
the volumes in notes 46-51, many of which have made
serious contributions in these areas.
53 Once again, this is a
broad survey, hence necessitating generalities rather than
detailed expositions of these five positions.
Concerning the second group in particular, it
172
CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
much of the remainder of this essay will be
addressed, in a special
sense, to the first viewpoint (although it will be
related to the others as
well).
II. A Traditional Apologetic: A Summary
Before proceeding to a more
contemporary defense, it is advan-
tageous that a brief summary be
given of a more-or-less traditional
apologetic for the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps
including some new
angles. Arguments for the historicity of the
resurrection appearances
have traditionally been based on two major lines of
support. First,
naturalistic theories have failed to
explain away this event, and,
second, there are evidences which indicate that Jesus'
resurrection
literally occurred.
That naturalistic theories have
failed is evident for several rea-
sons. Initially, each individual alternative
hypothesis has been shown
to fall prey to various criticisms and has been disproven by the known
historical facts. In other words, theses such as
those relying on fraud,
swoon, hallucinations, legends, spiritualistic, or
psychological experi-
ences have individually been
refuted by several key objections which
render each one quite improbable.54
Another indication of the failure of
the naturalistic theories is that
each one was disproven by
the 19th century liberals themselves.
These
scholars refuted each other's hypotheses, thereby leaving no
viable alternative. For example, D. Strauss delivered
the historical
death blow to the swoon theory held by K. Venturini, H. Paulus and
others.55 On the other hand, F. Schleiermacher and Paulus pointed
out
errors in Strauss' hallucination theory.56
However, the major decima-
tion of the hallucination
theory came at the hands of T. Keim.57 The
fraud and legend theories were disproven
by later critical research.58
has already been noted that it is difficult to
ascertain in all instances if the resurrection is
being accepted as a literal event. At any rate, since
many in this group do accept a literal
resurrection, a rejection of this
event is therefore not a characteristic of the second group
as a whole, as it is with the first.
54 It is impossible in
the scope of this essay to deal with each of these naturalistic
theories and their refutations. For details, see
G. Habermas, The Resurrection of
Jesus: A
Rational Inquiry (Ann Arbor, MI:
University Microfilms, 1976), especially 114-71.
55 Strauss, A New Life of Jesus (London: Williams an
Norgate, 1879) 1.412; see also
A
.Schweitzer's assertion that Strauss administered the death blow to such
rationalistic
thought in The
Quest of the Historical Jesus, trans. W.
Macmillan, 1968) 56.
56 F. Schleiermacher,
The Christian Faith, ed. H. R. Mackintosh
and J. S. Stewart
(New
York: Harper & Row, 1963) 2.420; Schweitzer, 54-55.
57 J. Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1908, 1965) 219.
58 For examples, see R.
Fuller, 46-49; Bornkamm, 185.
Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION 173
By
such critiques these scholars pointed out that each of these theories
was disproven by the
known data.
After 19th century liberals
decimated each other's views indi-
vidually, 20th century critical
scholars have generally rejected these
theories as a whole, judging that they are
incapable of explaining the
facts. This contemporary approach is a characteristic
of 20th century
schools of thought across a wide theological
spectrum.
For instance, K. Barth
pointed out that each of these liberal
hypotheses is confronted by many inconsistencies
and concluded that
"to-day we rightly turn up our nose at this. ..."59
Brown likewise
asserts that 20th-century critical scholars have
rejected these theories,
holding that they are no longer respectable. He
adds that such con-
temporary thinkers ignore these alternative views
and any popularized
renditions of them, as well.60 Such
rejections are also manifested by
theologians as diverse as Tillich,
Pannenberg, Bornkamm and
Robin-
son.61 That even such critical
scholars have rejected these naturalistic
theories is a final epitaph on the failure of
these views. But, as pointed
out above, that these theses have been disproven by the factual data
remains the chief reason for their failure.
The second major point in our
traditional apologetic for Jesus'
resurrection concerns the many
positive evidences which corroborate
the historical and literal nature of this event.
Our earlier list of ac-
cepted historical facts
contains at least ten such evidences. Thus, their
factual basis is generally admitted by virtually
all scholars (with the
exception of the empty tomb which is nonetheless
attested by many).
However,
because of limitation, these ten will simply be stated with
very little elaboration.
The key evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is (1) the disciples'
experiences which they believed to be literal
appearances of the risen
Jesus,
especially since these reports cannot be explained by naturalistic
theories, as just noted. We will concentrate
further on the nature of
these experiences in the next article. Other positive
evidences include
(2)
the transformation of the disciples into bold witnesses
who were
willing to die for their faith, (3) the
historical facts in support of the
empty tomb and (4) the central nature of the
resurrection message, all
of which require adequate explanations.
Additionally, (5) the disciples
proclaimed this message in
59 K. Barth,
The Doctrine of Reconciliation, 4.1, 340.
60 R. Brown, "The Resurrection and Biblical
Criticism." Commonweal,
Nov. 24,
1967, especially 233.
61 P. Tillich,
Systematic Theology (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1972) I
especially 2.156; Pannenberg,
Jesus-God and Man, 88-97; Bornkamm, 181-85; Robin-
son, 123-25.
174
CRISWELL
THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
would expect. Yet, in repeated confrontations with
the authorities,
(6)
the Jewish leaders
could not disprove their message. Further,
(7)
the very existence of the church, (8) featuring Sunday
as the
primary day of worship demands historical
causes, as well.
Two major facts arguing for the
historicity of the resurrection are
that two skeptics, (9) James and (10) Paul,
became believers after
having experiences which they also believed were
appearances of the
risen Jesus. Fuller concludes that even if the
appearance to James was
not recorded by Paul (1 Cor
15:7), such an occurrence would still
have to be postulated anyway in order to account for
both James'
conversion and subsequent promotion to a position
of authority in the
early church. The same could be said even more emphatically
con-
cerning Paul.62
When combined with the failure of the
naturalistic theories, this
minimum of ten evidences provides a strong case
for the historicity of
Jesus' resurrection. This is especially so
in that these evidences were
based on critically recognized historical data; they
can be shown to be
factual. In particular, when the eyewitness
experiences of the dis-
ciples, James, and Paul are
considered along with their correspond-
ing transformations,63
the historical resurrection becomes the best
explanation for the facts, especially since the
naturalistic theories
failed. Therefore, it may be concluded that the
resurrection is a
historical event.
62 R. Fuller, 37, 46-47.
63 This does not even
include the experience of the more than 500 persons who
claimed to see the risen Jesus and concerning
whom Paul asserted that most were still
alive and therefore could be questioned.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: