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.