TEE RESU?3ECTION OF JESUS: A ?.!j,TIOl AL INQUIRYByGary Robert BabermasA DISSERT.ATIONSubmitted toLicnigan State uniwcrsityin pa tial fulfillment of the requirementsfor the degree of OC OAOF PHILOSOPEYInterdisciplinary Studies, College of Arts and Letters

ABSTRACTTEE :::SU?2:SCTIOXOF JESUS: A ?.A.TIO:K!1 INQUI:ayByGary Robert HabermasThe subject ofwhich is erceive t isdissertation is the resurrection of Jesus,to be the central doctrine of theChristi fait .This subject is treated rationally in regards to the possibility ofthe resurrection being a historical event.Research in this topic falls into the realms of three disciplines-religion, history ost ndphilosophy.The entire question isa ittedlyrelated to Christian theology, but there has also been anupsurge in theof interest from contemporary history anda ountphilosophy as . ell.Sone of these trends in intellectual thoughtare also investigated.This dissertation therefore deals with the problems encountered:in a rational approach to the resurrection.b.s stated above, themain purpose is to enieavor to ascertain if this occurrence can bede onstratedto beor not. istoricalEc ever,there are otherdefinite i .plications involved ceyond this immediate purpOSQ, forif t!le resurrectio!: actually8 rel T(or if it did n-ot) t!l8re is!!2l1cn significance for Christian faith and theology.TheAfterha penedmet odstudyin used is first to investigate some preliminary questions.the i portance of theresurTe tionin conte2poraryintellectual thO . . l;-ht (especi'ally in these three disciplines), the"relation of this eve t (as a claimed miracle) to science and historyis examined.Also included is a study of the philosophical problemof reason and faith.

Gary RobertThe ain for atconsists of an investigation of threeintellectualapp:," a.chesis that thiseve tpossibility isas the resurrection.occ rdid nott atThe secondit did occur, but that it cannot be :'e::lonst:;:'atedt atthe resurrection did occurliterally and t!lat it can be at ossibleThe first possibilityliterally at all.The thiTd possibility isto note here abermasthe v.-ord!!c.e cnstrate"for "absolute proof" in thisstudy It is e:v.tremel;y importantis not used as2.synonymTo believe that the l'esurrectior.can be derr.or.stra tea. is thus a reference to probabili ties--tl:at theresurrection is the ostprobable conclusion in light of thefact alevidence.The view of one primary scholar from eacho these three categorieswill be investi;-atec., supple!;1ented by several others .;ho ta.'k::e asi ilarpositionre ardingthe occurrence of this event.O ehistorian (Javid uwe), one philosopher (spren Kierkega rd) and onet::eolu5ian C',olfhart Pannenberg) are the p::-i:nary scholars.not the ove::-all philosophies of t!lese scholars which areIt isst c.ied,but rather their approach to this occurrence.Lastly, an evaluation of each of these three possibilitiesi3 given.";;::ic The object here is to ascertain the approachisbest supported by the facts.The maj or findir.;-s of this study aI-e iiffiC"l.l.l t tosU::' :2.::-izebriefly becaUSe the a::-gu.'l:.ent he::-e is a closely-knit isconclude '.fi::."st that science ar.d history cannot rul·;:; ou.t the::iraculous -::'i thout an investigation.possible invie ::o-;:-ever,.'inriori rejectiO!l3 are notof the modern concepts of science andhis ory.In

Gary Roberti order toascertai occurred or not.A if miracles such as the cer asresurTectio ctuallyinductive study of the facts basedupo theproba.bili ty of the .findings is thus the proper procedure and theone used here.The results show that the literal resurrection of Jesus is inall probability a historical fact.Alternate theories are thoroughlyinvestigated as part of the three major possibilitiesoutli ecabove.It is fou.'"ld that t!:ere are no naturalistic vie .;s which adeq,uatelyexplai the facts.!n addition: there are severalfacts which also :.Joint to this event.stron hist ricalBased upon such proor.cilities,the resurrection is affirued as a historical event.certaini plicatio sthis concli.lsio l.for Christian faith and theo:oGYThere alsobec seof

iiToDEBBIE!, ylove, my closest earthly friend and my wife,whose own love for me was revealed eVen more byhe diligence in typing this dissertation.

ACKNOloJLEDGMENTSFro Lessing's Theological Writings by Gotthold E. Lessing, editedCopyright 1956 by Adam and Charles Black Henry Chad,dck.Used by permission.From The Essential vJorks of David Hume by David Hume, edited byRalph Cohen.Copyright 1965 by Bantam Books, Inc.From The Suicide of Christian Theology by John Warwick Montgomery,published and copyright 1970 by Bethan;r Fellmvship, Inc., Hinneapolis,Minnesota 5543S.From \'1here isReprinted by permission.Histor {Going? by John \'lartdck rvIontgomery, -:-:lublishedby Bethany Fellmmhip, Inc., Hinneapolis, .finnes(Jta55438.Copyright 1969 Zondervan Publishing House, assigned to John \'Iari-dek Hontr,ome:r',h1972.Reprinted by permission.From Theology", Physics and rIiracles by \'larner Schaaffs, translatedb {Richard L. Renfield.Conyright 1974 by Canon Press, distributedby Baker Book House. . Y Y errnissionFro:n I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus\-Jilliam B. Eerd:nan' s Publishing Company.EJ.don Ladd.Geore;e Eldon Ladd.Copyright 1975 by GeorgeUsed by permission.From Christ the Center by DietrichB01;lden.b rBonhoeffer, translated by JohnCopyright 1966 by Harper andRO\'J,Publishers.Used bypermission.From First Easter by Paul I·jaier.Harper and Rm-l, Publishers.Copyright 1973 by Paul L. !-1aier.Used by permission.From Jesus of Nazareth b r Gunther Bornkallm, translated by Ireneand Frazer HcLUSK8;)r with James 1·1. Robinson.and Rm';, Publishers.Used by perr:1ission.iiiCopyright 1960 by Harper

ivProm "New Testazent and! ythologyllby Rudolf Bul tmann, in 'Ker;y ?aand ;:yth, edited b:,· E"ans TI'erner Bartsch, translated by Reginald E.Puller.Copyright 1961 by Earper and Row, Publishers.used byper::lission.Fro!!:. Re1i:rion -\7i thi!! the Limits of Reason Alone by ImI:lanueltranslated by Theodore:r, .Greene and ;royt1960 by Harper and Row, Publishers.FrOI:l!-!arper and. Brothers. ouglas orton. sed.Fro::l TheCopyrightUsed by theCopyright 1956,tra:; slated1957Copyright oushto!! if:1in nglishper issionb: ·byLan ;ua ,edited 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1976Company.Reprinted by permission.Eistory and Christianity by John 7arwick 11ontgomery.1964, 1965byby per::lission.Eeritage Jictionary of theAmerica by William Morris-eEudson.The Word of :';oc. and the -,7ord of },!an by Karl Barth,Douglas ;rorton. TO::l .l ant,Inter-va:rsi ty Christi::.!! Fellowship.CopyrightlJsed. byof Inter-Varsity Press, uowner's Grove, Illinois 60515.eFro:: Your Mind roatters by Joh!! :2.7i. stott. Copyright1972by Int r-Varsity Press, London. sed by permission of Inter-VarsityPress,?ro ownerlsGrove, Illinois 60515Christianity: A istorical Religion? by William Wa!!c.1972 by the Judson Press.Used by permission.Fro:;; Miracles by C.S. Lewis.Inc.Fro eprintedCopyrightCopyright 1947 by The };:acmi11an Company,by permission.the 3evisei Standard Version of the Eible.Copyright 1946, 1952,@ 1971, 1973 by the :\Tationa1 Cou.,.ci1 of the Churches of Ch:,ist.Fro The Enist1e to the Romans by Karl Earth, translated by 3dwyn C.Eoskyns.Copyright 1933 by Oxford University Press.-oerI:lission.Usee by

vFrom . g,91udinf, Unscientific Postscript by S ren Kierkegaarc.,translated by Davie F. Swenson and Walter Lowrie. Copyri0ht 1941 1969 by Princeton University Press; Princeton Paperback, 1968.Published for the American Scandinavian Foundation.per issionFro Reprinted byof Princeton Dni ersity Press.Faith and Eistory byCharles Scribner's Sons. einhold NiebtL r.Copyri;ht 1949 byUsed by permission.FrOID The Doctrine of econci1iation, Vo1 e IV, Part One of ChurchDo,:-:natics by Karl Barth, edited by G.W. Eromi1y and T.F. Torrence.Copyright 1956 by:'. and. T. Clark.From JesuE--:;od and !.ran by 1"01fhart Pannenberg, translated by LewisL. Wilkens and. D'.lane A. Priebe.Press. ermeneutics1960 byby--:t. L.Toda ,Carl E. 3raa ten.Jenl-:ins.From Theo10zy ane. tbe eJVolume I!, istoryandThe T:estminster Press. CopyrightUsee. by per:nissicn.:: ingdornof God by 710lfhart1969 by The ',7esisinster Press.b Jr ZOIldervan ?".;.:1isnin; Eouse.?am:.enbel o.CopyrightUsed by permission.Frow. S ience ::tetu::-ns to God by Ja:nes Jauncey."!"0::: '1968 by The est:n.jr. ·"!:srUsed. by permission.Fron New Jirections in TheoloGYeCopyrightCop::right ( j 1961used by pernission.The books listed here in the acknowled&nents have been quoted.fro;:). in this work and are used by permissio:rlo

PART I:AP?;:Ol C:-:I ; T Chapter I.A.QUESTI01\ OF T?:5: i.ESUR.i.ECTIOK OF JESUSThe Present State of the QuestionTheology and tbe Resurrection (p. 4)1.The Importance of the Resurrection (p. 4)2.TheCo te poraryTh ologicalto the Resurrection .3.?esurrectio (p.1.History and the ?esurrection2.Pbi1osophy and the ResurrectionThe Possibility of!.,;iraclea d iracles(p.12)12)(p. 17)Today (p. 26)j,:yth (p. 26)1.A Definition of iracle20A Definition of ythIi.P· 26)(p. 29)Twe!1tieth Cer.tury 3cier.ce and ::iracles (p. 35)1.Introduction (P.' 35)2.So e3. iraclesChapter III.A.(p. 9)History, Philosophy and theChapter 2)Principles of Physics3 \/./(p. 43)History and (p. iracles1:-,.\ 4'G)/Concept of istory (p. 49)Inv stibatin;the istorical Events(p. 4\/(p.1. istorical2.The Resurrection and ?istorical Investigation(p. 58)viResearch and Investi;at on)

viiChapter IV. :.-'.?PA.RT 2::leason a!ld Faith ( p. 60):"eaSO!l an:' Faith: Definitions ( p. 61) teasona::;.d ::.,., a v : Scholarly Views ( .- .,POSSI5L; SOLUTION'S TO T!!E Q,UEST!OK OFT ',;"".,00)?ESU3.:2.:::C:7:IONOF JESUSChapterv.Po sibility u berDid Not Occur,.::.Da . .rid ::u."!le:DavidChapter VI.(p. nOne: That the Resurrection82)Introduction (p" 82)and a ume's Arg entCriti ue66)?ossi bili ty ;\u::::.ber One: Other Si:lila.:!' Views(p. 114) 8inrichPaulus (po 119)David Strauss"v.(p. 121)Otto PfleidererChapter iiII.(p. 146)?ossibili ty X".,;'::ber':'-,\'0:Th2.: the ::::eso.:rrectionJid Occur, 3ut ':'hat It Ca!l!lot BeJe o strated(p. 112)Spre!l Kierkegaard: An Introduction3.172)S, ren;aard' s Arg-.:.:nent and. a CritiqueChapter VIII.Possibility umberTwo: Other Si::i1ar Views(p. 198)Chanterth (\ p. 198) , ":l ar.A.u'E.Other Related Views-vlor.Fossibility(p.218)Nu ber hree:That theJid Occur and. That It Can Be(1'. 225): surrectionJe onst ated

vi i(p.A. ol art Pa enberg:B.Wolfhart Pannenberg's Argument and a CritiqueAn Introduction225)(p. 228)Chapter X.PossibilityN berThree: Other SimilarVie s(p. 260)PART 3:AN3VALDATIO ';OF TH:; SO!.1J'TIONS TO TEE Q.U3STIOX OF .TnERESD?.ECTIO!' OF JESUSCh pterXI.AnEva1uatio of Possibility Number0 8(p. 266)Chapter XII. nEvaluation of Possi bility! u.mberTwo(p. 300)Chapter XIII.An Evaluation of PossibilityN ber T xee(p.307)C apterXIV.AConcluding Demonstration (p. 312) ethod(p. 312)A.The Historical .The 3iEtcrical Facts (p. 314)c.The Theological hlethod(p. 323).,.lJ.,.d 'OJ" 'vonv nce :le"t" ac .vS(:-. .The Center of ChristianityBioliography (p. 334)Index of Persons (p. 47)7 O/))-(p. 331)


Chapter I.The Present State of the QuestionThe belief in the resurrection of Jesus has raised many questionsand provoked much thought throughout the history of the Christianc urch.Is such an eveLt pcssible and in what sense, if any?it still be believed in today or not?CanThis "question of theresurrection" has received an increased amount of attention,especially in recent years.One quite surprising fact is that thediscussion surrounding this topic is ne longer relegated just tothe field of religion alone, as various scholars from otherdisciplines have also shown some interest.No one deubts that such inquiry falls primarily into the fieldof theulogy.Therefore we illturn here firsti order to viewgenerally the present state of the question cf Jesus' resurrecticnaLater we will also deal briefly with the interest in this topicshown in two other areas--history and philosophythis chapter is primarily to note some presentthis question, keying on itsThe purpose ofrelated tet endsfer the Christian faith. pcrt ceFor the purposes of this paper, theresurrect oninitially and briefly be defined in the terms of thewillNe Testamentconcept.This event thus refers to the Christian belief thatJesus asactually dead but later was literally raised to life byGoi.Jesus was believed to have appeared afterwards to his followersin a sniritual body, which was neither an unchanged physical bodyor a spirit.Rather, there erequalities in this spiritual body.res rectionboth objective and subjectiveTheChristi c:ncept oftherefore differs from other ideas concerning2

3immortality in that Jesus was not reincarnated, neither did hesimply experience the continuance of his personality beyond thegrave! nor was his soul absorbed into some type of universal soul.T the contrary, Jesus wasbeli vedto have literally been raisedfrom the dead, as he appeared to his followers before histo heaven.ret nIt is this Christian belief in Jesus' resurrectionwhich must be investigated here.This definition will continue'tc broaden as this work expands.Just before we turn to our first section certain cautions arein order.Because we are endeavoring to look at both sides ofthe :;:.:."gument and consider views that e:e "pro" &nd "con ii , we musttake as little as possible fDr granted at the outset.For thisreason we will refrain in almost all instances from capitalizingpronouns fer Jesus, lest we begin to decide the questionL advance.Concerning the l4se of such words as !!this eve!lt" or "this occurrence;;when referring to theres ectivn,have already decided that it has e :!lethap en to imply that weRather, theaaxefer to what the New Testament claims has happened.actually did or not must yet be determined.wcr sWhether itIndeed, many theologiansalso refer to the resurrection as an event and still mean that ithappened in other than a literal way.These words, then, must notalways refer to something literal and often do not, as we shallcza.In these ways the issue will hopefully not be prejudicedahead of time.

4Theology and the Resurrection'.8.1.ManyThe Importance of the Resurrectiontheolo ianstoday consider the resurrection ofJe ustobe the central clai of Christianity, whether they interpret thisevent literally or not. ell.Such was often true of pasttheolo;i nsasIn other ;.ords, even those who do not affirm the post-mortembodily appearances butso etimesstress instead the "spiritualp:!'e'!:;ence" or "continuing influence" of Jesus often feel that theresurrection is still the basis of theChrist anFor instance, German redaction critic Y{illifaith. \ arxsenthat Jesus' resur ection plays the most decisive part ofdiscussion today.believest ologicalThis scholar feels that its importance asprecisely stated by the Apostle Paul in the first century ADJ. whenhe wrote "if Christ has not been raised, then ourpreac in;vain and your faith is in vain" (I Cor. 15:14, RSV).event is therefore linkedwit the veryfait of theis inFor arxsen thischurc .Anl.mcertainty about questions such as those raised above :night causea corresponding uncertainty in cur faith today.1Another Ger a theo1o;ian, G nther 30rnka m, agrees with theulti atei portanceof the resurrection, even if it may beto g:-asp exactly what took "lace.i possibleHe remarks that: there ,:o:; ld be no gospel, not one account, no letter inthe New Testament, no faith, no Church, no worsni , no prayerin Christendo to this day without the message of theresurrection of Christ 212;;i 11i ?·,:arxsen, 'l:'he ?.e surrection of Jesus of !';azareth, tr::::.nsla tedb r }:argaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress ?ress, 1970), p. 12. Thisquote fr0ID I Cor. 15:14 and other Biblical quotes in this work arefro t'l:1e Revised. Sta:ldard Version of the Bible (!;ew orl:; Tb.o:uasNelson and Sons, 1946, 1952).G nther Eornka , Jesus of azareth, t anslated by Irene and FTaser},:cLuskey (KeTr York: rtarpe and 3.ow, Publishers, 1960), p. 181.

5Thus we see t::.e.t for these two critical schola.:-s, theoloGica.ltheology itself finds its central aspect in thediscussio a deve resurrection.This of course does not solve thep:-oble o hetherthis event occurreQ or not and in what sense, as thisfuture conside:-ation.Indeed, both tarxsen ust eand Bornk8.!nm do notbelieve e can prove it, but only affir it by faith.'suc state ents a.ny,and that is the priDaryof this cha.pte:-.Other sch01a:-s also verify these convictions.Laurence :'illerdefi!:itive7':erri 11' 'enneyFor instance,likewise believes that the resurrection of Jesus isvery heart of "i::sn" '!esta. ::ent theology.,!'!e o sver,do help serve to demonstrate how important a placein the Ch:-istian faith it is given byo ject;ivenstate entnrefe:-s1;0Like Ka:-xsen, he findsof this belief in Paul (I Co:-. 15:12-22).4use the resurrection as a fra:ne-;:o::-k forall of vhristian theology, even dealinG with so:ne of the Qoctrinesthat can be inte;rEte under this the e.5 Charles Anders0n, in asection devoted entirely to the importance of the resurrection, alsospeaks of some of the Christia!: doctrines that areNew Testa:nent on the basis of this event.34in theAgain I Cor. 15:14 isbelieves that it is now i nossible to nrove the :-esurrectionevent (oD.cit., pp. 112-113, 119, i22), but we- can still acceptthe offer of fa.i th in Jesus even if he is dead (Ibid., p ;. 128,147). Eornka.w.ffi agrees t! the resurrection cannot be den:onstrated.or proven to have occurred (on.cit., pp. 180-186; especi llyp? 180, 18 L ). But we can still exercise faith .in Jesus apartfrom a!;,y such proof (Ibid., pp. 183, 194). }!ore will be ::;a.i6. aboutthe logic of this type of reasoninG la.ter--how it can 8E held byso e h2t one can have faith in Jesus whethe:- or not he has risen(, even 1 .'" 'h . '1' d ea d'),anc.e lSS.,1. arxsenLaurence Miller, Jesus Christ Is Alive (Boston:19 4 9),5ex?lain8 Uerri lp.'TT ',t ", '7ilde Company,9.C. Tenney, The Reality of the Resurrection'Pb"-'h79an ,. . ;. l '!tOW,U l::: !ers, l Q.I 63) ,pp.-.(Ne Yo:-k: liarper

6used as a key.6Closely related views held by other theologians as well.The former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbu y, A.M. Ramsey, believesthat the resurrection is not only the center of theology, butthat it is also the starting place for studies revolving around theNew Test.ment and its meaning. 7is the basis of redemptiyeFer Daniel Fuller the resurrectionhi tory.Events such as the crossreceive much of their redemptive meaning because they are closelyassociated with the belief in a risen Jesus.8C C Dobson assertsthat even those who oppose all accounts of the resurrection stilladmit its importance as the keystone of Christianity.9Everyo cein awhile a thesis such as the importance of theresurrection for the Christian faith iiill receive a new "twist",furtherdemo stratingits relevance.This was achieved in recentyears by ll!arkus :Barth and Verne R. Fletcher, who postulated thatJesus'resurrectic )las also the basis for ChristianThisevent was perceived to have definite implications as a foundationfor hmnan virt'. p. and justice.In spite of its being a li ttle-recognized theme, the authors believe that it is as relevar.t for us67ICharles Co Anderson, The Historical Jesus: A Continuin(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company,pp. 157-159.A.M. Ramsey,· The Resurrection of Christ (Second edition; Londonand Glascc C llins: 1965), pp. 9-11.8Daniel P. Fuller, Easter Faith andEerdman's Publishing Company 19659C.C. Dobson 7 The Em ty Tomb and the Risen Lord (Second editionrevised; London and EdinburghJ Marshall, Morgan and Scott, Ltd.,n.d.), pp. 24-25.Rapids: William

1today in these matters as it is in a strictly theological context. 10Even though many of the theologians above differ in otheraspects of Christian belief, they all perceive that the resurrectionis the center of theology even today.differing backgrounds,b tthey reTo be sure, they cone fromall agreement ith Paul tb tif' this event was to be cemp1ete1y abrogated, the Christian faithwoula be in jeopardy.As Marxsen etates, if there is uncertaintyor obscurity in the matter of belief in the resurrection, thenChristianity becomes endangered.ast eThis demonstrates its importancecenter of theology today 11Before leaving the subject of the importance of Jesus'res rection,it should be mentioned that it is not only an integralpart of teday's theology.In NewTest enttimes it was also thedoctrine upon which the Christian faith was built.discussed Paul's statement to this effect aboye,We have already herehe states"if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in v&in andyour faith is in vain (I Cor. 15:14; BSV. Cf. verses 12-20).Paul's opinion that the resurrection of Jesus and thefaith stood or fell together.A stronger statementItChristia est blishingthe priority and importance of this occurrence for first centuryChristianity could hardly be established.Recent theological studies have recognized this importance forthe early hile hurch minent Ne Test entschelarP' dclf Bult:8n ,not personally accepting any sort of literal resurrection of10Markus Barth and Verne H. Fletcher, Acquittal by Resurrection(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), Foreward,pp. V-VIII; cf. p. 3.11Marxsen, op.cit., p. 12.

SJesus, still statestha for the earliest Christians this eventserved the purpose of proving that God had substantiated the claimsof Jesus by raising him from the dead. 12The early Christians alsabelieved that the resurrection prove Jesus' Lordship,13 his"'!' h h' p 14 ess at hth e Sonan d even thaeTasthe New Testament the esurrection0fGod. 15According toalso establishes the Christiandoctrines of repentance,16 salvation and justification by faith,17 nd judgment. lSJames McLezan has pointed out that early Christianityalso witnesses to thebelief that God began neT dealings with mankind through the risen Jes S.19Now we must be quick to point out once again that these beliefsby no means establish the fact of the resurrection.All we havedemonstrated is that it is the center Qf Christian theology both inNew Testament times and today.12But this does not make it a proven udolf BultI:lannp "New Testament and Mythology", in Kerygma. andMyth, edited by lians Werner Bartsch, translated by Reginald H.Fuller (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1961), p. 39referring to Acts 17:31.13Uarxsen, on.cit., p. 169, referring to Acts 17:;Of.; Fuller,on.cito, pp. 14-15, referring to Rom. 10:9.14Rudolf Bultmanr., Theology of the New Testament, translated byKeudyick Grobel (New York Charles Scribner's Sons, n.d.), Partp. 27, referrinb to Acts 2:;6 and Rom. 1:4. Cf. also Fuller,op.cit., p. 15, referring to Acts 2:22-36.15 Fuller,16O!l c::i-'.: pp.I 15-16!j referring to Rom. 1:4.Marxsen, on.cit., p. 169, referring to Acts 16t30f.17 Anderson, on.cit., pp. 158-159, referring to Rom. 4225, 10:9;cf. also Barth and Fletcher, op.cit., p. 4 and Tenney,1819o .cit.tMarxsen, op.cit., p. 169.James McLeman, Resurrection Then and Now (Philadelphia and NewYork: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1967), p. 92; cf. 87 also.p.S.

9fact.':'he i:lportance of an eV'2nt does not of course? estz.o:.ishwhether it has actually occurred or not.2.TheConte poraryPerhaps thepri aryTheological Approach to the Resurx;ctionapproach to the theological study of theresurrection today from a critical viewpoint is the application ofthe literary methoQs of form criticis:l and the relatedredaction criticis::i to the New Testament texts.20discipli e,Two key ·:·;orksdor.e on the resurrection from this standpoint are those by-.'21 arxsen. .rteglna. . I"Qan Accordins to 11 ere 22t:r. or an JilliPerrin, the theological application ofform critical literary techniques was insinuated in the work ofJulius :.'el:!.hausen (1544-1918) and an early form of redactioncriticis was first a?plied to theology in the writings of ·::ilhelm.·,rec.e. (181:;0.,.1 . -rejuvenater.for 10". ). 0 .After the First orld arInstead of a fe"!: theologiansthese stUdiessi ply eresuggestin,:; thecritical literary approach to Scripture studies, it becamethe con .on interest and a major emphasis of such scholars asZ.L. Sch:idt (lS91-1?56), artin Jibelius (1983-1947) and udolf202122It should e n tec that neither foxID or reda tion criticism isactually theolo5j-. ?ather, these are literary methods that havebeen used in diverse endeavors, such as in studying classicalliterature. 1n 7 are ' exefoTe utilized here as liter ryapproaches "hich are presently being applied to the Ne Testament.These methods are thus referred to as the current theologicalapproach to t s resurrection because they are employe bytheologians and not because these are IDist enly eing referred as theology themselv8s. For the relationshipbe't7o"een fO::':::1 and redaction criticis::J., see gorman Perrin's atis ?edaction::ri ticis:::.?, e:H ted by Dan 0" Via (Philaa.e1phia;-?ortress ?::'ess, 1971), p. 13 for instance.rhe afore:nen"tionec. TheResur ectio::1of Jesus ofFul er, The Foroation of the(Xe7i Yor!':: The Macoillan Compan:r, 1971). egin ld .! azareth. esu rection arratives

10Eult ann (born 1884).2;known for popularizingEult ann is probably the one who is bestfor criticis ,applying it especially tothe synoptic gospels anc publishing the results in suchess ysas"mh.: e st u dy O.l. th e . ::' ;;.rnop t·:LC r.Jospe 1"s 24.Z'Briefly, according to this theory of interpretation, thes "'::;.opticgospels were the products of the fai t!1 of the es.rliestfirst century Christian church.In otterwords after years oforally spreadinz the gospel of Jesus Ctrist (and perhaps also bysome written records which we no longer have, such as the Quelledocument), the earliest church decided to write down what it couldrecall of t:h.e life of Jesus.:But since the first Christians werenot given a complete historical narrative of his life, theirrecollections cou.1d only be of inde'Oe:::dent occurrences.-'::hegospels, then, can be broken down into these separate occurrences'T."hich in turn correspond to certain forDs.When all ofthe eoccurrer.ces a:::-e d.i vided. up into these fOr:!ls, Bul tr:lann notes the. t Vie:!'lavese ieralclassifications such as miracle stories, para:;:;:!.es andSince thec u:::- asinterested in a cODpletethese events had to be connected into a day by daylife.One can find. aone story to anotber.hasc meto beuse oodbiosrap y,acco tmany of these editorial linkshowever,of Jesus'th ttieThis is how t!1e likeness to "beads on a string"for thefo:::- critical approach.A main object23Perrin, o'O.cit., PI'. 13-15. SODe of 3ultma 's conclusions on theimporta::;.ce of the resurrection in the early chuZ'ch hav alreadybeen noted above.24Rud.olf Bul tTl.a.n::-., liThe Study of the Synoptic Gos-oels" i!: FormCriticism, tra slated by Frederick C. G:::-a t (Ne York: Earperand Row, Publishers, 1962), pp. 11-76.25 ultmann, .,pp. 36-6;.

11for theologians "ho employ this approach is to ascertain·:: ;.ic!: oJ.wileaccounts (or parts of accounts) in the gospels are "".ctua.ll c ::istorical26stories and which 7.'ere "constructed" by the fai tn of the e2.rly church. edactioncriticisE relies heavily on tte procedures of formcritici and seen as b eing two stages 0 f tne ayupo itspre ises.In fact, Perrin notes thatsa ed"1SC11' 1"1ne. 27Redaction criticism has developed significantly since the workdone by ilhelm redeat the end of the nineteenth andthe twentieth;ir ingToday more positive attention izthe gospel authors, as they are seen as having more of an ivenoftoi tegraland original role to play in the choosing of material ani in thewritten portrayal of it.Critics today also feelthat a. ?::'i::!arygcs.}. i,; to be able to trace the ::la terial through the vario:.:.s phrasesofi :l cnce,t rcu htheva iousadditions by redactors and thenas closely as possible to the source(s).This illenable them todetern:ine, a:!long other things, wher-e the facts originated aIld whatis at the basis of the reports.The object is, ofcourse toascertain the reliability of tte data as ouch as possible, to see 28is historical and what has been added to t!1.e original lac",s.Three of the leading redaction critics today, atle2s i achronological sense, are G ther 50rnka ,29 nans Conzel a : andThey workedin ependently26Ibid., 1'. 25.27Ferrin, on.cit., 1'1'. 1-3, 13.28Ibid., 1'1'. 3, 12-13.29 ornkamm'sChristian30on thebelief in the importance of thehas been noted opticresurrectio gospelsfortheolc Some of Marxsen's contributions to the current study of theresurrection have also been noted above.

12of Matthew, Luke and Mark, respectively.In a sense they have-1paved the way for similar stu ies today. ·We have briefly investigatedtwo main reasons.for and redactioncriti ismforFirst, its importance as the currently acceptedliterary approach to Eiblical studies should not be underrated.We have noted above that somehave eenen ireworks and portions of othersdevoted to studies on the resurrection by scholars whofavor these two disciplines. 52Thus farm and redaction criticismwill provide a basis fer much of what will be saidhereafte .Seconds although this writer does not embrace many of the facetsand conclusions of either form criticism or redaction criticism,we will adopt many of its procedures here as the most comwonlyaccepted "rules of the trade".With this ba(;kgrou::ld and. theologicalfoundation, it is advantageous to proceed now to two other fieldsof study which have also given recent attention othe subject ofthe resurrection.E.History, Philosophy and the ResurrectionWe have already stated that one interesting aspect of currentstudy on the resurrection of Jesus is that several s

Gary Robert abermas The ain for at consists of an investigation of three ossible intellectual app:," a.ches to the resurrection.The first possibility is that this eve t did not occ r literally at all.The second possibility is t at it did occur, but that it cannot be :'e::lonst:;:'ated as such. The thiTd possibility is t at the resurrection did occur