Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The ResurrectionAn Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O'Collins

Print publication date: 1998

Print ISBN-13: 9780198269854

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003

DOI: 10.1093/0198269854.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 15 December 2019

Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection

Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection

Chapter:
(p.148) 7 Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection
Source:
The Resurrection
Author(s):

William P. Alston

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/0198269854.003.0007

This paper is a defence of the (by and large) historical accuracy of the resurrection appearance narratives in the Gospels. The defence is carried out not by giving positive argument that this or that feature of the narratives is accurate, but rather by displaying the failure of attempts by NT scholars to show that a particular feature of the narratives (the appearance of the risen Jesus in embodied, perceptible form) is not of historical value. That argument takes the form of a detailed critique of the contentions of one scholar, Reginald Fuller. To the extent that Fuller's treatment can be taken as representative, this essay, if successful, will have removed a crucial obstacle to the rational acceptance of the appearance narratives as factually correct in the main. The essay ends by identifying certain disqualifying features of Fuller's treatment that, it is claimed, are pervasive in twentieth‐century gospel criticism.

Alston presents, in Coakley's view, a convincing case against the dogmatic scepticism of Reginald Fuller's treatment of the bodily resurrection, though he overstates his case, she suggests, in denying significance to the redactional strands of the Gospel‐writers’ thinking. There is also a puzzling continued appeal to the objective historical ‘facts’ of the case granted that Alston explicitly disavows at the outset anything other than an intra‐Christian approach. His overriding concern to support a ‘literal’ bodily resurrection leads him, she believes, to understress some important dimensions of the resurrection accounts on which she urges him to further explication: the ‘atypical’ nature of the risen body, the consequent importance of metaphorical speech in discussing it, the epistemic transformation required in recognizing it, and the gender dimensions possibly implicit in such recognition.

Keywords:   Alston, appearance narratives, atypical, bodily resurrection, Coakley, disqualifying features, dogmatic scepticism, epistemic transformation, factually correct, Fuller, gender dimensions, Gospel writers, metaphorical speech, redactional, twentieth‐century gospel criticism

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .