It is in the works of Barth which one can probably see the strongest influence of Kierkegaard on this last point. Barth also believed that God must be approach by faith and not by objective means. In fact, his methodology revolves around the analogy of faith. This concept was perhaps develop most consistently

in Barth's work Anselm: Fides Quarens Intellectum,[3] where this theologian concluded that Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God was not a philosophical proof formulated to induce faith, for Anselm needed no such impetus in order to believe.[4] It is argued that Anselm admitted that the existence of God was known by faith and not by such demonstrations of His existence. This is true, Barth asserts, because it is impossible to learn of God by any kind of proof. We believe in Him not because He is known to exist by various procedures of verification, but because He has revealed Himself to us, especially by faith.[5]

For this reason, Barth rejects the analogy of being, which attempts to argue to the existence of God by various demonstrations. This is an abortive attempt to gain knowledge of God apart from faith. Since faith is not primary in such a system, it must be replaced by the analogy of faith.[6]

Thus, for Barth (as for Kierkegaard), faith is primary. The proper approach to God is the acceptance of faith without trying to verify this belief by proofs.[7]

When one endeavors to examine Barth's view of the resurrection of Jesus, it is important to keep in mind his methodology, Barth (again like Kierkegaard) therefore does not believe that it is possible either to demonstrate this event or to even or to use it as the reason why we should believe in God. This is because God can only be approached by faith and not be demonstrations such as those from historical events.

It is especially in the early period Barth's thought that the dialectical emphasis in neo-orthodox theology[8] played an important role. The approach taken to the resurrection is a good example of how this dialectic might be applied to theology. Barth was, for instance, able to say "Yes" to Jesus' resurrection being an actual event and "No" to its being a historical fact like other occurrences which can be historical verify. This sounds contradictory, but it is affirmed nonetheless:

In the Resurrection the new world of the Holy Spirit touches the old world of the flesh, but touches it as a tangent touches a circle, that is without touching it…The Resurrection is therefore an occurrence in history…But…The Resurrection is not an event in history at all.[9]

We have here an illustration which presents quite a seeming contradiction in terms. In the example chosen by the author, one must hold either that the tangent touches the circle or that it does not touch. But Barth affirms both. This example serves to illustrate a point in his theology, because in a similar manner he also affirms that the resurrection both is and is not an historical event. To the question of whether the resurrection is an actual event of historical, we therefore receive both a "Yes" and a "No" answer.

But how is this possible? Barth hold to the essential evil character of the world, which is tainted by sin. As such the world is opposed to God and His purpose. If Christ was really to enter the actual history of the world, then he would likewise participate in this evil.[10] For Barth "if the Resurrection be brought within the context of history, it must share in its obscurity and error and essential questionableness."[11]

The only possible conclusion is that the resurrection occurred on "the frontier of all visible human history."[12] It is a historical occurrence, but not in the normal sense of the word "history". In fact, it may be considered in some ways to be a nonhistorical occurrence.[13]

Barth continued a similar type of reasoning in other early works as well, 1920 he taught that the resurrection of Jesus was "not in

time. It is not one temporal thing among others."[14] An important distinction is made as follows:

The resurrection of Christ…is not a historical event…though it is the only real happening in is not a real happening of history (Italics and wording are Barth's).[15]

Again we see the distinction between an event occurring and its being a part of history. The resurrection can really have occurred and yet not happen like other events for this scholar. Barth even goes as far as to say that we should not ask whether it is historical or not, for this event is a good example of the nonhistorical and the impossible.[16] Even though it is an actual event, it cannot be proven or demonstrated to have occurred.[17]

In 1924 Barth published his work The Resurrection of the Dead.[18] Herein is contained essentially the same view of the resurrection as was present in his earlier works.[19] This even is again presented as occurring on history's frontier (or boundary) in such a manner that it can only be understood as God's revelation and not proven or demonstrated by history.[20]

An additional opinion is further given and clarified in this

work. Barth boldly asserts that alternate critical theories concerning the resurrection might even be true, for it makes no real difference if the tomb was closed or open that first resurrection morning. We accept Jesus' resurrection by faith and not because of any historical evidence. Thus this occurrence cannot be investigated or tested. It cannot be proven to have occurred.[21] Therefore, if there were news reporters present at the tomb of Christ on that first morning, they would not have been able to verify this event.

This last interpretation has been confirmed by American theologian Carl R.H. Henry, who questioned Barth on this very subject when he visited America some years ago. When Henry asked if our news correspondents could have reported the resurrection had they been there to investigate it, Barth responded by saying that it was a private event for the disciples alone. As the meeting broke up, one of the reporters remarked to Henry that the other writers had clearly understood Barth's answer. They knew that Barth was denying that they could have witnessed or investigated this event.[22]

Thus we perceive the view of the early Barth on the resurrection of Jesus. While this event is surely believed to have occurred, it is not an event of real history that can be investigated and demonstrated like other historical facts. Rather, it is not an event of history, but rather an occurrence of superhistory.[23]

Therefore the resurrection also happened in a different kind of history than has other events.[24]

Did Barth's position change substantially after his new emphasis on the analogy of faith in his work on Anselm?[25] According to Daniel Fuller, he did give more attention to the question of historicity, but he continued to reject the resurrection as an event which can be verified in any way.[26] One does readily notice this change, however, as it appears that more credence is given to the historical character of this occurrence. The objectivity of the resurrection is even stressed more, especially the fact that the disciples actually did see Jesus.[27] But Barth made it plain that he still did not hold that the facts of the historical Jesus should be stressed.[28]

In spite of this new emphasis, however, it is still obvious that Barth relegates the resurrection of Jesus to something other than the history in which other events happen. Scared event like the resurrection cannot be subjected to an already existing view of history. Rather, God's revelation through such occurrences demands a particular type

of history, a somewhat nonobjective, nondemonstrable variety. For Barth, there is such a definition of history which differs from the modern understanding of this word, and it is in this "metahistory" that Jesus is held to have risen from the dead. This event is judged to be historical by those who try to force the contemporary meaning of history upon it.[29]

In Barth's chief work, Church Dogmatic, we can plainly perceive the continuation of this stance. The resurrection is said to have occurred in a peculiar kind of history.[30] As "we pass from the story of the passion to the story of Easter we are led into a historical sphere of a different kind."[31] This is because the "death of Jesus can certainly be thought of as history in the modern sense, but not the resurrection…the history of the resurrection is not history in this sense…"[32]

Barth does give some vague indication as to the nature of the history in which he believes that the resurrection occurred. He relates several facts which serve in helping one to understand this peculiar mode of ascertaining certain incidents of the past. First, since this event is part of God's revelation (and this an act of God), it is different from other occurrences from the very outset.[33] But this is not the only reason we are given as to why the resurrection is perceived to occupy a different kind of history. We are told,

second, that this event is perhaps more properly viewed as being a "saga" or a "legend". As such it is termed "prehistory" because it cannot be understood historically in the modern sense of the word.[34] Here Barth identifies his concept more closely. There are also other differences between this prehistory and the modern concept of history. For instance, third (as we have remarked above), the resurrection not only cannot be proven to have occurred, but such a proof should not be attempted.[35] It is thus unlike other events which can be verified by historical research. Fourth, Barth boldly announces that it makes no difference if Jesus' tomb was open or closed on the first resurrection morning, for faith can follow from it nevertheless. In this way he asserts that the historical character of this event provides no foundation for faith.[36]

Barth's understanding of the resurrection therefore appears to be quite an elusive concept to grasp. Not only the initial revelatory character of this event, but even the event itself is prehistory or metahistory. It cannot be verified like other incidents and is construed in such a way that faith in it can remain even without various tend to point away from the historicity of this event and in spite of the insistence upon a different kind of history,[37] Barth still states that we cannot therefore say that Jesus did not rise, or that he did so only in a spiritual sense. We must understand that

this scholar still believed that Jesus rose from the dead in time and space in a objective way. Jesus had a body and he could be seen, heard and perceived to actually have risen from the dead.[38] While this conception of the resurrection appears quite contradictory,[39] it is another example of Barth's use of dialectic. He answers both "Yes" and "No" to the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead in actual human history.

We have seen that, whether we speak of the early or of the late Barth, we are dealing with a view of the resurrection that is essentially the same. Although a new stress is placed on the actual occurrence of this event in the later stages is placed on the actual occurrence of this event in the later stages of this scholar's work, the belief that the resurrection is not history in the same sense as other events, and therefore not provable, still persists. It is noteworthy that Kierkegaard also accepted this occurrence as an enigma for history, a paradox that cannot be understood or demonstrated by historical research. It can only be embraced by faith and not by the intellect.[40]

Barth's view of the resurrection has been discussed in depth, with the emphasis being laid primarily upon his understanding of this event as a type of prehistory which is not the old liberal view of myth, but neither is it one of complete historical objectivity.[41]

It has been our endeavor to be fair in this presentation, striving to deal adequately with both sides of this emphasis. It now remains for us to evaluate this approach.

Four major criticisms of Karl Barth's view of the resurrection will now be offered. The first, and one of the most comprehensive criticisms, involves the belief that the resurrection occupies a sort of parahistory which includes some aspects of objective history, while other facets of history are abandoned. Herein lies a mean problem of Barth's interpretation.

An event must either be some kind of a myth never literally occurred in actual human history, or it must have occurred in this same history. But Barth asserts that the resurrection is neither myth nor actual history in the modern sense. Rather, this event occurs in some sort of redemptive or religious history.[42] However, history simply knows nothing of such an "inbetween" ground, whether it is termed prehistory, saga, legend, or referred to as the boundary or frontier of history.[43] As Wand so perceptively points out:

History is concerned only with such events as happen within the space-time continuum. Events, real or imagined, which occur in a eternal or spiritual sphere are not the proper subject of history. The reason is that history has no tools by which it can deal with such events.[44]

In other words, history can only be concerned with events which occur in space and time in such a way that they can be investigated by the tools of historical research. Since there are no means whereby events which occur in a spiritual "inbetween" sphere can be so investigated, they are not actually within the scope of history. As Wand asserts, religious events which are perceived to have happened only in such an elusive realm cannot be properly regarded as history, whether these were real events or not. Historical facts must therefore be open to verification and research.

Admittedly, the resurrection (if it is found to have occurred) would have a different origin from other events because as such it would enter history as a direct act of God. The fact that Jesus' resurrection was not produced by any natural means, such as by historical causation, should not be belittled. Barth is correct in asserting that it is possible for an event to have its cause in Divine action and still be a part of history. Thus the resurrection would be unique in the sense that this event would have to have originated with God.

But there is an immense difference between saying that this occurrence would be unique because of its being a direct result of God's revelation and saying that as such it cannot be investigated. This is where Barth's polemic fails quite noticeably. The point here is that once this occurrence enters the realm of history (even though the actual entering is unique), it must be open to historical investigation. To forego such verification means that it does not become normal history at all. Thus, to remove such an event from investigation, as the scholar does, is not valid. One would have to also remove it from the scope of history as well in order to isolate it from such historical procedures.

Therefore, one cannot assert that certain events actually occurred and then add that we cannot speak historically about them or investigated them. Either the resurrection really happened in verifiable history or it did not happen in normal history at all. But let us not employ fancy theological verbiage to affirm its occurrence in a unverifiable, unobservable, contradictory realm of thought!

Pannenberg agrees in this criticism of Barth's view. He expressly states:

If we would forgo the concept of a historical event here, then it is no longer possible at all to affirm that the resurrection of Jesus or that the appearances of the resurrected Jesus really happened at a definite time in our world. There is no justification for affirming Jesus' resurrection as an event that really happened, if it is not to be affirmed as a historical event as such. Whether or not a particular event happened two thousand years ago is not made certain by faith but only by historical research, to the extent that certainty can be attainted at all about questions of this kind…The only method of achieving at least approximate certainty with regard to the events of a past time is historical research.[45]

As pointed out here, it is impossible for a theologian like Barth to say that an event occurred but not in the same objective history as other events occur. As Pannenberg adeptly points out, it is incorrect to claim to be speaking of Jesus' resurrection as a historical event if, as such, it can only be known by faith and not by historical research. It one asserts that something is not even able to be investigated, neither can one say that the event still happened at a certain time in this world. We this see that it is impossible for Barth to affirm that the resurrection really occurred while still having the understanding that this occurrence is not in objective, verifiable history. Such an event is not really  

history because no such concept of history exists. Therefore it is also impossible merely to claim that this event still happened just like other incidents in the past.

As a historian, Montgomery also objects to Barth's use of pre-history. The following illustration is introduced to demonstrate the folly of such a concept:

I wonder what you would say--what Barth would say--if I claimed that in my backyard there is a large green elephant eating a raspberry ice cream cone, but that there is no way by empirical investigation to determine that he is there. Nonetheless, I maintain, as a matter of fact, that it is there in every objective and factual sense. Now I have a feeling that you would either regard this as a claim that the elephant is there and is subject to empirical investigation, or contend that it isn't there by the very fact that there is no way of determining the fact. I wonder if this doesn't point up the problem. To claim objectivity, but to remove any possibility of determining it, is by definition to destroy objectivity.[46]

Montgomery's criticism is well justified. A historical event must either be open to investigation or not claim to be history at all for the very reason that it cannot be investigated. We destroy the concept of historical objectivity when we endeavor to rule that this objectivity itself cannot be tested. Any claim to a historical "middle ground" of prehistory removed from such processes of verification is about as accurate and acceptable as the claim concerning the existence of the green elephant.[47] Montgomery thus agrees with others that the idea of parahistory is foreign both to history itself and even to the Biblical records.[48]

Other theologians have also noted Barth's tendency to rely on the concept of prehistory and the subsequent weaknesses in his approach  

to the resurrection which have resulted. They realize both that historians recognize no such realm of history and that the very assertion that such a realm exists with both historical and non-historical characteristics is itself contradictory.[49]

The second major criticism of Barth is quite similar to one of the main objections of Kierkegaard and will therefore not be labored overly much here. Even though Barth claims that the resurrection literally occurred, we have seen how he denies any possibility of verifying this event. In fact, such a procedure should not even be attempted.[50] Thus, in spite of his emphatic assertions that the resurrection occurred, his view also falls prey to the criticism that there is no way for one to ascertain if the Christian faith is valid or not. We have already seen that faith cannot stand alone and be its own criteria and proof for belief. These subjective, personal qualities provide no reason why someone else should believe this particular system or accept Christianity over alternative views. Faith simply is not a panacea for all theological problems, because there is no reason to accept this faith if there are no ground upon which its claim may be based. In spite  

of Barth's defense of faith as the only way (as opposed to any historical research or other rational approach), it still remains that this faith cannot verify itself or demonstrate its own validity. This can only mean that one cannot know if the ground for belief are solid or not. There is no logical reason to accept such a faith.

In other words, to say that Jesus really rose from the dead but that this event can only be accepted by faith (without verification) is to leave one's entire faith open to question. Barth is of course not interested in verifying the grounds for Christianity. But without such objective criteria one can never know if one's faith is completely in vain or not.

Montgomery also realized the strength of such a criticism. Appropriating a fact by faith cannot make this belief factual. Simply by starting with faith we are not assured of arriving at a truthful, viable solution because the admonition to "have faith" cannot guarantee that one's beliefs are any more correct. Therefore, if faith does not have its starting point in objective, verifiable events, there is no way that one may ascertain if Christianity is the preferable faith-system in which to place one's trust.[51]

Therefore we perceive that which was stated earlier. Faith cannot create truth, not matter how instense is might be in the individual. Thus faith cannot make itself valid by its intensity or by the fervency with which it is exercised. Because of this, it is important for the individual to know if this faith is valid, and objective criteria are best suited for this purpose.

The last two criticisms of Barth are internal critiques. The

third major criticism concerns Barth's understanding of God's revelation in human events. It has been shown how this scholar contends that God reveals Himself in certain revelatory acts which occur in man's prehistory and not as an actual part of verifiable history.[52] But if revelation is not given objectively in historical facts which are open to historical Jesus' death cannot be revelatory because even Barth believes that the crucifixion is history in the modern sense of the word.[53] But Barth also holds that the crucifixion is part of God's revelation, since Jesus died a substitutionary death to pay for the sins of those who surrender their life to God in faith.[54] Here we find an internal inconsistency. If one holds that the death of Jesus is part of God's revelation to man (as Barth is correct in doing), then one must abandon the previously held idea that God never acts meaningfully is this kind of history. And if we reject this, it also means that the resurrection could likewise be objective, verifiable history and still be a revelatory event as well.[55]

The fourth major criticism of Barth's treatment of the resurrection is that this theologian holds that the New Testament itself does not make any attempt to demonstrate or prove that the resurrection did occur. He holds, rather, that the earliest Christians were only  

interested in accepting this event by faith. Thus Paul, for example, was not trying to present a proof of this occurrence by citing the witnesses in I Corinthians, chapter 15.[56]

It has already been noted above that this portion makes it quite plain that although Paul is speaking of the faith has its basis in objective, historical fact. The text clearly shows that Paul does intend to cite proof here, especially in verse six, where we are informed that most of the witnesses were still alive and could thus provide testimony concerning these events. This testimony would, in turn, provide historical eyewitness corroboration of Paul's claims.

Even Bultmann disagrees with Barth here, also noting that Paul does mean to use the list of the appearances of Jesus as proof for the resurrection.[] Bultmann notes that there were two current proofs for this event, both of which are found in I Cor. 15. There was the appeal to eyewitness testimony, as we have perceived here (especially 15:5-8) and the appeal to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (15:3-4).[58] Bultmann's testimony is valuable at this point mainly because it is apparent that Barth is desiring to use the Scripture to reinforce his polemic,[59] whereas Bultmann actually  

objects to Paul's using such a proof in spite of believing that he does just this.[60] This desire of course does not in itself mean that Barth is necessarily wrong. But it does appear that Bultmann is more accurate in ascertaining Paul's obvious motives here.

Reginald Fuller is somewhat close to Barth in his view on this question. He holds that Paul's primary intention was to identify his preaching of the resurrection with that of the earliest eyewitnesses. But he also believes that Paul intended to relate the eyewitness accounts in order to prove that Jesus actually appeared to his followers. He likewise agrees in citing I Cor. 15:6 as the main pointer to the fact that Paul is establishing evidence to be used as proof for these appearances.[61]

But there are other portions of the New Testament which also establish the fact that other authors besides Paul endeavored both to prove the resurrection and to use this event as the basis for the establishing of other beliefs, contrary to Barth's view. It has been shown above how the gospels in particular sought to demonstrate the reality of Jesus' resurrection by stressing that he appeared to his disciples in bodily form. Although the new body had undergone some changes, it is reported that Jesus allowed his followers to examine and investigate this new body. We are even told that Jesus was touched an "held", thus demonstrating that he was alive. This emphasis is especially evidence in passages like Luke 24:36-43,[62] where ample evidence of this attempt to prove that Jesus had risen  

is readily available.[63] We are even told in Act 1:3 that Jesus "presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs…" (RSV). In fact, the Greek word used here for "proof" (tekmeriois) literally means a positive or certain proof.[64] Thus we see that it was the intention of several New Testament authors to prove that Jesus had risen.

In addition, it should be mentioned that the resurrection is also used in the New Testament as a proof for other Christian doctrines. For instance, Acts 17:30-31 shows that the earliest church believed that God verified Jesus' earthly teachings by raising him from the dead.[65] Acts 2:36 and Romans 1:4 are other example which point to Jesus' being accepted as the Lord, Messiah and the Son of God, based upon the resurrection.[66]

Thus we see that neither can Barth rely on Scripture for support of his thesis. The claim that the New Testament does not seek to prove or demonstrate that the resurrection actually occurred is simply not supported by the facts.

For the reasons we have given above, it becomes evident that Barth's thesis fails. These four criticisms of his view on the resurrection point out the key weaknesses to which this view is most vulnerable. They also reveal the inadequacies of this approach.[67]

3. Other Related Views

As Kierkegaard greatly influenced the views of Barth, so did Barth greatly influence the views of the many theologians who followed him. This is especially true on the question of the resurrection of Jesus. Many prominent neo-orthodox theologians in particular accepted these views.

For instance, Swiss theologian Emil Brunner apparently affirms belief in the resurrection of Jesus as having actually occurred.[68] But like Barth, he concludes that this occurrence is not part of the realm of normal, verifiable history. He relates that the resurrection is not an event which can be reported as is possible with other events.[69] In addition we also learn that this occurrence cannot be the basis for the Christian faith.[70] Brunner is careful to stress his view that the Christian's belief in Jesus' resurrection is no based upon any records contained in the New Testament,  

including the testimony concerning the appearances. We cannot resort to historical or other means of verification of this event. Faith come apart from any demonstrations or proofs that Jesus is alive. One simply accepts this by faith.[71]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer likewise relegates the resurrection to a realm other than normal history. He asserts:

The historicity of Jesus Christ thus comes under the two-fold aspect if history and faith. Both aspects are closely associated. The Jews of history humbled himself; the Jesus who cannot be grasped by history is the subject of faith in the resurrection.[72]

We are therefore to understand that Jesus' resurrection is not an event which can be understood historically. It cannot be verified or proven, but only accepted in faith. Bonhoeffer thus believed that the resurrection really occurred, but that it had to be received by faith, apart from any historical research.[73]

Reinhold Niebuhr rejected the resurrection of Jesus as an event in his early ears at Yale when he was still under the influence of liberal theology and it appears that he never changed his mind. The physical resurrection of Jesus had to be abandoned as an actual occurrence.[74] Nevertheless, he treated it as parahistory. Speaking of the death and resurrection narratives concerning Jesus, he concludes:

The story of this triumph over death is thus shrouded in a mystery which places it in a different order of history than the story of the crucifixion.[75]

Once again we find the belief that the resurrection did not happen in history in the same way that the crucifixion did. It therefore cannot be demonstrated to have occurred.

Barth's influence extended even further than the neo-orthodox theologians on the question of the resurrection. Gunther Bornkamm sounds surprisingly like Barth in his belief that the resurrection is not open to historical verification. It can neither be proven or observed like other events. Yet it is said to have occurred. As such it can be understood properly only by faith.[76]

Reginald Fuller speaks of the resurrection as the methahistorical and eschatological event. Something occurred as revelation from God. However, this event cannot be verified or otherwise proven because it is comprehended only be faith, having taken place on the boundary between this world's history and the methahistory of the eschatological age that is coming.[77]

Hans Grass also follows a line of thought somewhat similar to Barth's For Grass, the historical method provides no basis for investigating the resurrection. This occurrence cannot be approached by such methods of reason. But he differs from Barth in postulating that Jesus' appearances were spiritual and not physical at all.[78]

Jurgen Moltmann believes that the resurrection occurred, but that it cannot be historically demonstrated to have happened in the  

past. The theologian's object should not be to examine such past events, but to look to the future for the significance of them. Anyways, if we were to examine the resurrection by modern historical standards, it would be found to he historical impossible and meaningless.[79]

Moltmann's answer is to look for a new formulation of the concept of history. The resurrection is an eschatological event and as such it can be grasped historically at all only when it is viewed as to its future significance.[80] Thus, while Moltmann seemingly rejects the view of prehistory,[81] he still holds that the resurrection should be relegated to a different, eschatologically-oriented concept of history. He is quite specific in his belief that the resurrection was not observable and that this event cannot be verified at present.[82] Thus he also takes flight to a different sort of history in which past events such as the resurrection cannot be historically proven to have occurred apart from future vindication.[83]

We have already presented a critique of these theological attitudes while discussing Karl Barth's position. Almost the exact same criticisms also apply to the others (at least to the neo-orthodox  

theologians which we have discussed). Perhaps the man criticism involves placing the resurrection in prehistory or parahistory. While details as to what realm this is may differ somewhat (we have studied Barth's view in dept above), sociologist of religion Peter L. Berger's criticisms still apply. First, this category has no meaning for a scholar who desires to empirically investigate the data. One who supports such a view of parahistory has already chosen to leave the empirical realm of investigation. This concept is meaningless in this context. Second, this method is resigned to the few who feel that they have already attained the proper outlook with regard to theology.[84]

With a few variations, the following summary of criticisms applies at least to Barth and scholars like Brunner and Bonhoeffer. They are also more-or-less applicable to the others covered here, at least in part. First, history knows of no such concept as prehistory. It is not possible to measure or investigate such a realm. In addition, the inclusion of both historical and nonhistorical characteristics renders such a category contradictory. Real history can be investigated and examined to determine if it is valid or not. One cannot make the claim that an event is real history and then not subject it to investigation. Even if a metahistorical even were possible, it must either be verifiable or not claim to be real

history at all. Therefore this concept must be rejected. Second, the stress on one's affirming the resurrection by faith and the refusal to demonstrate this event by any other method means that this view is not objective enough to provide sufficient reason for one to know if the Christian faith is valid. An intense belief cannot make this faith any more valid. With no such methods of investigation we cannot know if such faith is simply in vain.

Third, neo-orthodox theology contends that God's revelation does not primarily occur in actual history in the modern sense of the word.[85] Yet Barth, for instance, bases the revelation in the death of Christ on what he admits to be an actual historical fact, while refusing to do this in the case of the resurrection. He is therefore internally inconsistent in holding that the resurrection cannot likewise be based on actual historical fact. Fourth, at least Barth contends that the New Testament does not attempt to prove the resurrection. The others at least agree that his even cannot be demonstrated. But Barth's contention is not based on the available evidence. Contrary assertions in the New Testament invalidate there claims and thus cannot be used to support this thesis.

For these reasons, it is our conclusion here that such an approach to the resurrection is untenable. One cannot remove this event and, subsequently, the entire Christian faith, from the realm  

of investigation. There are simply too many difficulties for one to hold to such a position. But as Kierkegaard's view, so Barth's emphasis on faith and its importance can remain. We have mentioned above how that Barth conceived of the death of Christ as being a substitutionary death to pay for the sins of those who surrender their life to God in faith.[86] This view of faith must be retained. As it was concluded earlier in chapter four, faith must remain the most important element in a theological system. This is even shown to be more true if there is an objective basis on which to rest this faith.

Chapter IX. Possibility Number Three: That the Resurrection Did Occur and That It Can Be Demonstrated

A. Wolfhart Pannenberg: An Introduction

The third major possibility to be dealt with in this work is that Jesus' resurrection really id occur and that this occurrence can be demonstrated.[1] We will begin by examining the position of a very important scholar in contemporary theology today who holds this view. This theologian, Wolfhart Pannenberg (born 1928), is without much doubt the best-known representative of this viewpoint today.

Pannenberg has received much acclaim in recent years because of his defense of the historicity of the resurrection. In fact, he has been viewed by many as "the theologian of the resurrection".[2] It is this event which forms the basis for his polemic and which sets the stage for his theological system.[3] Now it is by no means unique either to defend the historicity of the resurrection or to use it as the basis for one's theological system.[4] But Pannenberg is probably  

the theologian who is best known for these tendencies. Therefore he becomes the logical choice as the primary scholar to be dealt with here.

Wolfhart Pannenberg is often connected with a new school of theology in Germany which is usually referred to as the "theology of hope." This generally optimistic understanding of theology was welcomed in the United States in the late 1960's by some of the leading newspapers and magazines. These publications seemed to be more than willing to report the demise of the pessimistic and short-lived reign of the "death of God theology" and greet instead its more hopeful and reassuring "successor".[5]

The motif of hope in many ways presented quite a novel approach to theology, being one of the first theological schools of thought that was not a development of the earlier dialectic theology of Karl Barth and those who followed him. Among others, those usually connected with the theology of hope are German theologians Pannenberg, Jurgen Moltmann, Johann Metz and sometimes Karl Rahner.[6] However, it is actually difficult to be overly suggestive when speaking of those who favor this approach, and it is really only possible to speak rather generally of any group of "hope theologians."[7]

While Pannenberg was earning his doctorate at the University of Heidelberg in the early 1950's, a group of graduate students began meeting and exchanging ideas on the nature of Divine revelation. Apparently in opposition to Pannenberg's own wishes, this group began to be referred to as the "Pannenberg circle". The combined work of four of the "members"--Pannenberg, Rolf Rendtorff, Trutz Rendtorff and Ulrich Wilkens--produced the volume Offenbarung als Geshichte[8] in 1961. It represented years of study and discussion together.[9]

Although this work was not the first one of Pannenberg's to be translated into English, it was still significant in that it helped to bring this German scholar to the attention of other theologians. Perhaps Pannenberg's most significant work to date, Jesus--God and Man, was translated into English in 1968. It was his first major work to appear in an English translation. This Christology has been recognized by some theologians as one of the most significant to appear in many years.[10]

It soon became evident that Pannenberg's thesis was opposed to many aspects of Barth's and Bultmann's theology. For instance, Pannenberg was opposed to the subjectivism exercised by both of these theologians.[11] He also objected to Barth's concept of revelation,   

especially with regard to Barth's view that certain events such as the resurrection happened in a nondemonstrable, nonverifiable type of history. Pannenberg believed that such events both can and should be historically investigated, in opposition to Barth.[12] This, of course, also means that Pannenberg likewise objected to Bultmann's even more complete divorce history from faith.[13]

With this introductory background, it is now advantageous to turn to Pannenberg's argument concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Both a presentation of these view and a critique of them will be given. It should be remarked that the following is not a presentation or discussion of the entire theology of hope, but only of Pannenberg's views on these subjects.

B. Wolfhart Pannenberg's Argument and a Critique

To put Pannenberg in proper perspective, it should be mentioned that the theology of hope stresses eschatological theology and the coming Kingdom of God in particular. The coming of the Kingdom has political an ethical repercussions, as will as theological ones. Also stressed is the death and resurrection of Jesus as historical events which set the stage for this eschatology, as will be perceived below.[14]

One of Pannenberg's chief aims is to restore to contemporary theology the concept of a functionally imminent Kingdom of God.[15] Most of contemporary theology is perceived to have failed in its approach to the Kingdom in that the eschatological centrality of this concept has been lost. But for Pannenberg, the teaching about the Kingdom must be the central message in Christian theology.[16]

The future Kingdom of God holds a special interest for Pannenberg with regard to God's existence. God is identified with the coming Kingdom in such a way that, in certain sense, God does not exist as yet. It is only with the arrival of the future Kingdom that the existence of God is shown to be a definite reality.[17]

But this by no means signifies that God is now present in this age or that He was not present in the past. The idea that God's existence is fully revealed in the future therefore does not disqualify Him from present existence. From His future existence God dominates both the past and the present.[18]

At first this concept of the existence of God appears contradictory. But actually the "secret" is in understanding Pannenberg's ideas about the retroactive power of history and the ability of the future to reach backwards into the past. God exists at present (and in antiquity) in the sense that His future is reaching back into the past. He thus   

exists at present as the partial arrival of the future.[19]

According to Pannenberg's concept of theology, it is God who will usher the Kingdom into human society. God thus works in the future as well as in the present. This Kingdom is not synonymous with the church, and neither will it arrive by man's power. He is quite emphatic that it will become part of history by the future actions of God Himself, even though there are present ramifications of the Kingdom as well.[20]

But it is not only the existence of God which reaches into the present from the future. In fact, all occurrences eventuate from the future.[21] As Neuhaus explains, we therefore cannot only refer to the future of an event simply as something which will happen, but rather as something which reaches back into the present and which is now in existence. Although one can perceive the final state of something only in the future, the affects are present.[22]

For instance, the authority of God was retroactively present in the teachings of Jesus.[23] This is shown to be the case especially be Jesus' resurrection from the dead.[24] In a similar way the Kingdom has also reached back into this present time, although it has not arrived in its fullness.[25] It is through such a stress on the

fundamental importance and priority given to the future that Pannenberg can speak of the end time having participated in the life of Jesus.[26]

In Revelation as History Pannenberg wrote two key essays. In one, entitled "Dogmatic Thesis on the Doctrine of Revelation", he postulated seven theses which are crucial to the understanding of his thought. This essay set forth much of the foundation of Pannenberg's theological system and expands on the points raised above. These theses are especially instrumental in pointing out the extremely important place that the resurrection of Jesus plays. Seeing this event in the context of Pannenberg's theological enterprise will allow for a much better understanding of this scholar and will also make the ensuing critique more accurate and meaningful. For these reasons the seven theses are presented below, with a short discussion of each included. Related key thoughts of Pannenberg's on Christology and eschatology will also be presented in the appropriate places.

Pannenberg's first thesis is that God's Self-Revelation is not direct, but indirect effected by God's historical acts.[27] After a brief survey of some of the prominent views of Divine revelation, Pannenberg asserts that God did not reveal Himself to man by the announcement of His name to the Israelites, or by the inspiration of the Scriptures, or by the giving of the law on Mount Sinai or by any other direct means.[28] To the contrary, God revealed Himself indirectly through historical acts in both the Old Testament. He made  

Himself known by means of a revelation which is grounded in history.[29] The chief purpose of Pannenberg's essay is to explore this indirect revelation and to ascertain its value as God's chosen method of revealing Himself.[30]

An interesting aspect of this belief in the indirect self-manifestation of God in human history is that Pannenberg conceives of this revelation as permeating all of human history. God therefore does not simply reveal Himself in some small segments of history exclusive of other areas. Rather, the indirect revelation of God occurs in all of man's history. For this reason, Pannenberg relates that there can be no such thing as "Supernatural events" or miracles". Since God works in history as a whole, this means that we cannot speak of Supernatural history versus natural history. No such dichotomy exists. We are thus to perceive that God reveals Himself in all of human history, and since He works in all of history we are not to think of separate miracles or Supernatural events apart from the whole of historical revelation.[31] Pannenberg realizes that this is not a new conception of revelation, as similar views were expressed in German idealism.[32]

The key to thesis one is thus that God does not reveal Himself directly. Any understanding of the concept of revelation that asserts otherwise is therefore not correct. God only allows Himself to be known indirectly, and that is through His acts in the whole of human history.

Pannenberg's second thesis is that God's revelation is not known totally at the beginning, but rather at the conclusion of revelatory history.[33] Since God only reveals Himself indirectly, Pannenberg believes that it is therefore correct to link this revelation with the end of history.[34] Thus the early events in the history of Israel whereby they learned of Yahweh were not the final or the most important of God's acts. The most important revelation will occur only at the end of history.[35]

Some of the logic of this position has been presented above. It has been stated that Pannenberg conceived of the end of history in such a way that the future can have a retroactive affect upon both the past and the present. As such, all occurrences eventuate from the future. According to this understanding, God can be more-or-less identified with the coming Kingdom and still have existed so as to have dominated the past and the present. In a similar way, the resurrection is the sign that God's activity was also retroactively present in the left of Jesus.[36]

Pannenberg thus accepts the priority of the future. Even at present the future is more important. This is seen, for instance, by this scholar's belief that all events reach into the past and the present from the future.[37] Since these postulates are believed to be valid, one can therefore perceived how Pannenberg further held that the final truth and result of an event is determined by the future of that event and not only by its present appearances.[38]

The natural outworking of this concept is that in the resurrection of Jesus the future already participated in the past. Through this event the God of the coming Kingdom retroactively acted in the life of Jesus. It is an event such as this that illustrates the second thesis concerning how God's indirect revelation will be accomplished primarily at the end of revelatory history rather than at the beginning.[39] Another pointer to this second thesis is Pannenberg's belief that it is only with the arrival of the end of history that God will prove Himself to be definite reality. Again revelation is perceived to be complete at the end of revelatory history.[40]

The third thesis which is presented by Pannenberg is that God's historical revelation is not restricted to special or private situations,   

but is open for all men to see. In this sense, revelation is universal.[41] Thus one is not to understand revelation as something secret or mysterious. It is not an entity which is known only to those who have been initiated into the life of faith. In face, an individual need not even have faith first in order to see God's revelation. This is because one's faith is inspired be seeing the revelatory events. In other words, faith need not precede the perception of revelatory events, but arises after the recognition of them.[42]

As to the nature of the revelatory events in question, Pannenberg asserts that God has acted throughout the history of Israel all the way to Jesus' resurrection. These events communicate meaning to those who perceive and appropriate them. They are comprehended by reason and are open to the examination of all.[43]

By postulating that God's revelation is open for all to see and examine, Pannenberg is further giving explanation to this belief that Christianity is a rational faith. One is not required to make a leap of faith so that one might be able to believe in God. Such irrationality has no place in the Christian faith. One believes because the facts are found to be reliable and trustworthy.[44]

Pannenberg realizes that there is a subjective factor involved when one speaks of a historical verification of one's faith and that one therefore cannot reach absolute results when studying history. Yet history is the proper method to use in examining the claims of   

Christian revelation, as it is capable of leading one to highly probable conclusions.[45] Therefore, historical examination of events such as the resurrection is needed to ascertain whether the reports are true or not.[46] One thing which Pannenberg insists upon in this research is that the investigator must be open to the results of the research and not have made up his mind in advance as to what did or did not happen.[47]

Pannenberg's fourth thesis is that God's universal revelation of His deity is not yet known in Israel's history. Rather, it was first revealed in Jesus' fate in that the end of history is already anticipated in this event.[48] In the ancient history of the Jews, Pannenberg is convicted that God did not show Himself to be the God of all mankind. Rather, he was seen as the God of Israel.[49] but in the New Testament, God was shown to be the God of all mankind be His act of raising Jesus from the dead. Through this act all men can look to the God of Israel as the only true God. Through the life and teachings of Jesus, the offer of the Kingdom is extended to all people.[50]

It is obvious that the resurrection holds a place of great importance in Pannenberg's theological enterprise. Indeed, this scholar's works reflect the Pauline conviction that if Christ had   

not risen, all faith would be in vain.[51] It is therefore important for one know if this occurrence is a historical fact which can be demonstrated. Pannenberg advocates examining the sources to see if any alternate explanations could account for the rise of the resurrection faith.[52] He entertain such hypotheses as the subjective vision theory,[53] the legend or myth theory,[54] and Barth's view of the resurrection happening in prehistory.[55] After a careful look at such theories, Pannenberg concludes that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the only adequate explanation for the subsequent faith of the disciples. Those who seek to deny the reality of this event must be prepared to provide a more adequate explanation. Pannenberg believes that the inevitable conclusion is that the resurrection can be verified as having occurred in human history.[56]

The fifth thesis which Pannenberg presents is that the deity of God is not revealed in the Christ event as an independent or isolated fact, but only as the event is part of Israel's history.[57] The Christ event cannot be separated from Israel's history because the God of Christ is also the God of the Old Testament. Jesus' mission and fate must therefore be understood from within the framework and context of Israel's history.[58] As such the resurrection remains the revelation of God whereby the end times have retroactively taken part in Jesus' fate.[59]

Pannenberg's sixth thesis is that the universality of God's eschatological participation in Jesus' fate found its actual expression in the Gentile Christian church's non-Jewish understanding of revelation.[60] The coming of the gospel to the Gentiles was a natural and necessary consequences of the eschatological significance of Christ. Bu Pannenberg assert that there were differences between the Gentile and the Jewish conceptions of revelation. The influence of Gnosticism is said to have brought some non-Jewish elements into the Gentile understanding of God's revelation. For instance, Gnosticism taught that revelation was direct and that it was imparted by means of secret initiation and knowledge, thus meaning that it was not available to the scrutiny of all men.[61] It has already been pointed out how Pannenberg conceived of Jewish   

revelation as being both indirect (by means of God's historical acts) and open for all to perceive.

Pannenberg believes that even though these important differences existed between the Jewish and Gentile ideas of revelation, the Christian conception of God's acting in Jesus in a final and universal manner still made its way extensively into the Gentile-gnostic concept of revelation, for these portions still served to make God understandable to both Gentiles and to Jews. In other words even though Pannenberg believes that Gnosticism influenced portions of the New Testament teaching on the revelation of God in a way opposed to the Jewish concept, it must be realize that this still helped in causing the Gentiles to know that God was the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews. God's actions in Jesus' fate therefore were shown to be universal in scope in that the Gentiles responded to this revelation and accepted it as having been extended to them as well.[62]

The seventh thesis presented by Pannenberg asserts that the imparting of God's word is related to revelation by its foretelling, forthtelling and report.[63] Even though Pannenberg understands that any reference to the Biblical word of God as the direct revelation of God is influenced by gnosticism,[64] there is still a threefold relationship between these two concepts. First, the indirect revelation through historical acts confirms the promises which God   

had given beforehand. Here the word sets the stage for the revelatory actions by foretelling the promises of God which are then fulfilled in the revelatory future. Second, the words of God confirm His acts in history in the sense that they follow the revelation as forthtelling. In this sense, the actions of God establish the words that follow, such as with the Law or other commandments which were given to the people after they had seen God act. Third, emerging in the New Testament one finds that the kerygma acts as a report of what historical acts God has already performed. There can be no universal significance of God's relationship between word and revelation points to a spoken proclamation regarding the preceding revelation.[65]

None of these relationships between revelation and word give and revelatory nature to the word. The word of God, either spoken or written, is therefore conceived by Pannenberg as supplementing the actual revelation without being the revelation itself. The word may precede the indirect revelation in the form of a promise as to what God will do in the future (foretelling), or the word may follow the revelation, having been established by the acts of God (foretelling). Yet again, the word may be a proclamation of the revelation (report). Thus the word may serve to explicate or proclaim revelation, or else the word may itself be expanded, verified or established by the revelation. At any rate, the word is therefore related to the revelation without being the revelation itself.[66]

From Pannenberg's presentation of these seven theses one can perceive how the past revelatory acts of God (both in Israel's history and in the life of Jesus) and the future revelation of God are believed to be intricately interwoven. This scholar has indeed developed a theological system which seeks to explain the Biblical concept of God's indirect Self-revelation through His actions in history. However, Pannenberg fails noticeably in at least four key areas of his work, which will be investigated here.

The first major criticism of Pannenberg concerns his concept of God. This criticism is directed against the aforementioned understanding of God as reaching from a future existence into the past. Pannenberg believes that this view of God is confirmed by the Scripture and especially by the preaching of Jesus. In the view of this scholar, Jesus conceived of God's claim to this world exclusively in futuristic terms. God is said to be in a process of coming to exist and so in a certain sense does not exist at present.[67]

On order to make the assertion that the New Testament also expounds this futuristic view of the existence of God , it appears that Pannenberg has to ride roughshod over the Scriptural evidence to the contrary. It is agreed that the main emphasis in Jesus' teaching is on the coming Kingdom of God and the resulting present faith-obedience to God.[68] But this is far from sufficient proof to require God's primary existence as issuing into the present from the future. In fact Jesus seems to indicate the origin of God's   

existence as being different than Pannenberg asserts.[69]

For instance, when Jesus refers to the eschatological judgment of the future, he likens it to the past judgment that God meted out both in the days of Lot and in the days of Noah (Luke 17:26-30, 32; cf. Matt. 24:37-39). When on another occasion Jesus was asked for a sign, he did not point forward to any events in the future, but backwards to the prophet Jonah, who was to be a sign of his resurrection form the dead (Matt. 22:39; c. Matt. 16:4, Luke 11:29- 30). Also, when questioned about divorce Jesus informed the questioner that God acted out of the pasted in making provision for marriage. Jesus refers his listeners to the mighty act of the creation of God for their answer concerning the seriousness of divorce (Mk. 10:6-8; Matt. 19:4-6).

Therefore it is obvious that Pannenberg is not correct in his statement that Jesus spoke exclusively of God in terms of His future rule.[70] To the contrary, several portions of the gospels indicate rather that Jesus also looked into the past for the unveiling of God's power. Jesus thus does not speak of God exclusively in futuristic terms, unless one has already assumed in advance that God works from the future into the past.

Now Pannenberg can admittedly explain there verses in which Jesus refers to God's power as also being demonstrated in the past. There were not supposed to be verses which be would no explain. The simply show that Jesus looked to the past as well as to the future in order to reveal the workings of God. There are admittedly many 

verses which do indeed refer to future acts of God, but there are also ones dealing with His past actions. However, the significant point here is that Pannenberg can interpret that past actions of God according to his system only by utilizing the prior presupposition that God is already in the future, working into the remote past. His view that God reveals Himself only from the future is an unsupported assertion, and it is shown to be so simply by the fact that it must be assumed to be true before it can be accepted, as will be shown in the third criticism of Pannenberg below. He cannot point to these verses as ones which support his ideas, for they do not. He can only interpret them according to already existing assumptions.

But from whence does the actual idea that God exists primarily in the future arise? One might stress verses on the other end of the spectrum and build a case around the thesis that God exists primarily in the past and is revealed particularly through His creation. From this past existence He would then reveal Himself in the present and in the future. Verses pertaining to the future Kingdom of God would then be applied to the final and complete revelation of God. As clever as such systems can be made to sound, they appear to be based more upon philosophical speculation than upon theological revelation.

The point here is therefore not that Pannenberg cannot deal with these preceding verses, but rather that he must assume the primary importance of the future in order to do so. Both his thesis and the contrived one that perceives God to have acted mainly from the past through the creation-event thus have the same problem. There is a lack of proof. Both views have inadequate reasoning justify such a view of revelation. For instance, there is no support in the New    

Testament accounts of Jesus' teachings to justify the position that God does not yet exist, in whatever sense this may be taken. Neither does Jesus teach that God is in s process of coming into existence.[71] It is plain that in other similar ways as well, Pannenberg's overall conception of God appears to be based more upon philosophical speculation than upon revelation. There is a decided lack of evidence for his view.

The second major criticism of Pannenberg concerns his hypothesis that God reveals Himself indirectly only through His actions in human history. For this scholar, God did not reveal Himself through any direct means, such as by the inspiration of the Scriptures, but only indirectly through the events of human history.[72]

Many theologians are of the persuasion that God acts in history and that this is one means of revelation.[73] But fewer are convinced that this is the only means of God's revelation. Certainly another shortcoming of Pannenberg's is in not recognizing the self-witness of the Scriptures as being another revelation of God, especially in portions which could not have been influenced by gnosticism.[74]

Pannenberg contends that the New Testament witness to the direct revelation of God in the Scriptures reflects the early influence of gnosticism, as already shown above. This direct Spiritual revelation is held to be contrary to the Jewish understanding of God's indirect revelation is history. To be sure, he does allow a close connection between the written words and this revelation.[75] but it appears that Pannenberg ignores the Old Testament witness to God's revelation in Scripture and through the prophets. This attestation would of course be removed from the influence of first century gnosticism.

A very clear reference to God's speaking through the Old Testament prophets is found in Number 12:6, 8. Here we are specifically told that God used this means to make Himself known to the Jewish nation. This is both an early and quite clear reference to the Jewish belief that God did reveal Himself to the Jews through the prophets. Statements such as this one in Number could be multiplied considerably.[76] In fact, hundreds of times in the Old Testament the phrase "thus said the Lord" serves to introduce a revelation of God for the people.[77]

The Jews were even responsible for distinguishing between the prophet who spoke the words of the Lord and one who did not. The sign that the prophet was relaying a revelation from God was that the prophecy would occur in history. Thus, the true prophet was one who   

correctly received revelation directly from the Lord and then proclaimed it to the people with his word being confirmed by history (see Deuteronomy 18:20-22). The Old Testament therefore not only teaches that God's indirect revelation is manifested in history, in this instance by the fulfillment of prophecy, but also that God's direct revelation is given to the prophets, through whom God makes Himself known.[78]

However, the Old Testament witnesses report that God not only revealed Himself throught the preaching of the prophets, but also through the written Scriptures. There is even a relationship between re revelation given to the prophets to speak and the recording of this revelation in written words, as the prophets were quite often required to record the words of their prophecies.[79] For instance, Moses[80] was commanded not only to speak the words of God, but also to write the words which has been revealed to him.[] This means that God's revelation also comes through the written words of the Scriptures.[82]

Other prophets besides Moses are also commanded to write the revelation which was communicated to them by God. This is found to be the case with Isaiah (Is. 8:1; 30:8), Jeremiah (Jer. 36:2) and Habakkuk (Hab. 2:2). It is recorded that David also both spoke and wrote God's revelations to him.[83]

It is now plain from this preceding brief survey that Pannenberg's limitation of revelation to God's acts in human history is only presenting a part of the whole. In spite of this scholar's claim that his view faithfully represents that of ancient Judaism, it has been shown here that this is not the case.[84] The Jewish concept of revelation also includes at least the revelation given to prophets to speak the word of God and the revelation which is written in the form of Scriptures. It is true that the Jews believed that God revealed Himself indirectly through historical acts. But it is also true that the Jews believed that God revealed Himself directly through the prophets and through the written word in the Scriptures. A proper view of Jewish revelation must include all of these factors and not just the first, as Pannenberg does.

It is Pannenberg's opinion that only gnosticism teaches such direct revelation,[85] yet it has been shown that even in the earlier Old Testament writings this view is found. To claim the influence of gnosticism here is therefore clearly impossible. Rolf Rendtorff also asserts that God never revealed Himself in the prophetic word,[86] yet it has also been shown that several Old Testament passages teach the contrary view. Especially noteworthy is Num. 12:6:

If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream (Num. 12:6, RSV, italics added).

As if to say that this Self-revelation of God was not direct enough in some instances, Num. 12:8 adds concerning Moses that:

With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in dark speech; and he beholds the form of the Lord (Num. 12:8, RSV).

There can be no question about the intention of these two verses. God made Himself known to the prophets, but He revealed Himself even more directly to Moses. The Lord's "making Himself known" must necessarily involved Self-revelation. Other verses pointed out above also assert these beliefs. By making known His present admonitions for holy living by revealing the future by his prophets, it was believed that God was revealing Himself directly to the people. This was done by God's chosen messengers through both the spoken and the written word.[87]

Pannenberg's view of revelation therefore fails in its attempt to present the only revelation of God as being indirect by means of God's acts in human history. This is just a part of the Jewish concept, which also includes direct revelation through the oral proclamation and through the written word.

The third major criticism of Pannenberg is one which recurs throughout much of his work and is especially obvious in his presentation of his seven theses. Pannenberg's view of revelation in its relation to the future contains several inadequately supported statements. His theological system does include many intriguing and alluring points, some of which are certainly valid.[88] But the overall framework for this system, especially concerning God's revelation of Himself from the future, sometimes appears to be composed of assumptions which lack proper evidence. This has been perceived to some extent in the first objection above. Thus McDermott notes here that Pannenberg is sometimes guilty of inserting reality into a future which has obviously not yet arrived, and that he has done so without the proper clarification and evidence.[89]

Instances of this lack of evidence are readily available, and clearly affect the framework of Pannenberg's theological system. Pannenberg admits that his work rests upon two presuppositions, thee being the reality of the future's power and the single future which exists for every event.[90] These two presupposition are quite apparent   

in his seven theses, but strangely without supportive evidence in many cases.

For instance, the second thesis calls for a relationship between revelation and the end of all history. This relationship is said to be the result of the indirect nature of this aforementioned revelation. In fact, the connection of revelation with history's end is said to be the direct result of the indirectness of revelation.[91] But even if one were to grant the indirect nature of God's revelation in history,[92] how does this cause revelation to be known primarily at the end of history? Pannenberg never succeeds in demonstrating how indirect revelation automatically means that this revelation must be connected with the end of history. God could quite conceivably be acting indirect in history from out of the present. In other words, Pannenberg has not shown why futurity must follow from indirect revelation. One must assume that his view of God is the definitive one to even begin to arrive at this conclusion, and we have already seen that this view is quite arbitrary and problematical as well.

Another example of Pannenberg's arbitrary theology occurs in the fourth thesis, where Jesus' fate is also connected with the end of history. Because of this formulation, Pannenberg asserts that there will be no further Self-revelation of God after the resurrection of Jesus.[93]

But this thesis also lacks conclusive evidence. Indeed, it raises several problems of its own. For instance, if revelation is mediated in all of history as Pannenberg claims, why should the indirect Self-revelation of God then end with the fate of Christ? Why should revelation not extend beyond this point? One could still hold that the supreme Self-revelation of God occurred in the Christ event, but that this revelation still progresses beyond this point. Is not Pannenberg's abrupt halt at the fate of Jesus a rather arbitrary termination of revelation? Indeed, it does appear to be simply a desired stopping point. But there is obviously a need for a logical reason to support such an abrupt halt. Pannenberg entertains this same objection at the end of his introductory essay, stating that he hopes this problem will be answered later.[94] But he never quite seems to come back to it with an appropriate answer.

Even if Pannenberg were successful in showing why revelation should end here, would it not then demand an adjustment in his previous concept of this revelation? It would appear that the previous notion that God's indirect Self-disclosure occurs in all of history--in everything that happens[95]--must be revised. How can one assert that everything which occurs is revelation and then later arbitrarily drop this notion after the Christ event becomes past history? Logically, according to Pannenberg's system, revelation should continue past this point.

A closely related problem with this fourth thesis is that if God's revelation occurs in all events of human history, why single out one   

strand, namely Jewish history, in which to concentrate almost all attention? To do so favors the Biblical witness, to be sure, but what is the rationale behind such an assertion if one begins with Pannenberg's presuppositions? As Daniel Fuller aptly points out, Pannenberg must deal with the problem of how God reveals Himself in all of history and yet all of the most important revelation occurs especially to a select group of Jews and Christians.[96]

Also, since God is said to act in all of history, how can one ascertain when He acts in a special way in just one event like the fate of Jesus? Some may look at an event and see God working, others may look at the same event and not notice this at all.[97] Perhaps these points indicate that Pannenberg's view of revelation occurring in all of history needs adjustment.

It is therefore possible to perceive areas of Pannenberg's theological system which contain several inadequately supported assertions. These problems seem especially related to his view of the future and how it affects the present. Pannenberg's statements are not self-authenticating.[98] Yet he often fails to provide reasonable facts to back his claims. As a result, this theology remains quite problematical in that the logical demonstration in key areas is often lacking.

The fourth major criticism of Pannenberg concerns both his view of the nature of the resurrection appearances of Jesus and his treatment of the naturalistic alternative views. During a discussion   

of the historicity of this event, to which we will return briefly below, Pannenberg introduces his conception of the appearances of Jesus to the disciples and to Paul. For this scholar, the resurrection appearances involved several elements. Thos who saw the resurrected Jesus saw a spiritual body, not a natural, earthly one. This appearance was accompanied by an audition and, at least in the case of Paul, a phenomenon of light. These were appearances from heaven and were recognized by all as the risen Lord.[99]

However, Pannenberg asserts that these appearances of Jesus were not very palpable ones. The nature of these occurrences were more similar to "objective visions", or visions which were not produced by the subjective consciousness of those perceiving the phenomena. In other words, the appearances of the resurrected Jesus were realities outside of the apostles in spite of a lack of corporeal qualities.[100] Pannenberg specifically opposes the subjective vision theory,[101] which makes the resurrection a concept in the minds of the disciples with no objective reality. His contentious against this view were presented above. The resurrection was rather an objective reality showing the disciples that Jesus was alive. As such it was an actual historical event.[102]

In spite of Pannenberg's more than adequate defense of the historicity of the resurrection, his stance against more objective appearance of Jesus is unwarranted. Pannenberg appears to feel that   

it is essential to choose between Paul and the gospels when discussing the nature of the resurrection body. Since he conceives of all the appearances being of a similar nature, Jesus must have always appeared as he did to Paul.[103]

It has been shown above that both the gospels and Paul maintain that Jesus' resurrected body was both similar to and different from his natural body. The emphasis in the gospels on the disciples' ability to touch Jesus' body and to otherwise verify his appearances to them has also been discussed above. This evidence in the gospels will therefore not be studied here again.[104] but the gospels also reveal the conviction that Jesus' body was somehow changed, having new qualities and powers.[105]

Paul's testimony is likewise that the resurrection body is a "spiritual body" different from one's physical body.[106] and not simply the resuscitation of a spirit. This is recognized by most theologians   

today.[107] As William H. Johnson correctly contends, theological justice must be done to both words in the Pauline phrase "spiritual body". Neither word must be over-stressed at the expense of the other. Thus, Jesus did not rise as a spirit or in a physical body, but as a spiritual body.[108]

Yet, it is not recognized as often that Paul also gives some evidence for objective appearances of Jesus. Although he possessed a new body, the Jesus who appeared to the disciples and Paul was the same Jesus who died on the cross and was afterwards buried.[109] Another indicator of the objectivity of Jesus' appearances was that he appeared to many on different occasions (see I Cor. 15:5-8). It is especially Jesus' appearance to the 500 people at once (verse six) which helps us to determine how objective these experiences were for the disciples. It is this appearances in particular which points to an objective manifestation. Paul's conception of Jesus' resurrection body was such that it could be seen by a group this size. It would therefore appear to require more than just a mystifying light and   

auditory phenomenon, along with an objective vision.[110]

Ladd also disagrees with Pannenberg's conception of "objective visions", which pattern all of Jesus' appearances after the one to Paul. The evidence shows that the gospels were written under the influence and control of various eyewitnesses of these events. There must be an underlying factual tradition behind these reports as well. Besides, once it is granted that Jesus actually rose from the dead, there is no reason why he could not have appeared various ways to various individuals.[111]

To reinforce this last statement, one must remember that, in the books of Luke-Acts, the author Luke does not seem to be aware of any contradiction in recording both the more objective appearances to the disciples and the more "spiritual" conversion appearance to Paul.[112] Similarly, many theologians also feel that the witness of the gospels is essentially compatible with that of Paul, in spite of the different stresses in each. The conclusion often is therefore that Jesus appeared in an objective way that could be verified, but in a new spiritual body.[113]

It is somewhat surprising that Pannenberg does not place even more stress than he does on the objectivity of Jesus' appearances.   

For the reasons just outlined here, it is therefore with good evidence that this fourth major criticism of Pannenberg remains valid. Eyewitness testimony witnessed to these objective appearances through such men as Luke (cf. Luke 1:1-4 with Luke 24:36-45; Acts 1:3). Such eyewitness testimony which has already been shown to exist behind the gospel traditions therefore reflects valid witness to the objectiveness of Jesus' appearances to the disciples. Even Paul refers to the original disciples' testimony of the resurrection appearances (I Cor. 15:11-15). The testimony of the gospels is thus compatible with Paul.

The second part of this fourth criticism concerns Pannenberg's treatment of the naturalistic theories which have been proposed against the resurrection. Apart from his criticism of the subjective vision theory, his overall treatment of the other alternative theories is not entirely complete. He is still successful in refuting the other hypotheses, but he fails to disprove them as sufficiently as is possible. This is an important point, for since all of Christianity rests upon the validity of the resurrection, as was determined earlier, then refutations of rival views must be as complete as possible in order to more clearly ascertain if the event actually occurred. It is especially important to the validity of this third solution to the resurrection (that this event can be demonstrated) that there are no probable solutions other than Jesus' resurrection from the dead. This therefore points to the need for as thorough as investigation and refutation of the major naturalistic theories as is possible. In addition, it is true that the more thorough such a refutation of the alternate views is, the more convincing the resulting probability of the resurrection of Jesus is made.

Wolfhart Pannenberg has built a theological system which contains many intriguing and interesting ideas. However, his work has been shown to fall prey to four major criticisms. First, his view of God as being fully revealed only in the future is an arbitrary one which lacks the proper evidence. The Scriptures, including Jesus, do not unanimously refer to God this way at all. Second, Pannenberg's view of God's indirect Self-revelation as occurring only in historical acts in only a part of the Biblical presentation of revelation. It was found the God also revealed Himself directly through the prophets and through the written word of God.

Third, the overall theological system of this scholar lacked conclusive evidence in several places. This is especially true with regard to Pannenberg's seven theses. There was a decided lack of evidence needed to demonstrate such items as the futurity of revelation and the end of all Self-revelation of God occurring in the Christ-event. Fourth, it was shown that Pannenberg's concept of the nature of the resurrection appearances was not objective enough and did not allow properly fore the evidence for more objective manifestations of Jesus. In addition, his refutation of the naturalistic theories against the resurrection was not as complete as it should have been.[114]

It is easily perceived that the resurrection of Jesus is one of the central concepts in Pannenberg's theological system. The examination of the resurrection is also the strongest aspect of his theology. His treatment of this event has been dealt with above, but a few comments are in order here. Pannenberg logically investigates the resurrection with regard to its historicity. Rival theories which seek to explain this event naturalistically are entertained and dispelled, even though such procedures are not as complete as they should have been.[115] Anyone who disputes the claim that Jesus rose from the dead is welcome--in fact, required--to arrive at an alternative theory which is adequate enough to account for the facts.[116]

It is Pannenberg's conviction that when one conducts such an investigation of the facts, one arrives at the probability that the resurrection did, indeed, occur in actual human history. An examination of the facts reveals the probable conclusion that Jesus did rise from the dead after the crucifixion. The resurrection is thus demonstrated to be an actual historical event.[117] In this conclusion Pannenberg is thorough and difficult to refute.[118] his own refutation is the most probable solution. Therefore, this conclusion appears to be quite valid.

Chapter X. Possibility Number Three: Other Similar Views

Other scholars besides Pannenberg also hold that Jesus rose literally from the dead and that this can be demonstrated to be the most probable conclusion in this issue.[1] This is surely not to affirm that these scholars followed Pannenberg in these conclusions, for most have not derived their inspiration from him, nor do they consider themselves part of the "theology of hope" school of thought. Therefore one finds that the techniques vary here, but the final result is similar.

One such theologian who believes that Jesus' literal resurrection from the dead can be demonstrated to be the most probable conclusion is Daniel Fuller. In his work Easter Faith and History, Fuller surveys most of the major theological approaches to the question off the relationship between faith and history. As the title of this work suggests, this question is surveyed particularly by examining the various views of the resurrection.

Beginning with Enlightenment rationalism and continuing through present contemporary theology, this scholar investigates most of the major theologians and their views scholar investigates most of the major theologians and their views of the historical and rational content of faith. After viewing of the historical and rational content of faith. After viewing the attempts of the major theological schools to accept the resurrection as fact from three different   

standpoints. Attempts to hold belief in this event apart from historical reasoning, by partial historical reasoning and totally by historical reasoning are then investigated. Fuller's conclusion is that none of these views are entirely acceptable, as each falls prey to various criticisms which he presents.[2] It should be noted that Fuller does agree with the principle of historical verification of the resurrection, as will be shown below. But he objects here to these methods by which such attempts are made.

Fuller's solution is to examine the first century approach to the resurrection of Jesus which is taken by Luke in the New Testament work Luke-Acts.[3] After reviewing several key hypotheses concerning the theme of Luke-Acts,[4] Fuller sets forth what he believes is the major theme of these two books.[5]

The Lukan prologue (Luke 1:1-4) sets forth some key information concerning the intentions of the author. Here Luke claims that he received the information in this work from the original eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2). Fuller points out that while Luke was thus not himself an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry, he received the information from those who did originally participate in the events.[6] However, Luke did share first hand in the fulfillment of the resurrection event,   

namely, the mission of the Christian church to the Gentiles. Luke therefore experienced the result if the resurrection faith firsthand.[7]

Fuller finds that an important emphasis in Luke-Acts is Luke's writing so that his readers[8] could know the certainty of what had transpired in the life of Christ and especially in his resurrection. In fact, Luke's purpose in writing to these early believers was to inform them that they would be sure of what had been reported to them pertaining to the Christ event. This certainty which was available to each reader applied in particular to the surety that Jesus was raised from the dead (see Luke 1:4).[9]

Upon what was such certainty based? Fuller explains that for Luke, the early Christian mission to the Gentiles was the fulfillment of the resurrection of Jesus. Without the appearances to the disciples and the others and later to Paul, there could have been no such Gentile mission. In other words, the existence and continuance of the effort to evangelize the Gentiles depended upon the ministry of Paul and upon the authority and action of the other apostles. But Paul's involvement in such a work cannot be explained by anything other than the appearance of the risen Jesus to him, as recorded in Acts. Paul, the enemy and persecutor of the church in earlier years,   

would have no other impetus for such behavior. Likewise, the disciples were not very accustomed to the idea of taking the gospel to the Gentiles (at least in the form of a ministry) until they received just such a commission from the risen Lord who appeared to them after his death. Only such an appearance could account for their realizing that the offer of the Kingdom of God had also been extended to the Gentiles.[10]

In a sense, Luke taught that there were therefore two key points in the present which pointed backwards to the resurrection. First, Paul's conversion could be explained no other way than his having seen the risen Jesus. No other conclusion is sufficient to account for this change in the life of a non-believing enemy of the early church.[11] Second, the outreach of the early Jews to the Gentiles, spearheaded by the disciples, pointed to the directive beyond the exclusivism of Judaism. Apart from the directive issued by the risen Jesus,[12] there is no other probable reason for the Jewish mission to the Gentiles, since the Jews considered themselves as the sole theirs of God's blessings.[13] Therefore, these two events point unequivocally to the historical resurrection of Jesus.[14]

For these reasons, Luke stood at a critical point in that he was both able to receive knowledge of the Christ event of the past via the eyewitnesses and also to participate in the present and future fulfillment of this event. From his vantage point he realized that the resurrection was the only logical explanation for occurrences sich as the conversion of Paul and the Jewish outreach to the Gentiles with the gospel. Thus he encouraged Theophilus and his other readers to reason from these two events in the present to the resurrection of Jesus in the past, realizing that the present reality could only be explained by the factualness of the past event.[15]

After presenting Luke's position here, Fuller is careful to point out that the resurrection is the solution to these two present events only if the objections against the resurrection have been answered.[16] Earlier he entertained various alternate theories against the historical and verifiable nature of this event.[17] At this point, after a presentation of Luke's attempts to show that the resurrection was verifiable,[18] Fuller turns to the question of Paul's conversion. Alternate theories to explain this event are also investigated and   

refuted.[19]

Fuller's final investigation deals with Luke's arguments for the historicity of the resurrection. For Luke, history is view as having two sections, an "upper" and a "lower". In the first or lower section, all historical events are "natural" ones, as they originate from other historical events. But Supernatural events from the second, or higher section, do enter the first. These events could never be the results of occurrences in the first section, but to enter the first from the second "layer". Here they do not disturb other events, but also follow the patterns of history in the first section after they enter. Thus, for Luke, the resurrection can have a Supernatural origin and still be a historical event, known by historical reasoning.[20]

Luke's approach is found to be quite satisfying, according to Fuller. He agrees with Luke that the resurrection of Jesus can be verified. Given the possibility of believing in this event apart from historical reasoning or in holding that it is based upon evidences that can be historically verified, Fuller opts for the latter. The resurrection can be shown to be a historical event, both be the investigation of the original eyewitness testimony concerning the appearances and by viewing the fulfillment of this event in history in the conversion of Paul and in the Gentile mission. Belief in this event is thus based upon empirical claims.[21]

Fuller's approach to the resurrection sometimes appears to reach overly easy conclusions. This is most evident in his refutation of alternate view both with regard to Jesus' resurrection and in the appearance to Paul. Fuller desires to explore such theories[22] and does refute the major alternatives, as shown above. But the various refutations often appear irresolute and are generally, as with Pannenberg, not as thorough and strong as should be expected. As noted above, it is imperative that the alternative view are refuted as completely as possible in order to reveal if there is a probable naturalistic answer to the resurrection faith, which is rightly viewed as the central tenet of Christianity. It follows that the more thoroughly these alternative hypotheses are refuted, the more probable the resurrection becomes.

It is also possible that Fuller depends too much on the Gentile mission as demonstrating the resurrection, almost as if this conclusion could stand apart from any other investigation of the facts and alternate theories. It must be stressed once again that the Gentile mission can be a pointer to the resurrection only if other objectives to this event are completely answered. Fuller does recognize this, but seems to neglect the conclusion that of a valid alternate theory to the resurrection is found, a valid alternate theory would also have to be applied to the Gentile mission. We once again perceive the need to refute alternative theories as completely as possible.

In spite of these criticisms, however, it is most difficult to annul Fuller's contention that the resurrection can be demonstrated. He does provide enough evidence to establish this event as probable. In so doing he avoids the pitfalls of Pannenberg's theological system and still succeeds in showing how the literal resurrection of Jesus can be verified as a historical event.

Another theologian who likewise concludes that Jesus' resurrection is the best explanation for the facts is New Testament scholar George E. Ladd.[23] This scholar realizes that the modern concept of historical methodology argues for a reality in which God does not act in human history. Ever since the Enlightenment, the prevailing view has been that historical event must have origins which are grounded in history. Therefore, miracles with Supernatural origins are ruled out from the outset.[24]

In opposition to this view, Ladd proposes the use of the inductive method of historical inquiry, which allows for the conclusion which best fits the facts. Historical events which claim Supernatural intervention must be investigated to perceive if they are the best explanations for what is known to have occurred. Possible alternative theories must also be examined to see if these hypotheses are able to better account for the factual evidence.[25]

In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, Ladd points out that even if this occurrence were established as an actual event, it must still be counted as "nonhistorical" with regards to its origin. Since such an event would require a Supernatural origin, it could not be said to be historical in the sense that other events are, whose starting point is history itself.[26] Therefore, when judged by modern historical methodology, the resurrection is not a historical event. It is unlike other events in its unique entrance into history.[27]

However, looking at the resurrection only from the standpoint of its origin yields only a portion of the overall picture. For Ladd, historical inquiry cannot prove the resurrection, but it can establish it as the most probable explanation for what occurred. In fact, it is asserted that this event is the only explanation of the facts which adequately explains what is know to have happened.[28]

The belief that this event can be demonstrated to be the only possible solution which accounts for all of the facts is based upon the idea that there must be an adequate explanation for any event occurring in history.[29] To this end, Ladd enumerates the core historical facts surrounding the resurrection which are known to be credible.[30] Later he investigates the major alternative theories   

which seek to account for these facts by naturalistic means. Each is examined and critiqued. Ladd concludes that each theory fails to explain these resurrection facts.[31]

It should briefly be noted however, that one of the same problems which appears in Pannenberg and Daniel Fuller is also apparent in Ladd with regard to the naturalistic theories of the resurrection. Although Ladd provides a good critique of the subjective and objective vision theories and generally does better overall job here than Fuller, his treatment of the other theories is not developed thoroughly enough. In fact, the other theories are said to need very little refutation.[32] This lack of a more complete refutation is very important in that is must be ascertained as thoroughly as possible if the resurrection actually happened--if this Supernatural event is more probable than other explanations. The resurrection can be shown to be more probable when other alternate theories are more thoroughly shown to be less so.

As pointed out above, the explanation which best accounts for the historical facts is the one which is given the status of probability. Here Ladd arrive at the conclusion that Jesus' resurrection from the dead is the most probable explanation. It gives the most adequate explanation to the available facts. The only reason to reject this conclusion is that one has a closed mind to the occurrence of the Supernatural.[33]

Thus, while the resurrection differs from other occurrences in that if has a different origin into the historical processes, it is nevertheless an event in history. It therefore achieves the status of entering the historical process by means of a nonhistorical, Supernatural origin but still becoming a historical event.[34]

Ladd offers a logical approach to the resurrection which seeks to examine the most probable conclusion to this issue. However, he comes perilously close to making some of the some mistakes as did Karl Barth.

It has been state that Ladd explains the resurrection as being nonhistorical in that it enters history Supernaturally. Because of this origin, this event is not historical in the same sense as other events. Therefore, if evaluated in terms of the modern concept of history, the resurrection is not a historical fact.[35]

But Ladd moves even closer to Barth's position at other points. For instance, he concludes that even though the resurrection can be shown to be the best historical explanation for what occurred, it is still primarily perceptible to the "eye of faith". Thus, a historian looking at this event can only ascertain that something wonderful happened. The conclusion that Jesus was risen remains a tenet of faith. In fact, it is Ladd's opinion that even having actually seen the risen Jesus would still not prove the facticity of this event.[36]   

The appearances thus speak of the need for faith to approach this event.[37]

Admittedly, Ladd's position does differ from Barth's in other major facets. Unlike Barth, Ladd opts for investigating the historical evidence for the resurrection.[38] There is therefore an interaction between history and faith, as faith is logical and not simple a leap in the dark.[39] Also unlike Barth, Ladd admits that his faith would be seriously affected if an alternate theory were found to be plausible. Thus he takes considerable effort to refute the leading alternate theories against the resurrection.[40]

Probably the biggest difference with Barth is Ladd's contention that the resurrection can be demonstrated to be the most probable explanation for the facts. The only logical conclusion is that Jesus actually rose from the dead in history. Other naturalistic theories are found to be unacceptable. Here one finds that faith is reinforced   

by studying the evidences.[41] Barth opposed all such historical reasoning as an assistance to faith.[42]

In spite of the differences between these two theologians (especially Ladd's emphasis on the ability to demonstrate that the resurrection is the most probable conclusion), Ladd is still guilty of treating to the concept of metahistory when confronted be modern historiography. In so doing, history is split into two divisions--the secular and the divine.[43] As mentioned with regards to Barth, history knows of no such differentiation and no such concept of prehistory. Montgomery points out that by making the resurrection a part of this questionable realm of history and by asserting that it can be known primarily by faith, Ladd makes this event only perceptible in an meaningful way to the believer. Thus the non-Christian is not able to benefit from the evidence in favor of this event.[44]

Ladd's concern with pointing out that the resurrection would require a Divine origin has been noted above. But one can recognize that the origin of this event is Supernatural and still not resort to the concept of metahistory. Daniel Fuller[45] and C.S. Lewis,[46] for   

instance, have both done creditable jobs in showing how an event can have a Supernatural origin and still be normally connected with history once it enters the historical process. Thus, the matter of Divine causation should not automatically determine that the event must be metahistorical and that it must be known only be the processes of faith. Once it enters history, this event could partake of the historical pattern without impeding other natural events. Therefore, in spite of the origin of a Suerpnatural miracle, it would become a historically verifiable event upon entering history.

To agree with Barth (and others) in holding that a Supernatural event remains metahistorical even after it enters the historical process is, once again to divde history into the two component parts of the secular and the divine. But, as has been pointed out in the critique of Barth in chapter eight, this formulation is faulty. The criticisms directed against Barth will not be repeated here, as it has been sufficiently shown that such a concept is not valid.

To be sure, Ladd accepts critical examinations of the Christian faith. He believes that the inductive historical approach which accepts the event which best fits the evidence will demonstrate that the resurrection actually did occur.[47] Here he differs from Barth. But where Ladd does adopt Barth's metahistorical concept,[48] it must   

be agreed that he errs in committing some of the same mistakes as Barth. It the Supernatural is found to occur it must happen in historically verifiable history and not in metahistory. This is recognized by Pannenberg, Daniel Fuller, Lewis, and others.[49]

Ladd does not retreat completely into the realm of metahistory as does Barth. His emphasis on being able to demonstrate the resurrection is therefore, like the attempts of Pannenberg and Fuller, a positive aspect of his theology. All three theologians have succeeded investigating the facts before arriving at a final solution and all three scholars have found the resurrection to be the most probable explanation of what occurred. These findings are further strengthened by the failure of any naturalistic theories to adequately account for what happened.

However, it is not only certain theologians who are convinced of this conclusion. Paul Maier is an ancient historian who also believes that the resurrection is the most probably answer for what occurred.[50] Although Maier is not the only historian to reach such conclusions,[51]  

his approach is probably the most thorough from the standpoint of historical studies.[52]

Maier, the discipline of history is very valuable in helping to ascertain what occurred on the first Easter morning. While many ancient historical events are based upon only one source, and two sources often render an event "infallible", these are several ancient sources which point to the even of the resurrection of Jesus.[53] Even outside of the New Testament sources, there is important extrabiblical evidence especially for the empty tomb, and thus also for the resurrection.[54]

Maier points to such early historians as Tacitus and Josephus, who either infer or specifically mention the belief in the resurrection on on the part of the disciples and the early church. Tacitus' reference to first century Christianity in Rome and to the "superstition" which broke out in Judea after the death of Jesus[55] is perceived in imply the Christian teaching of the resurrection of Jesus.[56] Maier also deals with the problem of a possible interpolation in Josephus' more specific reference to the resurrection of Jesus[57] and find that there   

is very good reason to believe that Josephus did compose this statement concerning Christ minus a few of the more "Christianize" phrases. Thus we see that, in all probability, Josephus reported the early Christian belief in the resurrection and thereby acknowledge that the tomb was empty.[58]

The evidence presented by Josephus and implied by Tacitus is further corroborated by a few other sources. In the first century it was reported that the Jews spread the story that the disciples stole the body of Jesus in order to proclaim his resurrection from the dead. It is related that this story was still being voiced in   

the second half of the first century.[59] In formulating this totally inadequate view, the Jews not only did not succeed in offering a substantial objection to the resurrection, but in so doing they also admitted the empty tomb.

This Scriptural report is confirmed by second century scholar Justin Martyr, who reports in his Dialogue with Trypho (about 150 A.D.) that the Jews sent specially taught men across the Mediterranean Sea in order to counter the Christian claims of the resurrection. The explanation spread abroad by the Jews, once again, was that the disciples stole their dead Master's body. The Jews therefore continued to admit the empty tomb.[60]

As pointed out be Maier, the book of Acts gives further evidence that the tomb was empty on the first Easter morning. As the disciples and early Christians first began to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the Jewish authorities objected strenuously. But in several confrontations with the disciples, the Jewish elders never did what might have been most expected--they never led the disciples to the tomb for an investigation. Discovering the body of Jesus would of course have destroyed Christianity, as the Jewish leader desired to do anyway. The obvious reason that they did not try to locate the body is because they knew that the tomb was empty. Maier asserts that even the impartial historian must admit this historical evidence for the empty tomb.[61] This implicit admission further pointed to the empty tomb mentioned y Josephus. Matthew, Justin Martyr and also implied by Tacitus.

Maier also utilizes circumstantial evidence of two kinds. First, Christianity could not have had its beginnings at Jerusalem, as it did, if Jesus' grave was still occupied just outside the gates of the city. This is the last place that the church could have begun if Jesus' body was still in the tomb. Here an investigation of the   

grave would have revealed the body and Christianity would have been destroyed before it really began. The birth of the church in Jerusalem can only be explained by the fact that Jesus' tomb was indeed empty.[62]

Second, the spread of Christianity around the Mediterranean region all the way to Rome itself by slightly after the first half of the first century is simply an astonishing feat to have been accomplished in so short a period of time. Approximately thirty years after the death of Jesus this amazing expansion had taken place. It is Maier's view that such expansion of any teaching or philosophy is unparalleled in ancient times. Could the preaching of and belief in the resurrection have provided the impetus for such growth, as the New Testament attests?[63]

Another piece of evidence has only a possible connection directly with Jesus' resurrection. A valuable archaeological discovery revealed a marble slab found in Nazareth which contained a warning from Caesar to all who were caught robbing graves in Palestine. Other such Roman edicts against grave robbing prescribed a fine against the offender, whereas this edict condemns the offender to capital punishment. Most scholars believed that the inscription was the command of emperor Tiberius or emperor Claudius. Why was the punishment   

to be so great in Palestine? Could this command have been prompted by the Jewish report of Jesus' stolen body or by the preaching of the resurrection?[64]

Theological evidence is also cited by Maier in his effort to deal historically with the resurrection. This historian points to at least three other factors which lead to the final conclusion. First, the aforementioned change in the disciples caused them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. Such a radical difference must be based upon some real experience and points to an actual encounter with the risen Lord, just as the New Testament claims. Second, the very existence of the Church points to some event which is worthy of such an enterprise. The New Testament claims this event was the resurrection. Third, there must have been a reason for the early church to have changed the day of meeting from Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, to Sunday, the Lord's day. Again, the New Testament claims that the resurrection caused this change in order to commemorate that day on which Jesus had risen.[65]

The last type of evidence employed by Maier is of both a historical and theological nature. Maier entertains the objections raised by eight different naturalistic theories which are aimed at disproving the resurrection of Jesus. Each is then investigated and refuted by the available historical data. He finds that all of   

these naturalistic theories fail to provide a valid historical answer to what happened on the first Easter day. They must be rejected strictly on the basis of historical inquiry, as well as by theological reasoning.[66]

As for the question of discrepancies in the resurrection accounts, Maier admits that they do exist, as in the rest of the gospels. However, he holds that it is illogical to conclude that this event did not occur because of these variations. Other historical reports also contain similar discrepancies and there is no question about the events they report. For instance, the reports of the great fire of Rome offer even greater conflicts than do the resurrection accounts. Some reports claim that the entire city three sectors of the city were destroyed. There are also differences of opinion as to how the fire started. In spite of these problems, the great first of Rome is unquestionably a historical fact. In a similar way the resurrection of Jesus is also a historical fact. The various sources way the resurrection of Jesus is also a historical fact. The various sources simply point to the different traditions, all of which provide evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead.[67]

Maier concludes that the will not to believe has kept many from accepting the historical evidence on the question of the resurrection.[68] The empty tomb is found definitely to be a datum of history according   

to the laws of historical research.[69] This conclusion is even strengthened by the "hostile evidence" which has been presented here. The strongest type of historical evidence is facts which are stated about an event by a source which is hostile to that event. When such a source claims that an event is factual when it is not advantageous to do so, this fact is in all probability a genuine one. The empty tomb is attested directly or indirectly by Josephus, Tacitus and by the witness of Matthew, Luke (Acts) and Justin Martyr as to Jewish practice with regards to the resurrection. Such Jewish and Roman evidence is hostile evidence, for it was not advantageous to either the Jews or to the Romans to acknowledge the empty tomb. Other historical and theological evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, has also pointed to this fact. Therefore it can be asserted that the empty tomb is historical fact.[70]

From the empty tomb Maier then argues to the probability if the resurrection. Evidence such as that presented above (especially the threefold theological proof and the refutation of the naturalistic theories) points to the resurrection of Jesus. The historical evidence is not as strong as that for the empty tomb, but the evidence on the periphery of this event points to the probability that the event itself is historical.[71]

Maier has added a very valuable dimension to the study of the resurrection of Jesus in that he has pursued this subject from the standpoint of history. He thus approaches this question from the standpoint of the historian looking at theology. In his work, then, Maier certainly does not look at this question as one for theology only. Yet he arrives at the conclusion that the empty tomb and resurrection are historical events according to all probability.

Admittedly, his treatment of the naturalistic theories and refutation of them could have been developed more. It has already been shown above how important a complete refutation of alternative theories is in order to more fully determine how probable the resurrection is in actuality. Maier does a fairly creditable job in this respect, but still does not treat these naturalistic hypotheses as thoroughly as is possible.

Perhaps some well object that his treatment of the theological question did not deal with theology enough. Yet this letter criticism does not rightfully allpy since his whole purpose is to approach this event as a historian and not as a theologian. Thus he cannot be judged for this second point.

Therefore, his overall effort has been a very successful one. He has logically and historically shown that naturalistic theories do not solve the historically shown that naturalistic theories do not solve the historical needs on the one hand and that valid historical pointers to the resurrection do exist on the other hand.[72] This   

combination makes a strong case for the historicity of the resurrection.[73]

After investigating the claims of three scholars who believe that the resurrection can be demonstrated, it must be concluded that the position of Daniel Fuller, Ladd and Maier are positive in their overall approaches and conclusions. We have found that these three also present some difficulties. However, a logical approach that is both historical and theological reveals that these portions are better supported by the evidence than the others which were discussed earlier. It yet remains for us to finally ascertain if this third possibility of demonstrating the resurrection is the one that best fits the facts.

PART 3

An Evaluation of the Solutions to the
Question of the Resurrection of Jesus

Chapter XI. An Evaluation of Possibility Number One

Chapters five and six investigated the possibility that the resurrection of Jesus did not actually occur. In chapter five it was shown that the most influential position here was held by historian and philosopher David Hume. His essay "Of Miracles" set the stage for other views which also rejected the resurrection as an event, usually because it was held that such events were impossible from the outset because they contradict the laws of nature.

It was apparent especially in chapter six that Protestant liberalism followed Hume in this position. In fact, John Herman Randall Jr. explains that Protestant liberalism as a whole followed Hume in this line reasoning. Hume's influence extended not only to the nineteenth century liberals, but also on to this present day where men of this theological persuasion have often continued to reject the miraculous, based upon this essay.[1]

Other scholars also note that Hume's essay became the definitive stance for liberalism with regards to all miracles. Smith agrees with Randall in this assertion.[2] Montgomery likewise affirms the fact that both nineteenth and twentieth century theology derived its belief in the impossibility of miracles from Hume.[3]

 It is interesting that these liberal theologians themselves also acknowledged that their views were based upon the stance taken by Hume. For instance, in nineteenth century liberalism, David Strauss was explicitly willing to acknowledge this dependence. For this scholar, Hume's essay had forever settled the question of the miraculous. Supernatural, nature-contradicting miracles simply do not occur.[4]

Other liberals also followed the position taken by Strauss in that they also favored Hume's position against miracles. Friedrich Schleiermacher, like Hume, asserted that miracles are found where there it little knowledge of the laws of nature. Miracles actually oppose nature and the idea of the miraculous must be abandoned.[5] Heinrich Paulus likewise followed Hume in believing that miracles are usually said to have occurred where there is a deficient knowledge of nature. Scripture is mistaken in claiming that miracles did occur and when the workings of nature are revealed, this mistake becomes even clearer.[6] which break the laws of nature.[7] For Ernst Renan, Jesus believed that miracles were common, not because they actually were, but because he was unfamiliar with the uniformity of nature's   

laws.[8]

 Later in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, liberal theologians were still following Hume and his reasons for rejecting miracles. Otto Pfleiderer held a notion that was very common, especially since Hume--that the events of nature follow an unchanging regularity and order.[9] Adolf von Harnack added his voice to the growing list of scholars who accepted, along with Hume, the belief that ancient people believed the miraculous because they did not understand the laws of nature. They did not realize that events which interrupt nature never occur. Thus, miraculous cannot be believed.[10]

In the twentieth century, as mentioned above, liberal theologians continued to accept Hume's position on miracles as the definitive one. Rudolf Bultmann accepts the view for miracles. Because of the natural laws, the universe is closed to Supernatural workings. Thus miracles are no longer acceptable in today's world.[11] For Paul Tillich, no events such as miracles can break the laws of nature.[12] John A.T. Robinson holds that the Biblical miracles are myths because natural processes cannot be interrupted by God's intervention. The New Testament    

cosmology must therefore be abandoned.[13]

It is quite obvious from this foregoing survey that both nineteenth and twentieth century liberal theologians have followed Hume in rejecting all possibility for the miraculous. That Hume was the primary inspiration for this viewpoint is also pain.

Yet it has been shown above that Hume's thesis failed to provide an adequate prohibitive against the occurrence of miracles. Four major objections were raised against this view. Briefly, it was first discovered that Hume utilized a series of logical errors, especially circular reasoning and begging the question. This is especially noticeable in his definition of miracle and in his assumption of the negative value of all experience of miracles, when just such an investigation value of all experience might demonstrate the probability of a miracle. Second, Hume arbitrarily rejects miracles even where he recognizes a high credibility for the Supernatural event described. Third, Hume rejects miracles because of a faulty view of the uniformity of nature which he himself had rejected in other works. This incorrect view of nature is the center of his polemic and must therefore be rejected. Fourth, in spite of Hume's agreements with modern thought in several aspects of his work, he reverted to a pre-modern stance with respect to his view of miracles. Although he rejected the then popular view of a closed universe and opted for the use of probabilities, he inconsistently rejected miracles from the outset because they were believed to be impossible. He also ignored any probabilities for   

miracles and thus ruled them out in a way which is not consistent with the above modern concepts which he accepted. Here he is pre-modern and in error.[14]

All ten of the theologians just surveyed also agree in accepting the view that the universe is closed to all occurrences of Supernatural miracles. These events are generally conceived of as being impossible because they oppose the workings of nature. Ancient people who accepted such reports as true were often said to have done so because they did not understand nature properly.[15] It is therefore more possible to verify the contention of Randall, Montgomery and Smith given above that all of liberalism as a whole followed Hume in these conclusions.[16] J. Gresham Machen concurs with these scholars that liberalism did indeed agree in abandoning belief in the miraculous.[17]

Because both nineteenth and twentieth century liberalism followed Hume's reasoning in its rejection of the miraculous, it is thus possible to ascertain that these theologians were, like Hume, also in error concerning these views. For these reasons it is not surprising to find that almost the same criticisms of Hume which were related in    

chapter five with regard to the use of improper presuppositions and an incorrect methodology and concerning the use of a faulty view of the uniformity of nature also apply to these other scholars. As Hume was found to be in error in these concepts, so also is liberal theology likewise in error here. Miracles cannot be ruled out be such an approach.

A second indication that the method employed by theological liberalism since Hume's time is in error concerns the naturalistic theories which have been suggested in order to account for the resurrection of Jesus. Such hypotheses were necessary in order to account for the resurrection of Jesus. Such hypotheses were necessary in order to explain an event which had already been reject a la Hume. The major theories which have been formulated against the resurrection have been discussed above and refuted.[18] An investigation of each demonstrated that they could not properly account for what is known to have occurred. Each can be adequately refuted historically, logically and theologically.[19]

That none of the naturalistic theories adequately accounts for the resurrection of Jesus is indeed an extremely acute point against theological liberalism's stance on the resurrection. Our endeavor has been to find the historical conclusion which is most probable--the one which best accounts for what is known to have occurred. Yet, none of even the "strongest" alternative theories is even persuasive, let alone being probable. A more adequate solution is definitely   

needed here.

AA third indication that the liberal theological position on the resurrection is incorrect is the fact that even those who formulated naturalistic theories against this event joined in the decimation of other "rival" theories. Thus it was shown earlier how Strauss and Renan (among others) were both strongly opposed to Paulus' swoon theory. In fact, it is usually believed that Strauss himself gave the final death-blow to the theory, which destroyed it for good. However, Strauss' vision theory was opposed strenuously be such scholars as Schleiermacher, Paulus and Keim. Once again it was a liberal theologian, Keim, who is generally considered to be the one whose liberal arguments disposed of Strauss' theory.[20]

While such opposition by these of a similar theological stance surely does not automatically prove these theories to be wrong, the indications are that each felt that the other naturalistic theories were in error. This points to a real dissatisfaction with such theories on the part of these scholars. None could convince even those of his own theological persuasion that his view was the most probable one.[21]

There are thus three very important reasons for holding that the answer to the resurrection which is suggested by Hume and by all of theological liberalism fails to account adequately for what is known to have occurred. First, much of the criticism directed against Hume in chapter five also applies to liberalism's approach to this event. Thus the entire methodology and the presuppositions which are used are invalid, as is the faulty view of the uniformity of nature. The resurrection and other miracles cannot properly be negated by these methods. This point alone is devastating to these positions. Second, the fact that no naturalistic theory adequately accounts for what occurred is an even stronger point against Hume and liberalism. That no probability can be established for any such alternative theory demonstrates that none of these hypotheses can be accepted as the probable solution. Third, not even those who reject the resurrection agree that any theory adequately account for the evidence. Rather, several scholars were content to destroy the arguments for theories which opposed their own, clearly revealing the inherent weaknesses of each.

It is popular in contemporary theology to deny Jesus' literal resurrection and at the same time to affirm that in some way he can still be said to be alive today. For instance, Bultmann contends that although Jesus did not actually rise from the dead,[22] he still meets us through the words of preaching as the risen Lord. Thus, while Jesus   

himself did not actually rise from the dead as the New Testament affirms, we can still encounter the risen Lord today by faith in the words which are preached. In fact it is only by this mode that the resurrection becomes present and it thereby become possible to meet the risen Jesus.[23]

Marxsen likewise accepts such a formulation. Although Jesus is dead, his offer of faith has not lost its validity[24] because Jesus lives today in the content of Christian preaching. Thus Jesus' activity continues beyond the grave. He shows himself to be alive because men still continue to respond to him in faith.[25] For Marxsen, Jesus' resurrection is thus not the raising of the dead man from the grave, but rather the crucified and dead Jesus still influencing men to believe even today.[26]  

The purpose behind such theological maneuvers is obvious. The desire is to be able to continue to teach that the Christian faith is still valid for modern man even though many are still inclined to reject the resurrection as an actual event in history. In this way traditional beliefs which in the New Testament are a result of the resurrection can be confirmed in a way that is more harmonious    

with modern thought.

However, this position is quite obviously laden with several incredibilities. There are at least two valid reasons for rejecting such a theological stance.

First, such an understanding of Jesus' resurrection, whereby he is said to be alive even though he did not literally rise from the dead, is contrary to the earliest Christian understanding of this event. The Jewish conception of resurrection involved the raising of the body. The first century Christians likewise believed in the resurrection of a spiritual body as clearly shown above, and Jesus was believed to have literally risen in this way. Therefore, to assert that this modern view is close to the New Testament is ridiculous.[27] For the earliest believers, Jesus was said to be alive at present, but because he had literally risen from the dead, not because his influence had simply continued beyond the grave in spite of being dead.

As asserted by Maier, the modern concept that the Christian faith would still be valid even is Jesus had never risen bodily would be nothing but nonsense to Paul and other first century Christians.[28] Brown agrees, adding that formulations such as Marxsen's are of little value if they do not do justice to the New Testament stance, which allows only one interpretation of the resurrection--a literal resuscitation.[29] Ladd states this well:

The New Testament knows nothing about the persistence of Jesus' personality apart from the resurrection of the body. Neither   

does the New Testament know the 'resurrection of the spirit' to heaven…It his body is mouldering in a Palestinian tomb, he cannot be the exalted Lord…[30]

Admittedly, the New Testament concept of Jesus' resurrection is not self-vindicating. But the point here is a crucial one. The testimony of Paul is that if Jesus did not rise literally in a spiritual body in such a way that he could appear to others, then he did not rise at all (I Cor. 15:1-19). This is the choice which is open to us. Either Jesus rose literally or he cannot be said to be alive in any other than in a spiritual sense. To take a middle ground which claims that Jesus is alive but that he did not rise from the dead is not open to us. The earlier Christians in particular would not recognize such a compromising belief. If Jesus was dead, Christian theology could not be true at all. If Jesus is dead, neither can contemporary theology hold to the other affirmations and doctrines of the Christian faith. They all stand or all together.

Second, logic alone dictates that this modern concept of the resurrection is valid. As Ladd firmly states, if Jesus did not rise bodily from the tomb, then he is still dead.[31] It is plain that if a person is dead he cannot still be alive unless one is speaking of spiritual immortality or of the continuation of one's personality as he is remembered by others or some such understanding. Apart from just such a resurrection as the New Testament proclaims, Jesus cannot be said to be any more alive than anyone else who has ever died. Apart from a literal resurrection, he could still be influencing people today only in the sense of the continued affect of his life and teachings upon others. But to say that Jesus is risen because of   

such spiritual immortality or influence is plainly illogical and inaccurate. It also involves a gross misappropriation of words.

The early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection could not have survived if Jesus' body was still rotting in the grave.[32] In fact, no part of the Christian faith could be considered true if Jesus had never risen from the dead. Ladd states this fact quite well:

But if Jesus is dead,[33] his entire message is negated. If he is dead, he cannot come in his Kingdom and its blessings is also a delusion, for the presence of the Kingdom-blessings was but an anticipation of the eschatological Kingdom to be established by the heavenly Son of Man…If Jesus is dead, his entire message about the Kingdom of God is a delusion. If Jesus is dead, the heart of the New Testament Christology is also delusion.[34]

For these reasons, the modern formulation[35] whereby it is held that Jesus is alive even though he did not literally rise from the dead cannot be valid. Such an interpretation does not coincide with the New Testament understanding of this event and so cannot be understood as such. The New Testament presents a "do or die" attitude as regards the literal resurrection of Jesus. Only if it occurred literally can we hold Christian theology to be valid. Any other understanding of this event is therefore not possible if one still desires to embrace Christian doctrine.

In addition, this modern formulation is quite illogical. A dead man who did not rise from the dead is no more alive than any other dead individual. Such a man could only influence people by the inspiration of his past life and teachings. But such a person has not "risen" and is not alive any more than any other person. His present spiritual existence would therefore not be unique. Only by a literal resurrection can an individual be proclaimed as being risen.

Thus we must conclude that David Hume and theological liberalism as a whole (both nineteenth and twentieth century) do not offer a valid approach to the resurrection of Jesus. The methodology and presuppositions which are used have been shown to be in error, as is the correct conception of the uniformity of nature. Without these faulty premises the subsequent conclusions which were postulated against the resurrection most assuredly cannot be held. Also, the naturalistic theories which were preposed as alternate suggestions to account for the belief in the resurrection were shown to be inadequate to account for the known facts. These theories fall short historically, logically and theologically. In addition, liberal theologians themselves showed that the alternate theories were not valid by demonstrating the inadequacies of each one.

It was likewise determined that the popular modern understanding of Jesus as being "risen" and "alive" today in spite of his having never risen from the dead is also a totally inadequate conception. It must be rejected, as shown above, in that it violates the earliest Christian understanding of this event and because it is quite illogical.

It is therefore necessary that the answer given by Hume and by  

contemporary liberal theology since his time rejected as an inadequate solution to the question of the resurrection. None of the naturalistic theories are event historically plausible, let alone probable, and must therefore be abandoned. This theory that the resurrection did not occur thus fails at the crucial point of not being able to formulate a probably alternate theory of otherwise to properly rule out the resurrection. Any alternative theory such as these which have been examined and refuted here must therefore be rejected.[36]

The questions discussed in this chapter are very important ones. All of Christian theology relies on the validity of the resurrection and it is therefore imperative to understand if this event is an actual occurrence. To say that Jesus is risen or alive, but that he did not literally rise from the dead just compounds the dilemma. It is inadequate as an answer to the question of whether Jesus really rose. It is our desire to evaluate the other possibilities in order to ascertain if they can come any closer to a probable answer.

Chapter XII. And Evaluation of Possibility Number Two

In chapters seven and eight the possibility was investigated that the resurrection of Jesus actually occurred but that it cannot be demonstrated as such. It was shown in chapter seven that the most influential position here was that of theologian and philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. It also became obvious, especially in chapter eight, that many others have followed him in this belief.

It has just been found that the conclusion that the resurrection did not occur fails in that it can neither provide a probable solution to the facts or otherwise properly negate this event. Thus an answer must be found elsewhere.

Kierkegaard popularized the conclusion that the resurrection (and other miracles) actually happened, but that this event cannot be proven to have occurred. It can only be accepted by faith. It is solely by faith and not by any type of demonstration whatsoever that we come to know God.

This position was further developed by Karl Barth, who clearly accepted the resurrection as a historical event which actually occurred. But like Kierkegaard, this event cannot be proven to have occurred at all. However, Barth followed earlier theologians like Martin Kahler in relegating the resurrection to other than totally objective history. This event was believed to have occurred in a nonvarifiable type of history which is removed from objective tests such as historical investigation.

Many theologians followed Barth in these views. Today it is    

quite popular to conceive of the resurrection as a real event, but one which is not verifiable.

The rationale behind such a theory is apparently to be able to affirm the resurrection as a real event for faith but at the same time to remove this event from the critical eye of modern historiography. Thus it appears that Barth's intention (and those who agree with him) is to remove the Christian faith from this realm of modern historical methodology and thus to keep Christianity from any possibility of being critically investigated.[1] Such methods of verification are viewed as being opposed to the New Testament presentation of faith.[2]

In spite of Barth's seeming desire to "preserve" Christianity from all such critical investigations, his formulation is still quite problematical. It has already been found in chapter three above that history is required to investigate all possible facts surrounding an event in order to find the most probable conclusion. It was concluded that neither science or history can rule out the miraculous a priori. Rather, all of the facts must be thoroughly investigated with the conclusion which best supports the facts being viewed as the probable one. Therefore a miracle such as the resurrection might be found to   

be the probable conclusion and thus be viewed as an actual historical event. For this reason, Barth need not feel that the facts of Christianity must be preserved from historical or other types of investigation. If these facts are found to be probable they will thereby defend themselves. Otherwise such an event would not merit that faith which the New Testament asserts is dependent upon it. Barth is therefore in error in recommending such a procedure as being essential.

This last criticism of Barth's method is in addition to the other major problems which have been pointed out in chapters seven and eight with regards to both Kierkegaard's and Barth's position (and also concerning those scholars who follow them). Briefly, there were three major criticisms directed against Kierkegaard. First, even Kierkegaard himself is not successful in building a theological system that is not first built on some reasonable foundation. For instance, his polemic for faith and subjectivity is somewhat rational, as he makes use of both logic and reason. Each his convictions were shown to be rationally-based. In fact, his entire system could not be formulated apart from reason. Thus it is shown to be impossible to have faith apart from some sort of rational basis. Second, since faith is construed as being temporally first and reason is given no real place by this scholar, it is not possible to know if such faith is valid. Since there would be no objective criteria by which to examine the Christian faith, we cannot know it it is correct in its beliefs or not. Faith must therefore be testable in order to determine if it is valid. Otherwise one never ascertain whether he

was right in this faith and whether his belief was trustworthy and factual, or if it was simply spurious.[3]

From the first two criticisms of Kierkegaard it becomes apparent that 1) reason is temporally first and 2) faith needs an objective foundation so that it can be verified. A third criticism of Kierkegaard naturally follows from these first two. Since some reasonable verification is therefore needed upon which faith can be built, a historical examination of the claims of Christianity is the most likely procedure. At the rate, such a reasonable method could not be opposed since just such an objective basis is needed.[4]

From this treatment of Kierkegaard, some of the weaknesses of this proposed approach to the resurrection can be mire clearly seen. There is definitely a need for a more objective approach to this event.

In addition to the one given above, four major criticisms were also presented concerning Barth's modification of this method.[5] Briefly, the first criticism concerns Barth's development of the idea that Jesus' resurrection occurred in prehistory or parahistory. It involves a twofold critique. History knows of no such concept   

where events can occur on the boundary or outskirts of history. This realm cannot be measured by historical methods and is thus invalid. Additionally, Barth allows no verification for events in prehistory, but still insists that they are actually historical. However, actual history can be examined and investigated. It this resurrection occurred in history it must be open to such investigation or it cannot be referred to as objective history. Second, like Kierkegaard, Barth's method allows no means whereby the Christian faith can be examined. Thus once again, it cannot be determined if this faith is valid or not. To remove Christianity from any investigation is to make it so subjective that no one could actually its trustworthiness. One could not be sure whether his belief was factual.

Third, Barth accepts the death of Jesus as an event which occurred in real history in the modern sense of the word, while the resurrection is relegated to prehistory. Yet both events are believed to be revelatory. Barth is therefore illogical to declare that God does not reveal Himself in objective, verifiable events. Since He did so at the cross, He could also do so with the resurrection. Thus the resurrection could also logically be history in the modern verifiable, objective sense. The fourth criticism of Barth is that he has clearly been shown to be wrong in his belief that the New Testament does not ever try to demonstrate the resurrection. To the contrary, such a procedure occurs several times.[6] Thus he cannot claim  

Scriptural backing for his method.[7]

For the reasons stated here, this second possible solution to the resurrection also fails to account properly for the facts which are shown to be true. Admittedly, it is laden with fewer problems that the first method discussed in the last chapter. For instance, this solution is not required to offer any naturalistic alternative views concerning the resurrection. But the approach taken by Kierkegaard, Barth and others cannot adequately deal with all of the criticisms raised here and must therefore be rejected as an incorrect treatment of Jesus' resurrection.

As concluded in chapters seven and eight, Kierkegaard and Barth both agree that faith in Christ is the most important element of Christianity. The same was also found to be true in this study in chapter four above, with faith as the more crucial element being built upon a reasonable look at the facts. Therefore, their conception of faith can remain valid even thought the methodology by which they reach this conclusion is faulty. This is because the same conclusion, namely the importance of faith, can also be reached objectively.[8]

For both Kierkegaard and Barth, the center of Christianity is salvation by faith and commitment to Jesus as the Christ. Salvation   

is achieved when an individual is convicted that he is a sinner and experiences a complete change in his life by repentance. This spiritual experience consists of the individual trusting the death of Christ on the cross as a substitutionary death to pay for his sins and surrendering his life to God in faith as a result. Both of these theologians also stress the subsequent commitment and the changed life which will result from a genuine conversion.[9]

Because of the aforementioned study of the reason-faith relationship, these conclusions concerning the primary importance of faith must therefore be accepted as valid. They faithfully represent the New Testament position on this subject and will be found to be even more trustworthy if the resurrection is found to be an actual historical event because a firm, objective grounding will then have been given to this concept of faith.

Chapter XIII. An Evaluation of Possibility Number Three

The third possible solution to the resurrection of Jesus was investigated in chapters nine and ten, a solution which postulated that the resurrection actually occurred and that it can be demonstrated to be a historical event. It was determined in chapter nine that Wolfhart Pannenberg is probably the best known representative of this viewpoint. Several other scholars likewise hold this view without following Pannenberg in these conclusions. In chapter ten the views of three other key scholars who also believe that the resurrection can be demonstrated to have occurred in history were also enumerated.

Generally speaking, each of these four scholar holds that history must be investigated in order to ascertain if the resurrection occurred. All agree that one must not be prejudiced concerning what is possible or impossible in such an investigation. The only way to ascertain if a Supernatural event such as the resurrection has actually occurred is to examine the facts and then decide which conclusion best fits there facts. This conclusion is to be accepted as the most probable one and is thus to be viewed as a historical fact, even if it is a miracle.

After an examination of the available evidence, each of these four scholars arrives at the conclusion that the resurrection is the event that best explains what happened. The method varies a little between each of these men, but the primary result is the same. The facts are best explained by the resurrection and as this is the most

probable solution, it is regarded as historical fact.[1]

In spite of the logical approach taken by these scholars, some difficulties were detected in their work. This was especially true of Pannenberg's thesis. First, his concept of God was discovered to be quite arbitrary, lacking a sufficient amount of demonstration. Contrary to Pannenberg's belief, Jesus does not speak exclusively of God's working from the future. To hold such a position one must already have assumed that God works in this way in order to interpret all verses in light of this idea. This would be especially difficult with the verses which were shown to teach the opposite view. Second, in spite of Pannenberg's conception of the indirect Self-revelation of God, it was shown that the Jews also viewed revelation as occurring directly through both the spoken word of the prophets and the written word of Scripture. Thus it cannot be held that the indirect revelation of God in history was the only means of revelation accepted by the Jews.

Third, it was found that Pannenberg's overall system lacks proof a several crucial points. It is especially in the formulation of his seven theses that there is a decided lack of evidence for his views. This proclivity is perhaps best evidenced by the connection of both revelation and the fact of Jesus with the end of history. Several   

problems which arise as a result of these formulations were pointed out above. In fact, Pannenberg's theological framework as a whole, although interesting, sometimes lacks the demonstration needed to establish it beyond the realm of philosophical speculation. Fourth, Pannenberg's treatment of the resurrection fails in tow respects. First, he firmly accepts this occurrence as a historical event, but rejects any strongly objective appearances of Jesus even when the evidence indicates otherwise. But it was shown that such conclusions are unwarranted and that the witness of the New Testament is to the contrary. Nevertheless, this scholar does indeed believe that Jesus actually did rise from the dead and appear to his disciples.

The second part of this fourth criticism concerns Pannenberg's treatment of the naturalistic theories which have been composed in opposition to the resurrection. With the exception of the subjective vision theory, his critique of these alternate theories is not as strong as it could have been. Yet it is imperative that these naturalistic views be refuted as conclusively as possible. Since the resurrection is the central element in the Christian faith, it is essential to ascertain if this event actually occurred. Therefore, a complete refutation of the naturalistic hypotheses would allow a more accurate decision on the probability of the resurrection. Also, the more thorough the refutation of these alternate view is, the easier it is both to conclude that there are no views which are more probable than Jesus' resurrection as a historical event and the more probable the resurrection is shown to be.

It was likewise found that Daniel Fuller, Ladd and Maier also fell prey to this last criticism. Like Pannenberg, these three scholars were also successful in refuting the major alternative theories.   

But also like Pannenberg, seldom was a complete refutation given. Once again, a more thorough and entire negation of the rival views on the part of all four scholars would reveal even more positively if there were any probable solutions other than the literal resurrection of Jesus. The more complete this investigation and refutation is, the easier it is to verify that the resurrection is the most probable answer and the more probable this event itself becomes. Since all four scholars endeavor to establish the probability of this event, the object should of course be to do so as accurately and thoroughly as possible.[2]

In addition to this one common criticism made of all four of these scholars concerning their incomplete treatments of the alternate theories, other more individual criticisms were pointed out above. But in all cases, these critiques did not annul the defense of the resurrection which was presented by each of the four. In fact, it is quite difficult to annul approaches when it is realized that to successfully abrogate them, one would have to propose a more probable naturalistic solution to the resurrection.[3]

Significantly, it was not only negative evidence (such as that which was presented against the alternate theories) which was ascertained to favor the resurrection as an actual even in history. It was also shown that there were positive facts and pointers which also indicate   

that this is the most probable explanation of the facts. For example, Daniel Fuller points to the conversion of Paul and the existence of the Gentile mission. Maier presented historical evidence of various types to corroborate his position.

It is for these reasons that the third possible approach to the resurrection, which proposes that this event actually occurred and that it can be demonstrated, presents itself as the best solution to the question of Jesus' resurrection. As will now be shown, the conclusion which best fits the facts is that the literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead can be demonstrated to have occurred as a historical event. The following discussion in the last chapter is not dependent upon the work of these four scholars discussed here, but still arrives at a similar conclusion.

Chapter XIV. A Concluding Demonstration

It has been ascertained that the literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the historical event which best accounts for the known facts surrounding this occurrence. The objective in this chapter is to present one final demonstration by this writer that this event is the most probable. As explained earlier in this work, the word "demonstration" is used here not in the sense of "absolute proof", but rather as a reference to probabilities. Thus, it is asserted that the factual evidence is strong enough to warrant the conviction that the resurrection is the most probable for what occurred.

A. Historical Method

Modern historiography usually rules out the possibility of the miraculous a priori. According to this method, history is closed to the Supernatural workings of God in events such as miracles. In spite of the popularity of this procedure, it must be recognized that such a position is a historical presupposition.

This modern concept of history emerged from the intellectual environment beginning in the Enlightenment and continued on to nineteenth century historical Positivism. Miracles such as the resurrection were ruled out from the outset, often because of a supposed conflict with the concept of history. The result was an A priori rejection of all Supernatural intervention into history.[1]

One might wonder how historical this approach really is in   

actuality. In the case of a miracle-claim, the prevailing technique is to dismiss the possibility of it even before any investigation of the facts.

However, such was found to be an incorrect procedure in chapters two and three above. Science cannot rule out the miraculous a priori because the universe is no longer conceived of in terms of a closed system in which all events happen by means of a prescribed regularity. Science therefore cannot know beforehand that such miracles cannot occur. There can thus be no rejection of miracles such as the resurrection simply by referring to a modern world in which such Supernatural events do not occur.

In fact, modern science is quite limited as to what it can say about the resurrection. The scientific method is obviously concerned with measurable quantities. Concept such as peace, freedom or love cannot, of course, be measured in a test tube. Neither can a Geiger counter be used to verify the existence of Julius Caesar. In other words, empirical science has no instruments or other mean whereby past history can be investigated. In addition, history is nonrepeatable, which is also required in order for science to make a proper judgment. Therefore, all that can be ascertained via empirical science is that the resurrection cannot be negated because of the scientific world view. Rather, an impartial historical investigation of the facts is needed to see if this event actually occurred.

This is where the science of history emerges as the more proper method to be used in this instance. As math science, it was also shown that neither can history employ the scientific world view to rule out miracles a priori. We are thus faced once again with the  

need to historically investigate all of the facts to find the most probable solution. Modern historiography cannot negate the resurrection as a historical event without such an examination. It is clearly impossible (as shown in chapters two and three) to properly dismiss such a miracle-claim beforehand.

In this work, the historical method which is employed is therefore one which investigates the facts before a decision is made as to what can or did occur. The status of probability is given to the event which is the best explanation for the known facts. Such an inductive approach is actually more "scientific" in its endeavor to base the final conclusion upon a thorough historical investigation of what is known to have occurred.

B. The Historical Facts

Throughout this work, many references have been made to the known historical facts an how the resurrection is the best explanation for these events. What are these facts? What are the events and circumstances which are known to have happened in conjunction with the belief that Jesus rose from the dead?

Surrounding the resurrection event are many facts which are usually recognized as being historical by most scholars who deal with this subject. It is known that Jesus actually died[2] and that he was buried. Also historical is the fact that, after the death of their Master, the disciples were extremely depressed and disillusioned.   

For them, Jesus' ministry had been ended prematurely by the Roman cross. It is unanimously agreed that they were thus quite discouraged and downcast. Afterwards, as confounding as it was, the tomb in which Jesus was laid was later found to be empty.[3]

Very soon afterwards, history relates that the disciples had several experiences which they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus. After these experiences there was a drastic change in their disposition--a transformation which made them bold preachers even in the very cite where Jesus was crucified and buried. The result of this preaching was the birth of the Christian church, which began to meet on Sunday rather than on the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). Lastly, it is an unquestionable historical fact that one of the most avid persecutors of the Christian church, Saul of Tarsus, was converted to Christianity by what he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.[4]

From this summary, a minimum of ten historical facts can be gleaned which are held as being historical be the majority of theologians today. 1) Jesus actually died on the cross and 2) was buried in a tomb. 3) The disciples were extremely disillusioned and disconcerted by the death of Jesus, being bereft to all hope. 4) The same tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty just a few days later, probably with the graveclothes still inside. 5) The disciples   

were the recipients of several experiences which they believed were resurrection appearances of Jesus. 6) Afterwards, the disciples experienced a complete transformation, being willing to die for their new faith. 7) The resultant preaching often took place in Jerusalem, the exact place where Jesus was killed and buried. 8) This preaching led to the birth of the church, 9) featuring Sunday as the most important day of worship, instead of Saturday. 10) Later, Paul was converted to Christianity by means of an experience which he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

These, then, are the historical facts which must be dealt with and explained. The gospels and New Testament as a whole agree with all ten of these either explicitly or implicitly. None of them is denied in any of the writings of the New Testament. In addition, as we have seen at various points in this work, the majority of theologians accept these as historical facts as well. It is therefore evident that the explanation which is given to the resurrection must also account for these events. The answer that is postulated in these early writings that Jesus literally rose from the dead. Any alternate explanation must explain all of these facts adequately and still cross the hardest hurdle by proposing a probable naturalistic theory for the appearances to the disciples. Thus, one who would deny the resurrection must both adequately explain all of these facts and offer a probable alternate view to the appearances. But as we have seen, no such probable alternative views exist, as even the more popular naturalistic theories fail to properly account for the facts which occurred.[5]

The enumerating of these facts also makes it evident that there are positive historical facts which support a belief in the resurrection as well. This event therefore does not only depend upon what Ladd refers to as "anti-criticism",[6] or the dismissal of all naturalistic theories which have been formulated against the resurrection. In other words, it is not only the evidence from the elimination of all alternate theories which makes the resurrection plausible, but there are actual "positive" facts which also demonstrate that this event is the most probable.

There are at least seven strong facts which indicate that Jesus actually rose from the dead. The first and by far the strongest fact is the positive New Testament claim that the disciples did indeed see the risen Jesus. There is not only the eyewitness testimony of Paul to the fact, but the gospels are at least close to and include the eyewitness testimony of the disciples (see Luke 1:1-4 as an example), as discussed above. Paul also records the extremely important fact that the original disciples were also preaching about the appearances of the risen Jesus to them (I Cor. 15:11-15).

The power of this New Testament testimony is twofold. First, no alternative theory is sufficient enough to explain these appearances and the subsequent conviction of their reality. But it is not only the rejection of these theories that makes this claim so important. Second, the known facts surrounding this event tend to corroborate   

it and make the claim highly credible. For instance, the disciples came to believe firmly in the resurrection despite their overwhelming disillusionment and disbelief. Thus, they came to believe in spite of themselves. Other facts are also left unexplained apart from the literal resurrection of Jesus.

Other events in addition to the actual appearances are also positive evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Second, the incredible change in the lives of the disciples from dejected men who fled at the arrest of Jesus to bold preachers who asserted the teachings of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus even in the face of their own death indicates unequivocally that these men firmly believed that Jesus had risen. Such elation is usually not the action of men who have been deceived by any kind of false, either. Such undoubting belief even to the point of dying for their faith is not the mark of men who had even the faintest misgivings about this event. The transformation of the disciples is best accounted for by actual appearances of the risen Jesus.

Third, the evidence of the empty tomb, while not in itself providing proof of the resurrection, is a positive point in favor of those who accept this event as historical. At the same time it requires a probable explanation by those who reject this event.[7] Even more on favor of the resurrection is the discovery of the gravesclothers inside the tomb, still unraveled with the body simply missing.

The attitude of the Jewish leaders in the book of acts reveals a fourth set of historical circumstances strongly in favor of Jesus' literal resurrection. When the disciples were confronted by the Jewish elders on various occasions in the early chapters of this book (see especially Acts 4-5), these followers of Jesus were not charged with spreading false tales about Jesus' resurrection. Neither did the Jews go to Jesus' tomb, reveal his body and so crush the central belief of Christianity.[8]

Fifth, the very birth of the Christian church depends upon the message of Jesus' resurrection. This event forms the very center of Christianity and of the earliest Christian message today apart from this event.[9]

A sixth fact pointing to the resurrection is the commemorating of this event in the Christian worship of Sunday instead of Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. The first day of the week referred to as "the Lord's day" because Jesus was believe to have risen on a Sunday (see Rev. 1:10; cf. Jn. 20:19, 26). Early Jewish Christians apparently still gathered at the local synagogue for worship on Saturday, but for the Christian believer, Sunday was the day for such important practices as partaking of the Lord's supper (Acts 20:7) and   

the gathering of one's offspring (I Cor. 16:2). Soon Sunday became the day of pre-eminence for the Christians. But something must account for this day of worship since it was not the usual day. The New Testament witnesses that the change was due to Jesus' resurrection.

A seventh historical fact which makes the resurrection even more probable is the conversion of Paul. This enemy of the Christian church was suddenly converted to the faith which he had so avidly opposed. As Daniel Fuller shows, other naturalistic views which would account for this conversion are not convincing and must be rejected. Paul claimed his turnabout was due to an appearance of the risen Jesus and it is this view which still fits the facts best.[10]

These seven facts are therefore "positive" evidence for the resurrection of Jesus in addition to the "negative" evidence supplied by a refutation of the alternative views.[11] The appearances of the risen Jesus to his followers, the complete change in the disciples, the empty tomb, the attitude of the Jewish leaders in Acts, the existence of the church, the Christian worship day of Sunday and Paul's conversion are strong facts in favor of the resurrection. Earlier other historical evidence was also given, such as Daniel Fuller's thesis about the existence of the Gentile mission being dependent on the resurrection[12] and Paul Maier's presentation of  

both specific and circumstantial historical evidence for this event.[13]

However, contemporary theology has provided additional evidence for the resurrection which reinforces each of these other points of evidence. As explained in chapter one, the application of form criticism to the gospel records was thought to be helpful in ascertaining what the earliest church believed about Jesus. One of the main expectations was to uncover how the miraculous element was due to later additions and was not actually a part of the life of Jesus. But such was not to be the case.

Contrary to what may have been expected if the origin of everything miraculous in the New Testament was the faith of the early church rather than being a real part of Jesus' life, scholars cannot reach a form critical layer of tradition in which the resurrection belief is not present. In other words, form criticism has demonstrated that the resurrection belief is in the earliest strata of Christian belief. As Carl Braaten explains there results:

The form-critical study of the earliest Christian traditions has established beyond reasonable doubt that faith in the risen Christ is the point of departure and the essential content of the kerygma. Without the Easter faith there would have been no Christian church and the New Testament would not have been written. The belief that God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day is as old as the Christian faith and is now, as ever before, the article by which the church stands or falls…it may be refreshing to know that even the more skeptical historians agree that for primitive Christianity…the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was a real event in history, the very foundation of Jesus from the dead was a real event in history, the very foundation of faith, and not a mythical idea arising out of the creative imagination of believers.[14]

Other scholars likewise concur with Braaten in this view. Reginald Fuller agrees that there was no time in which the resurrection was not the center of Christian preaching.[15] Ramm asserts that the most important purpose served by form criticism has been to show that the miracles, and the resurrection in particular have been embedded in Christian belief from the very beginning.[16] Wand notes that the further back the texts are studied, the more clear it becomes that the risen Christ is the same as the Jesus of history.[17]

Thus form criticism only served to strengthen the belief that the resurrection is the historical basis of the Christian faith. It likewise confirmed the fact that this event occupied this very important position in theology since the very beginnings of Christianity.

In enumerating these historical facts surrounding the resurrection, it becomes apparent that this event is the best explanation for what as occurred. However, there is not only the evidence of these facts, but there is also the evidence from the refuted naturalistic theories. In addition, it was also found that there are at least seven major historical facts in favor of the resurrection besides those listed by such scholars as Maier and Daniel Fuller. These considerations therefore show that the literal resurrection of Jesus is the most probable conclusion to this historical question, especially when it is recognized that no alternate theories or other facts militate against this event.

C. The Theological Method

It becomes especially apparent from the material presented in this chapter (as well as in the rest of this work) that the pivotal point in this discussion if the experiences of the earliest followers of Jesus. All admit that these witnesses really believed that Jesus actually rose from the dead.[] But the focal point here concerns whether these experience were actually appearances of the risen Jesus.

Naturalistic theories of these experiences have been proposed ever since the earliest proclamation of these beliefs. Of the several alternative views which were refuted here, there were three major hypotheses. These were the swoon theory popularized by Heinrich Paulus, the subjective vision theory formulated by David Strauss and the legend or myth theory taught by Otto Pfleiderer and others.[]

It has been a very important emphasis in this work to provide a detailed and complete refutation of each of the naturalistic theories, especially these three major ones. Although it may be thought that the tendency was to "overkill" each of the theories by presenting more evidence than was necessary to dispose of them, it must be    

TThe reason for this assertion is acute. There are several very important facts which point to the facticity of the resurrection, the main one being the appearances to the disciples. As long as a key alternate theory remains unrefuted (in whole or in part), these facts which point to the resurrection cannot be accorded the full impact which they warrant. But the more the alternate theories are refuted, the more outstanding the facts favoring the disciples' claims become, thus leaving the resurrection as still even more probable. Then it follows that the more completely such naturalistic theories are rejected, the higher the probability for the resurrection becomes as the facts which demonstrate the reality of this event are thereby shown to be valid. This is especially so when no other alternate theories are shown to be probable. Therefore we perceive the importance of complete refutations of three other views.

In examining the approaches of Pannenberg, Daniel Fuller, Ladd and Maier, it was found that each was not complete in his refutation of alternate views (to varying degrees). This is true in two different respects. First, many of the main reasons for rejecting each of the major theories were not presented. In other words, seldom was a theory rejected as thoroughly or strongly as it might have been.

Second, each of these scholars neglected completely (or almost so)   

one or more of the three major theories. In Pannenberg's section dealing with a defense of the resurrection against the alternate theories in his volume Jesus--God and Man, the swoon theory is neglected.[20] Fuller's treatise omits any specific refutation of Strauss' vision theory or of the legend or myth theory, although both are cited as alternate hypotheses. Also, the swoon theory is quickly passed over with very little disproof.[21] Ladd also ignores the legend or myth theory in his treatment of the naturalistic theories,[22] as does Maier.[23] Although it has been ascertained that these scholars were generally successful in their overall treatments of the resurrection one cannot help but think that since it was their desire to demonstrate the probability of the resurrection, a more complete refutation would have been desirable.

Since a more adequate refutation of the alternate theories makes the resurrection more probable, the treatment of the three major theories and several lesser ones in this work has endeavored to be complete. In fact, the desire was especially to present more evidence than was necessary in order to dismiss each one. The New Testament states that Jesus rose from the dead and demonstrated this by appearing to his followers. Other facts also corroborate this event. With these    

naturalistic theories thus shown to be quite inadequate to properly explain what occurred, the facts for the resurrection are shown to be highly probable. If one believes that it is still difficult to formulate an alternative view which logically, historically and theologically accounts for the known facts. The resurrection is the highly probable historical fact which best accounts for what occurred.

D. Convinced by the Facts

One interesting point with regard to the facts of the resurrection is that after an examination of the evidence, many scholars who had once rejected this event came to believe that it could be demonstrated to have occurred. They were convinced by the weight of the facts that this event was historical. This is not to say that no one who had been taught that the resurrection occurred has ever rejected such information later. But this writer knows of no instance where the resurrection was rejected after an examination of the facts, as was the case with these who accepted the reality of this event after just such an examination, against their former views.

Frank Morison, a lawyer, is surely one of the best examples of a scholar who became convinced against his earlier convictions after studying the evidence for the resurrection. As a young man, Morison began a serious study of the life of Jesus, being much influenced by the works of German liberal scholarship. He did not accept the miracles   

in Jesus' life and was determined to remove what he felt were mythical outgrowths.

Ten years after his first studies he received the opportunity to study the life of Jesus in depth. An examination of the last week of Jesus' like in particular brought him to a study of the resurrection. However, in endeavoring to write a book exposing these myths which he thought he would find, he was compelled by the factual evidence to write quite a different book in favor of the resurrection. This work, entitled Who Moved the Stone?, became a defense of the resurrection against the theological views formerly held by Morison himself. He explains that it was because of his investigation of the facts that he reversed his former views and that caused him to realize not only that the resurrection occurred, but that it could be demonstrated.[24]

The late Simon Greenleaf, past Harvard professor of law and one of the greatest legal minds that America has ever produced, was a religious skeptic. Challenge by his students to apply the techniques of his legal masterpiece A Treatise on the Law of Evidence to the resurrection of Jesus, Greenleaf became a believer. He later wrote a book, the long title of which is An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.[25] In this work he defends the resurrection and

explains how, when judged by the laws of legal evidence, the event can be demonstrated to have actually occurred.[26]

Another scholar who was convinced by an examination of the evidence is medial doctor Viggo Olsen. He described himself as an agnostic who did not believe in the Supernatural elements of Christianity. But more than this, he constantly questioned the Christian faith and attempted to disprove it. Through the process of trying to expose these beliefs, he studied the resurrection and other evidences. Later he became convinced that God did exist and that there was more than a sufficient amount of demonstration for the resurrection. He realized that this event actually occurred and that as such it was the center of the Christian faith. It is noteworthy that Simon Greenleaf's book on the Christian evidences was a key influence on Olsen.[27]

Other scholars who have looked impartially at the facts have often likewise concluded that the evidence for the resurrection establishes it as a historical event. For instances, such was the conclusion of lawyer Sir Edward Clarke, K.C, who also investigated the resurrection in terms of the evidential aspect. He remarked that this factual support was conclusive, as he had often secured a positive verdict in courts of law with less evidence.[25] McDowell lists numerous

other instances where other scholars came to similar conclusions after an impartial examination of the facts.[29]

When speaking of such examples, the New Testament instances of similar results should not be ignored. It is known, for instance, that Jesus' brother James was almost assuredly not a believer before the resurrection (Jn, 7:5; cf. Mk. 3:21, 31-34). But after an appearance from Jesus he became a Christian and the leader of the Jerusalem church (I Cor. 15:7; cf. Gal. 2:1-10). The example of Paul changing from a persecutor of the church (Acts 7:57-59; 9:1-2) to an ardent follower of Christ has already been mentioned above (see I Cor. 15:8-9). Again it was an appearance of the risen Jesus that caused this change of heart. It is the opinion of contemporary theological scholarship that both of these men became Christians in spite of their former beliefs because of an appearance of the risen Lord.[30]

This brief presentation has shown that many have accepted the resurrection as a historical event after a careful investigation of the data, even when formerly opposed to this belief. Also extremely interesting is the stance taken by two "God-is-dead" or secular theologians, William Hamilton and John A.T. Robinson. In spite of the secular theological positions of these two men, they also recognize the strong evidence for the resurrection.

For Hamilton, the resurrection and empty tomb are highly probable. In fact, he believes that the resurrection may be affirmed   

as a regular historical event.[31] Robinson admits that the empty tomb is very difficult to dismiss because of the good evidence for this event.[32]

This survey of several scholars was present in order to show how strong the evidence for the resurrection is for the one who looks impartically at the facts. Several scholars who were once opposed to this belief were convinced otherwise after an investigation of the evidence, as were others who studied the data in favor of this event. The New Testament also records two examples of men who were convinced by resurrection appearances of Jesus against their former views. Even two secular theologians were able to grant a high credibility to the resurrection, as one accepted it as a historical event while the other admitted that it would be hard to reject the strong evidence in favor of it.

Such is the convincing evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As church historian Wand reminds is about this event:

All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of it, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.[33]

This serves as a good reminder about our earlier conclusion to accept the answer to the question of the resurrection which best fits the facts. Wand note that if naturalistic theories are unable to account for an event which claims that a miracle has taken place, that a Supernatural alternative must not be viewed as impossible. It is unscientific to begin with the presupposition that miraculous   

event cannot occur. Rather, a critical historian can only examine the facts involved in the situation before him and decide on the basis of this evidence. It the probable event is a Supernatural one, then it must be accepted as such, as with the resurrection. Modern science and history cannot refute this event, as we have seen.[34]

Therefore, in accordance with this historical principle, the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead must be accepted as an actual historical event according to its high degree of plausibility. Once again, those who find it difficult to accept this conclusion will have an even more difficult time endeavoring to formulate an alternative theory which is historically probable. It is not only possible to completely refute all of the naturalistic alternate theories which oppose a literal resurrection, as shown above, but there are several important facts in favor of this event. The most important of these facts is that, in all probability, Jesus appeared empirically to his followers after his death on the cross and no other thesis apart from the literal resurrection is capable of properly explaining these appearances. The resurrection of Jesus is thereby highly probable.

E. The Center of Christianity

It must be concluded that the knowledge that Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact is one of the ultimate importance to the Christian faith. As was shown in chapter eleven, one cannot hold that Jesus is dead and that he never rose from the tomb and still hold that   

Jesus is alive today in any unique sense. Neither can one hold that such doctrines as Christology and subsequent beliefs concerning salvation can have the same validity if the one around when such beliefs revolve is dead, not even being able to conquer death himself. If such were the case, there would thus be no reason to suspect that Christians will receive such blessings either. As Paul asserts, apart from the resurrection there is no Christian faith at all (I Cor. 15:12-19). For this reason, the reality of the resurrection is absolutely essential for Christian faith.[35]

Therefore, the conclusion which asserts that Jesus actually rose from the dead is no meaningless assertion. It is not a matter of simply affirming the resurrection. To the contrary, it is very important to accept this event as historical, for in so doing the remainder of the Christian faith is demonstrated to be valid.

This is also why it was asserted earlier that the concept of faith as defined by Kierkegaard and Barth could remain valid in spite of the critiques of these two theologians. Each of these scholars agrees with the New Testament in recognizing that every individual man is a sinner in need of repentance, or a total change in one's life. A total surrender to God in faith, trusting Jesus' substitutionary death on the cross to forgive these sins, is needed for salvation. The result is a total change in one's life, a total commitment based upon the death of Jesus. In these principles,   

Kierkegaard and Barth both follow the New Testament definition of salvation. Jesus claimed to have some to this world chiefly to die a substitutionary death in order to procure such salvation for those who commit their lives in faith to God through Him Son (see Mark 10:45; John 1:12-13; I Cor. 15:1-4).

Such teachings are often ignored today as outmoded an due to ancient superstitions. But in light of out conclusions concerning Jesus' resurrection, such tendencies to dismiss the New Testament teaching on salvation are unwarranted. Since the resurrection is accepted as a Supernatural event, as shown here, then Jesus' ministry to mankind was for a reason. It would be illogical to accept the Supernatural demonstration of Jesus' mission and then reject the message which is corroborated by it. As the resurrection event cannot be denied neither can the resurrection message of the subsequent availability of this salvation.

...> To End Notes

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Charles C. Critical Quests of Jesus. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1969.

______.The Historical Jesus: A Continuing Quest. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1972

Anderson, J.N.D. Christianity and Comparative Religion. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press 1974.

______.Christianity: The Witness of History. London: Tyndale Press, 1969.

Barclay, William. The Mind of Jesus. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1961.

Barnes, Wesley. The Philosophy and Literature of Existentialism. Woodbury: Barron's Educational Series, 1968.

Barth, Karl. Anselm: Fides Quarens Intellectum. Translated by Ian W. Robertson. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1960.

______. Dogmatics in Outline. Translated by G.T. Thompson. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1959

______.How I Changed My Mind. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1966.

______.The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Volume IV, Part One of Church Dogmatic. Edited by G.W. Bromily and T.F. Torrence. Thirteen Volumes. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1961.

______.The Faith of the Church. Edited by Jean-Louis Leuba. Translated by Gariel Vahanian. New York: Meridian Books, Inc., 1958.

______.Theology and Church: Shorter Writings 1920-1928. Translated by Louise Pettibone Smith. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962.

______.The Resurrection of the Dead. Translated by H.J. Stenning. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1933.

______.The Word of God and the Word of Man. Translated by Douglas Horton. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957.

Barth, Markus, and Fletcher, Verne H. Acquittal by Resurrection. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964.

Becker, Carl L. The Heavenly City of te Eighteenth-Century Philosophers. . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969.

Benoit, Pierre. Jesus and the Gospel. Translated by Renet Weatherhead. New York: The Seabury Press, 1973.

______, and Murphy, Roland. Immorality and Resurrection. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970.

Berger, Peter L. A Rumor of Angels. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1969.

Blaikie, Robert J. "Secular Christianity" and God Who Acts. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1970.

Bluh, Otto and Elder, Joseph Dension. Principles and Applications of Physics. New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1955.

BonHoeffer, Dietrich. Christ the Center. Translated by John Bowden. New York: Harper and Row Publishers 1966.

Boring, Edwin G.; Langfield, Herbert S.; and Weld, Harry P., Editors. Foundations of Psychology. New York. Harper and Row, Publishers, 1960.

Bornkamm, Gunther. Jesus of Nazareth Translated by Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson. New York. Harper and Row, Publishers, 1960.

Braaten, Carl. History and Hermeneutics. Volume II of New Directions in Theology Today. Edited by William Hordern. Seven volumes. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966.

Bronowski, J. and Mazlish, Bruce. The Western Intellectial Tradition. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962. p>

Brown, Delwin; James, Ralph E.; and Reeves, Gene, Editors. Process Philosophy and Christian Thought. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1971.

Brown, James. Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Buber and Barth. New York Collier Books, 1967.

Brown, Raymond E. New Testament Essays. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1965.

______.The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. New York: Paulist Press, 1973.

Bruce, F.F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1974.

______.The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Fifth revised edition. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1967.

Brunner, Emil. The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption. Volume II of Dogmatics. Translated by Olive Wyon. Three volumes. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1952. ______.The Mediator. Translated by Olive Wyon. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1947.

Bulfinch, Thomas. The Age of Fable. Greenwich: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1961.

Bultmann, Rudolf. History and Eschatology. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962.

______.Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958.

______.Theology of the New Testament. Two volumes in one. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951.

Burtt, Ewin A. Types of Religious Philosophy. Revised edition. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1939.

Cassels, Louis. Christian Primer. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1967.

______.This Fellow Jesus. New York: Pyramid Publications, 1973.

Cassirer, Ernst. Determinism and Indeterminism in Modern Physics. Translated by O. Theodor Benfrey. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956.

Clough, Shepard B.; Garsoian, Nina G.; and Hicks, David L. Ancient and Medieval. Volume one of A History of the Ancient World. Three volumes. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1967.

Cullmann, Oscar; Wolfson, Harry A.; Jaeger, Werner; and Cadbury, Henry J. Immortality and the Resurrection. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1965.

Cutten, George Barton. Speaking with Tongues Historically and Psychologically Examined. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1927.

Dobson, C.C. The Empty Tomb and the Rise Lord. Second edition revised. London and Edinburgh: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, Ltd., no date.

Dray, William H., Editor. Philosophical Analysis and History. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966.

Earle, Edward M., Editor. Makers of Modern Strategy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943.

Eliade, Mircea. Mephistopheles and the Androgyne: Studies in Religious Myth and Symbol. Translated by J.M. Cohen. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965.

______.Myth and Reality. Translated by William R. Task. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1963.

______.The Quest: History and Meaning in Religion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969.

Evans, C.F. Resurrection and the New Testament. Volume 12 of Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series. Naperville: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1970.

Finley, M.I. The World of Odysseus. New York: The Viking Press, 1954.

Fuller, Daniel P. Easter Faith and History. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1965.

Fuller, Reginald. The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971.

Gaebelein, Frank E., Editor. Christianity Today. Westwood: Fleming E. Revell Company, 1968.

Gilson, Etienne. Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1966.

Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. London: Collins, 1963.

______.Miracle and Natural Law. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1952.

Hamilton, William. The Modern Reader's Guide to John. New York: Association Press, 1959.

______.The New Essence of Christianity. New York: Association Press, 1961.

Harnack, Adolf. What is Christianity? Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders. Third and revised edition. London: Gerald Duckworth and Company, Ltd., 1964.

Hartwell, Herbert. The Theology of Karl Barth. London: Gerald Duckworth and Company, Ltd., 1964.

Heick, O.W. History of Protestant Theology. Volume two of A History of Christian Thought. By J.L. Neve. Two volumes. Philadelphia: The Muhlenberg Press, 1946.

Henry, Carl F.H., Editor. Jesus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1966.

Hooke, S.H. Middle Eastern Mythology. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966.

Hordern, William. A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956.

______.Introduction. Volume I of New Direction in Theology Today. Edited by William Hordern. Seven volumes. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966.

Hume, David. An Abstract of a Treatise of Human Nature. Cambridge: The University Press, 1964.

______.A Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1964.

______.Essays, Literary, Moral of David Hume. London: Ward, Lock and Bowden, Ltd., no date.

______.The Essential Works of David Hume. Edited by Ralph Cohen. New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1965.

______.The History of England. Six volumes. London: Gilberg and Revington, Printers, 1849.

Hunter, Archibald M. Introducting the New Testament. Second edition. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957.

James, William. The Principles of Psychology. Two Volumes. New York: Dover Publishing House, 1966.

Jauncey, James. Science Returns to God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1966.

Johnson, Howard A. and Thulstrup, Niels, Editors. A Kierkegaard Critique. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1962.

Kant, Immanuel. Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. Translated by Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt H. Hudson. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1960.

Kaufman, Gordon. Systematic Theology: A Historicist Perspective. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1968.

Kierkegaard, Soren. Attack Upon "Christendom". Translated by Walter Lowrie. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972.

______.Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Translated by David Swenson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.

______.Philosophical Fragments. Translated by David Swenson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.

______.The Point of View for My Work as an Author. Edited by Benjamin Nelson. Translated by Walter Lowrie. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962.

King, Marie Gentert, Editor. Foxe's Book of Mertyrs. Westwood: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1968.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Volume II, Number 2 of the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Edited by Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Charles Martin Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971.

Ladd, George Eldon. I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1975.

Lessing, Gotthold E. Lessing's Theological Writings. Edited by Henry Chadwick. London: Adam and Charles Black Ltd., 1956.

Lewis, C.S. God in the Dock. Edited by Walter Hooper. Grand Rapids: William E. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1973.

______.Miracles. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1965.

Lightfoot, J.B., Editor and Translator. The Apostolic Fathers Grand Rapids Baker Book House, 1971.

Locke, John. The Reasonableness of Christianity. Edited by I.T. Ramesy. Standford: Stanford University Press, 1958.

Machen J. Gresham. Christianity and liberalism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1923.

Macquarrie, John. An Existentialist Theology. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1965.

Maier, Paul L. First Easter. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1973.

Marty, Martin C. and Peerman, Dean G. A Handbook of Christian Theologians. Cleveland: World Publishing Company, 1965.

Marxsen, Willi. The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by Margret Kohl. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.

Mazlish, Bruce. The Riddle of History: The Great Speculators from Vico to Freud. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966.

McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernadino: Published by Campus Crusade for Christ International, no date.

McKelway, Alexander J. The Systematic Theology of Paul Tillich. New York: Dell Publishing Company, Inc, 1964.

McLeman, James. Resurrection Then and Now. Philadelphia and New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1967.

McNaugher, John. Jesus Christ the Same Yesterday, Today and Forever. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1947.

Meeks, M. Douglas. Origins of the Theology of Hope. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

Miller, Laurence. Jesus Christ is Alive. Boston: W.A. Wilde Company, 1949.

Moltmann, Jurgen. Religion, Revolution and the Future. Translated by M. Douglas Meeks. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969.

______.Theology of Hope Transalted by James W. Leitch. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1967.

Montgomery, John Warwick. History and Christianity. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1972.

______.The Shape of the Past: An Introduction to Philosophical Historiography. Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers, Inc., 1962.

______.The Suicide of Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1970.

______.Where is History Going? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969.

______, and Altizer, Thomas J.J. The Altizer-Montgomery Dialogue. Chicago: Inter Varsity Press, 1967.

Moore, W. Edgar. Creative and Critical Thinking. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967.

Morison, Frank. Who Moved the Stone? London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1962.

Morris, Henry. Many Infallible Proofs. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974.

Morris, William, Editor. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. New York: American Heritage Publishing Company, Inc. and the Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Old Testament as Word of God. Translated by Reidar B. Bjornard. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1959.

Ogden, Schubert M. Christ Without Myth. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers 1961.

______.The Reality of God and other Essays. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966.

Orr, James. The Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965.

Pamphilus, Eusebuis. Ecclesiastical History. Translated by Christian Frederick Cruse. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Basic Questions in Theology. Translated by George H. Kehm. Two volumes. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.

______.Jesus-God and Man. Translated by Lewis L. Wilkens and Duane A. Priebe. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1968.

______. Editor. Revelation as History. Translated by David Granskou. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968.

_______.Theology and the Kindgom of God. Edited by Richard John Neuhaus. Philadephia: The Westminster Press, 1969.

Perkins, Robert L. Soren Kierkegaard. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1969.

Perrin, Norman. What is Redaction Criticism? Edited by Daniel O. Via. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Pfleiderer, Otto. Philosophy and Development of Religion. Two volumes. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1894.

______.Primitive Christianity. Translated by W. Montgomery. Four volumes. Clifton: Reference Book Publishers, 1965.

______.The Early Christian Conception of Christ. London: Williams and Norgate, 1905.

Ramm, Bernard. A Handbook of Contemporary Theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1966.

______.Protestant Christian Evidences. Chicago: Moody Press, 1953.

Ramsey, A.M. The Resurrection of Christ. Second edition. London and Glascow: Collins, 1965.

Randall, John Herman, Jr. The Making of the Modern Mind. Revised edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940.

Renan, Ernst. Life of Jesus. Volume I of the The History of the Origins of Christianity. No translator given. London: Mathieson and Company, no date. Revised Standard Version of the Bible. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1946, 1952.

Ricoeur, Paul. History and Truth. Translated by Charles A. Kelbley. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1965.

Robertson, Archibald T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Six volumes. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Robinson, John A.T. Exploration Into God. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1967.

______.Honest to God. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963.

Runes, Dagobert, Editor. Dictionary of Philosophy. Totowa Littlefield, Adams and Company, 1967.

Santoni, Ronald, Editor. Religious Language and the Problem of Relgious Knowledge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968.

Schaaffs, Werner. Theology, Physics and Miracles. Translated by Richard L. Renfield. Washington, D.C.: Canon Press, 1974.

Schaeffer, Francis. Escape from Reason. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1968.

______.The Church Before the Watching World. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1971

______.The God Who is There. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1968.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. Translated by John Oman. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1958.

______.The Christian Faith. Edited by H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart. Two volumes. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1963.

Schonfield, Hug. The Passover Plot. New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1967.

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Translated by W. Montgomery. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1971.

Shestov, Lev. Athens and Jersusalem. Translated by Bernard Martin. No city: Ohio University Press, 1966.

Smith, Wilbur M. The Supernaturalness of Christ. Boston: M.A. Wilde Company, 1954.

Sparrow-Simpson, W.J. The Resurrection and the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965.

Spinoza, Benedict. The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza. Translated by R.H.M. Elves. Two volumes. New York: Dover Pubications, Inc., 1951.

Stagg, Frank; Hinton, E. Glenn; and Oates, Wayne E. GLossolalia: Tongue Speaking in Biblical, Historical, and Psyhoclogical Perspective. Nashville: Abingdon Press 1967.

Stone, Ronald J. Reinhold Niebuhr: Prophet to Politicians. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972. Stott, John R.W. Basic Christianity. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1965.

______.Your Mind Matters: The Place of the Mind in the Christian Life. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1973.

Strauss, David Friedrich. A New Life of Jesus. No translator given. Second edition. Two volumes. London: Williams and Norgate, 1879.

______.The Old Faith and the New. Translated by Mathilde Blind. Two volumes. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1874.

Swinburne, Richard. The Concept of Miracle. London: The macmillan Company and St. Martin's Press, 1970.

Tenney, Merrill C. The Reality of the Resurrection. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1963.

Thomas, Owen C., Editor. Attitudes Toward Other Religions. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1969.

Throckmorton, Burton H. The New Testament and Mythology. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959.

Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology. Three volumes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971.

Tomlin, E.W.F. The Western Philosophers. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1967.

Urs von Balthasar, Hans. The Theology of Karl Barth. Translated by John Drury. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.

Van Buren, Paul M. The Secular Meaning of the Gospel. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963.

Vine, W.E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1960.

Walsh, W.H. Philosophy of History. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1960.

Wand, William. Christianity: A Historical Religion? Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1972.

Weiss, Johannes. Earliest Christianity: A History of the Period A.D. 30-150. Edited by Frederick C. Grant. Two volumes. Magnolia: Peter Smith, Publishers, 1959.

Wells, H.G. The Outline of History. Two volumes. Garden City: Garden City Books, 1949.

Articles, Booklets and Essays

Anderson, J.N.D. The Evidence for the Resurrection. Downers Grove Inter Varsity Press, 1966.

Berlin, Sir Isaac. "The Concept of Scientific History". Philosophical Analysis and History. Edited by William H. Dray. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966.

Brauch, Manfred. "Head and Heart Go to Seminary". Christianity Today. Volume XIX, Number 19. June 20, 1975, pages 11-12.

Brown, Raymond E. "The Resurrection and Biblical Criticism". Commonweal. November 24, 1967, pages 32-36.

Bultmann, Rudolf. "New Testament and Mythology". Kerygma and Myth. Edited by Hans Werner Bartsch. Translated by Reginald H. Fuller. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1961. ______."Study of the Synoptic Gospels". Form Criticism. Translated by Frederick C. Grant. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962.

Chamberlain, Nelson R. "Jurgen Moltmann: Apostle of Christian Hope?" Christian Today. Volume XVIII, Number 19. June 21, 1974, pages 6-10.

Clark, Gordan B. "Bultmann's Three-Storied Universe". Christianity Today. Edited by Frank Gaebelein. Westwood: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1968.

Collins, James. "Faith and Reflection in Kierkegaard". A Kierkegaard Critque. Edited by Howard A. Johnson and Niels Thulstrup. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1962.

Dobson, Daniel. "What is 'Myth'?" The Age of Fable. By Thomas Bulfinch. Greenwich: Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1961.

Feibleman, James K. "Myth". Dictionary of Philosophy. Edited by Dagobert Runes. Totowa: Littlefield, Adams and Company, 1967.

Farm, Vergilius. "Deim". Dictionary of Philosophy. Edited by Dagobert Runes. Totowa: Littlefield, Adams and Company, 1967.

Fey, Harold E. "Apocalypse at Easter". Christian Century. Volume XC, Number 16. April 18, 1973, pages 453-454.

Gardiner, Patrick. "The Philosophy of History". Volume 6 of The International Encyclopedia of Social Science. Edited by David L. Sills. No city: The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, 1968.

Gilmour, S. MacLean. "Luke--Introduction". Volume 8 of The Interpreter's Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Twelve volumes. Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1951-1956.

Hamilton, Peter N. "Some Proposals for a Modern Christology". Process Philosophy and Christian Thought. Edited by Delwin Brown, Ralph E. James, Jr. and Gene Reeves. Inianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1971.

Heinecken, Martin J. "Soren Kierkegaard". A Handbook of Christian Theologians. Edited by Martin C. Marty and Dean G. Peerman. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1965.

Kick, John. "Theology and Verification". Religious Language and the Problem of Religious Knowledge. Edited by Ronald E. Santoni. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968.

Howard, Wilbert F. "John--Introduction". Volume 8 of The Interpreter's Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Tweleve volumes. Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1951-1956.

Hudson, R. Lofton. "What One Easter Meant to Me". Christian Century. Volume XC, Number 16. April 18, 1973, pages 450-451.

Johnson, William Hallock. "The Keystone of the Arch". Theology Today. Edited by John A. MacKay. Volume VI, Number 1. April, 1949 January, 1950, pages 12-24.

Johnson, Sheman E. "Matthew--Introduction". Volume 7 of The Interpreter's Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Twelve volumes. Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1951-1956.

Knapp, James F. "Myth in the Powerhouse of Change". Volume XX, Number 1. The Centennial Review. Winter, 1976, pages 56-74.

Loomer, Bernard M. "Christian Faith and Process Philosophy". Proces Philosophy and Christian Thought. Edited by Delwin Brown, Ralph E. James, Jr. and Gene Reeves. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1971.

Maier, Paul L. "The Empty Tomb as History". Christianity Today. Volume XIX, Number 13. March 28, 1975, pages 4-6.

______."Who Was Responsible for the Trial and Death of Jesus?" Christian Today. Volume XVIII, Number 14. April 12, 1974, page 8-11.

Martin, Lawrence E. "The Risen Christ". The Christian Century. Volume XC, Number 20. May 16, 1973, page 577.

McDermott, Brian O., S.J. "Pannenberg's Resurrection Christology: A Critique". Theological Studies. Volume 35, Number 4. December, 1974, pages 711- 721.

Nagel, Ernest. "Determinisim in History". Philosophical Analysis and History. Edited by William H. Dray. New York: Harper an Row, Publishers, 1966.

Ogden, Schubert. "Toward a New Thesim". Process Philosophy and Christian Thought. Edited by Delwin Brown, Ralph E. James, Jr. and Gene Reeves. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1971.

Olsen, Viggo. The Agnostic Who Dared to Search. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Pinnock, Clark. "On the Third Day". Jesus of Nazareth Saviour and Lord. Edited by Carl F.H. Henry. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1966.

Rendtorff, Rolf. "The Concept of Revelation in Ancient Isreal". Revelation as History. Edited by Wolfhart Pannenberg. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968.

Smith, Robert W. "Should the Christian Argue?" Christianity Today. Volume XVIII, Number 10. February 15, 1974, pages 14-18.

Steiger, Lothar. "Revelation-History and Theological Reason: Critiqiue of the Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg". History and Hermeneutic. Volume IV of Journal for Theology and the Church. Edited by Robert W. Funk and Gerhard Ebeling. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., 1967.

Turner, Victor. "Myth and Symbol". Volume 10 of The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Edited by David Sills. No city: The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, 1968.

VanderMolen, Ronald. "'Where is History Going?' and Historical Scholarship: A Response". Fides et Historia. Volume V, Nos. 1-2. Fall, 1972 and Spring, 1973, pages 109-112.

Wright, G. Ernest. "The Book of Numbers". Volume 2 of The New Interpreter's Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Twelve volumes. Nashville: Abingdon- Cokesbury Press, 1951-1956.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Easter--Myth, Happuscination or History?" Christian Today.. Volume XVIII, Number 12. March 15, 1974, pages 4-7 and Volume XVIII, Number 12. March 29, 1974, pages 12-16.

INDEX OF PERSONS

(Important References)

Anderson, Charles C., 5-6, 8, 125, 129, 146, 248

Anderson, J.N.D., 13, 165, 276

Barclay, William, 154

Barnes, Wesley, 178

Barth, Karl, 114, 127, 198-218, 221-224, 271, 300-306

Barth, Markus, 7, 8

Becker, Carl L., 13, 222

Berger, Peter L., 49-50, 85

Bishop, Jim, 124

Blaikie, Robert J., 252, 272, 301, 312

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 219

Bornkamm, Gunther, 4, 5, 11, 219-220

Braaten, Carl, 321

Brauch, Manfred, 60, 76

Bronowski, J., 39, 49-50, 107

Brown, Raymond E., 133, 145, 155, 159

Bruce, F.F., 276

Brunner, Emil, 218-219

Bultmann, Rudolf, 8, 10-11, 26-27, 31-32, 35, 117, 136, 149-152, 160, 168-171, 173, 215-216, 217, 288, 293-294, 323

Burtt, Edwin A., 57, 93, 96, 114

Cassels, Louis, 13

Cassirer, Ernst, 47

Clark, Gordon H., 37, 39, 47-48

Clough, Shepard B., 14, 49-50

Conzelmann, Hans, 11

Cutten, George B., 59

Dobson, C.C., 6

Dodson, Daniel, 29

Eliade, Mircea, 30, 32

Feibleman, James K., 30

Ferm, Vergilius, 84

Finley, M.I., 59

Fletcher, Verne H., 8

Fuller, Daniel P., 6, 55, 201, 220, 225, 244, 252, 260-267, 272-273 307ff., 320, 324-325

Fuller, Reginald, 8, 9, 12, 155, 156, 216, 322

Gardiner, Patrick, 49, 51

Garsoian, Nina G., 14, 49-50

Gilson, Etienne, 60-61

Grant, Robert M., 143, 158-159

Grass, Hans, 20

Greenleaf, Simon, 327-328

Hamilton, Peter, 21-23

Hamilton, William, 159, 330, 332

Harnack, Adolf, 117, 288

Hartwell, Herbert, 199

Heick, O.W., 39, 83-85

Heinecken, Martin J., 174, 176, 189, 197

Henry, Carl F.H., 203, 214

Hick, John 18-20

Hicks, David L., 14, 49-50

Hooke, S.H., 31, 33, 34

Hordern, William, 112, 114

Hudson, R. Lofton, 294

Hume, David, 27, 39, 82-113, 289-290

Hunter, Archibald M., 158-159

Ignatius, 143

Jauncey, James, 36, 37, 39, 41

Johnson, William H., 255

Josephus, Flavius, 275-276

Kant, Immanuel, 183

Kaufman, Gordon, 136, 141

Keim, Karl T., 131

Kierkegaard, Soren, 172-197, 207, 300-306

Knapp, James F., 30

Kuhn, Thomas S., 36, 37, 38

Ladd, George E., 132, 244, 267-274, 295-296, 297, 307ff., 324-325

Lessing, Gotthold E., 181-183

Lewis, C.S., 13, 27-28, 90, 91, 92, 97, 109, 163, 272-273

Locke, John, 84

Loomer, Bernard, 21

Machen, J. Gresham, 290, 297

Macquattie, John, 31

Maier, Paul, 14-15, 17, 58, 123, 125, 129, 274-285, 307ff., 312, 324-325

Martin, Lawrence E., 284

Marxsen, Willi, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 217, 294-295

Mazish, Bruce, 39, 49-50, 107

McDerott, Brian C., 229, 249

McDowell, Josh, 328, 329

McKelway, Alexander J., 129

McLeman, James, 8, 145

McNaugher, John, 28, 44, 82, 91, 95, 96, 225

Meeks, M. Douglas, 226

Miller, Laurence, 4

Moltmann, Jurgen, 220-221

Montgomery, John W., 16-17, 37, 43, 44, 52f., 59, 68f., 75-76, 82, 96, 106, 111, 115, 17, 127, 211, 212, 225, 272, 286, 301, 312

Moore, W. Edgar, 90 96

Morison, Frank, 127, 326-327

Morris, Henry, 13

Mowinckel, Sigmund, 248

Neuhaus, Richard J., 225ff.

Niebuhr, Reinhold, 219

Ogden, Schubert M., 20

Olsen, Viggo, 328

Orr, James, 126

Pamphilus, Eusebius, 159

Pannenberg, Wolfhart, 67-68, 69, 72-76, 133, 141, 156, 210, 225-259, 307ff., 324-325

Paulus, Heinrich, 119-127

Perkins, Robert L., 185

Perrin, Norman, 9ff.

Pfleiderer, Ott, 146-171, 288

Pinnock, Clark, 255

Ramm, Bernard, 46, 91, 178, 195, 223, 248, 322

Ramsey, A.M., 6

Randall, John H., Jr., 155, 117, 186

Renan, Ernst, 116, 129, 288

Ricoeur, Paul, 33

Robinson, John A.T., 35, 118, 289, 330

Schaaffs, Werner, 38, 39, 40-47, 52, 54

Scharffer, Francis, 23-24, 67, 70, 73, 185

Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 114, 116, 28

Schonfield, Hugh, 127, 145

Schweitzer, Albert, 31, 116, 121, 122, 127, 148, 287

Smith, Wilbur M., 83, 96, 225, 286

Sparrow-Simpson, W. J., 131

Spinoza, Benedict, 36

Stone, Ronald J., 219

Stott, John R.W., 67, 7-, 328

Strauss, David F. 115, 121, 127-146, 287

Swinburne, Richard, 27-28, 44, 91, 103

Tacitus, Cornelius, 275

Tenney, Merrill, 5, 8

Thomas, Owen C., 84

Throckmorton, Burton H., 29, 31

Tillich, Paul, 117, 129, 144-145, 288

Tomlin, E.W.F., 86

Turner, Victor, 30

Urs von Balthasar, Hans, 199

Van Buren, Paul M., 69, 70, 144-145

VanderMolen, Ronald, 53

Vine, W.E., 217

Walsh, W.H., 50, 54-55