THE NATURE OF JESUS’ RISEN BODY; A COMPARISON OF THE VIEWS OF JAMES D. G. J. DUNN AND NICHOLAS THOMAS WRIGHT

Abstract

The context within which this research project is situated is that of current debates on the nature of Jesus risen body. The resurrection of Jesus is not only central datum of the Christian faith by also regarded as unique by itself. The resurrection of Jesus is the nerve cell among most Christian traditions over the world. However, over the past few decades the debate surrounding the nature of Jesus’ risen body has led to a multitude of interpretations.1 This study describes and compares two main views represented by two New Testament scholars, namely James Dunn and N.T. Wright. The study is primarily textual and conceptual analysis. It seeks to find out how the views of James Dunn on spiritual resurrection of Jesus Christ converged and diverged from the N.T. Wright’s view on the physical resurrection of Jesus on their common concept of bodily resurrection.Both James Dunn and N.T. Wright affirm that Jesus risen body was bodily yet Dunn maintains that the risen body was spiritual and Wright also maintain that the risen body was physical. What does the bodily resurrection means is not clear among them. Remarkably, even spiritual, physical as well as bodily resurrection is clear among theologians. N.T. Wright believes that the empty tomb is necessary to maintain the facticity of Jesus’ resurrection. James Dunn thinks that one can believe the resurrection of Jesus without believing the narratives of the empty tomb. For Dunn spiritual resurrection does not depend on the empty tomb. 1Some claim that Jesus’ resurrection is without analogy in experience thus it is unique experience (Moltmann 1967: 197). Nonetheless, theologians like Crossan and GerdLüdemann view the resurrection as subjective, even, visional. Various Christian theologians have contributed to a more systematic discussion on the nature of Jesus’ resurrection.