Oh, and he says you can't say that it's both. He calls that response "neat but spurious." I'm having a tough time buying the forced dichotomy. To rule it out seems like a logical fallacy to me. It's un-nuanced. I can't see separating content from intent. Event, proclamation, interpretation--they're all interwoven in my book.
So. I'm reading this and Wilhelm Thusing this weekend as they are two exegetes whose reading of scripture seemed to influence Karl Rahner on his writing on the resurrection. I'm trying to "backtrack" Rahner's thinking here and see to what extent he's influenced by these two.