Resurrection: What Really Happened?

Several weeks ago the Adult Sunday School class started reading Marcus J. Borg's and N.T. Wrights' book THE MEANING OF JESUS: TWO VISIONS. I'd read this book a couple of years ago and had really wanted to do a book study on it. Borg and Wright, who are colleagues and friends, see Jesus very differently. Their opposing perspectives seem to me to represent the different perspectives I've encountered in the churches I've served.

The book isn't an "easy read" and I'm grateful for the way class members have soldiered through the chapters. We've had some good conversations Sunday mornings on:

• How do we know what we know about Jesus? (March 4th)
• What is the meaning of Jesus Death? (March 11th)

This coming week (March 18th) we're going to tackle what I consider to be the the most challenging and controversial topic discussed in the book: the Resurrection. Borg and Wright are really very far apart on this one. Their differences are largely the result of the very different methods they use in examining the New Testament.

I'll take a shot at summing up their differences by using an analogy. Imagine Borg and Wright are judges presiding over a court case, i.e., "What happened Easter Sunday?" They each hear the case in separate courtrooms and each has his own set of rules to determine what sort of evidence is admissible in his court.

Borg, it seems to me, would rule most "faith statements" inadmissible as evidence for the Resurrection. "Faith Statements," in Borg's language, are "history metaphorized" and "prophecy metaphorized." According to Borg, material like this tells us a lot about what early Christians believed about Jesus, but little about what actually happened to him. As I read Borg, it seems to me he considers much of the Passion Narrative to be comprised of "faith statements." This leads him to "throw out" most of what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell us happened on the first Easter Sunday. Its not that Borg says he's certain it didn't happen, but that you can't make a case for a literally meaning of Resurrection out of the testimony of the gospels.

My question to Borg is, so what evidence do you consider "admissible?"

Wright's approach is very different in two ways.

1. First, he looks at the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection as historically reliable. While admitting the gospel writers certainly embellished a bit to suit their particular needs, Wright believes the story the gospel writers tell reflects what was seen and heard.
2. The second claim made by Wright is that what you can know "by faith" can count as evidence as much as more conventional forms of historical evidence. The experience of the Risen Christ by the early church is admissible evidence in Wright' s "court" and book!

My question to Wright is, why is the jury still out on the Resurrection if the gospel testimony is so credible? From the beginning, people have raised doubts.

What are your questions?