Toto

The Resurrection of the Son of God

The reviews give more details. It sounds like Wright is arguing that because early Christians claimed Jesus was bodily resurrected, and did not talk about a merely spiritual resurrection, that he must have been resurrected in his body. (How does this follow? Did everyone always tell the truth back then?)

It sounds like he also uses the sort of arguments William Lane Craig uses to argue that there was an empty tomb, which involve a naive faith in the validity of historical documents (to quote someone.)

Is there more to it than this? (I guess I'm asking if it's worth $27.30 to find out if there's more.)

Layman

Though there is some overlap, this work is much more in depth and has a different emphasis than Craig's. Or at least, it has so far.

I can't imagine you would think any work by any theist was worth $27.30. What I think is pretty impressive is Wright's survey of "life-after-death" beliefs during the classical period. Very thorough and revealing. Even if you find his ultimate argument unpersuasive this general survey is valuable in and of itself.

His survey of the pauline epistles has high points, but is not as remarkable as the initial, general survey. However, I found his discussion of Philipians very illuminating, though on matters generally unrelated to resurrection.

I haven't finished his wrap of argument for the resurrection yet.

Toto

I thought of Craig because one review said which is Craig's approach, and however more in "depth" it is argued, has no persuasive value to anyone who appreciates the problems of historical proof.

Layman

Well, Toto, it's not clear what you mean. It sounds as if you are saying that if Wright concludes that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, as Craig certainly does, then they are taking the same approach. Actually, this simply means they arrive at the same conclusion.

But I realize that perhaps such a distinction if lost on those who believe that there can be no historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.

Toto

Craig argues that the resurrection is the historical theory that best fits the "facts" as he defines them. The quote made it seem that Wright takes the same approach.

But you are right that any such approach will not impress anyone who thinks that the proof of an extraordinary event, such as the resurrection of the dead, requires much more evidence than some ancient documents based on hearsay at best, that have been copied and edited and probably forged.

Layman

Scandolous! Do you prefer historians who reach conclusions that they admit do no fit the "facts"?

Toto

I meant to cast doubt on his list of on "facts" - such as the empty tomb (for which there is no evidence beyond documents written long after the event.) But even then, I felt that Craig was less than honest in how he judged the best historical explanation. He had a list of criteria for how historians rate theories for their explanatory value, one of which was "no supernatural intervention required." But he claimed that the resurrection still was the best explanation, because only one supernatural event was required!

Oh, and Vork - your jaw may drop, but this is the current tack for Christian apologetics - to claim that it is based only on secular methods and evidence. Thus Intelligent Design claims to be science, anti-abortion proponents claim to have a "scientific" proof that life begins at conception and refuse to base their arguments on the Bible (for good reason), and Craig claims that history supports the resurrection. They join forces with the post-modern anti-science crowd in attacking the scientific world view.

Layman

Strawmen aside, um, what is your point about Wright? Because he also believes the empty tomb is relevant to the inquiry, his argument is the exact same as Craig's?

Vorkosigan

"extreme incredulity" A thinking human being regards the Resurrection as highly probable on historical grounds and incredulity is not warranted?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Yes, I've noticed that uncomfortable conjunction between the post-modernists and Christian apologists. Have you read Forbidden Archaeology? They actually make use of post-modern criticisms of science to advance a Creationism of the Vedic variety.

Vorkosigan