Easter Enigma/Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict (Paperback)

~ John Wenham (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 168 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge Univ Pr (Txp); 2 Sub edition (July 1993)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0801097266
• ISBN-13: 978-0801097263
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 6.4 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #863,757 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

20 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Easter apologetics, March 21, 2002

By	Dr A G Foord (London, UK) - See all my reviews

John Wenham tackles the question in his title "Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict?" His approach is that we do not need to know the exact sequence of events. Any sequence of events that would fit the accounts demonstrates that there need not be a conflict. John then describes a possible sequence of events that fits all the accounts of the resurrection. He does not claim that this is the actual sequence of events, nor does he tackle the issue of "is resurrection possible?". John does demonstrate that there is at least one sequence of events that fits the accounts of the resurrection. He argues (in my view correctly) that thus there need not be a conflict in the accounts. For me, he achieved his purpose and I also found it a very readable and thought provoking book. Tony Foord 21 March 2002

6 of 33 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/books/, July 13, 1997

By A Customer

_Easter Enigma_ is a highly speculative attempt to reconcile inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives, and in this book Wenham admits that Matthew's story of the Roman guard "bristles with improbabilities at every point" (p. 79). Wenham cited the guards' reporting to the chief priests and their accepting a bribe to tell their officers that the body had been stolen while they had fallen asleep on duty as major improbabilities in the story.

So did Wenham find the improbabilities too hard to swallow? Certainly not, because the aim of his book was to defend the accuracy of the resurrection narratives despite their "apparent" inconsistencies. "It is a worthless piece of Christian apologetic at whatever date it was written," Wenham concluded, "unless it happens to be undeniably true" (Ibid., original emphasis). So there you have it. "It is so absurd that it just has to be true," Wenham was arguing. Well, I hope he will forgive me for saying that it is so absurd I cannot believe it, and that is a much more rational reaction to an implausible story like this.