James Chastek, over on his wonderful, compelling blog, Just Thomism, writes in Note on resurrection arguments:
If you define resurrection as an act that can only be done by a God-man, then an actual resurrection would count as proof of an actual God-man. This isn’t what I chiefly had in mind, but rather the resurrection arguments given by a large number of orthodox Christian English speaking philosophers and theologians (N.T. Wright, The McGrews, R. Swinburne, W.L. Craig, or anyone who researches the Shroud of Turin). This is a big field in apologetics, even to the point of being the defining argument of contemporary English-speaking apologetics. I don’t deny the power of the argument, but I want to analyze its power into a part that is largely dialectical, historical and contextual. Such an argument leads to orthodox Christianity only because of many artificial parameters of what counts as a proof for orthodox Christianity. (bolding mine)
Definition might be the problem here. Is the revival or resuscitation of the daughter of Jairus a resurrection? The raising of Lazarus? And what about Tabitha revived by Peter and Eutychus revived by Paul? Don’t expect to get a clear answer from Wikipedia.
Picture is Resurrection of Christ by Noel Coypel, ca. 1700.