historians, I have discovered, don’t regard themselves as experts on historical method, but tend to write the findings of their historical research in an intuitive fashion, along the lines of the kinds of history writing they have known and admired. Over the last couple of centuries there have been discernible shifts in thinking—at least in the Western world—affecting the work of the majority of professional historians, and some of what follows is an attempt to take those shifts into account when approaching the question of whether or not the resurrection of Jesus is an historical event. I will, in a way, argue that the discipline of history writing almost died and has been resurrected in a form that allows it consider the resurrection of Jesus on historical terms.
I will try to offer some background on the development of contemporary historical method and outline some of the shifts that have occurred, in increasing detail as we approach our own day, and discuss how they affect our central question. I will also trace how these shifts were confronted or embraced by some of the greater theological minds of the twentieth century. As the reader will see, I have chosen to dwell on the work of those theologians whose writings feature significant reflection on the issue of whether or not the resurrection of Jesus was historical. I will also engage the multidisciplinary world of New Testament scholars, who are implicitly historians and theologians. Along the way I will uphold the coherence of both the revisionist and traditional views of the resurrection of Jesus, but in the end I will affirm, for what I hope will be considered sound methodological reasons, the viability of the orthodox position. I will finish up by addressing in detail a few of the implications for Christian faith in the twenty-first century of declaring the resurrection of Jesus to be a historical event.
It is my casual, unscientific observation that evangelical Protestants in most parts of the world hold strictly to the orthodox understanding of the resurrection as a nonnegotiable, sine qua non of their faith, and are typically baffled as to how anyone claiming to be a Christian can seriously entertain any other point of view. I hope that evangelical Protestant readers will be able to bracket any discomfort they might have with my being Catholic and enjoy the convergence of evangelical Protestant and orthodox Catholic conclusions. I also observe that many mainline Protestant denominations are split between orthodox and revisionist understandings of the resurrection, with the vast majority of them not wishing to stir up troubles over what seems an obscure metaphysical issue when there are other urgent matters to attend to. I hope that mainline Protestant readers will consider the resurrection of Jesus central enough to their faith that they will see how their understanding of the resurrection of Jesus, their understanding of the mission of Jesus, and their understanding of the person of Jesus need to be woven together for the sake of their faith’s integrity. And I also observe, with a great deal of intrigue, how relatively few Catholics in my orbit have thought through this issue, seemingly accepting the orthodox understanding—more or less. Catholics, it seems, have long lived in a world of one-offs, of historical singularities, and imagine the resurrection of Jesus to be just one more of these. I do hear, however, listening between the lines of homilies as I visit different parishes and hear different priests, the tendency to treat all questions of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, as if they are simply a mythological representation of saying that Christ is present to us in the Eucharist. I hope Catholics will appreciate my concern that this kind of “translation” of the resurrection of Jesus into Eucharistic theology may ultimately undermine the orthodox understanding of Eucharist as well as the resurrection.
How to Use This Book
It may be my author’s vanity, but I think I have written a book that can be used in different settings. Holding two earned doctorates, I may now have spent enough time inside university and seminary classrooms to know what kind of things students discuss at various levels and in various settings. I have also been in pastoral ministry for twenty-five years, so I think I have a fair notion of the kind of questions that are helpful in an adult study-group setting. I now work outside both academic and ecclesiastical settings, having been “returned to the wild” of the laity, and have become reacquainted with the kind of questions that everyday followers of Jesus wrestle with in times of prayer and reflection.
At the end of each chapter are three sets of questions.
The first set is labeled “Seminary” and is intended for senior undergraduates or basic degree seminary classes. Many of them could be assigned as study questions in lecture courses, but they are really intended for discussion. These questions tend to suspend any particular faith-commitment.
The second set is labeled “Study Group” and is intended for use among adults in typical Catholic parish and Protestant congregational settings. These questions presuppose that the participants are practicing Christians with some rudimentary understanding of the Christian tradition. Wrestling with these questions might be aided by the presence of a priest, minister, or educated lay-person, but the presence of such a resource person isn’t presumed. Some groups who are without a resource person have found it helpful to note questions they found difficult and assign a group member to seek out someone outside the group who can be of assistance.
The third set is labeled “Individual” and is intended for personal reflection. The answers to these questions are likely to be of a nature that should only be shared with a close friend or a spiritual director, and are not normally intended for group discussion. If, however, two or more people who are very well-acquainted with each other are reading this book together, these questions might be considered in conversation. I only recommend that you decide beforehand if these questions will be part of your study-covenant: no one likes to be ambushed!
In all likelihood, most readers of this book will be flying solo. I understand the temptation to read a book like this like a novel, turning the pages as fast as one can, ignoring the chapter-ending questions as peripheral. I recommend, though, that you at least scan the questions at the end of each chapter, take a moment to consider your own thoughts, and mark any that you would like to return to someday when you have more time. When you are finished reading this book it would probably prove very helpful for you to flip through and take a second look at the questions you marked, and consider whether or not your reading and reflection have offered any further answers for you along the way.
And one more word. The research that stands behind this little book took me several years to conduct, and resulted in the writing of a thesis that I successfully defended for my PhD. You might not agree with my conclusions, but I can assure that the research is solid. I have, however, beefed up the theological conclusions now that I have a little more freedom to do so. For those of you who are only too glad this seems to be written by your local green grocer rather than someone who has spent too long in “the ivory tower,” you’re welcome.
Questions for Consideration
Seminary
1. What authors are you familiar with who might hold the revisionist view or the traditional view of the resurrection of Jesus?
2. What do you already know about the elements of historical method?
Study Group
1. What parts of the revisionist and traditional views of the resurrection of Jesus appealed to you? Why?
2. How much does anyone have to know before they can be called a Christian?
Individual
1. When have you ever defended a position you didn’t really believe in, and what was the result?
2. What elements of the Christian faith do you have secret doubts about?[
1. Placher, Domestication of Transcendence.
2 History Matters
Did
