Hello S. Joshua Swamidass:
Thanks for writing.
You asked: “Have you had a chance yet to read NT Wright’s work on the Resurrection yet?”
Response: Yes. As a matter of fact I have examined it numerous times over the approximate past ten years. And, I have listened to his lectures/interviews on the internet. Previously, I wrote that his book has made a substantial contribution to the discussion about Jesus’s resurrection. One of his great fortes is his knowledge about background information. My concern is primarily about the relevant resurrection accounts: 1 Cor 15:1-19 [pp. 317-329], Mark 16:1-8 [pp. 616-627], Matt 28 [pp. 632-645], Luke 24 [pp. 647-660], and John 20, 21 [pp. 662-679]. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Dr. Wright did not devote as much space to these significant chapters (less than 100 pages). However, he had an objective when he penned his text and that agenda must be respected. My text, did, in fact, interact with his text, and more so with other Christian apologists. In a future text, I hope to continue that conversation.
You wrote: I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate a consistent and coherent historical methodology."
Response: The methodology in The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry is very simple. I attempted (in general, not always) to chronologically investigate the NT employing a horizontal reading of the relevant texts. To assist the reader, a parallel presentation of the relevant verses initiates each of the 113 issues. Then, I provide a brief introduction to each issue. Here, I often present both sides of the religious aisle. Afterwards, I present either a speculation [a speculation is nothing more than a speculation] or contradiction [omissions are, at times, considered omissions]. In both the speculation and contradiction, once again, I have a healthy and intellectually honest conversation with many Christian apologists and theologians. To facilitate this conversation, numerous tables are presented. So, in my mind, although I could be wrong, my presentation was consistent and coherent.
In volume II, currently being edited, I specifically deal with apologetics, especially the Minimal Facts Approach.
Perhaps, if your time permits, you can clarify your request that I demonstrate: a consistent and coherent historical methodology. Your input would be most appreciated.
Well, I hope that I addressed your concerns and constructive criticism. [Only by accepting constructive criticism can we improve ourselves.]
Thank you for your input.