Wolfhart Pannenberg’s book on the historical issue of the Resurrection and the delay of the Parousia (Second Coming) presents a powerful argument for the validation of scripture and a refutation of the modern New Testament literary hyper-criticism approach. Pannenberg examines two specific aspects of the Resurrection (the after-Easter appearances of Jesus and the empty tomb) and the modern critical thought surrounding them, as well as the issue of the Parousia in lieu of Jesus’s Resurrection.
Pannenberg begins with the appearance of Jesus to Paul and argues against the idea that Paul merely borrowed from older traditions of appearances. Unlike the Disciples, Paul’s Christophany took the form of an audition as opposed to the more familiar descriptions the Disciples give. Paul’s experience also had a uniqueness about it but still was comprised of elements that gave it the signature of a biblical vision--specifically, the signature of seeing the risen Christ.
Pannenberg then goes on to examine whether or not the whole experience was just a psychological one, as some scholars he suggested. Contrary to their opinions, Pannenberg states, “Something like this did not arise as the mental reaction to Jesus’ catastrophe.” His final conclusion is that there is not enough legitimate evidence to prove or disprove that argument and so conclusions cannot be so final.
Pannenberg further asserts that modern scholars are hypocritical in their approach to the New Testament accounts for they, themselves, are applying their own biases to begin with on whether a man can rise from the dead. Beyond that, they are being inconsistent in their historiography because they are critiquing the whole experience historically while at the same time denying it is an actual historical event.
Pannenberg moves on to tackle the empty tomb and in similar fashion, takes his opponents assumptions and dismisses them one by one. He begins by pointing out the fact that the empty tomb would be impossible to fake as there was too much notoriety and public awareness of it. Furthermore, if it were a conspiracy concocted by the Disciples (or by some body snatchers), then their behavior was inconsistent in that endeavor. If they were away, how could they steal the body and if they stole the body, why did they stay? The community of early believers was a “reliable testimony for the fact that the grave had been found open.” Finally, the fact that both of these traditions came into being around the same time suggests that their assertion is that much stronger and more valid, at least historically.
Pannenberg then focuses on what Jesus’ Resurrection and coming Parousia means to humanity in the present. His conclusion is that it is just as meaningful to humanity now as it was to the early Christians, for the return of the Lord “has become promise once again for us.” We await confirmation just as our Christian forerunners did—with hope and expectation.
Pannenberg’s work for me, as a hopeful church historian, is one of assurance and confidence that it is possible to approach the Bible’s stories in a logical and intelligent way. In fact, contrary to the fanciful humanistic optimism that overtakes so many modern scholars, as a Christian, I can admire and promote my faith and the book that it rests upon as more than a psychological mirage or concocted theo-drama. There may be mysterious issues and complexities with linguistic nuances and interpretation, but there is also truth in the New Testament. These twenty-seven ancient books deserve the same amount of respect as other historical works examined by modern scholars—that is, if the scholars really desire to be critical builders of truth and not merely cynical, circular-reasoning deconstructionists.
Bibliography
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus, God and Man. Lewis L. Wilkins, Duane A. Priebe, trns. Philadelphia : Westminster Press, 1977.