The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus --- Book Review -- Adilbrand Noblesword's Hall of Warriors

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:16:59 05/23/04 Sun
Author: Omega
Subject: The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus --- Book Review

During the Easter of 1996, an interdisciplinary symposium came together, to bring forward a scholarly discussion on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Scholars from many fields, and from many different religious backgrounds came together to discuss, not only the biblical and traditional foundations for belief in the Resurrection, but also what it means to believe that �Jesus is Risen.� That is, not only did they come to discuss the strength (and weaknesses) of the Christian tradition on Jesus being risen, but also they came to discuss what it means to say Jesus is risen, and the implications this has for the Christian believer.
Certainly, as can be seen from many of the texts which were brought together from the symposium for the book, _The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus_, ed. Stephen Davis, Daniel Kendall S.J., and Gerald O�Collins S.J. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), there was in the background many modern movements and people which have distanced themselves form believing in the historicity of the Resurrection itself --be it the Jesus Seminar, which claims to be seeking for the �historical Jesus,� to W. Marxsen and G. Luedemann who try to give new definitions to the �Resurrection� itself. But, as John Wilkins observes, the divisions within the symposium are not between those who believe the resurrection is historical or �happened,� and those who do not � but rather, �they tended to be between the philosophers of religion and the biblical exegetes� (Wilkins, 2).

This is not to say all of the presenters are unsympathetic to many of the modern �historical� quests. Nor is it to say that the central concern of all the papers is to refute these and other opponents of the �historicity� of the resurrection. Indeed, some, like Carey Newman, seem to be somewhat positively influenced by some of these modern traditions � Newman�s �Resurrection as Glory,� is reminiscent of Rudolf Pesch; both try to look at the resurrection in connection to Jewish eschatology (including the tradition of Jesus as Son of Man and its ramifications). Yet, Newman�s stress is interesting � showing the connection between Jewish theology on Yahweh�s glory with the language of glorification surrounding Jesus� resurrection. That is, while early Jewish texts spoke of the glory surrounding Yahweh as that of the presence of God, this slowly got extended into a tradition that saw Yahweh�s glory eschatologically, as the eschatological presence of God which will come to liberate them and bring peace to the world (although to some, after an eschatological judgment). Jesus� death and resurrection, to Newman, was seen as fulfilling and bringing into fruition this eschatological hope, and with him dwelt the glory of Yahweh. For those who became his followers, and believers, this identification with Jesus and the Glory of Yahweh divided them from the rest of their Jewish brethren who did not share this faith � that is, the �identification of the resurrected Jesus as the Glory of Yahweh carried profound sociological implications � the creation and maintenance of a new community.� (Newman, 87). For Newman, this new community resulted in a very early split between Jews and Christians � the two groups became widely different in their interpretation of history, the way God worked with in, and the reaction this required.

Before going further, and addressing a few more of the essays themselves, a few brief comments need to be had about the summit itself. On the one had it can be applauded for the diversity that was encouraged. We have papers which go from exegetical and historical concerns (as, for example, papers by Stephen Davis, William Lane Craig, and Alan G. Padgett), to papers on the implications of the resurrection (as for example, those by Janet Soskice and Brian Johnstone). Yet, diverse as this � it is all a diversity of opinion within a more �Western Christian� approach to the Resurrection. There would have been great benefit to look also at some of the modern views of the Resurrection from a primarily �Eastern Christian� approach. As Pope John Paul II has expressed it well, the East and the West are the �two lungs� of the Church. They complement each other, and this complement would have helped strengthen the overall approach of the summit itself to look at the questions on the resurrection from many different viewpoints. Secondarily, each of the papers presented at the summit also had a response given to it by another scholar. In the book, we have only three of the responses. While it is understandable that the editors wanted the book to be of a reasonable size, it is unfortunate that this meant the book did not include more of these responses. The ones included are interesting, and valuable, and help balance out the book. But as it is, the book seems unfortunately unbalanced in presentation because of this editorial judgment. One can say that what John Wilkins recorded from Francis Sch�ssler Fiorenza seems relevant, for at least the presentation in the book. ��Beware,� he said. �You may be more like your opponents than you admit.�� (Wilkins, 2). That is, groups like the Jesus Seminar tend to present their material as if what they put forward is the a consensus of scholars, when it is only the consensus of like-minded scholars at best. The book, while good, seems to portray its results in a way that one would have expected from Funk and Borg, and not from Davis, Kendall and O�Collins � which alas, is far from what the summit itself tried to do. Could they not have either released the results into two books, one on the exegetical questions and one on the philosophical questions, or limited the number of primary essays placed into a single volume so as to give a fair balance with more of the replies?

One approach which is often used to address the resurrection, is to try to redefine its meaning. For some, this means the resurrection was a term used to indicate that life goes on after death � and for the Apostles, their recognition that Jesus continues to be �alive,� even as we all will continue to exist, after our own death (this, for example, can be seen as a transcendental interpretation of the resurrection. We must note for some following this interpretation, they go further and see with it also a glorification and acceptance of Jesus in his death by God the Father is also significant, but still, they see the resurrection itself primarily as the continuation of life. Thus, we can see this, in one form, in the writings of Rahner, or in another from, in the writings of Schillebeeckx). For others, even this might be too far, and it is more a continuation of the message of Jesus which is being indicated by the early Church; Jesus� followers are trying to say that Jesus is alive in the continuation of his message or mission (this too has various nuanced forms, as within the writings of Bultmann or Marxsen). Several participants in the summit have tried to wrestle with this, and point out that the simplest explanation goes beyond either of these: that with the resurrection, there was not only belief in the continuation of Jesus� life, but that Jesus� own body is somehow revived, not just in a resuscitation, but in a new, transformed state. Thus, Steven Davis seeks to explain the appearances of Jesus as being more than merely visualizations. �That is, the risen Jesus was a physical body that was objectively present to the witnesses in space and time, and he was accordingly seen in a normal sense of that word� (Davis, 146). Margerite Shuster takes this argument in a very valuable direction: that of the preaching of the resurrection in Christian history, with specific examples by Augustine, Luther, Barth and Thielicke. Each represents a different point in history who had to face specific doubts to the literal accounts of the resurrection, and each in their preaching, tried to find ways to help their listeners overcome those doubts. Each have a specific audience and different concerns in their preaching: that is different �heresies� or doubts to the resurrection they had to face. Yet, each saw a literal interpretation of the resurrection, that is the most common understanding of the resurrection, was vital to the Christian faith, and had to be preserved. �All of the theologians we are considering,� she writes, �preached unequivocally the centrality of the resurrection to the Christian faith� (Shuster, 311). While, it is true, she goes into detail and seeks more than just to show that the Christian faith has always wrestled with this question, and has always seen it necessary to have a corporeal understanding of the resurrection, nonetheless this brief excursion in history is a very valuable corrective to the modern tendency to try to redefine the meaning of the resurrection to merely �life after death.� If that was the true meaning, then why did the vast majority of Christians, and great Christian thinkers not realize it? It is true she believes that, in modern discussions, �the resurrection often may not be a good apologetic starting-point� (Shuster, 337), yet that is different from recognizing the true meaning of Christianity when it proclaims the resurrection of Jesus. Despite the value of what she offers, nonetheless, I think something similar to what she did, but somewhat different, would have been valuable for the summit. Instead of merely reflecting upon the history of how Christians have defined the resurrection (which is valuable, and should be done), there should also be a reflection upon the early disbelief in the resurrection � or outright mockery of the resurrection � by those who opposed the Christian faith. Why, for example, did the Platonists � or many other kinds of Hellenistic philosophers, find the resurrection to be problem? If it was merely a metaphor for the continuation of life after death � they would have had no problem with what Christianity taught; indeed, they would have welcomed it. Instead, we find a constant criticism of a corporeal resurrection, and Christian apologists, far from saying, �you have misunderstood what we are saying, it is merely metaphor,� worked hard to explain why the resurrection is possible (they did this in a way similar to Swinburne, by saying the omnipotence of God would allow for it) as well as, and more importantly perhaps, to explain why it would be preferable (one way which constantly finds itself proclaimed in Christian apologetics is that, as the soul and body worked together, so would it be fitting that they receive their rewards or punishments together). The testimony, not only of Christians, but of pagan critics of Christianity, helps explain the true meaning of the resurrection. Trying to turn away from it, and say it was merely �allegory� or the�term used for the continuation of Jesus� life and his exaltation, because the early Christians knew no other way to state it� just do not fit the historical testimony of pagan and Christian alike. Indeed, this interpretation would preclude a misunderstanding of the ancient world, and the depth of vocabulary and terminology available at the time.
Richard Swinburne, whom we have already mentioned, offers a discussion as to why we can trust the testimony of those who witnessed the appearances of the risen Christ. First and foremost, he notes that if it was not an extraordinary event, but something quite common, the testimonies we have would not be questioned but taken for granted. �If it were a testimony to Jesus having woken from sleep, rather than to Jesus having risen from the dead, there would be no problem ... in accepting it� (Swinburne, 201). Yet, he admits, the problem is that the claim is something extraordinary. Multiple testimonies not withstanding, the problem is that it is something which seems to go against the �laws of nature.� The way one reads the evidence, and thus, weighs the testimony of the witnesses comes from one�s �background theory� or presuppositions. For many, scientific naturalism is this presupposition, and so they are unwilling to accept, no matter how many testimonies, to accept the resurrection. Swinburne challenges this presupposition, and says that not only must we have evidence for the resurrection, but also for one�s own �background theory.� What is the epistemology for �naturalism?� Can it be shown to be valid? He believes the presupposition that �God exists and is omnipotent, and can act as He wills within history,� has a stronger case for it, and with it, the testimony of the witnesses to the resurrection can be accepted as accurate. While what he offers, admittedly, is only an outline, it still seems somewhat weak. It takes the question back to presuppositions (which is valid), but does not argue effectively to show, even if it is taken for granted that God can act, God would act in this way. Would he, for example, believe in all the miracles associated with Joseph Smith, and the testimonies surrounding those miracles, on the same basis? This, however, is not the end of his argument. Far stronger, in my opinion, is his belief that the early Christians got together on Sundays to celebrate the Eucharist indicates that something happened on a given Sunday (Jesus� resurrection) for even the earliest of Christians to move their holy day from the Sabbath to Sunday. While I do think he is too strong in saying, �There is no plausible origin of the sacredness of Sunday from outside Christianity,� (Swinburne, 209), the question of why Christians would move to celebrate on Sunday if nothing happened on a given Sunday is something which modern interpreters and critics of the resurrection need to answer. If it was just �metaphor,� Sunday does not fit too well. If something happened, it is easy to see why it became an important day to remember.

As an interesting excursion beyond the question of the resurrection, the witnesses of the resurrection, and how we are to read and understand those witnesses, Brian Johnstone�s essay, �Transformation Ethics: The Moral Implications of the Resurrection,� held much promise. On the one there, there is a significant amount of attention drawn to moral theology, and the inability of many (if not most) moral theologians to include the resurrection within the context of their theology. �A review of some scholarly texts of Christian ethics and moral theology indicates that authors have given the theme of the resurrection only a marginal importance, if that.� (Johnstone, 340). He states that it is either it is divine commands, or human experience (and natural law) which has been are the forefront of ethical questions. While both, of course, are to be reflected upon, nonetheless both should be transformed within the light of the resurrection. Even those who have done so, like Oliver O�Donovan, Johnstone believes fails, as for example with O�Donovan, Johnstone notes, �Here, the resurrection functions as a reinstatement of order in the world, which sustains the objective status of ethics. The resurrection belief itself does not shape or illumine the form of moral theology� (Johnstone, 343). After this reflection, Johnstone begins his own examination of the topic, and begins with a discussion of the resurrection and its connection to justice and peace. He believes old ideas of justice need to be replaced, through the lens of the resurrection, in a way which will also seek to bring peace into the world. Then he brings up the question of emancipation, and points out that the resurrection, and not the Mosaic Exodus, should be the focal point of Christian ideas of liberty. Last, he suggests a proper understanding of the resurrection, in being a cosmic event which revitalizes all of creation, itself provides a reason and justification for ecological concerns. Yet in spite of thus rough maps, one question one can have throughout. What real difference is there between his vision of ethics, through the resurrection, and one that can be had naturally without it? How has the resurrection itself truly been incorporated to create a new ethic, a transformed one? What is needed, and what is lacking, is concrete examples, demonstrating (and not just with generalizations) of the old ethic, where it led people, and then his new ethic, and how it is different, and also how it is an improvement. As it stands, the essay almost reads as if he is providing us moral platitudes, which in general, I doubt any significant moral theologian would disagree with.

In the end, what are we to make of the summit? It was a creative initiative which sought different approaches and responses of believing Christians to the resurrection. This is something we truly have, and yet, alas, we only get a partial representation of the summit itself within the book. The diversity, which was so rightfully sought out, seems less when the responses with their divergent opinions are left out. Of the papers themselves, many offer intriguing approaches, but seem to leave the reader wanting. Others, like the one by Swinburne, seem to be really two different papers put together. With Swinburne, I wish he could have focused more on what he wrote in his appendix, since that was an unusual approach (his question of testimony, while important, is also an approach which is often taken by others, especially in apologetic material). Other papers, which have not been as thoroughly commented upon here, have material which make me think, to contemplate, and to come up with ideas of papers I myself could write. For example, Janet Soskice mentions Tippler�s theory of scientific immortality, and explains why she thinks it is insufficient; yet, from my own studies and readings, I would find an essay comparing and contrasting two different visions of �scientific immortality,� one being Tippler, the other being from the Russian philosopher, Fedorov. It is when one reads a book, and finds oneself taking what it has said, and uses it to think further, to develop one�s own vision better, that one finds the book one has read is of quality. As such, despite several weaknesses, some which have been discuss, the summit and the book which it provides, indeed, is of high quality, and well worth the time took to read it.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]