Being the third volume in his trilogy, one of the leading authorities on Judaism during the age of Jesus, Geza Vermes, pontificates in his book, The Resurrection (Doubleday, 2008):

The only sustainable conclusion is that corporeal resurrection played no significant part in the thinking of Jesus, although he was undoubtedly aware of the idea.  [And then in the very next section of the chapter, Vermes writes] By contrast, due to the peculiar perspective of the evangelist, a totally different picture emerges from the Gospel of John (66-67).

Later in the book, he provides what ought to be at the top of the list in 2008, categorized under my heading of “Hypocritically Pioused Statements by Biblical Scholars.”

One could speak of eight theories [of the resurrection], but I have discounted the two extremes that are not susceptible to rational judgment, the blind faith of the fundamentalist believer and the out-of-hand rejection of the inveterate skeptic.  The fundamentalists accept the story, not as written down in the New Testament texts, but as reshaped, transmitted, and interpreted by Church tradition.  They smooth down the rough edges and abstain from asking tiresome questions (141).