222. Cf. Alsup's conclusion that it was 'the OT anthropomorphic theophany stories' which gave the Gospel appearance stories their form of expression (Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories 265).
223. W. Marxsen, 'The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical and Theological Problem', in C. F. D. Moule, ed., The Significance ofthe Message ofthe Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ (London: SCM, 1968) 15-50 (here 38). Rowland gives hostages to this line of argument when he distinguishes 'appearances of Jesus alive to the disciples' from the conclusion reached subsequently, after reflection, 'that the resurrection of the dead must have occurred in the case of Jesus' (Christian Origins 190).
224. Marxsen, Resurrection 78; 'faith after Easter (faith in the risen Jesus) was no different in substance from the faith to which Jesus had already called men before Easter'
26); similarly Ludemann, Resurrection 182-83 (falling back on quotations from Herrmann); despite earlier critique of such arguments (BeyondResurrection 92-95), Wedderburn's own 'solution' is ultimately along the same lines (153-69); his view is similar to Geering's (Resurrection 213-33). The view, which could be characterized as belief in Jesus past, should be distinguished from Bultmann's belief in Christ present: 'To believe in the Christ present in the kerygma is the meaning of the Easter faith' (the final sentence of 'The Primitive Christian that the first Christian preaching was not simply a repreaching of Jesus' message; it was a proclamation of Jesus' resurrection. That there was a turn from Jesus' gospel to the gospel about Jesus, from Jesus as proclaimer to Jesus as pro-claimed,225 remains a fundamental perception of the difference between pre-Easter Jesus tradition and post-Easter kerygma.226
In thus responding to Marxsen I do not for a moment retract my methodological principle, that our only viable subject matter for historical investigation is the impact made by Jesus as it has impressed itself into the tradition. I hope in what I have already written I have not been misunderstood to mean that nothing can be said about what (the one who) made that impact. So here, it is the impact summarized in the word 'resurrection' which requires us to conclude that there was a something which happened 'on the third day' which could only be apprehended/ conceptualized as 'resurrection'. The tradition itself leaves no room, no time for the sort of reflection (Marxsen) or deception (Reimarus) which their hypotheses require. Despite the inconsistencies and tensions which the diversity of traditions evidences only too clearly, it is in the end of the day the tradition itself which pushes us to the conclusion that it was something perceived as having happened to Jesus (resurrection evidenced in empty tomb and resurrection appearances) and not just something which happened to the disciples (Easter faith) which provides the more plausible explanation for the origin and core content of the tradition itself.
18.6. The Final Metaphor
In conclusion two clarifications are called for.
Was this article helpful?