3.The failure of naturalistic theories
A third problem with this approach to history in the life of Jesus, especially with Old Liberalism, is that the naturalistic theories that were proposed to account for the resurrection are disproven by the known historical facts. Interestingly enough, it was the liberals themselves who attacked their own theories, in spite of their theological dispositions.
These naturalistic views were very popular in the nineteenth century. There was no consensus of opinion on which theory was the best alternative explanation for the literal resurrection. In fact, many of those who popularized these theories did so only
45 Some examples are Yamauchi, “Easter,” March 15, 1974, pp. 4–7 and March 29, 1974, pp. 12–16; Maier, First Easter, pp. 105–122; Wand, Christianity, pp. 29–31, 51–52, 93–94; A.J.Hoover, The Case for Christian Theism: An Introduction to Apologetics(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), chapter 16.
after attacking and revealing the weaknesses in the other theories of fellow liberals. For instance, Paulus’ swoon theory mentioned above was disarmed by David Strauss, who, according to Schweitzer, dealt it its “death-blow.”^46 We will examine the swoon theory in detail in Chapter 4.
It is not the purpose of this book to take an in-depth look at these alternative theories proposed to explain away the facticity of Jesus’ resurrection. Suffice it to remark here that, as with Paulus’ theory, each of the naturalistic theories was disproven by the liberals themselves. By this process, and by the critiques of others outside their camp, the weaknesses of these attempts were revealed. In other words, each of the alternative theories was disproven by the known historical facts.^47
It is also instructive to note that twentieth century critics usually rejected these theories wholesale. Rather than deal with each proposal separately, the naturalistic attempts to disprove the resurrection were generally dismissed in their entirety by recent critical scholars. For example, Karl Barth, probably the most influential critical theologian of this century, listed the major naturalistic theories and concluded that “Today we rightly turn our nose up at this,” a conclusion derived at least partially from “the many inconsistencies in detail.” He also notes that these explanations “have now gone out of currency.”^48
Similarly, Raymond Brown also provides a list of these theories and then concludes: “the criticism of today does not follow the paths taken by criticism in the past. No longer respectable are the crude theories . . . popular in the last century.”^49 These are just examples of the many contemporary critical theologians who, in spite of their diverse theological persuasions, have agreed in rejecting the alternative theories against the resurrection.^50
Therefore, not only were the naturalistic theories disproven by the historical facts, but nineteenth century Liberals critiqued these views individually, while twentieth century critics have generally dismissed them as a whole. These
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.
