During the last few Easter seasons, I put together posts indexing Triablogue's material on issues related to Jesus' resurrection:
The 2009 post is foundational to the others, so it should be consulted first. These index posts will link you to book reviews, reviews of debates on Jesus' resurrection, responses to objections to the resurrection, and a large variety of other material. Some of our e-books linked on the right side of the screen address the resurrection as well.
Since the 2012 post linked above, we've written many other posts on resurrection issues. What I want to do in the remainder of this post is provide some links to our latest material on the resurrection.
In discussions of Jesus' resurrection, the issue of how the resurrection witnesses died often comes up. Did any of the apostles die as a martyr? If so, which ones? How many of the accounts of their death are trustworthy? Don't many of the claims about the death of the apostles come from accounts that are late, for example? Last year, I wrote a five-part series on what we can conclude about the death of the apostles based on the writings of the apostles and their contemporaries.
Over this past year, I've written a lot about the Shroud of Turin. Here's a thread that addresses Biblical objections to the Shroud, like why the Shroud image isn't mentioned in scripture and whether passages like John 19:40 and 20:7 are inconsistent with the Shroud. The thread here also addresses Biblical issues, like John 19:40 and whether the Shroud is inconsistent with the Biblical prohibition of images. In another thread, I replied to a CBS story about an agnostic medieval art historian who thinks the Shroud is one of the burial cloths of Jesus, but not evidence of Jesus' resurrection. In the comments section of that thread, I address what significance the Shroud would have if the image was formed by a Maillard reaction or some other such natural means. Here's a thread on the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud. The initial post links to an article by Dan Porter on the subject, but there's some further discussion in the comments section that follows. I address the notion that the Shroud is demonic here. I also wrote a post on whether it's sinful to produce or desire evidence for Christianity like the Shroud of Turin. I was responding to an objection to the Shroud based on John 20:29. Later, I wrote a post addressing objections to the length of Jesus' hair as depicted in the Shroud. Steve Hays wrote some posts on the subject as well, which are linked within my post. Last year, I discussed many issues related to the Shroud at TurretinFan's blog. See the comments section of the threads here, here, here, and here. In my posts there, I address evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, Ray Rogers' research undermining the 1988 carbon dating, the medieval photography theory of Nicholas Allen, and many other subjects.
Steve wrote a post on harmonizing the resurrection accounts, particularly what they say about Mary Magdalene. Here's a post Steve wrote about an inconsistency among skeptics regarding whether we could identify Jesus' corpse if it remained in its tomb. And here Steve linked to a post by Kenneth Samples on evidence for the resurrection. John Bugay wrote a post about Larry Hurtado's research on how the earliest Christians viewed Jesus' death and resurrection. Steve linked some of Craig Keener's material on the resurrection. Later, he linked a post by Jeremy Pierce on the resurrection in Mark's gospel. Steve wrote some posts critiquing Roger Olson's view of the resurrection: here, here, here, and here. He also linked a piece by William Lane Craig that replies to Stephen Law on an issue related to the resurrection (a form of the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument). And here Steve critiques a statement on Jesus' resurrection put out by the World Reformed Fellowship. In another post, Steve discusses whether John 20:19 supports the view that Jesus' resurrected body was able to dematerialize and rematerialize. He also wrote a response to Paul Owen on where Jesus ascended to after his resurrection. And here's a post where Steve links to an interview with Michael Licona, largely about resurrection issues. Here Steve wrote about the biological age and appearance of resurrection bodies. Peter Williams recently gave a presentation on "Things Which Ought To Be Better Known About The Resurrection Of Jesus". Evan May linked it here, and Patrick Chan wrote about it here. Steve wrote a post responding to Bradley Bowen's objections to the resurrection. Elsewhere, Steve addressed Peter Enns and some problems a low view of scripture poses for belief in Jesus' resurrection. Steve linked to an article by Randy Ingermanson on Bayes' Theorem and the alleged family tomb of Jesus. And here's a post by Steve on presuppositionalism and the resurrection. Here I link to a roundtable discussion among several scholars concerning Matthew 27:52-53, a passage that's often brought up when Jesus' resurrection is being addressed. In a post here, Steve replies to the notion that there's a high prior improbability against Jesus' resurrection, since God hasn't raised other people from the dead. He addressed the subject again here. And here he writes about a dilemma faced by skeptics who claim that the early Christians believed in a non-physical resurrection. I linked a discussion between Michael Licona and Dale Martin on the resurrection of Christ. Steve linked a critique of Greg Cavin's arguments against the resurrection. And he wrote a response to Greg Cavin and Jeff Lowder on the immortality of the resurrection body. A further reply to Jeff Lowder can be found here. Steve addressed the nature of the resurrection body here and here. He also wrote about the realistic nature of Christian miracles. I wrote about evidence for Jesus' resurrection outside of the New Testament.
Last year, I wrote a series of posts on post-Biblical Christian miracles, primarily miracles in modern times. The series was based on Craig Keener's book on the subject. I addressed medical documentation for miracles, modern resurrection reports, whether God has healed any amputees, how to judge between competing miracle claims, and many other topics.
The historicity of the book of Acts has major implications for the resurrection. Last year, the first volume of Craig Keener’s commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012) came out. The introduction alone is more than 600 pages long. James Dunn calls it "unbeatable in today’s market" on issues of historicity, Richard Bauckham calls it "magisterial" and refers to Keener’s "encyclopedic knowledge of ancient literature", and Daniel Marguerat calls it "the most comprehensive commentary on Acts to date", among other endorsements. In a post here, Steve linked to a video in which Keener discusses the historicity of Acts.