Journal: Trinity Journal
Volume: TRINJ 22:2 (Fall 2001)
Article: The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection
Author: Gary R. Habermas

TrinJ 22:2 (Fall 01) p. 179

The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence
of Naturalistic Responses
to Jesus’ Resurrection

Gary R. Habermas*

* Gary R. Habermas teaches in the Department of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

The last twenty years or so have witnessed the inevitable march of new theological trends. Gone are scholars like Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich, and Reinhold Niebuhr. In their place, less centralized currents have captured the spotlight. Through it all, many publications on the subject of Jesus’ resurrection have continued to appear. As the center of Christian theology, this would seem to be inevitable. Yet, to the careful observer, some different tendencies are becoming apparent.

It could be argued that the most captivating theological topic at present, at least in the United States, is the historical Jesus. Scores of publications by major scholars have appeared since the mid-1970s, bringing Jesus and his Palestinian setting to our attention. More recently, the apostle Paul has been the subject of numerous other influential studies. Almost unavoidably, these trends add to the opportunities to discuss the resurrection and its meaning.

Over the last two years, I have tracked more than twelve hundred publications on the subject of the resurrection of Jesus. Each source appeared between 1975 and the present, with the vast majority written by critical scholars. Out of this contemporary milieu, my purpose here will be to outline what appears to be a growing, although still fairly limited, trend. In recent years, some of the old, naturalistic theories that rejected the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection have reappeared after a lengthy hiatus.

This essay concerns some of these most recent scholarly trends regarding the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. I will note the emergence of almost a dozen different alternative theses that are variously suggested or favored by more than forty different scholars, some of whom endorse more than one theory. While some of these works are lesser known or more popularly written, others contain suggestions or assertions held by highly influential authors. There is an interdisciplinary flavor here, as well. Most of the critics are theologians or NT scholars, while a number of them are philosophers, along with a few others from diverse fields.

TrinJ 22:2 (Fall 01) p. 180

My effort here will attempt to categorize and list these natural hypotheses, including naming two alternative proposals that have so far eluded any generally recognized appellation. Hopefully, even this broad scholarly demarcation will serve the purpose of calling attention to the current skeptical trend, which may becom...