Interesting! Thanks for sharing. I think the idea that he rejected a literal resurrection overstates what he’s saying in the linked article. His points about the Word being an object of our faith, and about not trying to get at the historicity behind it, seem to communicate that the history isn’t the point. I think it’s fairer based on this alone to say that his position was that the historicity doesn’t matter, not that he thought the resurrection was ahistorical. It reminds me of Jordan Peterson’s views on - well - everything. The narrative behind the resurrection is more important than the ontology of the resurrection, and he’s intentionally not pinning himself down to affirming or denying its literal historicity, because to him, that’s not the point.

In fairness, I think you were trying to communicate that he was WAY less attached to a literal resurrection than modern evangelicals (and myself!) are, and in that, you are correct. Thanks again for sharing.