VIII. Scholars Comment on Other Scholars and Trends

VIII. Scholars Comment on Other Scholars and Trends

1. NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP AND TRENDS IN GENERAL

A. General Comments

1. Alston: Notes numerous foibles of critical New Testament interpreters, such as the ways they argue that texts are late, the move from textual similarities to direct composition or dependence, and that “could” doesn’t mean “must.” A great list of these sorts of fallacies and other items are also presented.

2. Coakley: Coakley agrees that Alston “has established very elegantly and convincingly” that New Testament scholars are “coy—or downright repressive—about supernatural events in general and bodily resurrection in particular.”

3. Jones: Jones surveys Bultmann, Rahner, and some theological issues in relation to the resurrection.

4. Neill and Wright: These two make many comments throughout their book regarding various critical scholars with important comments. They note German “prejudice” and privilege. They compare the views of inerrancy in Germany and England. They highlight four different critiques of the history of religions movement. Most importantly, the fourth critique argues that the earliest Christianity cannot be explained by the history of religions.

5. Robinson: John A. T. Robinson critiques several recent critical trends.

6. Wright: Wright criticizes general scholarship for being “misleading” regarding the physicality of the resurrection and that resurrection meant a bodily event, not a spiritual one. Wright notes that particularly in North American New Testament studies, there is pressure to understand Jesus in a way that “know[s] little and care[s] less about the death and resurrection of Jesus.” Wright also lists the sorts of things critics do in their “hermeneutic of suspicion.” If two ancient writers agree, one copied the other! If they disagree, one (or both) are wrong! If something fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy, they faked it! If an event fits a writer’s theme, he invented it! “Anything to show how clever we are, how subtle, to have smoked out the reality behind the text.” Intriguingly, Borg takes the bait several times.

B. Jesus as Mirrored Reflection of Historian or Theologian

1. Historical Jesus Studies

A) Neill and Wright: These two note that from around 1860 to 1900, a significant number of diverse and subjective lives of Jesus were produced.

B) Tabor: Tabor observes that Jesus raises several challenges regarding our own prejudices and passions.

C) Wink: “Notice that not a single shred of new evidence emerged after the first century. The issue depends solely on intellectual fads of the age, and on what they permit us to believe . . . it is arrogant to declare the resurrection impossible.”

2. Crossan as an Example

A) Dunn: Dunn thinks that Crossan has selected aspects of Jesus’s life that are the most congenial “to his modern life-setting.”

B) Price: Price notes that Crossan has fallen for the trap of “creating a liberal Jesus in his own image.”

C. Jesus Seminar

1. Blomberg: Blomberg notes that the Jesus Seminar removed any reason for Jesus’s being condemned to death. Additionally, their Jesus “simply is not sufficiently Jewish” and too similar to a figure foreign to Jesus’s culture.

2. Boyd: Excellent source that treats and critiques the Cynic thesis (e.g., Crossan and Mack) in detail.

3. Craig: Craig notes that the Seminar’s pillars of wisdom are merely philosophical prejudices that inhibit them from objectively evaluating the evidence on Jesus’s resurrection.

4. Dunn: “And one of the most distressing features of the so-called Jesus Seminar in California in the 1990s was the revival of the attempt to characterize first-century Galilee as pervaded by a Hellenistic ethos and largely pagan in character (Burton Mack, Robert Funk).” As Dunn notes, one of the key mistakes made by the Jesus Seminar is the “unjustified and misleading impression that the Jesus tradition existed orally only in fragmentary aphoristic forms or small collections of teaching material or stories about Jesus.”

5. Johnson: Johnson calls the Seminar a “better example of media manipulation than of serious scholarship.” He refers to Robert Funk as the “ringmaster-entrepreneur.” “Funk’s statements reveal a strange combination of grandiosity and hucksterism.” Jesus Seminar scholarship “is not of an impressive quality.” The Seminar “ultimately shares the same literalism and historical positivism that characterizes fundamentalism.”

6. Meier: Argues against the Jesus Seminar’s special claims for Gos. Thom. being early and independent, and concludes that these two claims “must fall to the ground.” Other claims by the Jesus Seminar “likewise must come crashing down . . . I would hazard the guess that, ten years from now, many of the theories proposed by the Jesus Seminar will prove a major embarrassment to most of the academics who once held them.” Their attempt to make Jesus into a philosopher is “wrongheaded.” These critics can’t accept certain things about the historical Jesus because “this would contradict all the portraits these critics paint of Jesus,” and especially the Cynic thesis. Meier also argues against Jesus as a social revolutionary.

7. Wade: Wade considers the Jesus Seminar to be “the pariahs of biblical scholarship.” He lists Jesus Under Fire as “an excellent rebuttal to Crossan and the Jesus Seminar.”

8. Wilken: Says the Jesus Seminar is “interested in publicity . . . flatters local reporters . . . thereby gaining front-page coverage.” There is “hucksterism and religious prejudices.” Wilken contends that “not only are the scholarly claims of the Jesus Seminar fraudulent, but its leaders also have a religious and cultural agenda directed against the churches.” The Seminar members “fashion a Jesus of their own making.”

9. Wright: Crossan and the Seminar have “made a fatal mistake” in deleting apocalyptic language from Jesus’s preaching; their agenda “owes more to a desire to discover an unorthodox and anti-canonical early mode of Christianity . . . than to serious historical analysis” Further, Wright makes devastating critiques of (and quotes against) Mack, Crossan, the Cynic thesis, Borg, and the New Quest. He also discusses Mack and the Jesus Seminar as an extension of the New Quest for the historical Jesus.

D. Jewishness of Jesus

1. Meier: Meier points out that some in the Third Quest for the historical Jesus have ignored the Jewishness of Jesus (Crossan, Mack, Funk, etc.). However, the focus on the Jewishness of Jesus has typically been one of the marks of the Third Quest.

E. Versus the Cynic Jesus Thesis

1. Ehrman: Ehrman notes that such a view goes against the data since Jesus references the Old Testament and does not quote pagan sources or encourage them to be followed. Jesus was quite different from the Cynics.

2. Meier: Criticizes more modern attempts to portray Jesus as a Cynic.

F. Versus an Essene or Qumran Jesus

1. Meier: Meier notes the similarities and differences between Jesus and the Qumran scrolls. He concludes that they never refer to Jesus. Too often, the similarities are focused upon to the neglect of their differences.

2. AKENSON, DONALD

A. Barnett: Barnett lists several issues with Akenson’s thesis that Paul was the founder of Christianity, in addition to the following issues: (1) his inconsistent use of Acts, (2) his notion of the Messiah in Second Temple Judaism, (3) does not explain the impact of AD 70 for Christians, (4) does not explain Paul’s resurrection experience, and (5) why Jesus would be recognized post-70 as the Messiah.

3. ALLISON, DALE

A. Chester: Regarding Allison’s End of the Ages, he writes that “many complex questions are glossed over.”

B. Hiers: A key question for Hiers in his review is, Why did the early church see Jesus’s death and resurrection as the beginning of the new age?

C. Jones: Says Allison’s scope is “too narrow,” so “the discussion will need to be broadened for its real value to be assessed.”

D. Muddiman: Claims Allison “draws back” from asserting that it was a predeath conclusion that inspired the disciples here instead of a postmortem conviction. He thinks there were three factors that led to Easter faith: “visions ostensibly of Jesus, belief in his empty tomb, and pre-Easter eschatological expectations.”

4. ANDERSON, NORMAN

A. Board: Board likes Anderson’s answer to those who have never heard the Gospel: “I find it satisfying.”

5. ARCHAYA S. (MURDOCK, DOROTHY)

A. Ehrman: Ehrman offers a very critical response to Archaya S.

6. ARNHEIM, MICHAEL

A. Vermes: Notes that Arnheim is a professor of classical civilization, has been called “an agnostic historian,” and takes a legend theory approach. He also states the virgin birth covers up illegitimacy. Arnheim says that the only fact we know about Jesus is that he died on the cross. (But notice many other factual claims in this survey, along with more in the original review!) Arnheim also states the apparitions after Jesus’s death were “invented a generation or more after the events were supposed to have happened.” Jesus himself is the chief source of these errors—he called himself the Messiah, but knew it wasn’t true. Jesus was a hypocrite in his morals too. For example, he preached love but hated the Pharisees, and he preached humility but wasn’t humble. Vermes finds that “the principal weakness” of this work “is that its author has not done his homework.” By not knowing the historical and literary background of the New Testament, Arnheim gets himself into many problems (Vermes gives some examples of this).

7. BARTH, KARL

A. Riches: “Barth directed a fierce attack against all attempts to ground Christian faith in the sphere of the observable, the historical, the outward world of sense and appearance. The object of faith was essentially transcendent, wholly other; God’s Word was something that could only be believed and not known.”

8. BARTON, JOHN

A. Dawes: Says Barton’s book Love Unknown provided “many refreshing insights” and will help readers “break away from the crudeness and make-believe of fundamentalism.”

9. BAUCKHAM, RICHARD

A. Hurtado: Hurtado makes arguments regarding Christology that are similar to Bauckham’s arguments. (For example, the appropriation of Isa 45:23 in Phil 2:9–11.) Hurtado evaluates Bauckham’s view and makes both positive and negative remarks.

10. BAUR, F. C.

A. Neill and Wright: Provide various critiques against F. C. Baur.

11. BAYER, HANS

A. Ellis: Notes that Jesus’s resurrection is the “crucial event” before “the consummation of the kingdom of God at his return.” However, Ellis remarks that it is unfortunate that Bayer’s book needs more work “on better form-critical foundations.”

B. Sumithra: Says Bayer’s book is a work defending Jesus’s predictions of his vindication and resurrection that was originally a dissertation done at Aberdeen under I. H. Marshall. Sumithra calls it a “conservative” study that “covers all the important synoptic passages” on Jesus’s resurrection and vindication predictions. “The study assuredly demonstrates that several of the old positions need to be re-evaluated,” like the messianic secret and “the expectation of the early return of Jesus.”

12. BOCK, DARRELL

A. Crossan: Crossan makes various comments regarding Bock’s historical Jesus as it relates to Jesus proclaiming God’s kingdom.

B. Johnson: Johnson argues that Bock doesn’t really engage the Gospels “critically.” Bock “has not yet grasped what historical analysis requires.”

C. Price: Price argues that Bock’s understanding of Justin Martyr and his Jewish interlocutor Trypho is one that bears “apologetical stretch marks.”

13. BORG, MARCUS

A. Borg: Borg calls himself a liberal.

B. Neill and Wright: These two call Borg’s Christology “lame” and critique him for not having properly provided a reason as to why Jesus was crucified.

C. Wright: Critiques Borg in their coauthored book. Wright argues against various arguments from Borg.

14. BORING, EUGENE

A. Cox: Calls Boring’s book The Continuing Voice of Jesus a study of “the voice of Jesus from the resurrection to the canonization of the Gospels” and how Jesus’s teaching was modified by early Christian prophets.

15. BOUSSET, WILHELM

A. Hurtado: Hurtado argues briefly against the inaccurate and overly simplistic account provided by Bousset.

16. BROWN, RAYMOND

A. Butterworth: Says the chief contribution of Brown’s The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus is scriptural, although it offers too little of theological value when much more could be said here. He notes that Brown states the virgin birth or resurrection may have occurred, “although I would not draw this conclusion from this present book.”

17. BULTMANN, RUDOLF

A. Bauckham: Bauckham contends that the tendency to eliminate names in the Gospels is “a fact that refutes Bultmann’s argument, so long as one accepts Markan priority (as Bultmann did).”

B. Ehrman: Considers Bultmann to be one of the greatest and most influential New Testament scholars of the twentieth century.

C. Grant: Argues against Bultmann’s overzealous criticism of the New Testament.

D. O’Collins: O’Collins offers several critiques of Bultmann.

E. Price: Price argues that Bultmann was inconsistent because he believed there was a core experience for the apostles that he then clothed in the language of mystery-religion mythology.

F. Riches: Riches summarizes Bultmann’s views on Paul. Riches also summarizes Bultmann’s views on John. Finally, he summarizes Bultmann’s view on history’s lack of value as it relates to faith, including Geschichte and historie.

G. Torrance: Says Bultmann is a reductionist in that, for him, resurrection faith “is not at all intelligible or reasonable apart from the actual event of the resurrection.” Bultmann’s historiography unfairly rules out any “unprecedented factors.”

H. Ware: James Ware deems as “unconvincing” Bultmann’s arguments that the lack of mention of the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15 suggests Paul knew nothing of an empty tomb.

I. Wright: Wright offers various criticisms of Bultmann.

18. BYNUM, CAROLINE

A. Bundy: “An important subtheme” of Bynum’s book on the resurrection is the contribution of women to this discussion: “at most every point, Bynum interacts with a variety of scholarly analysis and opinion.” Bundy then states, “This book is truly an important contribution to the study of Western theology and culture.”

19. CANTINAT, J.

A. Coppen: Says Cantinat’s book is chiefly on evidence from Mark’s and Paul’s accounts.

20. CARNLEY, PETER

A. Brown: Colin Brown says from the beginning, “Carnley downplays the physical character of Jesus’ resurrection” and claims it is not possible that “Jesus’ resurrection be treated as a historical event comparable with his death and burial.” Carnley gives the empty tomb “a secondary or preliminary role.” Brown notes that Carnley’s book does raise questions like how the present work of the Spirit is related to the earthly Jesus and why the empty tomb tradition should be distinguished from the appearances. Brown also notes other “correction and supplementation.”

B. O’Collins: O’Collins highlights Padgett’s critique and seems to agree that Carnley’s assessment of our present faith doesn’t seem to rely very strongly on Jesus’s appearances. O’Collins adds that his problem with Carnley “is similar but not the same” as Padgett’s, namely, Carnley’s analogies to Jesus’s appearances, like comparing them to NDEs (near-death experiences). But O’Collins has “only enthusiastic appreciation for” Carnley’s emphasis on experiencing the risen Jesus “now.”

C. Padgett: Padgett notes that a “major problem” of “Carnley’s otherwise excellent book” is that it separates faith and science.

21. CASEY, MAURICE

A. Hurtado: Hurtado argues briefly against the chronology provided by Casey.

22. CHMIEL, JERZY

A. Lachowski: Says Chmiel’s book applies Old Testament concerns to the apostolic resurrection kerygma and seems to interpret resurrection as a historical fact upon which the disciples’ experience rested.

23. COLLINS, ADELA YARBRO

A. Ware: James Ware provides a good summary of, and ultimately a response to, the view of Grass and Collins that Paul does not mention the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15 and that the empty tomb accounts as well as the physical resurrection are later developments. “The historical scenarios offered by Collins and Grass . . . are agreed that the earliest Christ-followers did not regard Jesus’ resurrection as an event involving the revivification of the corpse laid in the tomb.”

24. COOK, MICHAEL

A. Loewe: “Offers a sample of the state of christology in more traditional, academic circles.” He notes that Cook’s book synthesizes four theologians, including Moltmann on the cross and Pannenberg on the resurrection.

25. CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE

A. Blomberg: Says there is no scholarly consensus on Jesus’s deity like the one that Craig thinks exists. He says Craig too often overstates the case on agreement about Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus’s burial. The same can be said regarding the first Sunday and the empty tomb’s discovery. Craig overstates the Jesus Seminar’s agreement with Crossan.

B. Byrne: Regarding Craig’s book on the resurrection and deism, Byrne gives examples of how Craig mistreats “deism and its precursors.” There are a couple of a priori responses against miracles from deism that have “resurfaced” in contemporary philosophy, but Byrne still concludes that Craig’s book is “a challenging attempt to show that rejection of the miraculous in history reflects prejudice rather than proof.”

C. Copan: Regarding Craig’s book on the resurrection, he writes that Craig has “clearly established himself as the leading American authority on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection.” He notes that Craig argues for the empty tomb (Paul implies it by the words he uses for resurrection, Paul’s imagery for the believer’s death, and Paul’s “fact-finding” trip to Jerusalem), a literal third day, and the nature of the resurrection body. All naturalistic theories fail, and “most alternative explanations for the empty tomb are more incredible than the resurrection itself.” Craig’s work is “inexplicably ignored.”

D. Eddy: Says Craig hurts himself by constant, unsupported references to a “scholarly consensus” that are “little more than an unsubstantiated rhetorical ploy,” and sometimes he appears to be wrong (like on Joseph of Arimathea).

E. Gundry: Gently chides Craig for a number of overstatements concerning the nature of facts, what is known of Jesus’s burial and empty tomb, hallucinations, Paul, and general topics.

F. Herrick: Regarding Craig’s book on the resurrection and deism, he says Craig fills major gaps in miracle arguments in a “vast historical sweep.” He also says Craig, at times, provides too many details, but the section on Hume was not as thorough as needed. Craig’s book demonstrates “thorough familiarity with the technicalities of contemporary debate concerning miracles.”

G. Lowder: Lowder argues against Craig’s view of the burial and empty tomb.

H. Morgan: Regarding Craig’s book on the resurrection and deism, Morgan states that Craig wants to “revive this evidentialist apologetic,” which is “hardly excusable” after his own account of the effects of biblical criticism. So why continue to counter “the vulgar anti-Christian polemics of barrack-room rationalism in this ad hominem way”? Such an approach reveals a “crude view of God and the world. Resurrection without mystery is neither credible nor Christian.”

I. Moser: On the Craig and Crossan debate volume, he writes that though it “fails to break new ground,” it is still recommended.

J. Muller: Regarding Craig’s book on the resurrection and deism, he writes that apologetics does not belong in a historical survey, and the final section makes one think that apologetics is even Craig’s “underlying purpose.”

K. Pearson: Regarding Craig’s book on the resurrection and deism, Pearson says it is too dependent on secondary sources and adds that the “attempt to combine history and apologetics is a failure.” Craig’s concluding portion on how a historical argument for the resurrection might look today “is the most interesting, the most controversial, and—to me, a historian—the most unconvincing of Craig’s work.”

L. Price: Price argues against Craig approach, style, and various arguments.

M. Witherington: Objects to Craig’s use of the resurrection as “proving” the deity of Jesus. But it is difficult to know what Witherington means here, especially when he goes on to strongly agree to only a slightly lesser extent in a comment of a similar nature.

26. CROSSAN, JOHN DOMINIC

A. Allison: Allison critiques Crossan’s indifference toward the afterlife.

B. Barnett: Barnett criticizes Crossan for “extensive socioeconomic discussion” that is done to lay the groundwork for the character of early Christianity. He does this without “empirical data”; thus, “much of his discussion is conjectural.” Barnett also notes the differences from modern and ancient historiography.

C. Black: The earliest account of Jesus’s passion was the Cross Gospel, “embedded in” parts of the Gos. Pet., which became the source for the four Gospels. A late-second century redactor wrote Gos. Pet., using this Cross Gospel. Black lists these examples of problems: (1) Was the gap between historical event and proclamation as great as Crossan thinks? (2) Much of his data can be interpreted in other ways. For example, part of the Gos. Pet. could have been taken from the canonical Gospels. (3) Crossan’s account is contrary to highly developed critical theories on Gospels development. (4) The Gos. Pet. “exhibits very little verbal identity” with canonical Gospel (citing a 1987 article by Raymond Brown). The last sentence of Black’s review of Crossan’s book The Cross That Spoke seems to sound a common note: “Whether an appreciable consensus of scholarly opinion can be rallied to his own perspective, only time will tell.”

D. Blomberg: Says “no responsible historian would ever” use Crossan’s or Funk’s approach to studying other major figures like Alexander or Augustus. Nor should we apply their approaches to Jesus.

E. Bock: Bock argues that Crossan overlooks a considerable amount of Jesus’s message and that Jesus was concerned with more than violence, such as graciously bringing people into a redeemed relationship with God.

F. Craig: Regarding the possibility of multiple burial accounts, Craig argues that Crossan is an example of the extremes one must go to, to find a different burial account. Regarding Crossan’s belief that Mark invented Joseph of Arimathea, “Unfortunately, Crossan gives no evidence for this assertion.” Crossan has no qualitative data for his position. Crossan’s skepticism on the resurrection is based on quite suspect presuppositions. Craig says Crossan’s assumptions are “idiosyncratic,” and without them his arguments fall apart. Crossan’s liberal position is ultimately based on faith, not on contemporary scholarship.

G. Crossan: Crossan calls himself a “liberal” or even “radical.”

H. Denova: Regarding The Birth of Christianity, Denova writes that it deals chiefly with those texts that do not contain or emphasize the death and resurrection of Jesus, such as Q, Gos. Thom., and Did., from which Crossan produces his “Common Sayings Tradition.” The historicity of miracles, which can never be established, “is displaced . . . by a Jesus who taught the true faith of social equality. Jesus becomes a first-century Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.” Denova says Crossan gives very little scriptural or other evidence to support his claims. In this book. Crossan has also dropped his earlier treatment of Jesus’s cleansing of the temple—it makes Jesus too active! In Crossan’s earlier works, the resurrection stories were “the community’s construction of narrative metaphors to express their sense of Jesus’ continuing presence among them.” Here, narrative metaphor “gives way” to “narrative detail.” Denova argues that the work’s “weakness lies in the author’s construction of a Jesus to fit our needs, a Jesus whom he then discovers in the evidence.” This may make it as a theological quest, “but not as an historical one.”

I. Dunn: “The search for new sources has found a doughty champion in Dominic Crossan, who has broken right through the constraints imposed by the four canonical Gospels . . . and has produced an amazing cornucopia of sources for traditions about Jesus—no less than fifty-two!” Like Price below, Dunn sees Crossan as following similar characteristics as the older liberal scholars. Crossan also seems to take the parts of the Jesus tradition that better fit his modern-life setting. Dunn comments that Jesus, in Crossan’s depiction, is made inoffensive and more reflective of a modern man (leaving one wondering why Jesus was even crucified in the first place). Dunn comments regarding Crossan’s one-sidedness with respect to Jesus’s kingdom (present-future) preaching. While Crossan is more open to both views, he does not go far enough. Dunn is also shocked at Crossan’s conclusions regarding Meier, because he finds Crossan guilty of doing the very thing Crossan chides Meier for doing.

J. Eddy: While he says Craig has overdone it a bit, he still holds there is ample room for critiques of Crossan. There is “massive implausibility” surrounding Crossan’s account of Christian origins. Eddy suggests critique is needed of Crossan’s theory of Jesus’s burial. Why is it that the Jesus Seminar is at such odds about the nature of the Gospels vis-a-vis prominent members of the Third Quest for the historical Jesus? Recent evidence goes against the interpretation that the New Testament writers tried to historicize Old Testament prophecies, presuppositions, and changes used in Seminar tactics.

K. Johnson: Johnson contends that Crossan “plays fast and loose with the sources,” with logic, and with his historical methods. Johnson also argues that Crossan appears to have “privileged access” to the inner thoughts of historical people despite often lacking historical evidence that confirms or suggests what he claims and reading his own views into the texts. Johnson notes a “carelessness” in Crossan’s handling of the Gospels. Johnson argues that Crossan removed certain data from the historian’s database in his earlier writings and methodological principles, only to use that very same data to establish his conclusions.

L. Nickelsburg: Nickelsburg, who did a portion of his dissertation on the Gos. Pet., argues against Crossan’s thesis. Although the Gos. Pet. “contains primitive elements of the passion tradition,” it “seems to reflect the canonical Gospels more than Crossan suggests.”

M. Powell: Regarding The Birth of Christianity, Powell notes that Crossan posits two trajectories. The first, originating in Galilee, has Q and the Gos. Thom. as the key sources. The second, originating in the Jerusalem area, he calls the “Death Tradition,” which is seen later in Paul, Mark, and the Gos. Pet. In chapters 14–18 of his book, Crossan develops the “Common Sayings Tradition”—the overlap between Q and the Gos. Thom. The second half of the book develops theses of Jesus’s nonviolent resistance, a social doctrine of “peasant empowerment,” the Eucharist, and passion and resurrection stories. Crossan finds a “female lament tradition” in burial and tomb accounts, challenging the view that the passion narratives are early and eyewitness. Powell states that “the arguments do not convince.” Crossan is less convincing when he deals with the historical Jesus, due to his “idiosyncratic source theories.”

N. Price: Though Price finds Crossan better than older liberal scholars, Price still thinks that, like the old liberal scholars, Crossan has created a “liberal Jesus in his own image.”

O. Wink: Regarding The Cross That Spoke, Wink notes that Crossan dates the hypothetical Cross Gospel about AD 50, behind the Gos. Pet., and claims it is the primary source for the canonical Gospels. Wink critiques this by saying that “in the end he comes up empty-handed.” There are some major issues with Crossan’s Cross Gospel thesis: (1) If all four Gospels were dependent on the Cross Gospel, it would seem that at least two of them would prefer it to Mark. (2) Why would Mark “virtually scrap” the Cross Gospel’s “dramatic resurrection narrative” and go with the women instead? (3) The Gos. Pet. sounds more like apocrypha. (4) No Gospel writer took over the Gospel of Peter’s convenient placing of the blame on the Jews. Wink comically concludes, “I suspect that if the cross could truly speak, it would say something like ‘balderdash.’”

P. Witherington: Witherington argues that a position shows itself to be weak when it makes itself unfalsifiable by removing itself from the empirical and historical world to the subjective. It strikes as a “ploy of desperation.” By removing oneself from the objective world to the subjective, there are no criteria by which we can we make proper judgments. Crossan’s view looks like pantheism or panentheism. The resurrection shows that God’s evaluation of Jesus differs from the evaluation by members of the Jesus Seminar.

Q. Wright: Wright argues against various issues raised by Crossan. Regarding Crossan’s Historical Jesus, Wright examines in detail Crossan’s appendix with his four strata of Jesus’s life. Wright critiques Crossan for exceptions that meet his criteria, such as an apocalyptic Jesus. The appendix looks like a rigorous academic exercise, but it is just appearance. Most New Testament scholars would view Crossan’s “list as extremely shaky.” Wright provides other critiques of Crossan.

27. DAWE, DONALD

A. Dawe: Dawe says there are two kinds of evidence for resurrection in the New Testament: (1) experience of new life in Christ and (2) appearances and empty tomb. But he makes very brief mention of these, with little factual elaboration.

B. Root: Notes that this is a volume on mediation between traditional and modern Christologies as well as Jesus and other religions, among other topics. Dawe opts for a type of “middle way” that seems to combine aspects of both inclusivism and universalism, but his effort “remains ambiguous.”

C. Wilson: “Dawe’s postmodern, revisionist response” puts methods and Christology in “disarray.” Wilson “settles on a modified Barthian approach” to Christianity and world religions. Dawe often merely “announces his positions without arguing them.”

28. DE JONGE, MARINUS

A. Harrington: Regarding de Jonge’s Jesus, the Servant Messiah, he writes, “It indicates nicely that the reason Jesus’ followers made the claims that they did about His death and Resurrection, His teaching about God’s kingdom and the Christology implied by it was that they were prepared to do so by the person and teaching of Jesus.”

29. DENEKEN, MICHEL

A. Focant: Calls Deneken’s book an ambitious 675-page volume with predecessors like F. X. Durrwell. Part 1 is on resurrection and Christology, comparing historical-critical methods of a wide number of commentators like Strauss, Bultmann, and Lüdemann. Part 2 treats the evangelical narratives. Part 3 addresses God and the Trinity.

30. DERRETT, J. DUNCAN M.

A. Derrett: Derrett was formerly professor of Oriental laws at University of London. Making much use of Mark, Derrett’s thesis is that Jesus was stabbed with a spear, which was normal Roman practice, but this was more likely a prick to see if the victim flinched. He suggests perhaps Jesus entered into a trance on the cross and didn’t die. His clinical death was reversed and he was revived in the tomb. Derrett then suggests Jesus was found by a young man outside, who was assigned to watch the tomb. From there, Jesus had very brief conversations with the women and disciples, commissioning them. Jesus was convinced all this was God’s vindication and fulfilled Scripture. Then he died of gangrene and was cremated by the disciples. The disciples knew he didn’t die on the cross but died later. But all this was “not a hoax.” The “greatest obstacle” to his theory is Paul’s conversion and appearance experience. Derrett notes that although Paul had a vision, the term anastasis (which he translates as “revival”) in New Testament claims doesn’t mean Jesus actually rose from the dead, but that he was revived after crucifixion. “The proofs of the Anastasis” are said to be the empty tomb and appearances. These proofs later turned into proclamations of his resurrection appearances. The appearances were “ecstatic visions.” “The earliest form of the Christian message was centered in the tomb.” He says this is no problem for Christian theology because Jesus’s “mode” of resurrecting was never an article of faith.

B. Harvey: Says Derrett “makes sense of the historical sediment”; however, he leaves some major questions. To start, cremation is “totally alien in Jewish practice, and utterly scandalous in Jewish beliefs.” Such a cremation “must have been nothing less than traumatic” for the disciples. Harvey also notes that Derrett is troubled by Strauss’s critique that “the lingering life . . . of a man who could barely speak or walk is the historical germ from which grew the narratives of Jesus’ resurrection appearances.”

C. O’Collins: Says Derrett totally misses the point that Paul uses the verb egeirō rather than the noun anastasis in his early creed in 1 Corinthians 15, so the former goes back to the earliest stages of the church. Derrett even seems to admit the early creedal sense of ēgerthē in what he thinks is a pre-Markan formula. Further, Derrett says that the earliest Christianity began in the tomb, even though the earliest “kerygmatic material . . . do[es] not proclaim the empty tomb.” O’Collins also says the Shroud of Turin is a problem for Derrett. Derrett apparently dates the crucifixion to AD 40. O’Collins concludes: “Professor Derrett is an enviably learned and well-read scholar. This makes it all the sadder to find him misusing what data we have to support a conjecture for which there is not a shred of hard evidence.”

D. Perkins: “Derrett knows the literature well enough to realize that the scholarly community will not take this book seriously. Nor should it.” Perkins rephrases a version of Strauss’s critique and asks how we explain all of the rich “christological and soteriological images that are attributed to him in the NT.” These understandings, “which most scholars agree develop from the resurrection . . . are now collapsed in the post-resurrection experience of Jesus himself.”

E. Swetnam: Says of Derrett’s book, “No discussion is given to the way in which such a seriously debilitated man [the crucified Jesus] could open up a tomb from within when the closing stone was in place.” The disciples also never give any indication that they cremated Jesus’s body. Accordingly, “this conspiracy seems implausible. . . . Worse is coming to worse.” Swetnam says Derrett actually made him more sure of the resurrection.

F. Walker: Notes that many “serious questions are raised” by Derrett, though his reconstruction “is essentially conjectural” and “often based upon questionable generalizations.” Walker also observes “highly conjectural etymologies or antecedents of key words and phrases in the texts.”

G. Williams: T. S. M. Williams says “he drags protesting impossibilities one by one into the realm of the just conceivable . . . many breathtaking speculative leaps . . . the limits of credulity are stretched too far, both on historical and theological counts . . . hard to swallow.” Williams ends the review by paraphrasing Strauss’s critique: “That a man appallingly injured and dying of gangrene could have developed new theological ideas of world-shaking significance is scarcely conceivable. That in that shattered state he would be recognized as the power of God, or that with a few years he would be looked upon as ‘the Lord who has transcended death,’ imparting resurrection life to his followers, is to my mind unbelievable.”

31. DUNN, JAMES D. G.

A. Bauckham: Bauckham argues against Dunn’s view that merely honoring Jesus is a way to worship God.

B. Bock: Bock is complimentary of Dunn’s works.

32. EHRMAN, BART

A. Various Scholars: For key comments from different authors responding to Ehrman’s Christology, see Bird’s edited volume How God Became Jesus.

33. ENGBERG-PEDERSON, TROELS

A. Ware: James Ware notes that Engberg-Pederson, Martin, and Asher all base their analyses upon a misapprehension. Ware’s research demonstrates that Engberg-Pedersen’s interpretation of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 is “no longer tenable.”

34. ESSEN, GEORG

A. Rakotoharintsifa: Essen’s conclusion, apparently in reviewer Rakotoharintsifa’s words: “La résurrection de Jésus n’a pas d’aspect spatio-temporel, ne constitue pas un objet de perception sensorielle et échappe au constat empirique. Ainsi, the categorie d’evenement historique n’pas applicable à cette résurrection” (The resurrection of Jesus has no spatio-temporal aspect, does not constitute an object of sensory perception and escapes the empirical observation. Thus, the category of historical event is not applicable to this resurrection).

35. FESTINGER, LEON

A. Wright: Wright complains about Festinger’s cognitive dissonance view. Allison notes that Wright “scores some points” with his assessment of Festinger.

36. FULLER, REGINALD

A. Davis: Davis contends that it seems quite “ridiculous” to hold to Fuller’s claim that the disciples would not have been interested in the empty tomb.

37. GHIBERTI, GIUSEPPE

A. Bouttier: Calls Ghiberti’s book an excellent monograph on John 20 with some comments on Mark 16:1–8. Bouttier notes that Ghiberti draws conclusions on the message of the resurrection, apparently favoring some liberation themes.

38. GOERGEN, DONALD

A. Rattigan: Says Goergen’s analysis is by “dialogue with opinion.” For example, he disagrees with Schillebeeckx. Goergen prefers “to speak of the appearances as the experiences which induced faith.”

B. Topel: Says Goergen holds that Jesus believed in both a personal resurrection at death and “temporal punishment in Hades for the unrighteous.” The empty tomb and appearance accounts have a “historical dimension” that was the cause of the disciples’ belief. Jesus’s resurrection was a “transformation,” and we will have a similar experience as we “continue to grow into the parousia as an essential consummation of our communitarian natures.” Topel says Goergen’s methodology is questionable. There is also a “superficiality” to it.

39. GOULDER, MICHAEL

A. Allison: Says Goulder is “plainly wrong” that the common view among Jews was a “spiritual resurrection” rather than a “physical resurrection.” Within Judaism there was a variety of beliefs, but what we do know about Jews in Jerusalem speaking about resurrection is that they were speaking of things that happened to physical bodies.

40. GOURGUES, MICHEL

A. Houlden: Says Gourges relates the exalted Christ to diverse New Testament topics, like Christ’s intercession for believers and believers’ lives being conformed to the risen Christ.

B. McEleney: Speaking of the use of Psalms 110 in Hebrews, McEleney appears to summarize Gourgues view: “Seeing Jesus at God’s right hand should inspire Christians to emulate Christ’s actions.”

41. GUILLAUME, JEAN-MARIE

A. Glasswell: “This book is a closely-argued and convincing defence of the presentation of the narratives in Luke-Acts” of the women and Peter at the tomb, Emmaus, the appearances, and ascension “as being both a faithful rendering of authentic and independent tradition.” Glasswell says Guillaume makes good use of several critical methods, archaeology, comparative religion, and good exegesis. Accordingly, his book offers “many insights.”

B. Guillet: Lists some of Guillaume’s conclusions: (1) There is a pre-Synoptic tradition behind the women’s trip to the tomb. (2) Luke’s account of the appearance to the Twelve has some similarities to John’s account. (3) An ancient tradition undergirds the account of Peter’s trip to the tomb. (4) There is an ascension tradition. There is also a pre-Markan tradition behind the women going to the tomb; the formula in Luke 24:34 is ancient, pre-Lukan, and predates the kerygma in 1 Cor 15:4. The ascension account also contains “non-lukan” and pre-Synoptic elements. The main point of Guillaume’s study, according to Guillet, is to uncover the sources of Luke’s resurrection stories.

C. Lamouille: Notes that Guillaume’s book is derived from his doctoral dissertation at Strasbourg. Guillaume applies critical tools to Luke’s resurrection account in chapter 24. There are three parts: (1) empty tomb, (2) Emmaus road, and (3) “l’experience pascale des Douze.” The empty tomb and accounts of the women are “premarcien.” Peter’s trip to the tomb is ancient tradition, and the language concerning Emmaus is clearly Luke’s. Lamouille notes that Guillaume tries to classify Luke’s resurrection sources.

D. Nautin: Guillaume’s view is that the Emmaus account is like that of other ancient texts that show God coming down in a revelatory manner to humans and disappearing again. The ascension is difficult because Luke has it on the same day, while Acts has it forty days later.

42. GRASS, HANS

A. Ware: James Ware provides a good summary, and ultimately a response, to the view of Grass (and Collins) that Paul does not mention the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15 and that the empty tomb accounts and physical resurrection are later developments. Grass is not of the opinion that the earliest believers thought anything happened to Jesus’s body when they discussed Jesus’s resurrection.

43. HAUGHTON, ROSEMARY

A. Loewe: He notes that Haughton’s book Passionate God asks one main question: “What difference does Jesus’ resurrection make?” Loewe says she wants “to jog us out of an eighteenth century corset of rationalism.” The work draws conclusions that would reject “two decades of exegetical scholarship.” Accordingly, “I am not inclined to read her imaginative reconstruction.”

44. HEIL, JOHN PAUL

A. Carson: Says Heil’s arrangement of John 18–21 is “just too neat.” Carson wonders why only one tool is used and others are disregarded. Why do we end up “jettisoning all the rest?”

B. Koester: Regarding Heil’s book, Craig Koester says some of his interpretations on Jesus’s death and resurrection in John 18–21 are “not fully convincing,” such as Jesus’s headcloth being a reminder that Jesus died to bring his followers together.

C. Witherup: Calls Heil’s work on Jesus’s death and resurrection in Matthew a decent book with serious weaknesses. “The line between careful exegesis and overinterpretation is a fine line to walk. Perhaps this is an inherent danger in the method of the narrative reader-response criticism.” Witherup adds that “[Heil’s] application . . . is overdrawn” and “simply more than the text can bear.”

45. HENGEL, MARTIN

A. Wright: Wright argues “exactly the opposite” of Hengel because, for Wright, the messiahship of Jesus was central for Paul.

46. HOLLEMAN, JOOST

A. Jones: Says Holleman’s book is on the Pauline sense of “solidarity with Christ, thus making the resurrection of Jesus an eschatological prototype for all believers.” There are, however, “doubts” for Jones concerning whether Holleman can make sense of all of 1 Corinthians this way, or even this chapter.

47. HOLZAPFEL, RICHARD

A. Maxwell: Notes Holzapfel is a religious studies professor at BYU. Maxwell says his book is chiefly a meditation on Jesus’s death and resurrection from the four Gospels. He says Holzapfel is “often sympathetic with modern biblical textual criticism,” perhaps more so than some Mormon authors. Holzapfel argues that these methods are not inconsistent with Mormon beliefs. The portion on resurrection, however, is the “weakest section” in the book.

48. HOULDEN, LESLIE

A. Grayston: Says Houlden places the passion stories in Matthew and Mark side by side to examine differences. The work is “so enriching to one’s spiritual resources.”

49. HUME, DAVID

A. Keener: Keener argues against Hume at multiple points in the second volume of his work Miracles.

50. JANSEN, JOHN

A. Campbell: Says Jansen bases his theological application on a past event, including the historicity of “the third day,” but notes that this book was written for believers, not skeptics. Campbell writes that Jansen needs to quote fewer authors and offer more in the way of “original contribution.”

B. Edmonds: Notes that in the appendix of Jansen’s book, he argues that the empty tomb narratives originally were a part of the passion narratives since in Psalms, the righteous sufferer’s life ended in triumph. The resurrection cannot simply be left in the past but must be linked to the future too.

C. Tripole: Says Jansen, like Moltmann, moves “from the past reality of Jesus’ resurrection and the significance to be derived from it to the disclosure of future significance, and only then to its bearing upon present life.” Jansen “is generally traditional and perhaps conservative.” Tripole notes Jansen’s argument on the historicity of the “third day” and empty tomb issues.

D. Wild: States the author is a “centrist” or possibly slightly on the conservative side. Jansen tends “to state conclusions rather than offer detailed argumentation” or exegetical comments.

51. JOHNSON, LUKE TIMOTHY

A. Dunn: Claims Johnson could accept more historical data than he does in his research, and that he is overly limited in his conclusion.

B. Schroeder: Says Johnson, in his book Living Jesus, is a “relentless critic of quests for the historical Jesus, particularly that of the Jesus Seminar.” He calls for interpretations of “Jesus as present and alive rather than past and dead.” Johnson analyzes New Testament texts dealing with the postresurrection Jesus (like Revelation) as well as the preresurrection Jesus. He says Johnson argues “almost exactly the reverse of the direction of reading followed by historical Jesus research from Albert Schweitzer to the present.”

C. Wilken: States Johnson’s book The Real Jesus is thoughtful, intelligent, and manifests insight. For Johnson, resurrection is the center of New Testament Christianity; without it we have nothing. Wilken’s critique of Johnson is his imprecise use of history. Johnson “seems to set up the same sort of dichotomy . . . that led biblical scholars into the difficulty in the first place.”

D. Wright: Johnson “separates fact from meaning. . . . If he is right, I am of course wasting both my time and yours.”

52. KELLER, JAMES

A. Craig: Criticizes Keller for “astounding naivete” because he seems unaware of historical methodology. Craig says one like Keller must do more than repeat the opinions of others; they must engage critically with the data and arguments. Craig charges Keller with using “singularly unimpressive” sources too. As a result, Keller’s doubts should not be very troubling.

B. Davis: Criticizes Keller for utilizing a type of a priori dismissal in opposing the rational belief in miracles. Keller asks two main questions about the resurrection: Are the accounts primitive, and are they true? Davis replies to Keller’s main objections: (1) An overwhelming majority admit that we have primitive material on resurrection in the Gospels, plus 1 Corinthians 15 and other texts. (2) The fact that no one witnessed the resurrection itself is a weak objection, for even though our evidence is an inference, that does not make it an issue. (3) Against Keller, we do know what the earliest believers meant by resurrection, and Davis thinks it is a bodily concept. Davis objects against Keller’s skepticism aimed at an early publication of Davis’s.

53. KESICH, VESILIN

A. O’Collins: Calls Kesich’s book a “sensible, well-researched book on Jesus’ resurrection.”

54. KREEFT, PETER, AND RONALD TACELLI

A. Parsons: Parsons attempts to show that Kreeft and Tacelli’s arguments against hallucination fail.

55. KÜNG, HANS

A. Loewe: Concerning Küng’s treatment of the resurrection appearances, Loewe writes, “He offers an analysis of these experiences which is complex, nuanced, and in my opinion not entirely coherent.”

56. LADD, GEORGE

A. Michaels: Says Ladd’s “book is marred by a number of careless mistakes and inconsistencies,” listing several examples. Ladd runs the risk of alienating his evangelical colleagues by saying that the resurrection is not totally historical. Ladd doesn’t adequately deal with the issue of diversity with the New Testament.

57. LAPIDE, PINCHAS

A. Bode: Notes that Lapide, in his The Resurrection of Jesus, “chides some Christian theologians” for being ashamed by the resurrection. The real event of resurrection must be postulated to account for “extraordinary change” in Jesus’s followers. His arguments lack “advanced biblical exegesis.”

B. Court: Mildly critical of Lapide’s book and Carl Braaten’s introduction to it.

C. Gallagher: States Lapide may adjust Judaism a bit too much to make comparisons to Christianity even closer, such as referring to Judaism as “a messianic religion of redemption.”

D. Horbury: Says Lapide’s book has too many assertions without careful reasoning and is a bit “journalistic.”

E. O’Collins: Says no other explanation fits data like Jesus’s resurrection. Seemingly noting an area of common ground, “Jesus’ role as Saviour of the Gentiles came about through his resurrection from the dead.”

F. Papademetriou: Says Lapide believes more about Jesus’s resurrection than “some liberal Protestant theologians.” The work is “a great step forward” in Jewish-Christian dialogue and is “a classic.”

G. Perkins: Notes that Lapide “speculates” that pagan myths might be forerunners of the resurrection and even help “to eliminate paganism.” Perkins also notes the “fine” introductory essay on Jewish-Christian relations by Carl Braaten in Lapide’s book.

H. Re’emi: Says Lapide shows that Judaism was well acquainted with both individual resurrections as well as general resurrection hope (only lists Ezek 37:11–14 and Dan 12:2, 13 plus Martha’s view and Lazarus’s resurrection in John 11). Additional resurrection accounts are noted in the Talmud and the thirteen articles of faith written by Maimonides. Re’emi notes Lapide is in a line with Rosenweig, Buber, Klausner, Flusser, and others. Lapide is one of the Jews who is still awaiting the Messiah.

I. Vermes: Says Lapide is “unconvincing” and “pathetic in his argumentation.” Lapide thinks that his ability to dialogue is compromised if he doesn’t accept resurrection.

58. LEON-DUFOUR, XAVIER

A. O’Collins: Calls this work “the best general treatment of Christ’s resurrection currently available in English.” Leon-Dufour says that in the earliest church, Jesus’s exaltation and resurrection existed side by side.

59. LEVENSON, JON

A. Stevenson: Calls Levenson a Jewish scholar who “refreshingly” draws contrasts between the child sacrifice in Judaism and the Christian view of Jesus’s sacrifice and resurrection and notes that Judaism and Christianity both posture God’s blessing in doing so. “The book’s christological implications are evident.”

60. LÜDEMANN, GERD

A. Allison: Against Lüdemann’s vision hypotheses, Allison writes that although it is interesting, it is unfalsifiable and filled with conjectures.

B. Craig: After applying McCullagh’s rules of historical explanation to the resurrection, Craig notes that Lüdemann’s hallucination thesis doesn’t fare well when tested by the same criteria. Craig notes that Lüdemann has the guts to “own up” to not being a Christian, unlike scholars like Roy Hoover in the same work. Lüdemann is right to criticize these other scholars who remove all original Christian meaning by their redefining of terms.

C. Gundry: Responds that Lüdemann has many fallacies, and when these “are trimmed, little is left.” Lüdemann’s hypothesis on the resurrection cannot be sustained under examination. Gundry notes the following problems: (1) The New Testament is not anti-Semitic. (2) Even if it were, anti-Semitism wouldn’t negate the resurrection event. (3) Nor do Christians who proselytize to the Jews. (4) The enemies of Jesus would have known where they buried his body. (5) Lüdemann says that Jesus’s body wouldn’t be recognizable fifty days after his death, but Gundry answers that at least a skeleton would be left, and so the tomb would not be empty and Jesus’s enemies would probably have exposed the preaching of the resurrection. (6) How does Lüdemann know that Jesus’s appearances originated from heaven or that they were nonphysical? (7) After arguing that Paul opposed the docetic view of Jesus’s death, Lüdemann appears to argue for a docetic view of the resurrection (at least for Paul).

D. Hearon: Says that Lüdemann, in his book coauthored with Alf Özen, spends most of his time on 1 Cor 15:3–5, which “is astonishing in light of recent rhetorical studies.” Hearon also says Lüdemann’s argument is “unsatisfying,” but it is not clear why else this may be the case.

E. Lindemann: In a long review of Die Auferstehung Jesu, he argues that Lüdemann wants to get to the experienced facts, but Bultmann’s principle still stands—we can’t go beyond the relevant theology. Lindemann questions the relation in Lüdemann’s book between the historical Jesus and the presently existing Jesus. This relation needs to be clarified, especially in light of Bultmann.

F. Morgan: Says Lüdemann belongs to the “Gottingen” school. Morgan notes Lüdemann offers “such a thread-bare alternative” to traditional apologetics. It appears as “a confession of theological bankruptcy.” Lüdemann has “more confidence than is warranted that the gospels contain almost nothing of historical value.” Lüdemann’s theses “need developing,” are “unclear,” and “deserve elaboration.”

G. Morton: Calls Lüdemann’s theory a “subjective” vision approach. But Morton seems to think it is something of an objective vision (visionary plus auditory experiences) and says this is “the consensus of the majority of NT scholars.” Morton contends that in Lüdemann’s book, “little is said which is original.”

H. O’Collins: Observes that Lüdemann emphasizes a Harvard study of the mourning process, but Jesus’s disciples are far different from this study. Unlike the widows and widowers, Jesus made “unique claims about his personal identity and mission,” then he died a shameful and violent death. These elements would significantly change the disciples’ shock. Other doubtful items noted by O’Collins are “appearances” characterized “by ecstasy and light” and that the disciples didn’t know where Jesus was buried. O’Collins asks, if depth psychology can be applied to Peter, Paul, and others, then why can’t it be applied to Lüdemann’s own psyche—couldn’t Lüdemann have ulterior motives for taking this thesis? Lüdemann’s colleagues at Göttingen find his theses “outrageously deficient.”

I. O’Neill: Notes that after discovering how adamantly Lüdemann “denied the objectivity of the visions,” his German publisher of The Resurrection of Jesus “declined to do a reprint.” O’Neill aims many comments at Lüdemann’s denial of the empty tomb and concludes by noting Lüdemann’s appreciation of old liberal sources.

J. Rodd: Observes that Lüdemann, in his book What Really Happened to Jesus, has some similarities to liberalism. Key issues that Lüdemann engages include visions of Jesus, “failed mourning,” “mass hysteria,” Paul’s apparent epilepsy, and the “smoldering Christ complex.” Strangely, Lüdemann claims that none of these disprove Christianity: “traditional faith is not robbed of any of its content.” Lüdemann seems to still believe, according to Rodd, in both God and “human immortality, including the immortality of Jesus,” as well as possibly accepting “parapsychology, occultism, or other experiments.” Rodd says it is “extremely odd” that Lüdemann still wants to speak in terms of traditional theological categories. Two other questions Rodd asks are: Why couldn’t God be the cause of the visions? Should the visions of Jesus be any more significant than other reported visions?

K. Stuhlmacher: Presents various critiques of Lüdemann.

L. Wright: Wright criticizes the lengthy tradition-historical analysis of Lüdemann as “almost entirely worthless.”

61. MACK, BURTON

A. Boyd: Boyd treats in detail Mack’s portrayal of Paul as a Hellenistic cult leader and Mack’s critique of the Gospel of Mark.

B. Johnson: States Mack’s The Lost Gospel is “an extension and popularization of his earlier Myth of Innocence, with Mack’s “premise that there is no ‘big bang’ at the origin of Christianity—no heroic Jesus, and certainly no ‘resurrection experience.’” “It is important to remember that Mack wants his readers to perceive him as the soberest of hardheaded historians—no flight to faith, here, no fantasies of theology.” Johnson contends that Mack fails to consider all of the following in his Q hypothesis: (1) whether all the material of Q came from the same source; (2) whether what we have is all Q ever contained; (3) whether the original form of Q can be reconstructed the way scholars do it today; (4) whether Q was the sole literature read; (5) whether delineating Q stages is possible; (6) whether “these stages of redaction, in turn, correspond exactly” to stages in the hypothetical community; (7) whether the earliest evidence was apparently kept pure from the influences of the Jerusalem Church; (8) whether the Q group “was the ‘Christ Cult’ that mythologized the death and Resurrection of Jesus”; (9) whether “Mark’s Gospel combined these streams with the Christian ‘Myth of Innocence.’” In the end, Johnson holds it is clear that Mack’s work “has been the purest flimflam. Not only has no positive evidence been adduced,” but it is made on “arbitrary” decisions which include ignoring contrary evidence. Accordingly, this is “closer to a kind of historical imagining that is itself mythic in character.” That Mack has another agenda, Johnson notes, is obvious from his epilogue, where he blames most of America’s problems on adhering to the Christian gospel. Johnson concludes: “Meager history reveals itself as thin theology.” At the end of his article, Johnson makes a last slam: “In sum, Mack shows how bad biblical scholarship can get and yet be published by a major press with enthusiastic blurbs.”

C. Wright: Makes a detailed critique of Mack, including several key quips. He refers to Mack’s theory as an “exercise in creative imagination.” Wright argues against Mack’s position (including his views on Q).

62. MAGNESS, JODI

A. Gibson: Gibson argues against Magness’s theory that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb only because there was not enough time to dig a trench grave before the Sabbath. Gibson provides three responses: (1) a grave could easily have been dug; (2) more importantly, there is no evidence from archaeology that there were scattered mass graves in Jerusalem during this time; plus, arable land was at a premium, so using the land for graves would have been a waste; and (3) Jews would have objected to putting someone into a trench grave unless they knew that the person was dead and not just in a comatose state.

63. MARXSEN, WILLI

A. Dunn: Dunn argues against Marxsen’s position (i.e., that the disciples understood “resurrection” to mean that Jesus’s teachings and mission could not die). Dunn notes that there was other language available at that time instead of resurrection (e.g., exalted to heaven), but that resurrection was the claim from the beginning. “To interpret the first Easter faith into the affirmation that Jesus’ significance . . . is not to interpret the metaphor but to empty it. . . . To remove any idea of personal survival from the concept ‘resurrection’ is not to make the metaphor more meaningful but to destroy it.”

B. Fuller: Says Marxsen’s 1970 book on the resurrection is “thoroughly Bultmannian.” Fuller critiques Marxsen by arguing that he is the “one dissenting voice” that doesn’t date Paul’s creed to the 30s. As Fuller asks, why shouldn’t there be more than the one appearance to Peter? Because that wouldn’t fit Marxsen’s functional thesis of positions in the early church. Further, “Peter’s believing . . . is the result of his seeing, not the same thing.” Finally, “Marxsen is confusing” causes and effects. While it is true that the faith of the community is crucial, it is only possible if Jesus was risen bodily.

C. O’Collins: O’Collins gives five reasons why Marxsen is not a Bultmannian. But the reasons seem to split a lot of hairs and don’t seem to change the impression that Marxsen is Bultmannian with some differences.

64. MCKENZIE, LEON

A. Ruble: Summarizes the work as having pagan resurrection myths indicate an archetype drawn from a universal theme. McKenzie’s work is a defense of resurrection against legend theories, giving critiques.

65. MCCULLAGH, C. B.

A. Craig: Considers McCullagh’s views regarding historical descriptions.

66. METTINGER, T. N. D.

A. Ehrman: Ehrman utilizes and assesses the work of T. N. D. Mettinger.

67. MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN

A. Conyers: Conyers says evangelicals will not (and should not) be pleased with Moltmann’s conclusions. For example, he conceded too much on the virgin birth. But what he says about resurrection “will be heartening to orthodox readers.” Like Bonhoeffer, Moltmann never stops with “abstractions but always becomes a serious call to follow Christ.”

B. O’Collins: Offers various critiques of Moltmann.

68. O’COLLINS, GERALD

A. Harrington: Regarding Jesus Risen, Harrington notes that the book addresses “an essential of Christian faith,” and he concludes, “O’Collins insists that Jesus’ resurrection be approached from the perspectives of historical study, human hope and Christian worship.”

B. Heft: Regarding Jesus Risen, Heft says it “attempts to do too much.” Heft makes suggestions but doesn’t always develop them. He concludes it is still a “valuable” book.

C. Houlden: Regarding Jesus Risen, he writes that O’Collins fails to cover several historical trends and views on the resurrection. O’Collins falls short on being “very intra-mural” and otherwise short in undetermined (but unmentioned) ways. Perhaps it is being hinted that too little is left for faith? Houlden’s point is difficult to delineate.

D. Large: Regarding Jesus Risen, Large says the strongest part of the book is the connection between the resurrection and revelation, redemption, hope, and love. It underplays the role of women in the resurrection accounts.

E. Murphy: Regarding Jesus Risen, Murphy says it is a well-rounded volume and covers the historical, theological, and experiential while remaining both scholarly and pastoral.

F. Perkins: On the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, O’Collins moves to a Christology “from below,” which Perkins calls “the modern tendency.”

G. Watson: Regarding O’Collins’s 1987 book The Resurrection, he says its “main weakness” is the inadequacy of discussing contemporary scholarship on resurrection. Other weaknesses Watson notes are that O’Collins is too positive on the empty tomb, and he undervalues Hume’s critique and presents “a travesty of Hume’s position.”

H. Zachman: Regarding Jesus Risen, Zachman says “the heart of the book” is that “the resurrection is an historical event that must be validated by historical research and personal experience.” The historical portion consists of the appearances and empty tomb, while the personal portion consists of five tests. Zachman objects to O’Collins’s treatment as apparently too evidential and notes it abstracts the resurrection from other concerns.

69. O’DONOVAN, OLIVER

A. Gustafson: “The breadth and depth of learning brought to bear is impressive and admirable.” However, what leaves Gustafson “breathless is the confidence O’Donovan has in what is assumed in this book.” Further, what “leaves me breathless will no doubt inspire others.” Gustafson explains that the problem for him is that O’Donovan’s basis is never demonstrated, even though O’Donovan is clear that the “apologetic task” is not his purpose.

B. O’Donovan: In the first part of his book, O’Donovan wants to outline “theological ethics” in three sections. Christian ethics must arise from the foundation of the gospel, which “depends upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” This gives Christian ethics an objective basis. Ethics is thus cognitively grounded in terms of its justification. The second part of the book on the subjective basis for ethics argues it is chiefly as communicated by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The third part of the book is on love. Here O’Donovan is quite critical of voluntarism.

C. Scriven: “The central motif here is the resurrection of Christ, the event that vindicates our moral striving and defines its proper shape.” This “book is of high importance for every serious student of morality” even though it has an “inadequate treatment of relativism.”

D. Sedgwick: Says O’Donovan holds “uncritically” to the God of the early church. He “requires a fideism not dissimilar to Barth’s. At least O’Donovan has not developed the criteria and evidence that warrant his metaphysical claims apart from appeal to a Christological center.”

70. OSBORNE, KENAN

A. Cunningham: Says Kenan Osborne has an “almost exclusive focus” on the Gospels in his book. Osborne asks, if we accept the reliability of saints’ testimonies down through the ages on their relationship with God, why can’t the Gospel resurrection narratives count? Cunningham notes that Osborne offers no sustained analysis of 1 Corinthians 15 or Acts creeds, and he has an “unremitting predilection for the Gospels at the expense of the Pauline corpus.”

B. Harrington: Notes that Osborne emphasizes religious experience—both Jesus’s and ours. He “purposes that the theme of the kingdom of God can help greatly in developing a unified Christology in which Jesus’ resurrection has its appropriately prominent place.”

71. PANNENBERG, WOLFHART

A. Coakley: Offers a detailed critique of Pannenberg’s methodology in her essay in Paul Avis’s edited volume The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. He grants in principle that the resurrection can be investigated historically, but it leads to conclusions that will not convince skeptics and do not do justice to the differing views on the subject. Pannenberg tries to make his arguments look good to his secular historical contemporaries. Coakley raises various questions concerning how we know certain things about the empty tomb. Coakley argues that such a “hard-nosed strategy was fallible” and will only lead to an impasse. Coakley concludes, in agreement, that we need to clarify the historical issues, but Pannenberg’s attempt to satisfy secularists goes too far. Such arguments can only convince if a theistic worldview is assumed. Coakley may be right about questioning certain aspects of secular history, but not if the secularist’s presuppositions are the guide for what is true. In other words, not if the mark of success or failure is whether the secularist can be pacified and made to agree with Pannenberg’s argument. This knife cuts both ways since the critic doesn’t convince believers either. Further, Pannenberg is quite clear on issues such as the historical angle being the only aspect of resurrection study, or that the Holy Spirit and faith definitely have a major role to play.

B. Harvey: Contrasts Pannenberg with T. F. Torrance on the resurrection.

C. Johnson: Elizabeth Johnson says that Pannenberg preached a sermon in 1970 where he said, “The Easter message can change our understanding of reality,” and that he has been arguing how this is the case ever since. For Pannenberg, the cross discredited Jesus but the resurrection was a “ringing confirmation,” meaning that the kingdom has “indeed come . . . actually in history,” although only for Jesus. The resurrection has “retroactive significance for his entire historical life.” Without the resurrection, it would have been concluded that Jesus wasn’t confirmed by God. Jesus “occupies a unique position in relation to the rest of reality. . . . Because the coming Kingdom of God is already present in him.” Johnson’s critique observes (1) “the fragmentary character of the treatment of ontological issues in Pannenberg’s work,” and (2) the “enormous implications for its viability” for the relationship between the present and the future. The biggest issue is if a resurrection-centered view takes enough account of evil and sin. Johnson concludes that “Pannenberg has taken the challenge of his own Easter sermon seriously. He has worked toward a critical revision of the foundations of the philosophical system in the light of the Easter message.”

D. Michalson: Says Pannenberg makes theology dependent on historical method. Pannenberg’s critique of the principle of analogy does not relate coherently to his view of the resurrection. Pannenberg’s two reasons against analogy are (1) historical—it militates against any truly unique events in history, and (2) theological—it turns a historical judgment into a faith claim. But when Pannenberg turns to the resurrection, he doesn’t argue for a resuscitated corpse but a transformed body. But if so, there is no need to refute the principle of analogy. So Pannenberg is pulling a bit of a “sleight-of-hand,” for his concept of the resurrection body is more like a metaphor and is not even ruled out by analogy, which makes his notion only slightly less problematic than Bultmann’s. The fact that Pannenberg believes in an objectively evidenced vision means that Jesus’s resurrection body is more than a metaphor and that it does conflict with the principle of analogy, simply because nothing like Jesus’s resurrection has appeared in human experience before.

E. Moltmann: A brief critique by Moltmann, who surveys Pannenberg on his view of history. He later mentions that Pannenberg exhibits too much “one-sidedness.”

F. O’Collins: Offers his critiques of Pannenberg.

G. Olson: While seeming to appreciate Pannenberg’s treatment of the resurrection as the center of theology, Olson is critical of his one-sidedness in historical matters and “a severe restriction to anthropocentric constriction” instead of treating the entire world.

H. Rodd: Coakley is “very critical” of Pannenberg’s arguments. Coakley says in principle the resurrection can be investigated historically, but in actuality such an effort fails. Further, Pannenberg’s approach fails to do justice to the “diversity” and “mystery” of resurrection.

I. Ware: James Ware comments that Pannenberg’s understanding of egeirō and his arguments are “conclusive.” The reason for this is because, “Pannenberg argues, this language was specific to the mainstream Jewish belief in the revivification of the entombed body.”

72. PERKINS, PHEME

A. Donahue: Says no other study does what Perkins’s does. It offers “careful exegetical studies of virtually every reference in the New Testament to the Resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, to the resurrection of the Christian, and to life after death.” It has “immense scholarship” and is a “major contribution” where “no better description exists.” There are two key points: (1) The resurrection cannot be isolated from the rest of the New Testament and doctrines like salvation, Christology, and ethics. (2) The resurrection symbolizes Christ’s ongoing presence. “Bodily resurrection means that death will not separate the Christian from community (which is achieved through ‘bodily’ presence) either with Jesus or with those who have also lived in the presence and power of the risen Lord.” However, Donahue says there are too many citations of secondary sources.

B. Knitter: Knitter notes that “the amount of information is exhaustive and exhausting,” but “Perkins often fails to draw conclusions, develop clear themes, or distinguish her own view from others.”

73. PERRIN, NORMAN

A. Fuller: “I have difficulties about Perrin’s interpretation” and highlights Mark’s account. He notes that Perrin says Mark 9:9; 14:28; and 16:7 all point to an appearance in Galilee. Mark also implies an appearance to Peter.

B. O’Collins: Observes that Perrin can’t always distinguish between history and myth. What actually happened at Easter is not really a modern quest.

74. PESCH, RUDOLF

A. Early Stage (per Galvin)

1. Pesch disagrees with the vast majority of scholars in holding that the disciples’ resurrection belief is chiefly explained in terms of Jesus’s precrucifixion teachings about his person, mission, authority, and martyrdom, which helped them survive the crucifixion. Arguments to the contrary simply cannot make assertions concerning the disciples’ mental state, since we don’t have that data.

2. Pesch rejected the empty tomb because the empty tomb texts may be legendary, but we don’t even know if the early church knew where Jesus was buried, and the initial preaching may not have occurred in Jerusalem.

3. He rejected the appearances because the appearance to Peter in the pre-Pauline creed is in the literary form of a legitimation formula drawn from the LXX, and the Greek verb ōphthē doesn’t provide enough historical parameters.

B. Critique of Early Stage

1. Bartsch: Argues against those who think that primitive Christian faith arose from the precrucifixion Jesus. He writes, “Nevertheless we may begin with the assumption that primitive Christian faith arose at Easter since our investigation of the tradition cited by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3–7 will confirm just this assumption. The first Christians believed on the Lord Jesus Christ because he had appeared to them as such, and not because of an authority that the pre-Easter Jesus of Nazareth had acquired and that was kept alive after his death.” This conclusion is “worked out by form-critical research” and that the earliest Christian faith was the result of appearance experiences. Bartsch also argued against Pesch in 1975 that ōphthē is not part of a “legitimation formula.”

2. Galvin: Says his survey makes it “evident” that “the details of Pesch’s position” have not been well-received by scholars. But Pesch’s treatment needs more development by Pesch and others. Still, several studies have now concluded that Jesus communicated his coming death to his disciples to better prepare them for his shocking death.

3. Hengel: Hengel believes that Pesch is the “victim of misguided apologetic intentions” in his characterization of the resurrection as only occurring in the disciples’ consciousness. Hengel gives three points in response: (1) Pesch’s analysis of the disciples’ reaction is “unconvincing.” (2) He recognizes that some event is needed to account for the transformation of the disciples. (3) He thinks the use of ōphthē in the formula indicates “visions.”

4. Kremer: Says precrucifixion faith and messianic expectations would have been greatly impacted by the cross. Kremer, with others, regards the ōphthē formula as being for more than legitimation, versus Pesch. The Easter message is more revelation than reflection. Kremer also says Pesch downplays faith.

5. Küng: Defends Pesch against some misunderstandings but charges that the cause of the disciples’ new beliefs was their experiences of the risen Jesus.

6. Plevnik: Plevnik is largely against Pesch’s early stage idea that the precrucifixion faith could account for resurrection belief. He argues that Luke in particular (although he thinks Matthew and Mark agree) holds that the empty tomb, and especially Jesus’s resurrection appearances, account for “origin of easter faith.”

7. Stuhlmacher: Says Pesch involves too much speculation. He defends the empty tomb and appearances.

8. Vögtle: Vögtle (Pesch’s professor) argues against some of Pesch’s detractors, but he judges that Pesch’s reconstruction is “impossible to establish.” He disagrees that the ōphthē formula was solely for legitimizing the witnesses and says there is too much interpretation to tell exactly what its historical basis was. He agrees with Pesch against the empty tomb but says “new experiences” for the disciples are virtually required, even though we don’t know how Easter faith began. He then presents his overall comments. As observed, these questions have occupied much discussion in contemporary theology.

C. Later Stage

1. Pesch (via Galvin): Galvin observes that “Pesch has substantially modified his historical interpretation.” Fiorenza notes that Pesch’s position has become popular. Some pre-Easter elements remain crucial, such as (as early as 1975) Pesch’s incorporating the importance of Jesus’s Son of Man sayings (especially the authenticity of Mark 9:31a; 14:62; Luke 12:8–9 in terms of Daniel 7) as an insight to what the pre-Easter Jesus believed about his approaching death and its “redemptive value.” But Pesch still rejects the empty tomb. He changed his earlier position and now explicitly grants that the appearances of Jesus can be properly grounded in “biblical research.” Pesch says, “The Easter appearances, in which the Risen One was seen in his heavenly glory, were exclusive experiences of vocation.” Later, Pesch says that the appearances “were visions in which Jesus appeared to the witnesses as the Son of Man,” where the promise of his resurrection was revealed as fulfilled to his disciples. But they were, according to Galvin, “perceptible only in faith, they were at once fully the work of God and fully the work of their human recipients.” So Pesch recognizes the need for postresurrection influences to cause the disciples’ faith. Galvin notes that Pesch argues that Son of Man conceptions underlie several Pauline and pre-Pauline resurrection texts. For Pesch, it was only the “Easter visions” of the exalted Jesus that showed God’s confirmation of Jesus to the disciples. Pesch speaks of “the miracle which corresponds to the resurrection of Jesus and its real proof.”

D. Critique of Later Stage

1. Various Scholars: Several critics have a “common core” in their appreciation for Pesch’s new position regarding the historical nature of the disciples’ experiences, though there are concerns in other areas. O’Collins finds Pesch’s focus on the Son of Man overdone, as does Galvin himself.

2. Broer: Went in a different direction by citing other ancient references of those who experienced an appearance of the dead. Broer thinks that a historian will still treat the appearances as subjective.

3. Kessler: Thinks Pesch’s continuing emphasis on the pre-Easter Jesus preparing his disciples is “exaggerated.”

4. Kremer and O’Collins: Kremer and O’Collins, among others, recognize and welcome Pesch’s new position on the appearances and visions.

75. PFLEIDERER, OTTO

A. Smith: Jonathan Z. Smith notes that Pfleiderer was entirely dependent upon J. G. Frazer’s The Golden Bough (second edition). Smith notes that Frazer “rarely entertains any explicit comparisons to the myth of the dying and rising Christ.” “The work of Frazer and Pfleiderer, as well as their intellectual descendants, [is] significant because they introduced a third term to the comparative project . . . the comparison of both, with respect to a more generic (in this case, a seasonal) pattern, a comparison which resists conclusions as to borrowing or dependence.”

76. PRICE, ROBERT

A. Crossan: Crossan notes that it is unacceptable for Price to merely bypass Josephus in their discussion. Crossan points out that there are multiple points of “convergence” between Tacitus and Josephus regarding the beginning of Christianity, and that these sources did not merely and naively use Christian sources but used what was well known about the group. Although Crossan notes some overlap in his and Price’s research regarding the use of Greco-Roman language and types, Crossan’s conclusions are very different from Price’s conclusions. Crossan also contends that even on Price’s hero typology, it does not follow that the historical elements are negated (citing Augustus as an analogy).

B. Dunn: “Gosh! So there are still serious scholars who put forward the view that the whole account of Jesus’ doings and teachings are a later myth foisted on an unknown, obscure historical figure.” One would have thought, Dunn continues, that the mythicists of old (e.g., Wells) were sufficiently responded to, but “no!” Price brings it back again. Dunn notes Price is too content with the explanation that it all began, in some sense, with a savior myth. “Sad, really.” Dunn notes that those in Price’s camp irritate him in how they utilize the available evidence. Regarding Price’s dismissal of the New Testament Epistles’ evidence for the historical Jesus in his chapter, Dunn sees this as an outlandish claim that takes away from the credibility of his overall argument. He adds that Price has “blithely ignored” Acts in his chapter as well. Dunn says that if Price’s chapter reflects the health of the Jesus myth view, then “I can’t see much life in it.”

C. Johnson: Johnson quips that Price is able to argue that Jesus is a myth by denying all of the relevant evidence that shows Jesus as historical. Johnson notes that he is sympathetic to Price in that Price refuses to quickly accept a historical claim, but he also thinks Price goes way too far in his skepticism. For Johnson, the dying-and-rising gods hypothesis has failed because the historical evidence continues to cause scholars to reject it. Price’s argument to remove any trace of the historical Jesus in Paul’s Letters is also “unconvincing.” Via a historical methodology (dissimilarity) that would appeal to Price, Johnson provides three examples where Paul references Jesus historically.

77. RIEBL, MARIA

A. Senior: Says Riebl considers that Matthew reworked a written source for his material and combined it with the crucifixion account he got from Mark. The source seems to have a Palestinian origin. Riebl rejects the suggestion “that a special tradition which Matthew held in common with the Gospel of Peter underlies both passages.” Senior states that Riebl’s efforts to get to the written source behind Matt 27:51b–53 “are not convincing to me.”

78. RORTY, RICHARD

A. Gibson: Rorty, according to Gibson, essentially says that religious claims are myths to be treated reductively. Gibson contends that Rorty (and Hume) are incorrect because their views require one to hold to “a sort of anachronistic totalitarian mythology.”

79. SCHILLEBEECKX, EDWARD

A. Pannenberg: Pannenberg briefly argues against Schillebeeckx’s position because, in part, it fails to do justice to the appearances and makes an argument from silence.

B. Wright: Wright questions Schillebeeckx’s experience of grace thesis at multiple places.

80. SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH

A. Oberdorfer: Notes that Schleiermacher “tended to interpret Christ’s death as only an apparent death” and that he probably understood resurrection as “reanimation.”

81. SCHMIDT, J.

A. Tournay: Notes how Schmidt’s book analyzes the Greek kerygma in 1 Corinthians 15 and Acts 1–15.

82. SMITH, ROBERT

A. Court: Calls Smith’s book a bridge between academics and the pulpit, including its rich sermon material. It is a “broad and solid” academic study, although he briefly addresses problems of “scale and method.”

B. Martin: Notes that Smith thinks Mark ended at 16:8 “to avoid the impression that the first generation of believers had a privilege denied to later generations.”

C. Perkins: Says Smith is not concerned with “historical probability or background.”

D. Price: James Price notes that Smith makes “novel suggestions” and demonstrates the “general soundness of his exegetical conclusions.” Price thinks this “still rates as an excellent redaction-critical study of the resurrection story of each of the four Gospels.”

E. Smith: “This study has proceeded on the assumption that each evangelist was first of all a teacher or preacher rather than a historian.”

83. SPONG, JOHN SHELBY

A. Barnett: Barnett thinks that Spong has more in common with the Corinthians than with Paul.

B. Cabal: “Spong’s flight of fancy. . . . This book is poor scholarship and even worse Christianity.”

C. Jensen: Jensen points out that Spong tries to “save” Jesus’s resurrection by reinterpretation and redefinition. Accordingly, Christianity has not been rescued, but reduced.

D. McKenzie: McKenzie writes that it appears “Spong has not grasped the concept of midrash adequately.” He then suggests that Spong is under the “Hammer Effect” whereby he can strike anything with his hammer.

E. Peterson: David Peterson says Spong “is a zealous evangelist with a special audience in view. . . . But I believe that he is a false prophet.” Spong is also promoting the very thing he says he disdains. He misapplies midrash. While Spong is right that something caused the disciples’ transformation, “what he comes up with is pathetic.” The reason is because his approach is speculative and is not sustained historically or psychologically.

F. Wright: “His final contentions are worthy of Barbara Thiering.”

84. SHEEHAN, THOMAS

A. Davis: Davis thinks that it is possible Sheehan is the most radical among those using reductive theories.

85. STRAUSS, DAVID

A. Neill and Wright: Neill and Wright offer a good and concise critique of Strauss. One important comment specifically on the resurrection regards Strauss’s understanding that Jesus continued in the lives of the disciples and this “faith was strong enough” to generate a belief in Jesus’s resurrection. However, Jesus—as described by Strauss—is unable to generate this type of faith. “The causes, as suggested by Strauss, do not measure up to the consequences.” Strauss never properly defined what he meant by “myth,” and this ambiguity has led to many other troubles as a result.

86. SWINBURNE, RICHARD

A. Martin: Martin primarily argues against Swinburne’s case for God’s existence, but also questions Swinburne’s application of Bayes’s Theorem.

87. THIERING, BARBARA

A. McKenzie: McKenzie wonders whether Thiering’s book Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls is one of those written to gain attention and sell books by utilizing her scholarly competence with extremist views. “Perhaps the largest lesson to be learned from such writers is that not everyone who has an academic title or advanced degree is an authentic scholar.”

B. Wright: Regarding Jesus the Man: A New Interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Wright says that of “all the books I have ever read about Jesus, Barbara Thiering’s is one of the strangest.” “Thiering’s great edifice is based on thin air, built of imaginary bricks, and topped off with a non-existent roof. It is not even a house of cards. It is not a house at all.”

88. THUSING, WILHELM

A. Morgan: Notes that this work is largely a prolegomenon to the topic and that, along with Rahner, Schnackenburg, and Schurmann, Thusing is a “major contributor . . . to the . . . renaissance in German Roman Catholic theology.” Thusing develops eighteen “theological structures” (divided into five groups) of the life and teachings of Jesus. We can be “confident about knowing Jesus’ general intention” from his preaching of the nearness of the kingdom to “a germinal Christology” and ecclesiology. This is “followed by a most helpful exploration of the theological meaning of Jesus’ resurrection . . . and an account of the post-Easter ‘transformation’ of Jesus’ largely implicit Christology and soteriology.”

89. TROELTSCH, ERNST

A. Dunn: Dunn critiques Troeltsch and the criterion of analogy.

90. VERMES, GEZA

A. Blackburn: Blackburn gives seven critiques of Vermes’s position on Jesus as a Jewish holy man.

91. VERWEYEN, HANSJÜRGEN

A. Various Scholars: In his essay, Galvin notes that Verweyen is a systematic theologian from the University of Freiburg who has developed a position close to that of the early Pesch, especially on the issue of the pre-Easter influence of Jesus on the disciples. Verweyen holds the Easter faith was evident during Jesus’s life. Verweyen thinks that Jesus’s death was probably a major devastation to the disciples and that a “special” event would have helped them to overcome their emotional state. On the resurrection, Verweyen doesn’t give the empty tomb too much historical weight. But Verweyen does acknowledge that the disciples’ faith “in fact derives from visions of the risen Lord.” Verweyen’s work has not been engaged as much as Pesch’s work. Galvin notes that Oberliner, Winden, and Kessler all think that Verweyen’s emphasis cannot bear the weight placed on the pre-Easter Jesus and the disciples’ ability to survive his death on that basis. Galvin thinks Verweyen adds some important theological items to the discussion. One critique by Fiorenza is that we can’t ground the “post-Easter mission” in terms of the “pre-Easter earthly Jesus.”

92. VON CAMPENHAUSEN, HANS

A. Neill and Wright: Neill and Wright make some positive comments regarding von Campenhausen’s assessment of the resurrection and also seem to give some approval to his idea that the resurrection is not entirely within the realm of history.

93. WANSBROUGH, HENRY

A. O’Collins: Says regarding Wansbrough’s book that it “seems too strong” to say that the resurrection experience of the disciples was “wholly unique.”

94. WEDDERBURN, A. J. M.

A. France: France critiques Wedderburn’s agnosticism concerning the resurrection by suggesting the following: (1) Wedderburn’s book has the feel of old German liberalism and Wedderburn “moves further into Cupitt-land.” (2) His work’s use of Paul and John in defense of his view is “surely a tour de force.” Finally, (3) Wedderburn’s position is “frustratingly elusive” and his view is unclear.

95. WELLS, G. A.

A. Ehrman: Ehrman argues against Wells’s objection to James as Jesus’s brother.

B. Grant: Offers various critiques of Wells.

C. Habermas: Presents four major critiques of Wells.

D. Price: Price notes that Mack convinced Wells to change his view, such that he agrees with Mack that Jesus was a historical person upon whom the myths were based.

96. WENHAM, JOHN

A. O’Collins: Says Wenham works by using “imagination and conjecture.” O’Collins lists several of Wenham’s questionable claims and guesses. He summarizes that he agrees with Wenham’s conclusions but his “method is mistaken.”

97. WILSON, A. N.

A. Droge: Says A. N. Wilson claims to be a practicing Christian but can no longer be one. Wilson says Jesus was a Jewish holy man who “had peculiar insights into man’s relationship with God, and . . . charismatic powers of healing.” Wilson recognizes that New Testament scholars view his method as illogical. Droge charges Wilson with only using passages he finds fitting for his view while dismissing others. He needs to do a better job of arguing for his conclusions instead of just stating them. Wilson says Nicodemus is in Josephus, but Droge notes that the Nicodemus mentioned by Josephus lived in the first century BC! Wilson says the transfiguration story contains a historical element, so Droge asks, Then why dismiss the resurrection? Droge ends: “‘I hope I have not written fiction,’ Mr. Wilson announces in his preface. Unfortunately, that is just what he has written.”

B. McKenzie: “I was not at all moved by his arguments.” McKenzie adds that Wilson must better address “intellectual complexities more handily, at a deeper level of analysis, and more honestly.”

C. Wright: According to Wilson’s own criteria, “his book has to be judged a failure.”

98. WRIGHT, N. T.

A. Thompson: Thompson reviews Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God and summarizes the four parts, with the final part discussing Jesus’s resurrection. Wright studies worldviews in terms of four features and applies these same categories to the study of Jesus. He “rejects the ahistorical and existentially based proposals” and includes himself among other Third Questers in the tradition of Schweitzer in that Schweitzer was eschatological. But Schweitzer was wrong in thinking that “eschatological” means “apocalyptic” and believing that Jesus thought the end of the world was imminent. With George Caird, Jesus was “never intended to be taken literally, but rather invests socio-political events with their appropriate theological significance.” Wright’s understanding of Jesus is “not radically at odds” with the Gospels. Wright argues that precisely by being historians, we can know a good amount about Jesus. Historical thinking means that we are willing to view the data. Jesus’s role was “the strange quasi-messianic figure who would share the very throne of Israel’s one true God.” If Schweitzer was right, Jesus would have failed and we would have no answer for Christianity, so the “obvious answer” is the same one given by early Christians: “Jesus was raised from the dead.” Thompson says, “One does not often read conclusions like that in the writings of scholars in the Quest—whether Old, New, or Third!” Wright follows Ben Meyer in testing the hypothesis against the empirical New Testament data. Wright’s account does “far more” in explaining the Jesus of the Gospels than most others and describes “a thoroughly Jewish Jesus.” Wright’s arguments will not be persuasive to some “precisely because they explain so much.”

99. ZELLER, DIETER

A. Perkins: Regarding the essay by Zeller in the volume Auferstehung Jesu, edited by Broer and others, Perkins says it rejects the earliness of reports that women, especially Mary Magdalene, and Peter visited Jesus’s tomb.

100. EDITED BOOKS

A. Avis, Paul (The Resurrection of Jesus Christ)

1. Rodd: Reviewing Avis’s edited volume The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Rodd notes that Badham’s chapter says there are three modern positions on resurrection: spiritual body continuous with body that was buried, survival of Jesus’s spirit (like objective vision), and the subjective view. Badham’s conclusion argues that to do justice to early Christian claims, we must “talk in terms of belief in life after death for Jesus and for ourselves,” and that this should bring about attitudinal changes. Rodd also observes that Rowland’s chapter relates resurrection to other Christian doctrines, especially God’s kingdom, the transformation of history, the Holy Spirit, and the parousia. Coakley is very critical of Pannenberg’s approach to resurrection (for details, see below under Pannenberg). Lindars divorces the empty tomb from the appearances. Rodd notes that weaknesses of the volume include that there is “no thrust to a conclusion” and no “truly radical voice.”

B. Cornfeld, Gaalyahu (The Historical Jesus: A Scholarly View of the Man and His World)

1. Anonymous Reviewer: Cornfeld argues that the Sanhedrin try to protect Jesus from the high priest and that Jesus doesn’t die on the cross. The anonymous reviewer critiques: “This is not a critical book” and “has thinner substance” that is “not recommended for academic libraries.” The critiques continue: Cornfeld’s work is “disorganized and with many contradictions, some serious errors, and much noninformation.” The reviewer says there is no new evidence in Cornfeld’s book for swoon theory and he is susceptible to Strauss’s critique: “What remains inexplicable is how the secret was kept that Jesus still lived, or why, on this account, anyone called him Messiah.”

C. Davis, Stephen (The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus)

1. Nineham: Calls this edited volume “disappointing . . . primarily a book of apologetics.” It goes after views with which it disagrees. Swinburne, however, “contributes an elegant and well-argued version of the traditional case against Hume.” “This book is basically question-begging” and attacks scholars not invited to respond. Accordingly, it probably won’t “carry much weight” with those who disagree with these “highly traditional presuppositions.”

2. Osborne: Kenan Osborne notes the essays by Carnley, Davis, and Alston narrow down to the single issue of historicity. “That we need a focus on the historical question is undeniable; that it should tend to dominate discourse on the resurrection of Jesus is questionable.”

3. Van Dyk: Calls it a “fine volume.” “This book goes beyond the tiresome polemics and harvests the riches of theological reflection that bear so fruitfully on Christian life, service, and worship.”

4. Winter: Says this is a “remarkable book” that brings readers up to date on resurrection studies in “roughly five categories”: presuppositions, philosophical problems, analysis of New Testament, historical reliability of New Testament statements, and “practical ramifications.” Winter says the final chapters in the book are “less than satisfying.”

D. D’Costa, Gavin (Resurrection Reconsidered)

1. Wilson: Says this volume offers a bad choice of topics for religious dialogue and little “encounter,” because other religions are not concerned with the resurrection. However, Gethin’s chapter on Buddhism “makes the book worth reading.” Wilson ends the review with “Why should any other religion be interested in the Christian category of resurrection? I would like to see a proper Christian response to that question.”

E. Flew, Antony, and Gary Habermas Debate (Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?)

1. Flew, Antony

A) Bode: Says, “Flew’s agnostic refusal to debate the particulars of biblical research (he continually stands on his conclusion of insufficient evidence) keeps the book from achieving the full potential that it could have.”

B) Brown: “Flew is weak on several scores. He showed little precise biblical knowledge, making both wrong and simplistic observations. . . . I would judge that Flew overstates the lack of trustworthy evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.”

C) Davis: Davis concludes that Flew lost his debate with Habermas.

D) Devenish: “As Pannenberg observes, there is ‘a lack of sophistication in [Flew’s] way of dealing with the biblical texts’ and a ‘reluctance to enter into serious discussion of the historical detail.’ In the absence of such discussion, Flew’s position can but seem a dogmatic agnosticism . . . he will not take the historical task seriously enough to assess the evidence.”

E) Konyndyk: Konyndyk makes several strong comments throughout his book review. “Antony Flew seems to be earning some of his pocket money in recent years by serving as a foil for evangelical theists.” He notes Flew is a welcome opponent because of his great reputation as an academic atheist. “However, anyone looking for a good debate . . . is likely to be disappointed” because “Flew’s performance here is almost embarrassing.” He appears unprepared to discuss Habermas’s evidence, and rather than engage it, he evades it. Konyndyk agrees with Flew that “an extraordinary claim . . . requires considerably more evidence.” From Paul’s advice in Romans 1, “Christians need to talk to the Antony Flews of this world more about sin than about evidence.”

F) Mack: “Flew playing into Habermas’s hand. . . . Flew really was not able, either as an historian of early Christianity or as a modern historian of religion, to” take any advantage of the situation.

G) Neuhaus: “Although he says it is not his position, Flew finally seems to be saying that the Resurrection did not happen because such things do not happen.”

H) Packer: Says Flew is uninformed of the discussions by modern scholars and prefers a more casual style. Flew’s rejection of the resurrection is done a priori. Packer later refers more generally to the “unreasonableness of unbelief.”

I) Pannenberg: Refers to Flew’s “weak elements . . . lack of sophistication.” Flew’s reactions show that he isn’t aware of the scholarly discussions. As Habermas pointed out, Flew ignored the relevant circumstances and, therefore, Flew’s argument is not only unpersuasive but actually “damages his position.” Flew wants more evidence but does not address the evidence presented. Pannenberg notes we can’t always “suspend judgment.” He also states Flew definitely misses the point that Paul is making. Flew’s position seems to be of the very kind of a priori rejection that Flew himself disdains.

J) Price: Charles Price writes, “Flew does not come off well. He plainly did not take time to acquaint himself with the range of modern New Testament scholarship on the subject.”

K) Price: Robert Price says that Flew is “Hume’s current-day champion.”

L) Viney: “One comes away from this book wishing that Flew had shown more familiarity with current scholarship concerning the resurrection. . . . Flew cites no serious scholarship done within the past century.”

M) Wells: “Flew, as the solitary atheist, adumbrated some good points throughout, but did not have the New Testament evidence and its problems immediately to mind.”

2. Habermas, Gary

A) Bode: In Bode’s review of Habermas’s published debate with Antony Flew, he writes, “Habermas . . . uses a wide-sweeping familiarity with current biblical research. . . . Habermas presents a technically well done apologetic of the resurrection.”

B) Brown: Says, “In my judgment Habermas clearly won the debate [with Flew].” He is familiar with the “standard arguments for the historicity of corporeal resurrection and uses them effectively. I agree with 75% of what he has to say.”

C) Bush: “The historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus stands up well even under close examination.”

D) Davis: Davis notes that Habermas is an “able defender of a theologically conservative position on the resurrection.” Reviewing Habermas’s debate with Flew, Davis notes the “sparkling interaction between two articulate philosophers of diametrically opposed views.” He contends that Habermas appears “effectively to rebut Flew’s arguments and makes an excellent case for the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead” and asserts that “Habermas won the debate.” Davis was “delighted to find that the overall case Habermas makes for the resurrection is impressive” and that Habermas also effectively raised objections against Flew’s arguments.

E) Dockery: Says Habermas’s strongest argument was the “core facts” approach. “I found his arguments impressive and persuasive.”

F) Hartshorne: Hartshorne acknowledges the inability to “explain away” Habermas’s evidence.

G) Kent: Says Habermas’s treatment of the resurrection offers “the most sophisticated arguments which exist in contemporary philosophy, theology, and historical research.” Kent says, “Habermas won the debate” because Flew was unable to offer a naturalistic alternative and “was unable to refute Habermas’ argument.”

H) Konyndyk: As noted above, he says Flew evades Habermas’s evidence. On the other hand, “Habermas is, if anything, overprepared. His pieces bristle with citations, footnotes, and copious references.” Flew does not appear to be familiar with Habermas’s arguments and does not offer much by way of response. “Habermas’s research has been extensive,” and he is not arguing simply because of or from revelation alone. “Habermas’s work can have genuine value. I confess that I was pleasantly surprised at how good a case he is able to make.” However, Konyndyk does not think the case is as strong as Habermas suggests.

I) Large: Says Habermas has developed a set of facts that lead to the resurrection as an event.

J) Mack: “Habermas is considered to have won the debate.”

K) Martin: “Perhaps the most sophisticated defense of the Resurrection to date has been produced by Gary Habermas.” Martin says that if Habermas’s defense fails, then “there is good reason to suppose” that “other less sophisticated defenses” also fail.

L) Murphy: “Habermas far outshines Flew in terms of his knowledge of New Testament scholarship,” which means the “book contains a lopsided debate.”

M) Neuhaus: “Habermas wins the debate hands down.”

N) Packer: Packer refers to the “technical excellence” of Habermas’s detailed preparation and presentation of material. Says Habermas’s case is “surely . . . strong enough already for most people.”

O) Pannenberg: Repeatedly makes references regarding Habermas’s good points. He repeatedly states he agrees with Habermas. Pannenberg likes Habermas’s twelve facts and their use. There are areas of disagreement related to the “form of the appearances,” especially that of Paul.

P) Price: Charles Price says Habermas uses contemporary research “to good effect” even for contrary scholars. “One must agree with the judges, who awarded Habermas the victory both in terms of content and argument.”

Q) Price: Robert Price refers to “Habermas’ constant use of the fallacious appeals to authority and to (sometimes imaginary) consensus,” calling them “appeals to scholarly consensus” and “a circumstantial ad hominem argument.” In the middle of many negative comments, Price says that Habermas does “have a couple of important observations.”

R) Stein: “Antony Flew . . . clearly loses the debate. The judges voted that way, and I agree.” Stein also makes the comment regarding “the well-prepared but thoroughly incorrect Habermas.”

S) Viney: “At every turn, Habermas shows that he has done his homework.” By basing his argument on Paul, Viney says it “sidesteps Flew’s critique of the Gospels.”

T) Wells: Reports the verdicts of the two panels of debate judges. Flew “was up against opponents whose specialty lies in [the New Testament].”

Notes

William P. Alston, “Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection,” in The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 172–78.

Alston, 181–82.

Sarah Coakley, “Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection: Response to Alston,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 184.

Gareth Jones, “The Resurrection in Contemporary Systematic Theology,” in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 31–47.

Stephen Neill and N. T. Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1986, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 14–29, 63, 120.

Neill and Wright, 12n3, 22.

Neill and Wright, 4–6, 9–10.

Neill and Wright, 367–78. See esp. 376. Versus the gnostic redeemer myth, see 365, 369, 377.

John A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), chaps. 1 and 8.

N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), xvii.

Wright, 433–34.

Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 18.

Borg and Wright, 56–57, 85, 90–91.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 120.

James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 316–17.

Walter Wink, “Resonating with God’s Song (John 20:19–31),” The Christian Century 111, no. 10 (1994): 308.

James D. G. Dunn’s response to John Dominic Crossan, in James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 146.

Robert M. Price’s response to John Dominic Crossan, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 137.

Craig L. Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 21.

Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of God?: Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1995).

William Lane Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” in Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, 146.

James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 6.

Dunn, 50n9.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 1.

Johnson, 6.

Johnson, 8.

Johnson, 25.

Johnson, 26.

John P. Meier, “Dividing Lines in Jesus Research Today: Through Dialectical Negation to a Positive Sketch,” Interpretation 50, no. 4 (1996): 357.

Meier, 360.

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 5 vols., Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1991–2016), 3:145.

Meier, 3:619.

David A. Wade, “The Mystery of a Resurrected Rabbi,” Sojourners 25, no. 1 (1996): 50.

Wade, 55.

Robert L. Wilken, review of The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels, by Luke Timothy Johnson, Commonweal 123, no. 5 (1996): 20.

Wilken, 19–20.

N. T. Wright, “Looking Again for Jesus Stimulus,” Stimulus 4, no. 4 (1994): 6.

N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 35–44 (Mack), 44–65 (Crossan), 66–74 (Cynic thesis), 75–78 (Borg), and 78–82 (New Quest).

Wright, 39, 44–45, 78–82.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:3.

Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 236.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:145. See also 3:619, where Meier is critical of a historical Jesus that is portrayed as an “angry social rebel.”

Meier, 3:489–532, 633–36.

Meier, 3:489. See also 3:490–91.

Meier, 3:493.

Paul Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 5–7.

Andrew Chester, “Realized Eschatology: Review of The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus by Dale C. Allison Jr.,” Expository Times 97, no. 11 (1986): 345.

Richard H. Hiers, review of The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus, by Dale C. Allison Jr., Journal of Biblical Literature 106, no. 4 (1987): 721–22.

Ivor H. Jones, review of The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus, by Dale C. Allison Jr., Journal of Theological Studies 50, no. 1 (1999): 561–62.

John Muddiman, review of The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus, by Dale C. Allison Jr., Theology 91 (1988): 60.

Muddiman, 61.

Stephen Board, review of Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism, by Norman Anderson, Evanglical Review of Theology 11 (1987): 275.

Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 20–30.

Geza Vermes, reviews of Is Christianity True?, by Michael Arnheim and The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, by Pinchas Lapide, The Literary Supplement 4270 (1985): 116–17.

John K. Riches, A Century of New Testament Study (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1993), 70.

Hugh Dawes, review of Love Unknown: Meditations on the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, by John Barton, Theology 93 (1990): 425.

Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 127, 167n87.

Larry W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 23–25.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 16–29, 63.

E. Earle Ellis, “Book Review: Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection by Hans J. Bayer,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 30 (1987): 59.

Sunand Sumithra, “Book Review: Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection by Hans J. Bayer,” Evanglical Review of Theology 11 (1987): 276.

John Dominic Crossan’s response to Darrell L. Bock, in Beilby and Eddy, 288.

Luke Timothy Johnson’s response to Darrell L. Bock, in Beilby and Eddy, 296.

Robert M. Price’s response to Darrell L. Bock, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 285.

Marcus Borg, “The Irrelevancy of the Empty Tomb,” in Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, ed. Paul Copan (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 117.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 391.

Borg and Wright, Meaning of Jesus; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 75–78.

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 75–78.

Steven L. Cox, review of The Continuing Voice of Jesus: Christian Prophecy and the Gospel Tradition, by M. Eugene Boring, Christian Century 109 (1992): 248.

Hurtado, How on Earth, 16–20, 24. Cf. 37.

R. Butterworth, review of The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, by Raymond E. Brown, Heythrop Journal 16, no. 1 (1975): 64.

Butterworth, 65.

Richard Bauckham, “The Eyewitnesses and the Gospel Traditions,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1, no. 1 (2003): 47.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 83.

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 181–82.

Gerald O’Collins, Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental and Systematic Examination of Christ’s Resurrection (New York: Paulist, 1987), 53–57.

Robert M. Price, “Jesus at the Vanishing Point,” in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 76.

Riches, Century of New Testament Study, 71–81.

Riches, 81–87.

Riches, 89.

Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 19n27.

Torrance, 89n5.

James Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5,” New Testament Studies 60, no. 4 (2014): 480.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 317–18, 324, 383.

David Bundy, review of The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336, by Caroline Walker Bynum, Asbury Theological Journal 51, no. 2 (1996): 116.

J. Coppen, review of Réflexions sur la résurrection de Jésus, by J. Cantinat, Recensiones 55 (1979): 412.

Colin Brown, review of The Structure of Resurrection Belief, by Peter Carnley, Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995): 240.

Brown, 241.

Gerald O’Collins, “The Risen Jesus: Analogies and Presence,” in Resurrection, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs, JSNTSup 186 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 217.

Alan G. Padgett, “Advice for Religious Historians: On the Myth of a Purely Historical Jesus,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 293n13.

Hurtado, How on Earth, 18–20, 24. Cf. 37.

Joseph M. Lachowski, review of Interpretacja Starego Testamentu w kerygmacie apostolskim o zmartwychwstaniu Jezusa, by Jerzy Chmiel, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43, no. 3 (1981): 459–60.

Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 477–79.

Ware, 478.

William L. Loewe, “Angels Serving Forbidden Foods? Reviews of Passionate God by Rosemary Haughton; Christ in a Changing World by Tom F. Driver; and The Jesus of Faith by Michael L. Cook,” Commonweal 109 (1982): 696.

Craig L. Blomberg, “The Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith: Harmony or Conflict?,” in Copan, Real Jesus, 99–100.

Blomberg, 100–101.

Blomberg, 101.

Blomberg, 102.

Peter Byrne, review of The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy, by William Lane Craig, Religious Studies 24, no. 3 (1989): 395–96.

Paul Copan, review of Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, by William Lane Craig, Evangelical Quarterly 68 (1996): 247.

Copan, 247.

Copan, 248.

Paul Rhodes Eddy, “John Dominic Crossan on the Resurrection of Jesus: Response to Craig,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 272–74.

Robert Gundry, “Trimming the Debate,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 104–5 (nature of the facts), 105–7, 110 (burial and empty tomb), 110 (hallucinations), 111 (Paul), and 112 (general overstatements).

James A. Herrick, review of The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy, by William Lane Craig, Christian Scholar’s Review 16 (1987): 419.

Jeffery Jay Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 261–306.

Robert Morgan, review of The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy, by William Lane Craig, Journal of Theological Studies 40, no. 1 (1989): 309.

Morgan, 309–10.

Morgan, 310.

Paul K. Moser, review of Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, edited by Paul Copan, Choice 37, no. 3 (1999): 554.

Richard A. Muller, review of The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy, by William Lane Craig, Church History 57 (1988): 380.

Samuel C. Pearson, review of The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy, by William Lane Craig, Journal of Religion 68 (1988): 595.

Robert M. Price, “By This Time He Stinketh: The Attempts of William Lane Craig to Exhume Jesus,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 411–32.

Ben Witherington III, “Resurrection Redux,” in Copan, Real Jesus, 130.

Witherington, 130–31.

Dale C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 218.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 11n5. See also 12.

Barnett, 11.

C. Clifton Black, review of The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative, by John Dominic Crossan, Journal of Religion 69 (1989): 398–99.

Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 27.

Darrell L. Bock’s response to John Dominic Crossan, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 152.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 170n19.

Craig, 170n19.

William Lane Craig, “John Dominic Crossan on the Resurrection of Jesus,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 249.

Craig, 252.

Craig, 270.

Craig’s comments in Copan, Real Jesus, 68.

Crossan quoted in Copan, Real Jesus, 71, 148.

Rebecca Denova, review of The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus, by John Dominic Crossan, Christian Century 116, no. 1 (1999): 22–27.

James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 in Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 59. Dunn cites Crossan, Historical Jesus, 427–50.

Dunn’s response to Crossan, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 144.

Dunn, 146.

Dunn, 146–47. See also Bock’s response to Crossan, 152.

Dunn’s response to Crossan, 145.

Dunn, 146.

Eddy, “Response,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 272, 275.

Eddy, 275.

Eddy, 277–80.

Eddy, 281.

Eddy, 282–83, 285–86.

Luke Timothy Johnson’s response to John Dominic Crossan, in Beilby and Eddy, Johnson, The Historical Jesus, 140.

Johnson, 139. See also 141.

Johnson, 141.

Johnson, 142.

George W. E. Nickelsburg, review of The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative, by John Dominic Crossan, JAAR 59, no. 1 (1991): 162.

Mark Allan Powell, review of The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus, by John Dominic Crossan, JAAR 68, no. 1 (2000): 170.

Powell, 171.

Price’s response to Crossan, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 137.

Walter Wink, review of The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative, by John Dominic Crossan, Christian Century 105 (1988): 1159.

Wink, 1160.

Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 139.

Witherington, 140.

Witherington, 144.

Witherington, 145.

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 44–65.

Wright, 47–55.

Wright, 50–51.

Wright, 51.

Wright, 48.

Wright, 44–65.

Donald G. Dawe, Jesus: The Death and Resurrection of God (Atlanta: Knox, 1985), 102.

Michael Root, review of Jesus: The Death and Resurrection of God, by Donald G. Dawe, Theology Today 43, no. 2 (1986): 290.

Root, 291.

Charles A. Wilson, review of Jesus: The Death and Resurrection of God, by Donald G. Dawe, Journal of Religion 68, no. 1 (1988): 126. See also 127.

Wilson, 126.

Wilson, 127.

Daniel J. Harrington, review of Jesus, the Servant-Messiah, by Marinus de Jonge, America 166, no. 9 (1992): 222.

C. Focant, review of La foi pascale: Rendre compte de la résurrection de Jésus aujourd’hui, by Michel Deneken, Revue Theologique de Louvain 30, no. 2 (1999): 235.

J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Event (Shipston-on-Stour: Drinkwater, 1982), 50 and esp. 67n16.

Derrett, 133.

Derrett, 98, 114.

Derrett, 60–65.

Derrett, 90–97, 114.

Derrett, 84.

Derrett, 81–86, 130.

Derrett, 127–28.

Derrett, 131. See also 122.

Derrett, 97.

Derrett, 29–34, 99, 130.

Derrett, 102.

Derrett, 108–9.

Derrett, 102.

Derrett, x.

A. E. Harvey, “A Short Life after Death: Review of The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Fact by J. Duncan M. Derrett,” The Times Literary Supplement 4153 (1982).

Gerald O’Collins, review of The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Fact, by J. Duncan M. Derrett, Heythrop Journal 26, no. 1 (1985): 59.

O’Collins, 60.

Pheme Perkins, review of The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Fact, by J. Duncan M. Derrett, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45, no. 4 (1983): 685.

Perkins, 685.

James Swetnam, review of The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Fact, by J. Duncan M. Derrett, Biblica 65, no.1 (1984): 130–31.

Swetnam, 131.

William O. Walker, review of The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Fact, by J. Duncan M. Derrett, Journal of Biblical Literature 103, no. 4 (1984): 655–66.

Walker, 656.

T. S. M. Williams, review of The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Fact, by J. Duncan M. Derrett, Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1985): 446.

Williams, 446–47.

Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 202–5.

Darrell L. Bock’s response to James D. G. Dunn, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 244.

Michael F. Bird, ed., How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature. A Response to Bart D. Ehrman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 20–21, 133, 144–48, 204.

Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 496.

Ware, 496–97.

Andrianjatovo Rakotoharintsifa, review of Historische Vernunft und Auferweckung Jesu: Theologie und Historik im Streit um den Begriff geschichtlicher Wirklichkeit, by Georg Essen, Études théologiques et religieuses 72, no. 3 (1996): 465.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 697–701, esp. 698 where he states, “The flaws in this argument are so enormous that it is puzzling to find serious scholars still referring to it in deferential terms.”

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 382n485.

Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 78.

Michel Bouttier, review of La risurrezione di Gesù, by Giuseppe Ghiberti, Études théologiques et religieuses 59, no. 2 (1984): 264.

Mary T. Rattigan, review of The Death and Resurrection of Jesus, by Donald Goergen, Horizons 16, no. 2 (1989): 392.

John L. Topel, review of The Death and Resurrection of Jesus, by Donald Goergen, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 1 (1990): 157. See also 158.

Topel, 157.

Topel, 158.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 324n497.

J. L. Houlden, review of À la droite de Dieu: Résurrection de Jésus et actualisation du Psaume 110:1 dans le Nouveau Testament, by Michel Gourgues, Journal of Theological Studies 31, no. 1 (1980): 153.

Niel J. McEleney, review of À la droite de Dieu: Résurrection de Jésus et actualisation du Psaume 110:1 dans le Nouveau Testament, by Michel Gourgues, Theological Studies 41, no. 2 (1980): 402.

Mark E. Glasswell, review of Luc interprète des anciennes traditions sur la résurrection de Jésus, by Jean-Marie Guillaume, Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1980): 166–67.

J. Guillet, “Exegese Lucanienne,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 69 (1981): 429.

Guillet, 430.

Guillet, 432.

A. Lamouille, review of Luc interprète des anciennes traditions sur la résurrection de Jésus, by Jean-Marie Guillaume, Revue Biblique 88, no. 3 (1981): 464.

Lamouille, 465.

Pierre Nautin, review of Luc interprète des anciennes traditions sur la résurrection de Jésus, by Jean-Marie Guillaume, Revue de l’histoire des religions 190, no. 1 (1982): 103-4.

Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 477–79.

Ware, 478.

Loewe, “Angels Serving Forbidden Foods?,” 695.

D. A. Carson, review of Blood and Water: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus in John 18–21, by John Paul Heil, Journal of Theological Studies 47, no. 2 (1996): 616–17.

Craig R. Koester, review of Blood and Water: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus in John 18–21, by John Paul Heil, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58, no. 4 (1996): 755.

Ronald D. Witherup, review of The Death and Resurrection of Jesus: A Narrative-Critical Reading of Matthew 26–28, by John Paul Heil, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55, no. 3 (1993): 584.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 554.

Ivor H. Jones, review of Resurrection and Parousia: A Tradition-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15, by Joost Holleman, Journal of Theological Studies 50, no. 1 (1999): 251.

Robert L. Maxwell, review of A Lively Hope: The Suffering, Death, Resurrection, and Exaltation of Jesus Christ, by Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Brigham Young University Studies 39, no. 1 (2000): 219.

Maxwell, 220.

Kenneth Grayston, review of Backward into Light: The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus According to Matthew and Mark, by J. Leslie Houlden, New Blackfriars 68 (1987): 576–77.

Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 2:603, 635–36, 742. See also 2:697–700.

W. S. Campbell, review of The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in New Testament Theology, by John Frederick Jansen, Scottish Journal of Theology 35, no. 3 (1982): 281.

Campbell, 282.

Peter Edmonds, review of The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in New Testament Theology, by John Frederick Jansen, Heythrop Journal 22, no. 3 (1981): 338.

Martin Tripole, review of The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in New Testament Theology, by John Frederick Jansen, Horizons 8, no. 1 (1981): 145.

Tripole, 146.

Robert A. Wild, review of The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in New Testament Theology, by John Frederick Jansen, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43, no. 3 (1981): 467.

James D. G. Dunn’s response to Luke Timothy Johnson, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 189.

Steven Schroeder, review of Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel, by Luke Timothy Johnson, Booklist 95, no. 7 (1998): 623.

Wilken, review of The Real Jesus (by Luke Timothy Johnson), 20.

Wright, “Looking Again for Jesus Stimulus,” 9.

William Lane Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” Modern Theology 6, no. 1 (1989): 53.

Craig, 73n3.

Craig, 72.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 13–15.

Davis, 176–78.

Davis, 178.

Davis, 179–80.

Davis, 13–15, 175–80.

Gerald O’Collins, “Book Reviews: The First Day of the New Creation: The Resurrection and the Christian Faith by Vesilin Kesich; The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective by Pinchas Lapide; and Easter Enigma by John Wenham,” Heythrop Journal 26, no. 1 (1985): 58.

Keith Parsons, “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 433–52.

William P. Loewe, “The Appearances of the Risen Lord: Faith, Fact, and Objectivity,” Horizons 6, no. 2 (1979): 187. Additional “incoherent” references are mentioned on 188, 190.

J. Ramsey Michaels, “Book Reviews: I Believe in the Holy Spirit by Michael Green and I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus by George Eldon Ladd,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 31, no. 2 (1976): 142.

Michaels, 143.

Michaels, 143.

Edward L. Bode, review of The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, by Pinchas Lapide, Biblical Theology Bulletin 17, no. 3 (1987): 118.

John M. Court, “Book Reviews: The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective by Pinchas Lapide and Easter Gospels: The Resurrection of Jesus According to the Four Evangelists by Robert H. Smith,” Expository Times 95, no. 1 (1984): 313.

Eugene V. Gallagher, “Book Reviews: Ein Fluchtlinskind: Auslegungen zu Lukas 2 by Helmut Gollwitzer and Pinchas Lapide; The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective by Pinchas Lapide,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23, no. 2 (1986): 313.

William Horbury, review of The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, by Pinchas Lapide, Theology 88 (1985): 307–8.

O’Collins, “Book Reviews,” 58.

George C. Papademetriou, review of The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, by Pinchas Lapide, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 30, no. 4 (1985): 504.

Papademetriou, 504–5.

Pheme Perkins, “Book Review: The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, Easter Gospels: The Resurrection of Jesus According to the Four Evangelists,” Theological Studies 45, no. 3 (1984): 556.

S. Paul Re’emi, review of The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, by Pinchas Lapide, Scottish Journal of Theology 38, no. 3 (1985): 419–20.

Geza Vermes, reviews of Is Christianity True?, by Michael Arnheim, and The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, by Pinchas Lapide, The Times Literary Supplement 4270 (1985): 117.

Gerald O’Collins, review of Resurrection and the Message of Jesus, by Xavier Leon-Dufour, Gregorianum 56 (1975): 584.

O’Collins, 584.

W. Taylor Stevenson, review of The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, by Jon D. Levenson, The Christian Century 111 (1994): 792.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 242.

William Lane Craig, in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection: “Opening Statements,” 36–37; “First Rebuttal,” 49–51; “Second Rebuttal,” 59.

Craig, “Closing Responses,” 162–63.

Gundry, “Trimming the Debate,” 112.

Gundry, 123.

Gundry, 112.

Gundry, 112–13.

Gundry, 114.

Gundry, 114.

Gundry, 115.

Gundry, 121.

Holly Hearon, review of What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, by Gerd Lüdemann with Alf Özen, Interpretation 51, no. 4 (1997): 433.

Andreas Lindemann, review of Die Auferstehung Jesu: Historie, Erfahrung, Theologie, by Gerd Lüdemann, Wege zum Menschen 46, no. 8 (1994): 506.

Lindemann, 512.

Robert Morgan, review of Die Auferstehung Jesu: Historie, Erfahrung, Theologie, by Gerd Lüdemann, Journal of Theological Studies 47, no. 1 (1996): 256.

Morgan, 255.

Morgan, 256.

Russell Morton, review of Die Auferstehung Jesu: Historie, Erfahrung, Theologie, by Gerd Lüdemann, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57, no. 3 (1995): 598.

Morton, 599.

Morton, 599.

Gerald O’Collins, review of The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, by Gerd Lüdemann, Gregorianum 77, no. 2 (1996): 358.

O’Collins, 358.

O’Collins, 358–59.

O’Collins, 359.

J. C. O’Neill, review of The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, by Gerd Lüdemann, Theology 99 (1996): 154.

O’Neill, 155.

C. S. Rodd, review of What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, by Gerd Lüdemann with Alf Özen, Expository Times 107, no. 7 (1996): 194.

Rodd, 195.

Peter Stuhlmacher, Was geschah auf Golgatha? Zur Heilsbedeutung von Kreuz, Tod und Auferweckung Jesu, trans. Jonathan M. Whitlock (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1998), 52–57.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 319n17.

Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of God?, chaps. 8 and 10.

Luke Timothy Johnson, “The Crisis in Biblical Scholarship,” Commonweal 120, no. 21 (1993): 20.

Johnson, 20.

Johnson, 20.

Johnson, 20.

Johnson, 20.

Johnson, 21.

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 35–44.

Wright, 40.

Wright, 35–44.

Shimon Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 133–36.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 875–76.

Dunn, 876.

Dunn, 878–79.

Reginald H. Fuller, “The Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” in Critical History and Biblical Faith: New Testament Perspectives, ed. Thomas J. Ryan (Villanova, PA: Villanova University Press, 1979), 91. See also 96.

Fuller, 94.

Fuller, 95.

Fuller, 95.

Fuller, 96.

Gerald O’Collins, review of Risen from the Dead, by Henry Wansbrough, Heythrop Journal 20, no. 2 (1979): 193–94.

Richard Ruble, review of Pagan Resurrection Myths and the Resurrection of Jesus, by Leon McKenzie, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 50, no. 2 (1998): 153.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 143–46.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 223–26, 230.

A. J. Conyers, review of The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions, by Jürgen Moltmann,” Christianity Today 35 (1991): 37.

O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 74–76.

Daniel J. Harrington, review of Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental, and Systematic Examination of Christ’s Resurrection, by Gerald O’Collins, America 157, no. 17 (1987): 435.

James L. Heft, review of Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental, and Systematic Examination of Christ’s Resurrection, by Gerald O’Collins, Theological Studies 49, no. 4 (1988): 759.

Heft, 760.

Leslie Houlden, review of Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental, and Systematic Examination of Christ’s Resurrection, by Gerald O’Collins, Expository Times 99, no. 1 (1987): 24.

Ron Large, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, and Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental, and Systematic Examination of Christ’s Resurrection, by Gerald O’Collins, 1150–51.

Murphy, “Book Reviews,” 402–3.

Pheme Perkins, review of Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus, by Gerald O’Collins, Today 174, no. 10 (1996): 26.

Francis Watson, review of The Resurrection—What Actually Happened and What Does It Mean?, by Gerald O’Collins, Theology 91 (1988): 144.

Watson, 145.

Randall Zachman, review of Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental, and Systematic Examination of Christ’s Resurrection, by Gerald O’Collins, Journal of Religion 69, no. 2 (1989): 269.

Zachman, 269.

James M. Gustafson, review of Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics, by Oliver O’Donovan, Journal of Religion 68 (1988): 132.

Gustafson, 133.

Gustafson, 133.

Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 8.

O’Donovan, 13.

O’Donovan, 17.

Charles Scriven, review of Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics, by Oliver O’Donovan, The Christian Century 104 (1987): 227.

Scriven, 225.

Timothy F. Sedgwick, review of Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics, by Oliver O’Donovan, JAAR 57 (1989): 420–21.

Lawrence S. Cunningham, “Book Reviews: The Resurrection of Jesus by Kenan B. Osborne; Christ: The Self-Emptying of God by Lucien Richard Paulist; and Divine Revolution: Salvation and Liberation in Catholic Thought by Dean Brackley Orbis,” Commonweal 125, no. 6 (1998): 27.

Daniel J. Harrington, “Book Reviews: The Resurrection of Jesus: New Considerations for Its Theological Significance by Kenan B. Osborne; The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins,” America 178 (1998): 23.

David A. S. Ferguson, review of The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, edited by Paul Avis, Scottish Journal of Theology 49, no. 3 (1996): 388–89.

Sarah Coakley, “Is the Resurrection a ‘Historical’ Event? Some Muddles and Mysteries,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1993), 88.

Coakley, 109.

Coakley, 98–100.

Coakley, 108.

Coakley, 111.

Nicholas Peter Harvey, “Frames of Reference for the Resurrection,” Scottish Journal of Theology 42, no. 3 (1989): 335–39.

Elizabeth A. Johnson, “Resurrection and Reality in the Thought of Wolfhart Pannenberg,” Heythrop Journal 24, no. 1 (1983): 1.

Johnson, 10.

Johnson, 11.

Johnson, 15.

Johnson, 16.

Johnson, 17.

Johnson, 18.

G. E. Michalson, “Pannenberg on the Resurrection and Historical Method,” Scottish Journal of Theology 33, no. 4 (1980): 346.

Michalson, 347.

Michalson, 351.

Michalson, 356–57.

Michalson, 357–59. Cf. 347.

Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 235.

Moltmann, 242.

O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 61–62.

Roger E. Olson, “Resurrection, Cosmic Liberation, and Christian Earth Keeping,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 124.

Rodd, “Talking Points from Books,” 130.

Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 491.

John R. Donahue, “Rolling Back the Stone: Review of Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection by Pheme Perkins,” Commonweal 112 (1985): 216.

Donahue, 217.

Donahue, 216.

Donahue, 217.

Paul F. Knitter, review of Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection, by Pheme Perkins, Library Journal 109 (1984): 2288.

Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 100.

Gerald O’Collins, review of The Resurrection Narratives, by Norman Perrin, Heythrop Journal 18, no. 4 (1977): 467.

O’Collins, 467.

Rudolf Pesch, “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu: Ein Vorschlag zur Diskussion,” Theologische Quartalschrift 153, no. 3 (1973): 219–26; Pesch, “Materialien und Bemerkungen zur Entstehung und Sinn des Osterglaubens,” in Wie kam es zum Osterglauben?, ed. Anton Vögtle and Rudolf Pesch (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1975), 157–68, cited in John P. Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu: The Foundational Christology of Rudolf Pesch,” Theological Studies 38, no. 3 (1977): 516. Cf. John P. Galvin, “The Origin of Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus: Two Recent Perspectives,” Theological Studies 49, no. 1 (1988): 25.

Pesch, “Ein Vorschlag zur Diskussion,” 204–8, cited in Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 514. Cf. Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 25, 28, 30, 40.

Pesch, “Ein Vorschlaf zur Diskussion,” 209–18; Pesch, “Materialien und Bemerkungen,” 136–56, cited in Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 514–15. Cf. Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 525.

Hans Werner Bartsch, “Inhalt und Funktion des Urchristlichen Osterglaubens,” New Testament Studies 26, no. 2 (1980): 180. See also 194–95.

Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 518, citing Hans Werner Bartsch, “Der Ursprung des Osterglaubens,” Theologische Zeitschrift 31 (1975): 16–31.

Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 520.

Galvin, 524.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 27n7.

Martin Hengel, “Ist der Osterglaube noch zu retten,” Theologische Quartalschrift 153 (1973): 252–69, cited in Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 517n19.

Jacob Kremer, “Entstehung und Inhalt des Osterglaubens: Zur neuesten Diskussion,” Theologische Revue 72 (1976): 1–14, cited in Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 518–19n25.

Hans Küng, “Zur Entstehung des Auferstehungsglaubens,” Theologische Quartalschrift 154 (1974): 103–17, cited in Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 518n23.

Joseph Plevnik, “The Origin of the Easter Faith According to Luke,” Biblica 61, no. 4 (1980): 508.

Peter Stuhlmacher, “Kritischer müßten mir die Historisch-Kritischen sein!,” Theologische Quartalschrift 153, no. 3 (1973): 244–51, cited in Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 518n23.

Anton Vögtle, “Wie kam es zum Osterglauben?,” in Vögtle and Pesch, Osterglauben, 9–131.

Vögtle, 29–68.

Vögtle, 69–127.

See discussion in Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 519–21.

A more recent example is provided in Dale C. Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History (New York: T&T Clark, 2021), chap. 8.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 25–26.

Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, “The Resurrection of Jesus and Roman Catholic Fundamental Theology,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 221.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 28–29, 31–33, 40–41.

Galvin, 30, 40.

Rudolf Pesch, “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu: Ein Neuer Versuch,” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 30, no. 1–2 (1983): 73–98; Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 30.

Pesch, “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens,” 87.

Pesch, 87.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 30. Cf. 33, 34, 40, 42.

Galvin, 31–32.

Galvin, 32.

Pesch, “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens,” 96–97.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 34.

Galvin, 42.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 34, citing Ingo Broer and Jürgen Werbick, eds., “Der Herr ist wahrhaft auferstanden” (Lk 24,34): Biblische und systematische Beiträge zur Entstehung des Osterglaubens, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 134 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988). He also refers to Ingo Broer’s chapter in the volume, “‘Seid stets bereit, jedem Rede und Antwort zu stehen, der nach der Hoffnung fragt, die euch erfullt’ (1 Petr 3,15): Das leere Grab und die Erschenungen Jesu im Lichte der historischen Kritik,” 29–62.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 33, citing Hans Kessler, Sucht den Lebenden nicht bei den Toten: Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi in biblischer, fundamentaltheologischer und systematischer Sicht (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1985).

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 33, 42, citing Jacob Kremer, “Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi,” in Handbuch der Fundamentaltheologie, ed. W. Kern, H. Pottmeyer, and M. Seckler (Freiburg: Herder, 1985), 2:175–96; O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 110.

Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 89, 97.

Smith, 92.

Smith, 99.

John Dominic Crossan’s response to Robert M. Price, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 86.

Crossan, 85.

James D. G. Dunn’s response to Robert M. Price, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 95.

Dunn, 95.

Dunn, 96.

Dunn, 97.

Dunn, 98.

Luke Timothy Johnson’s response to Robert M. Price, in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 89.

Johnson, 91. See also 93.

Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 91 (Johnson’s response to Robert Price).

Johnson, in Beilby and Eddy, 92.

Donald Senior, review of Auferstehung Jesu in der Stunde seines Todes? Zur Botschaft von Mt 27,51b–53, by Maria Riebl, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42, no. 4 (1980): 582.

Senior, 583.

Arthur Gibson, “Logic of the Resurrection,” in Porter, Hayes, and Tombs, Resurrection, 172–73.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 2:355–56.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 701–6, esp. 703, 705.

Bernd Oberdorfer, “Schleiermacher on Eschatology and Resurrection,” in Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, ed. Ted Peters, Robert J. Russell, and Michael Welker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 179.

R. Tournay, review of Résurrection de Jésus, by J. Schmidt, Supplement au dictionnaire de la Bible 91, no. 3 (1984): 453.

Court, “Book Reviews,” 314.

Francis Martin, review of Easter Gospels: The Resurrection of Jesus According to the Four Evangelists, by Robert H. Smith, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47, no. 1 (1985): 174.

Perkins, “Book Review,” 555.

James J. H. Price, review of Easter Gospels: The Resurrection of Jesus According to the Four Evangelists, by Robert H. Smith, Interpretation 40, no. 1 (1986): 100, 102.

Robert H. Smith, Easter Gospels: The Resurrection of Jesus According to the Four Evangelists (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983), 201.

Paul Barnett, Peter Jensen, and David Peterson, Resurrection: Truth and Reality (Sydney: Aquila, 1994), 34.

Ted Cabal, “Book Reviews: Resurrection: Myth or Reality? by John Shelby Spong; Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection by Stephen T. Davis; and Events of Grace: Naturalism, Existentialism, and Theology by Charley D. Hardwick,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 40 (1997): 96.

Barnett, Jensen, and Peterson, Resurrection, 40.

Barnett, Jensen, and Peterson, 43.

Leon McKenzie, Pagan Resurrection Myths and the Resurrection of Jesus: A Christian Perspective (Charlottesville, VA: Bookwrights, 1997), 9. See also 13.

McKenzie, 10.

Barnett, Jensen, and Peterson, Resurrection, 1–2.

Barnett, Jensen, and Peterson, 3.

Barnett, Jensen, and Peterson, 9. See also 19.

N. T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 90.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 36n26.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 18–19.

Neill and Wright, 14.

Michael Martin, “Swinburne on the Resurrection,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 453–68.

McKenzie, Pagan Resurrection Myths, 8.

Wright, Who Was Jesus?, 19. See also 33.

Wright, 34.

Robert Morgan, review of Die neutestamentlichen Theologien und Jesus Christus, Grundlegung einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments, by Wilhelm Thusing, Journal of Theological Studies 51, no. 1 (2000): 237.

Morgan, 238.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 70. See also 106–7.

Barry L. Blackburn, “The Miracles of Jesus,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 378–79.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 40.

Hansjürgen Verweyen, “Die Ostererscheinungen in fundamentaltheologischer Sicht,” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 103, no. 4 (1981): 429, cited by Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 35.

Verweyen, “Die Ostererscheinungen,” 429; Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 36.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 40.

Galvin, 39.

Galvin, 39.

Galvin, 43.

Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 243–44. See also 221–23.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 307–9.

O’Collins, review of Risen from the Dead (by Wansbrough), 192.

R. T. France, review of Beyond Resurrection, by A. J. M. Wedderburn, Theology 102 (1999): 369.

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 120, 146, 149–56.

Grant, Jesus, 199–200.

Gary R. Habermas, “A Summary Critique: Questioning the Existence of Jesus,” Christian Research Journal 22, no. 3 (2000): 55–56.

Robert M. Price, Deconstructing Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2000), 115.

O’Collins, “Book Reviews,” 58.

Arthur J. Droge, review of Jesus: A Life, by A. N. Wilson, National Review 44, no. 23 (1992): 48.

Droge, 49.

Droge, 50.

McKenzie, Pagan Resurrection Myths, 6.

Wright, Who Was Jesus?, 64.

Marianne Meye Thompson, review of Jesus and the Victory of God, by N. T. Wright, Modern Theology 14, no. 3 (1998): 468–69.

Thompson, 469.

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 648.

Wright, 659.

Thompson, review of Jesus and the Victory of God (by Wright), 470.

Thompson, 470–71.

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 121; cf. Thompson, review of Jesus and the Victory of God (by Wright), 471.

Pheme Perkins, review of Auferstehung Jesu—Auferstehung der Christen: Deutungen des Osterglaubens, edited by Ingo Broer et al., Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49, no. 3 (1987): 525.

C. S. Rodd, “Talking Points from Books: Review of The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Edited by Paul Avis,” Expository Times 105, no. 5 (1994): 129.

Rodd, 129.

Rodd, 129–30.

Rodd, 130.

Anonymous, review of The Historical Jesus: A Scholarly View of the Man and His World, edited by Gaalyahu Cornfeld, Choice 20 (1983): 1472.

Dennis Nineham, review of The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, Journal of Theological Studies 49, no. 2 (1998): 907.

Nineham, 908.

Nineham, 908.

Kenan B. Osborne, review of The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, Horizons 25 (1998): 324.

Leanne Van Dyk, review of The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, Theology Today 56, no. 4 (2000): 642.

Van Dyk, 644.

Michael M. Winter, review of The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, Heythrop Journal 39, no. 3 (1998): 333.

Winter, 335.

Kenneth Wilson, review of Resurrection Reconsidered, edited by Gavin D’Costa, World Faith Encounter 18 (1997): 60.

Wilson, 61.

Wilson, 61.

Edward L. Bode, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, Biblical Theology Bulletin 18, no. 3 (1988): 118.

Raymond E. Brown, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, International Philosophical Quarterly 27, no. 4 (1987): 451.

Stephen T. Davis, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, Faith and Philosophy 6, no. 2 (1989): 227–29.

Philip E. Devenish, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, Theological Studies 49, no. 1 (1988): 204.

Kenneth Konyndyk, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, The Reformed Journal 39 (1989): 30.

Konyndyk, 31.

Konyndyk, 32.

Burton L. Mack, “Review Essay of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew,” History and Theory 28, no. 2 (1989): 217–18.

Richard John Neuhaus, “History and Faith,” National Review 40, no. 7 (1988): 45.

James I. Packer, “Response to the Debate,” in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, ed. Terry L. Miethe (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987), 148.

Packer, 147.

Packer, 150.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” in Miethe, Resurrection Debate, 127.

Pannenberg, 128.

Pannenberg, 133.

Pannenberg, 128. Cf. 134.

Charles P. Price, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, Virginia Seminary Journal 42, no. 1 (1990): 2.

Robert Price, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, Religious Humanism 19, no. 3 (1985): 148.

Donald Wayne Viney, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, Midwest Quarterly 30, no. 5 (1989): 393.

G. A. Wells, A Resurrection Debate (London: Rationalist, 1988), 33.

Bode, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (by Habermas and Flew), 114.

Brown, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (by Habermas and Flew), 450–51.

L. Russ Bush, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, Southwestern Journal of Theology 30, no. 2 (1988): 69.

Davis, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (by Habermas and Flew), 227–29.

David S. Dockery, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, Perspectives in Religious Studies 15 (1988): 83.

Charles Hartshorne, “Response to the Debate,” in Miethe, Resurrection Debate, 142.

Jack A. Kent, The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (London: Open Gate, 1999), 121n16.

Kent, 85. Cf. 82, 87.

Konyndyk, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (by Habermas and Flew), 30.

Konyndyk, 31.

Konyndyk, 32.

Ron Large, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew; and Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental, and Systematic Examination of Christ’s Resurrection, by Gerald O’Collins, The Christian Century 104 (1987), 1150-1.

Mack, “Review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 218.

Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 87.

Frederick Murphy, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew; and Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental and Systematic Examination of Christ’s Resurrection, by Gerald O’Collins, Horizons 15, no. 2 (1988): 402.

Neuhaus, “History and Faith,” 45.

Packer, “Response to the Debate,” 148.

Packer, 149.

Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 127–28, 133.

Pannenberg, 129. See also 130.

Pannenberg, 129–30.

Pannenberg, 131–32.

C. Price, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (by Habermas and Flew), 2.

R. Price, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (by Habermas and Flew), 148.

Price, 149.

Stein, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (by Habermas and Flew), n.p.

Viney, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (by Habermas and Flew), 393.

Wells, “Resurrection Debate,” 33.

↑ Back to top