All Comments for: Easter, Unedited | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > April (Web-only)

Christianity Today, April (Web-only), 2009 |

Excerpt

Easter, Unedited

N. T. Wright says the Gospels' Resurrection accounts are odd because they are fresh.

Excerpted from Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened, by Craig A. Evans and N. T. Wright. | posted 4/09/2009 09:12AM

In Jesus, The Final Days, N. T. Wright and Craig A. Evans set out to bridge the gap between academic and devotional discussions of the Passion. The third — and last — chapter of the book is ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: April 14, 2009 12:13 PM

It is suffficient to expose the "strange absence of Scripture in the resurrection stories" as A GREAT LIE going hand in hand with the present-day, theological revision and complete misrepresentation of the well- documented "resurrection", as the defining moment and once-and-for-all self-revelation of Jesus Christ, in principle and practice, right in his death on the cross and by his own free will and authority; as well as the confusion created between "resurrection appearances" and "post-resurrection appearances". Anyone interested can check it out!

Herb Skoglund

Posted: April 14, 2009 10:57 AM


In his, The Faith of the Church, 1958, pp.107-8, Karl Barth proposes a similar veiw of the resurrection accounts and concludes that;,The witnesses attended an event that went over their heads,and each one told a bit of it. But these scraps are sufficient to bear witness to us of the magnitude of the event and its historicity."

Tata	Posted: April 09, 2009 6:12 PM

I don't think Dr. Wright is talking about a disinterested reporting of the event of the Easter. What he is saying is that these stories were not "made up" as if they did not happen the way they were reported. When you stress too much the report as reactionary against docetism then you are likely to make yourself believe that MAYBE nothing like that happened after all, and let others see you that way. What you have as a result is a fanciful Christianity with no solid basis. Another way to see what Wright is saying is, let's assume that there was no docetism at all, will these stories still have been told the way they are told? And the answer YES, because those who experienced the crucified Lord knew that the event is worth telling and the transformation of the world impinge upon it! Therefore it is a docetism-free telling of the story.

Howard Pepper

Posted: April 09, 2009 5:13 PM

Wright notes that "These stories are extremely peculiar, and the type ... that would not have been invented." That is equally as speculative as that which he dismisses handily about anti-docetism being in mind in their composition. How can one rule out what might have been invented for any number of reasons not within the text or in historical study? And if not invented completely, it IS necessary that they are edited work (contra article title)....How else would they get written and included at all, and in a particular format, content, etc.? If one reads the various resurrection accounts comparatively as well as in context in their own books, it is clear they share this with their full gospels: they are not in the nature of mere reporting as if by some bystander sharing observations fairly accurately. They are polemical works, for both shoring up the faithful and perhaps convincing the interested. They vary significantly, as in where they took place, plus much more. Try comparing.

Dr. James Willingham

Posted: April 09, 2009 4:43 PM

Worthwhile and striking. Definitely a must read. It is the anomalies, the disjointedness that point to the reality of the experience. It really requires one to think outside the box, to develop now avenues and approaches of thought in order to grasp this intrusion of the Divine into the human realm. Our problem today is with the scientific method which is seriously flawed due to its preoccupation with analysis. What is needed among many other things is an understanding of synthetical, paradoxical, and holistical ways of investigation. The visitation from on High is designed to force the human mind into new categories and channels of reflection. Could this be the source for the development of the present scientific method out of the Christian Doctrine of the immanence of God as Whitehead suggested? Could it also be that the method is still lacking due to the lack of understanding of other Christian truths about the nature of God?

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment