A friend of mine recently wrote the following:

” [I]f scholars admit divine explanations for historical events, then we get a lesser grade of scholarship as a result. Scholars don’t get to reach for divine explanations under any circumstances, regardless of what they personally believe about the past. As products of scholarly labor, such explanations aren’t accepted by the guild, and that’s a good thing.”

He has studied at Harvard and the University of Chicago so I assume he knows what he is saying. I have studied at a confessional institution where one must affirm the resurrection so I could be ignorant. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this is a bit of an over generalization. What about individuals such as Wolfhart Pannenberg of the University of Munich; N.T. Wright who has been as Oxford and Cambridge; Simon Gathercole of Cambridge; Richard Bauckham of the the University of St. Andrews; James D.G. Dunn(?), Francis Watson, and John Barclay of Durham fame; Richard Hayes and Stan Hauwerwaus at Duke; Bruce Longenecker at Baylor; David Aune at Notre Dame and on and on and on. If his definition stands then none of these brilliant minds can be considered legitimate scholars because all allow for the bodily resurrection of Jesus (as far as I understand).

What do you think? Does legitimate scholarship necessarily equate to a denial that we can outright affirm belief in the resurrection on scholarly ground? Or must we resort to what he said that we must wear “two hats”: one of faith; one of scholarship?