Habermas: JESUS' RESURRECTION
171
Contemporary critical thinkers have generally based their most
crucial discussions on the resurrection almost exclusively on the writ-
ings of Paul, and 1 Corinthians 15 in particular. Evangelicals have too
long been largely ignored by the critical community for their "over-
commitment" to the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection appear-
ances as credible sources. But it is certainly time that evangelical
scholars do a more thorough job stating why we think these gospel
accounts, in particular, deserve equal emphasis along with the testi-
mony of Paul and others. To date, too many evangelicals have been
complacent, largely attempting to write to each other, repeating old
presentations of evidence for Jesus' resurrection without really grap-
pling with contemporary concerns. For this we deserve criticism.
52
In retrospect, there appears to be the possibility of some intrigu-
ing connections between these five models, although it is difficult to
be dogmatic here. The third group seems to be a more recent devel-
opment from the second, where it is possible that the latter was
judged to have placed too much emphasis on the disjunction between
history and faith. Model four is a modern, critical defense of the
resurrection which might be viewed at least partially as a reaction to
the first and second models while not going as far as the traditional,
orthodox view represented by the fifth group. Conversely, models
one and five may be viewed as antitheses, while two and four are
rivals on the issue of historicity.
It is also very important to note that of these five models, only the
first is generally characterized by a rejection of (or agnostic attitude
towards) the literal resurrection of Jesus. Just as significant is the
observation that the first view not only appears to be losing ground,
but varying positions which support the facticity of the resurrection
appearances are presently quite popular.
53
It is for this reason that
Continuing Quest (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972); N. Anderson, Jesus Christ: The
Witness of History (Leichester: InterVarsity, 1985); F. F. Bruce, The New Testament
Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960); Green, The Empty
Cross of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984); A. J. Hoover, The Case for
Christian Theism: An Introduction to Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976); C. S.
Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: Macmillan, 1960); P. L. Maier, First
Easter (New York: Harper & Row, 1973); J. McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San
Bernardino: Here's Life, 1981); J. W. Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1964,1965); J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense
of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987); R. Nash, Christian Faith and Historical
Understanding (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984); C. Pinnock, Set Forth your Case
(Chicago: Moody, 1967); and M. Tenny, The Reality of the Resurrection (New York:
Harper & Row, 1963).
52
1 am not speaking of the volumes in notes
46-51,
many of which have made
serious contributions in these areas.
53
Once again, this is a broad survey, hence necessitating generalities rather than
detailed expositions of these five positions. Concerning the second group in particular, it