When doubt is cast upon, say, Genesis being a historical account, the axe is not far from the tree of Jesus' resurrection being dounted as a historical account.
We are apt to say that Genesis 1 & 2 were never meant to be historical accounts, and shouldn't be interpreted that way. There were no historians present when those events happened. There was no one to write down what happened, what was said, etc. There's a reason that Genesis 1-11 are called "pre-history". The accounts of Jesus' resurrection are written, in part, to be historical accounts. They are also written to convey truths and meanings beyond, "This is what happened back in history." For example, relating the story of the resurrection is meant to assure the people 50, 500, and 2000 years later that Jesus is alive.
Indeed, I have heard rumors -- which I would like to disbelieve-- that some in the ELCA have argued that the crucifixion is to be understood spiritually and not physically. As I said, when any of the Bible is considered to be unreliable, then all of it becomes open to being considered unreliable.
I have never heard anyone suggest that there was not a literal crucifixion. There are some, most notably, Crossan, who is not Lutheran, who believes that Jesus' body, like all the other crucified bodies, was eaten by birds and wild dogs. I've not heard one Lutheran support that view, but I haven't heard every Lutheran scholar. I have heard Lutheran speakers refute that view -- as I have done in sermons and newsletter articles.
Without disputing the fact of the resurrection, I do point out all the differences in the biblical appearance stories. While there are a lot of similarities in biblical accounts of the passion and even of the empty tomb, there are no similar appearances stories in the gospels. There are no appearances in authentic Mark, but a promise that Jesus would appear in Galilee. Matthew records one appearance in Galilee. Luke records two appearance events, both around Jerusalem. John has an appearance to Mary, then two appearances a week apart in the locked room, then a fourth by the Sea of Tiberius. It seems clear to me that each Gospel writers tells the appearance stories to fit in with the theology or emphases of their whole writing. They are not writing as objective historians, but as committed believers and evangelists. They are proclaiming the gospel, not writing history. (Thus my analogy that the genre of gospel is similar to the genre of sermon.) This doesn't mean that their history is made up or faulty, but they pick and choose stories that were available to them and/or adapted -- told in their own way -- oral traditions about resurrection appearances that best proclaimed the theological truths that they are emphasizing. Their primary concern is to tell us about God (theo-logy) not history.
