46 Schweitzer, Quest, p. 56.
47 See the excellent 1908 work by James Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965). Cf. Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1976), especially pp. 114–171.
48 Karl Barth, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, in Church Dogmatics, 14 vols., transl. by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), vol. IV, p. 340. 49 Raymond E. Brown, “The Resurrection and Biblical Criticism,” in Commonweal, November 24, 1967, p. 233. 50 See Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971), vol. II, especially p. 156; Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 181–185; Joachim Jeremias, “Easter: The Earliest Tradition and the Earliest Interpretation,” New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus, transl. by John Bowden (New York: Scribner’s, 1971), p. 302; Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, pp. 123–125; Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, pp. 88–97; Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection, transl. by A.M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977), pp. 117–119; Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, pp. 120–126; cf. A.M. Hunter, Bible and Gospel(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), p. 111.
hypotheses have not stood the test, even from a critical perspective. These are important indications of the failure of the alternative approach to Jesus’ resurrection.
4.The possibility of theology
The fourth critique of this historical approach will only be mentioned briefly since it cannot be dealt with in this book. But the attempt of both contemporary historians and nineteenth century liberals to ignore the theological teachings in the life of Jesus might also be subject to revision if it is found that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead.^51 If the resurrection were shown to be an historical event, it would have much possible relevance for Jesus’ theological teachings, which could not then be ruled out as irrelevant.