¹ New Every Morning (BBC, London, 1983), p. 35.Google Scholar

² In the context of a discussion of the resurrection Donald MacKinnon has drawn attention to the significance of the dispute between realism and idealism for theology. The Resurrection: A Dialogue, Lampe and MacKinnon, (Mowbray, London, 1966), p. 110ff.Google Scholar

³ Bultmann, Rudolf, ‘The New Testament and Mythology’ in Kerygma and Myth I, ed. Bartsch, (SPCK, London, 1953)Google Scholar, Marxsen, Willi, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (SCM, London, 1970)Google Scholar; cf. Knox, John, The Death of Christ (Collins, London, 1970)Google Scholar, Appendix; Perrin, Norman, The Resurrection Narratives: A New Approach (SCM, London, 1977)Google Scholar, passim; Ogden, Schubert, Christ Without Myth (Collins, London, 1962)Google Scholar, Chapter IV; Tracy, David, Blessed Rage For Order (Seabury Press, New York, 1975), p. 220.Google Scholar

⁴ ‘Faith in the resurrection is really the same thing as faith in the saving efficacy of the cross’: op. cit., p. 41.

⁵ ibid., p. 42. For a good exegesis of Bultmann's position on the resurrection sec Ogden, op. cit., pp. 83–8.

⁶ That this is a consideration which held sway with Bultmann is brought out by Hans Jonas in his essay ‘Is Faith Still Possible: Memories of Rudolf Bultmann and Reflections on the Philosophical Aspects of His Work’, Harvard Theological Review, 1982, p. 18.

⁷ Bultmann's polemic against objectivising modes of thought provides, I believe, the key to his entire system. It is derived from Herrmann's relationalism in which faith arises out of a pre-cognitive state of the self in relation to God. Both Herrmann and Bultmann are implacably opposed to any suggestion that faith is grounded in the assent of the intellect to propositional knowledge. This provides the setting for Bultmann's treatment of the faith-history problem and even pervades his exegesis.

⁸ Many recent treatments of the resurrection begin with a careful examination of the historical background to the sources, e.g. Schillebeeckx's Jesus (Collins, London, 1979).

⁹ cf. Fuller, R. H., The Formation Of The Resurrection Narratives (SPCK, London, 1972), pp. 131ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ cf. the essay by Barth, G. in Tradition And Interpretation In Matthew, ed. Bornkamm, Barth and Held (SCM, London, 1963), pp. 131–137.Google Scholar

¹¹ ‘Luke's resurrection is not an end in itself but a point of transition.’ Evans, C. F., Resurrection And The New Testament (SCM, London, 1970), p. 96.Google Scholar

¹² The Gospel of John (Blackwell, Oxford, 1971), pp. 681ff.Google Scholar

¹³ According to his method of Sachkritik Bultmann concludes that Paul in the moment of polemic departs from his main intention, Faith And Understanding (SCM, London, 1969). PP. 83–84.Google Scholar

¹⁴ C. H. Dodd has written: ‘No statement could be more emphatic or unambiguous. In making it Paul is exposing himself to the criticism of resolute opponents, who would have been ready to point to any flaw in his credentials or in his presentation of the common tradition.’ ‘The Appearances Of The Risen Christ: An Essay In Form Criticism Of The Gospels’ in Studies In The Gospels, ed. Nineham, (Blackwell, Oxford, 1957), p. 28.Google Scholar

¹³ ‘The evangelists want to show that the activity of jesus goes on. It goes on in spite of his death on the cross; and it remains the activity of the same Jesus who was once active on earth’, op. cit., p. 77.

¹⁶ ibid., p. 128.

¹⁷ Jesus, p. 393.

¹⁸ This is the position that arises out of Ogden's revision of Bulimann.

¹⁹ Schillebeeckx, Jesus; Küng, Hans, On Being A Christian (Collins, London, 1974)Google Scholar; Lampe and Mackinnon, The Resurrection: A Dialogue; Mackey, James, Jesus: The Man And The Myth (SCM, London, 1979).Google Scholar

²⁰ An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Selby-Bigge, (Third Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975), Section X, ‘Miracles’, p. 116.Google Scholar

²¹ op.cit., p. 380.

²² ibid., p. 391.

²³ ibid., p. 345.

²⁴ A possible response might be to argue that given those experiences of the disciples, what explains their issuing in the resurrection faith is their conjunction with prevailing categories and beliefs. Yet this runs into the difficulty that the apocalyptic idea of the resurrection of the Last Day as something that could occur in advance for one person had no precedent in Jewish thought. Schillebeeckx makes this point himself (ibid., p. 395—6).

²⁵ op. cit, p. 352.

²⁶ op. cit., Chapter Three.

²⁷ ibid., pp. 100ff.

²⁸ ibid., p. 97.

²⁹ ibid., p. 117.

³⁰ Church Dogmatics, III.2 (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1958), p. 448.Google Scholar

³¹ Resurrection (Darton, Longman and Todd, London, 1982), p. 106.Google Scholar

³² To argue that the empty tomb is irrelevant because it cannot verify the resurrection is a familiar non sequitur. Cf. Küng: ‘the empty tomb alone even in the light of the stories cannot provide any proof of the resurrection or justify any hope of the resurrection. … Faith in the risen Christ therefore is independent of the empty tomb.’ (op. cit., pp. 365–366).

³³ This is emphasised by Evans, op. cit., p. 78.

³⁴ This is well argued by Hans von Campenhausen in ‘The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb’ in Tradition and Life in the Early Church (Collins, London, 1968), pp. 59–61, 75f.Google Scholar

³⁵ For a measured discussion of the concept of resurrection at that time, see Evans, op. cit., Chapter One.

³⁶ cf. Bultmann, , The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Blackwell, Oxford, 1963), p. 274.Google Scholar

³⁷ This apologetic thrust should be confined, I think, to combating negative judgments about the historical core of the narratives. If it is allowed a wider scope it easily degenerates into a crude argument for the resurrection as ‘best explanation’ and thus becomes a distraction from the central christological issues raised by the slory. For a sensitive exploration of the psychological state of the disciples, see Sebastian Moore's two articles. ‘The Resurrection: A Confusing Paradigm Shift’, Downside Review 1980; ‘An Empty Tomb Revisited’, Downside Review 1981.

³⁸ There are traces of an initial appearance to Peter at Mark 16.7, Luke 24.34, the narrative of John 21. Luke, though he knows of an appearance to Peter, has not taken the liberty of creating a story around this detail. Thus Dodd writes: ‘However ready he may have been to ‘write up” traditional material which had reached him, and however great the skill he displays in doing so, he was clearly not willing to create a whole story out of a bare statement like this’ (op. cit., pp. 34–5).

³⁹ The Identity of Jesus Christ (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1974), p. 145.Google Scholar