By the late 1960s, following the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg and other post-Bultmanneans, the main elements of the contemporary case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus began to fall into place. This development is illustrated by an article that appeared in 1969 that was written by a Catholic scholar, Joseph J. Smith, S.J. Read More…
Category: Resurrection Case (General)
Learning the Basics about New Testament Studies
The problem of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is really a subset of “historical Jesus” research, which in turn is a subset of New Testament studies. For anyone seriously investigating the resurrection, it’s essential to have a basic working knowledge of New Testament studies. Not all of us, however, have the time or Read More…
The Problem of Missing Examples
In their presentations of the case for the resurrection of Jesus, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and Michael Licona generally use two parts: a set of supposedly widely accepted basic facts, and a process of historical methodology. The historical methodology itself has three separate elements: methods for determining the basic set of facts, methods for Read More…