JESUS' RESURRECTION AND CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM: AN APOLOGETIC

[dcsmart]

I think the dialog over my previous post is terrific. here is some more information. there is a wealth of info about this subject. Now, i am not proselyting. i am not a christian. i do, however, think that scholarship about this subject is fundamentally important and that only when you can adequately refute the arguments for the resurrection can you really say it did not happen. Habermas is an excellent scholar as is N.T Wright.

by Gary R. Habermas
Originally published in
Criswell Theological Review
Part 1: vol. 4/no.1 (Fall 1989): pp. 159-174.
Part 2: vol. 4/no.2 (Winter 1990): pp. 373-385.

There is widespread agreement among scholars today across a broad theological spectrum that the resurrection of Jesus is the central claim of Christianity. This has long been asserted by orthodox believers, based on NT passages such as 1 Cor 15:12-20. But it is also admitted by higher critical scholars, as well.

For instance, W. Marxsen points out that, of all the current issues which face Christian theology, "the question of Jesus' resurrection plays a decisive part; one might even say the decisive part." In fact, if we are uncertain or obscure about the faith and hope which are "closely connected" to the resurrection, then "there is a risk of jeopardizing more or less everything to which a Christian clings."1

He is not alone in such an assessment. J. Moltmann asserts that "Christianity stands or falls with the reality of the raising of Jesus from the dead by God. In the NT there is no faith that does not start a priori with the resurrection of Jesus."2 G. Bornkamm likewise admits the ultimate importance of this event: "... there would be no gospel, not one account, no letter in the NT, no faith, no church, no
Text

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/criswell_theol_review/1989-fall_jesusresandcontempcrit_pt1.htm (Part 1)

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/criswell_theol_review/1989-fall_jesusresandcontempcrit_pt2.htm (Part 2)



by Gary R. Habermas
Originally published in Dialog: A Journal of Theology, Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297; published by Blackwell Publishing, UK.

Experiences of the Risen Jesus:
The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection

Having specialized for several decades in critical studies of the resurrection of Jesus, I recently decided to update my Bibliography. What began rather modestly evolved into a five year study of well over 2000 sources on this topic, published from 1975 to the present in German, French, and English. I was most interested in scholarly trends, resulting in a survey of well over 100 sub-issues.

One area of concentration was the common historical content recognized by virtually all researchers. For a variety of reasons, contemporary scholars widely conclude that after his death, Jesus' followers at least thought that they had seen appearances of the risen Jesus. Do the disciples' beliefs that they had witnessed resurrection appearances provide any clues as to what may really have occurred? The answer depends on how one accounts for these experiences. Here, where scholarship differs widely, three chief options prevail. In spite of these differences, it is my contention that this is the single most crucial aspect of the historical question.

During the examination of this subject, I will attempt to clarify some of the relevant issues in order to narrow the major options. While I will not choose between these answers regarding the underlying cause, my chief task is to tighten the focus of the discussion. In the process, I will use chiefly those data to which the vast majority of recent researchers agree, at least in principle, regardless of their theological positions. Due to the volume of relevant material, I will often resort to summarized conclusions of recent scholarly trends. The endnotes provide additional background information, perspectives, argumentation, and other details.
Text

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm


Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity

(Originally published in Sewanee Theological Review 41.2, 1998. Reproduced by permission of the author.)

N.T. Wright

Introduction
I have so far endeavored to sketch a historical argument I have urged that the rise of early Christianity cannot be explained except on the basis upon which the early Christians themselves insist, namely, that Jesus of Nazareth, following his shameful execution, was raised bodily from the dead. It is important to notice that we have reached this point without going through most of the hoops chat have normally been deemed necessary and in which a good deal of the debate, like Winnie-the-Pooh after his visit to Rabbit’s house, has got stuck. I have not discussed the emptiness of the tomb, the rumors of angels, the question of the third day, the burial habits of first-century Jews, the charge and counter-charge of propaganda leveled this way and that by the early Christians and the early Jews, and, indeed, by the redaction-critics. Nor do I have time to give these important matters anymore than a brief hearing in this lecture. What I propose to do, instead, is to bring into play the key texts in which belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus (without which the rise of Christianity is historically incomprehensible) attains explicit statement. I shall argue, basically, that the position at which we have arrived on other grounds is indeed supported by the relevant texts. And the first text to be considered is, of course, Paul’s.
Text

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm


SEE N.T. WRIGHT'S SITE
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/

SEE ALSO
Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection?

which is at the site above in the middle column at the bottom.

[BurtWorm]

1. Higher critical scholars agree that Jesus was resurrected?

:eyes:

Come on.

[Occam Bandage]

2. You've misread. They agree "the resurrection of Jesus is the central claim of Christianity."

I have to agree; it's the point on which the entire religion hinges.

[BurtWorm]

3. You mean that if it were conclusively demonstrated

that there was no historically factual resurrection, then that would have to be the end of Christianity? Assuming Christians were rational enough to accept conclusive demonstration of course.

I disagree. I think that even if Christians knew in their heart of hearts (which I believe many probably do) that there was no resurrection, that there was no Christ, even, there would still be a sizable number of them who would find something else in the religion to believe in and who would continue to call themselves Christians. They might be more like the early gnostics or Pythagoreans, in that they would take a more explicitly mythological view of Christ. But they would still call themselves Christians and claim to be practicing Christianity.

[struggle4progress]

4. Gary Habermas is on the faculty at Falwell's Liberty University, which is

closed tied to right-wing money sources, organizing efforts, and politics: for example, Liberty had no difficulty accepting millions from the self-proclaimed "messiah" Moon

Moon, Money and Messiah
4 January 2009

... Rachael Kohn: Well I guess as you said, Moon has contributed millions into the coffers of the government, but in what way?

John Gorenfeld: Well there's the $3 billion to the Washington Times, but that's really only part of it, because if you dig deep into the history of the right-wing coalition that has been so powerful since the rise of Reagan, so many of their crucial operators have taken large sums of money from Reverend Moon, whether it's a guy named Richard Vigary, who was known as the Founding Funder of the Reagan revolution, the guy that built the direct mail fund-raising empire that helped create this tidal wave of cash that helped to sweep Reagan into office, well this cash genius himself was bailed out of bankruptcy by Reverend Moon, who came to the aid of other people too, like Jerry Falwell, the late Christian riot leader in our country, who took $3.5 million from Moon to bail out his Liberty University, religious university, this by the way after saying that Reverend Moon was like the plague, he preys on boys and girls in an interview during the heyday of Reverend Moon, when he was almost universally considered a nightmarish threat to college students and aimless young people ...

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2009/2451431.htm

Liberty also regularly provides a platform for right-wing speakers

It's difficult for me to distinguish the "scholarship" of Gary Habermas from the authoritarian agenda of the people who support his work. What does one gain from a detailed argument about whether or not the resurrection was an identifiable historical event -- or exactly what material interpretation should be placed on the story? The obvious inconsistencies of the gospels highlight the fact that the early church was not very interested in its own history, which suggests that the early church thought "faith" was something other than mere intellectual acceptance of a particular story. The right-wing authoritarians want control, not only in a political sense, but in a psychological sense -- and Habermas promoteds this agenda by demanding that the fundamentalist metaphysic is the only acceptable view of Christianity: in other words, this is a power-struggle cast in "theological" language

[dcsmart]

5. he is on the faculty, but that does not invalidate his scholarship

his work is peer reviewed, both liberal and conservative scholars, religious, non-religious, private and public universities from around the world. so, his affiliation with liberty, which is a problem for me also, does not diminish his academic standing in the professional community.

[struggle4progress]

6. Perhaps we mean different things by "scholarship". You link to an article from

the "Criswell Theological Review", associated with Criswell College

The College was founded by W.A. Criswell "to be a school dedicated to the inerrancy, infallibility, inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture" and the editor of the "Criswell Theological Review" is on the faculty there. One gets some idea about the college from the course catalog, in which (for example) the only instances of the words "biology," "geology," and "math" occur in the description of a survey course:

SCI 201 NATURAL SCIENCE
A survey of the structure and history of the universe through the sciences
of astronomy (space science), geology (earth science), and biology (life
science). Scientific vocabulary and basic math skills will be reviewed and
utilized within the course. Forums will also be conducted in the areas of the
interface between science and Scripture

Searching the catalog for "physics" yields only the Metaphysics course; "chemistry" and "mathematics" do not appear at all. The catalog lists only two archaeology courses, INTRODUCTION TO BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY and FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY; both course descriptions reference the Bible

The natural conclusion is that the intellectual atmosphere at Criswell essentially involves fundamentalist apologetics and that any "peer review" of the "Criswell Theological Review" will involve "peers" who are biblical literalists. Gary Habermas is, of course, entitled to publish wherever he wants, and he is free to take any view he likes regarding Biblical texts: but publication in the "Criswell Theological Review" reflects a stance I consider useless for secular-historical understanding of the texts and unilluminating as theology

If you reread my previous post, you will see that I did not object in some vague way to the "scholarship" of Gary Habermas but rather took the view that his work, and the context in which it is produced, promote an authoritarianism -- that I do not want to regard as synonymous with Christianity