I think you might have misunderstand me. I was probably not clear. In one sense, everything about the Bible is a “historical critical issue” (resurrection, dating of the gospels, reliability, interpretation, etc). It’s an umbrella term that covers everything. That or we can jump into pure systematic theology where the author will view the Bible as the word of God and offer a systematic treatment of all scripture as if it’s all correct and consistent with one another.
I have no objections to someone choosing either road. I do have issues when people mix up the two or masquerade one road as the other. With that being said it is okay to let the historical-critical method guide systematic theology.
I am not overly interested in simplified arguments that have many hidden assumptions on something like the resurrection or the person of Jesus. My whole life and worldview is oriented around Christ. I have no suggestions for you besides an Intro to the NT on that front. Note the title of it. “Introduction” to the NT. I think that is exactly what you are asking for. It’s meant to be an introduction to these issues. Besides that I don’t like simplifications or superficial treatments.
In science education I could give you different models and explanations at different levels based on age and prior knowledge when teaching. I will leave it at condensation in middle school. High school will get an introduction to the Bergeron process whereas college gets a full cloud micro physics. But how many teachers mistakenly err in their careers and teach something false when simplifying things (e.g. explaining lift and wings or Bernoulli’s principle, or why we have tides)? I had a student in physics tell me last week their middle school teacher told them astronauts float because there is no gravity in space.
This process is much more difficult in Biblical studies because there is so much judgment and probability (opinion?) involved unlike in science. You have to date and get every work and make judgments on hundreds of critical issues, many which do not have certain answers. The field is too polarized with too many background assumptions and for so many there is too much at stake for me to read simplified versions of arguments by scholars in one camp while many other scholars are in another. How many people on this forum have very nuanced views?
I personally have interest in opinion puff pieces given the diversity in NT studies. Historical Jesus research is a prime example. There are almost as many versions of the historical Jesus as there are exegetes reconstructing him. I just bought a new one. Crossleys new Marxist interpretation of the historical Jesus arrived yesterday.
Simplified treatments to me end up making comments like this:
“We know that Paul’s letters circulated quickly, so there’s no reason to think the Gospels didn’t do the same.”
As if the four gospels were not all written by different authors to different communities, possibly separated by hundreds or thousands of miles in a time before email or cars, each community with different numbers of adherents with different financial means, education, ethnicity and outlooks, at different times—possibly 30 years or more, in different historical situations (before temple, after templ, during peace, during persecution 1et ), and each has its own dissemination and popularity. How many scholars will tell you Matthew was the most popular Gospel in the second century? But because a few of Paul’s letters circulated to a few local churches early we get to claim there is no reason to believe the gospels (all four) didn’t circulate rapidly as these few Pauline letters. Not to mention no reason to believe they didn’t is not a reason to believe they did. If I have no reason to believe you didn’t go to the grocery store yesterday, does that mean you did? I am not interest in simplified NT stuff. If I wanted to learn about the production and discrimination of ancient Christian writings I would just read Gamble’s Books and Readers in the Early Church.
A better approach As we saw in a different thread is to focus on the best version of argument. How many times do Christian apologists misconstrue and star man critical scholarship? This only gets work without the nuances. Ehrman’s scholarly work (Forgery and Counter forgery) is of a vastly different caliber than his popular work as we saw. Some critiques his comments in the popular work but they all dissolve away when dealing with the scholarly one.
Reading popular works in my experiences means reading summaries of issues by people who agree with me or are going to tell me what I want to hear.
You want a summary on the resurrection? By who? A fundamentalist Christian? A fundamentalist Catholic? A liberal Christian? An evangelical from America? An evangelical from across the pond? An atheist? An agnostic? A historian? A lawyer trying to do history? An apologist? Someone from the Jesus seminar?
I’m not interested in wading through the muck of opinions. You want a good critical book on the resurrection, Allison is it. You want bad history that will tell you what you want to hear, McDowell or Craig is fine.