|
Our first task is to examine just how believable the stories about the resurrection of Jesus are. The New Testament presents us with a variety of accounts of the resurrection, and the ones that will most concern us are those found in the four Gospels and the list of appearances in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Two Ways of Reading the Resurrection Stories There are two very different ways to read to resurrection stories that follow. The first is a normal and natural Christian reading, whether in the Christian community or in private, in which the stories are read in faith with a desire to draw closer to the resurrection which is already accepted as true. Let’s say that this is like reading the columns that follow vertically one at a time, and if we notice the differences that exist among them, we instinctively tend to harmonize them. The second way, which we are going to employ here, is to read the columns through the lense of the historical-critical method so that we become literary archaeologists, if you will, and scrutinize the differences between the texts and their internal seams with the desire of discovering how they were composed with the hope of glimpsing behind and beneath the texts what actually happened. Here there can be no initial presumption of truth, for that is what we are trying to discover. Let’s say that we are going to try to read the columns horizontally and intensively. We will start with the chart presenting the resurrection stories beginning with the witnesses to the crucifixion of Jesus, and then we will examine individual events.1 |
|
The Resurrection Narratives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Women Witnessing the Crucifixion Let’s start our horizontal critical reading with the women witnessing the crucifixion. After we read the accounts of the incident in the columns above we can divide them into units of thought starting with Mark, and adding new numbers for new units as we go in order to facilitate their comparison. |
|
|
Matthew’s account appears to follows Mark’s, or Mark’s source, although he has rearranged the material. Luke condenses the story of the women, and adds that all his friends were there, while John has his own story which includes the presence of Mary of Magdala. Mark’s (5) “in Galilee” is slightly different from Matthew and Luke’s (5) “from Galilee.” While Matthew follows Mark, does (7) “the mother of Zebedee’s son” indicate he had a separate source, or is she identical to (4) Salome? Luke has “all his friends,” that is, the male disciples, while John has the “beloved disciple” there with the women. Is there a source common to them both? More importantly, Mary of Magdala appears in two quite different contexts in Mark and John, suggesting that they had different traditions about her presence. Therefore we have as possible sources: Mark, Matthew’s “mother of Zebedee’s sons,” Luke’s “all his friends,” perhaps linked to the presence of the beloved disciple in John, and a common tradition, or two distinct traditions, about the presence of Mary of Magdala in John and Mark. The interrelationship among the different accounts of the same event is therefore more complex than we first realized. To say that something is a possible source is to say that one evangelist is not simply copying another, and this merits a new number. But did the new thought unit come from another source or did the evangelist simply invent it? Our presumption is that the evangelists were writing for the community within the context of a living tradition and this would have restrained unbridled invention. As we go along we will gain a sense of how reasonable this presumption is. Joseph of Arimathea Did the Gospel writers embellish the character of Joseph of Arimathea in order to make the burial of Jesus appear more honorable, as some scholars have hypothesized or, as some other scholars suggest, was Joseph, himself, a fabrication to cloak a dishonorable burial, or no burial at all? As Joseph Fitzmyer puts it: “To claim, as had been done in modern times, that Jesus’ body was either left lying on the ground or thrown into a common grave for criminals is a preference for speculation that goes against the multiple attestation of NT witnesses about the burial (Synoptics, John, Paul).”2 The charge of sheer fabrication is not based on any evidence, nor does it appear plausible. Why invent someone like Joseph, making him a prominent person, complete with birthplace, and indeed, the whole story of the burial, and thus open yourself to refutation when all you had to do was be quiet and let people imagine that Jesus’ relatives buried him?3 But did the evangelists progressively embroider the story of Joseph? Let’s look at the texts themselves. Again it is best to read the actual accounts in the columns above, and then look at how they logically break down. |
|
|
While Matthew follows Mark, he adds two attributes to the description of Joseph not mentioned by Mark, but he ignores the three positive things Mark had to say about Joseph instead of simply keeping them to make the most positive picture possible of Joseph. Luke follows Mark, as well, and mentions two of the positive attributes Mark gave Joseph, but tones (1) down. He adds two positive characteristics of his own, and one neutral one (8) that Arimathea was a Jewish town. There was no point in inventing such a detail if his purpose was to make Joseph look good. It has been suggested that Arimathea, itself, was a fabrication of Mark in order to make a theological point. But this is not likely. More probably it was an actual Jewish town. The real problem appears to be not the possibility of fabrication, but the abundant real-life choices for where Arimathea was located. Fitzmyer, for example, mentions among the possibilities Ramathaim-zophim (I Sam 1:1), (Remphis or Remfthis in Eusebius), and Ramallah.4 Of the eight points made by the other three evangelists, John mentions only one of Matthew’s and modifies it. This makes it a possibility that he had access to the same, or a similar tradition, as Matthew, which said that Joseph had been a disciple of Jesus. Are, then, the evangelists simply embellishing the accounts of the previous Gospel writers? It does not appear that way. There is no evidence that Luke knew Matthew, or John is following one or all of the other evangelists. (3) is unique to Mark, (4) to Matthew, (6) (7) (8) to Luke, and (9) to John. Matthew and Luke know Mark, but add new points, possibly from other traditions they had access to. John might have had a version of the same tradition (5) as Matthew. Therefore we have potentially the following sources: (1) (2) (3) = Mark, (4) = Matthew, (5) = Matthew/John, (6) (7) (8) = Luke, (9) = John, which would make Joseph of Arimathea a well-attested historical figure, and therefore make the honorable burial of Jesus more credible.5 This conclusion meshes nicely with the early date we can give to Paul’s mention of the burial in First Corinthians. Joseph goes to Pilate, and asks for and receives the body of Jesus. Mark is alone in having Pilate verify that Jesus is dead. If this was an apologetic embellishment of Mark to demonstrate that Jesus was actually dead, it is strange that Matthew and Luke do not follow him in this unless we hypothesize that Mark’s story (15:44, 45a) was inserted later, and so Mark and Luke did not know it.6 We can take a conclusion of Raymond Brown drawn from his analysis of the relation of the passion in John to the Synoptics and transfer it to the resurrection stories, and generalize it. “Where the various pre-Gospel sources agree, we are in the presence of a tradition that had wide acceptance at a very early stage in the history of the Christian Church and, therefore, a tradition that is very important in questions of historicity. However, the historical value of details peculiar to one or the other pre-Gospel tradition is not to be discounted quickly, although there is greater possibility that such details stem from the theological or apologetic concern of the respective tradition.”7 |
|
The Burial
|
|
Matthew again follows Mark, but makes his own addition (6) which might be no more than a rewording of (1): bought = clean. Only Matthew says it is Joseph’s tomb, (7). Luke follows Mark, but has a variant or part of a tradition used by Matthew, (8b) vs. (8a). John goes his own way except that he also knows the same traditions, (8a), (8b). Matthew and Luke agree about the newness of the tomb against Mark, and John also notes its newness, pointing to an earlier oral tradition.8 Despite these variants the basic story is the same, but has different sources: Mark (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), Matthew (7), (8a), Luke (8b), John (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), and (8a), (8b). We have as possible sources Mark, Matthew, Luke, John with John/Matthew (8a) and John/Luke (8b), unless we argue that (8a), (8b) in John is a later insertion from Matthew and Luke. Again, what is most important is that John knows of the burial in the tomb, just as he knew of Joseph, from what appears to be a separate tradition than Mark. While sheer invention on the part of one or more of the evangelists cannot be ruled out, e.g. Matthew asserting that it was Joseph’s tomb, what we are faced with appears like the result of a complicated interplay of earlier oral traditions. |
|
|
Scholars have attempted to identify these women with each other. Here are the possibilities which are admittedly enough to make our eyes cross:9 (1) Salome = the mother of Zebedee’s sons, (3a) = (4a). A likely and often made identification, but then why would Matthew leave her out of the climatic scene at the empty tomb? (2) Salome = Jesus’ mother’s sister, (3a) = (7a). (3) Salome = the mother of Zebedee’s sons = Jesus’ mother’s sister, (3a) = (4a) = (7a). (4) Salome = the sister of Jesus. Early Church sources named one of the sisters of Jesus Salome, but Salome was a common name. (5) Mary the mother of James and Joses = Jesus’ mother’s sister, (2a) = (7a). Then the brothers of Jesus, James and Joses, (Mark 6:3) would be, in fact, his cousins. But Mary the mother of Jesus would have a sister named Mary. (6) Mary the mother of James and Joses = Mary of Clopas, (2a) = (8a). (7) Mary the mother of James and Joses = Mary of Clopas = Jesus’ mother’s sister, (2a) = (8a) = (7a). (8) Mary the mother of James and Joses = the mother of Jesus, (2a) = (6a). But that is hardly how Mark would refer to Jesus’ mother. (9) The mother of Zebedee’s sons = Jesus’ mother’s sister, (4a) = (7a). Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, would be the cousins of Jesus, which would make it easier to understand their special role among the apostles, and their mother’s expectation that they would have an exalted role in the coming kingdom. It would also help explain why John, if we identify him with the beloved disciple, would be chosen by Jesus to care for his mother. (10) The mother of Zebedee’s sons = Mary of Clopas, (4a) = (8a). (11) The mother of Zebedee’s sons = Mary of Clopas = Jesus’ mother’s sister, (4a) = (8a) = (7a). (12) Mary of Clopas = the wife of Cleophas. Cleophas of the Emmaus story was identified by Hegesippus, the early Church historian, as the brother of Joseph, and therefore the uncle of Jesus, as well as the father of Simeon, the second bishop of Jerusalem. Then Mary of Clopas would be at the cross of Jesus as another one of Jesus’ relatives. (13) Mary of Clopas = Jesus’ mother’s sister, (8a) = (7a). While the Greek of John’s Gospel allows this possibility, then Mary the mother of Jesus would have a sister named Mary.
While some of these identifications are intriguing, we simply don’t have enough evidence to make any of them with certitude. As Brown puts it, “Obviously, while such speculation about Jesus’ family and friends is interesting, it is most uncertain. However, our very difficulty in deciding whether the women mentioned by John are the same as the women mentioned by the Synoptics is eloquent argument against the thesis that John’s list of the women was borrowed from the Synoptic lists.”10 And this rather bewildering maze of possibilities should not obscure one important conclusion. Even if we don’t, the early church knew who these people were, and the Gospel writers gave them a central role as the witnesses to the death, burial, empty tomb and resurrection. Given the marginal place that women had as witnesses in the Jewish world, can we really imagine that men would have written these stories the way they did if they were later fabrications? No. They were compelled to write them in this way because that is what they believed happened. The one constant in these various namings is Mary of Magdala. She appears two other times in the Gospels: in Luke 8:2 as one of the women who followed Jesus after being healed by him, and she was described as the one “from whom seven demons had gone out.” She also appears in the Markan appendix: “He appeared first to Mary of Magdala from whom he had cast out seven devils.” She is likely to have been called “of Magdala” from the village of Magdala on the Sea of Galilee. Except for John’s crucifixion scene, she is always mentioned first, and in John’s tomb scene and his first resurrection appearance of Jesus, she stands alone, perhaps representing all the women. Just as a person fabricating these stories would not have likely chosen the women to play the central role of witnesses in the first place, neither would they have singled out Mary of Magdala from whom seven demons had been expelled for a leading role. The conclusions we reached about possible sources under the heading of the women witnessing the crucifixion still hold here. It is clear that Luke had his own source, (9) to which we can add Mark, (1) (2) (3), Matthew (4), John (6) (7) (8), John/Mark, (1). Are these distinct sources, or editorial additions of the evangelists? Again there is no way to be certain, yet it is more likely they would have selected different women for their own reasons than they would have inserted women who were absent from the traditions they were working with. |
|
The Empty
Tomb
|
|
Differences abound in the accounts of the empty tomb. Mark has the three women back on the scene, Matthew two, and Luke sticks with a general description, while John has Mary of Magdala alone. Mark has the women saying, “Who will roll away the stone?” Matthew continues the story of the guarding of the tomb in which there is no need for that comment. In Luke they find the stone moved and the body missing. In Mark the women enter and see a young man in a white robe seated on the right-hand side, and are struck with amazement. In Matthew it is an angel with a face like lightning and a robe as white as snow who has moved the stone and sat upon it. In Luke it is two men. Mark tells us that the women had bought spices in order to anoint the body of Jesus. Matthew makes no mention of a reason for the visit, while Luke appears to follow Mark by saying that the women obtained spices and ointments, but while Mark appears to put their purchase on Saturday evening, Luke puts it on Friday evening, making it possible he had another source.11 John has only Mary of Magdala going to the tomb, and it is Nicodemus who brings the myrrh and aloes. In regard to the stone at the entrance of the tomb, Mark has the women wondering who will move the stone, and then finding the stone already rolled back. In Matthew an angel rolls the stone away, apparently when the women arrive, and sits on it. For Luke, the stone is already rolled away, and for John, Mary of Magdala sees that the stone has been moved away. In Mark the women enter and see a young man in a white robe. In Matthew there is no mention about the women entering. In Luke they enter and find the body missing, and two men in brilliant clothes suddenly appear, and in John, Mary of Magdala runs to tell Simon Peter and the beloved disciple about the empty tomb. For the most part scholars take the young man in Mark and the two men in Luke to be equivalent to the angel in Matthew, and the two angels who will later appear in John’s account. For some exegetes, “when the Sabbath was over,” (1) is taken as meaning Saturday evening, but it is hard to imagine the women going to the tomb in the dark. “Very early in the morning,” (3) is taken by others as long before dawn so as to be in opposition to (5), and therefore an indication of Mark editing the tomb tradition that he received, but again, would we expect the women to travel to the tomb in the dark? In any event, we should not be distracted by these apparent time variances from the overriding insistence of the evangelists on marking the time of this extraordinary event. Would they have done this if the women had simply found the tomb empty? Let’s look at what these mysterious figures have to say to the women. |
|
|
Mark writes: “He has risen. He is not here,” and Matthew alters it: “He is not here, for he has risen, just like he said.” The “just as he said” reflects Jesus’ earlier predictions of the resurrection found in Matthew’s Gospel. Later Mark says, “There you will see him, as he said to you,” reflecting Jesus’ prediction in his Gospel, and Matthew alters this to “there you will see him. Behold, I have told you.” It is as if Matthew has a copy of Mark bef |