Info

74. The popular tradition of later centuries that Mary had been a prostitute is based (without justification) on identifying her as the woman in John and/or the 'sinner' in the Lukan anointing story (Luke 7.36-38) parallel to John 12.1-8 (there is a striking overlap at Luke 7.38/John 12.3); see, e.g., R. F. Collins, 'Mary', ABD 4.580, 581-82.

75. Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus 496-99; Funk, Acts of Jesus 478-79 ('Mary was among the early witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus'). discussion is rather confused {Resurrection 157-60). Byrskog justifiably asks concerning the women's witness, Mary's in particular, 'How else but through their influence in the early community would the account of their presence have endured the androcentric force of transmission and redaction?' (Story as History 78-82 [here 'The tradition was too resilient to be effaced' (J. Lieu, 'The Women's Resurrection Testimony', in Barton and Stanton, eds., Resurrection 34-44 [here 42]). See further C. Setzer, 'Excellent Women: Female Witness to the Resurrection', JBL 116 (1997) 259-72.

There is a formulaic ring to both assertions: this is the language of church confession more than of personal testimony. Its effect here is to give the appearance to Peter76 first place in importance. In Paul's list of witnesses, Peter is first (1 Cor. 15.5). In Luke's account, the drama of the appearance to Cleopas and his companion is allowed to unfold completely (Luke 24.13-32), but on their return to Jerusalem the confession of the eleven is given pride of place (24.34) before Cleopas and his companion tell their story (24.35). Since neither Luke nor Paul mentions appearance(s) to women disciples, we can hardly avoid asking whether they knew but chose to ignore or even to suppress such reports. That must certainly be judged very possible. The alternative that they did not know such reports is less likely, given the traditions which impressed both Matthew and John. Once again the motivation would be understandable, given the low esteem for women as reliable witnesses.

At the same time it is worth also noting that Luke has not forced the priority of the appearance to Peter to the front of the queue by, for example, placing it at the tomb (to replace the report on which John 20.11-18 was based?). On the contrary, he makes explicitly clear that the male disciples who went to the tomb did not see Jesus there (24.24). The priority of the appearance to Peter is not signalled with drums and trumpets. There is a reticence at this point which could possibly reflect Peter's own reticence on the subject.77 Should we include John 21.15-24 at this point?

they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love you'. Jesus said to him, 'Feed my lambs'. i6A second time he said to him, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love you'. Jesus said to him, 'Tend my sheep'.

76. In Paul's letters Peter is usually referred to as Cephas (Kephas, 1 Cor. 1.12; 3.22; 9.5; 15.5; Gal. 1.18; 2.9, 11, 14), that is, the name which according to tradition was given to Peter by Jesus (John 1.42; Matt. 16.18); see further J. A. Fitzmyer, 'Aramaic Kepha' and Peter's Name in the New Testament', To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981, 21998) 112-24.

77. This observation undermines the argument of W. Marxsen, The Resurrection of Jesus ofNazareth (London: SCM, 1970) 89-96, that the resurrection faith of all the other disciples derived from Peter's ('Only the appearance to Peter was constitutive', 93); to make his case for the priority of Peter's faith he has to argue that John 20.8 certainly implies that Peter also believed and that the beloved disciple was 'second to believe' (58-59)! Similarly Lüdemann: 'all the other Easter experiences rest on the earliest Christian creed' — 'that Jesus has arisen and appeared to Simon'; 'The first vision to Peter proved formally "infectious"' {Resurrection 143, 174). The earlier confidence on the subject is well illustrated by Weiss's quotation from Weizsäcker: 'The fact that Peter was the first to see the risen Lord is the most certain historical fact in this whole obscure history' (Earliest Christianity 24).

said to him the third time, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, 'Do you love me?' And he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you'. Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep. i8Truly truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go'. said this to in dicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.) After this he said to him, 'Follow me'. turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved fol lowing them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, 'Lord, who is it that is going to betray Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, 'Lord, what about him?' 22Jesus said to him, 'If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!' the rumour spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, 'If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?' 24Xhis is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.

Although set in context of an appearance to seven disciples (21.1-14), the Johannine account78 has a very personal, even intimate character. The thrice repeated 'Do you love me?' is obviously framed to echo Peter's threefold denial of Jesus (18.17-18, 25-27). The note about the beloved disciple (21.20) relates back into the earlier account of the last supper (13.23-25). And the perspective is clearly that of the later story-teller (21.19a, 23). But apart from the 'Amen, amen' of 21.18 the language of the principal exchange (21.15-19) is not particularly Johannine.79 And once again we are confronted with a testimony linked to the beloved disciple, who is then identified as the source of the tradition, including a saying of the risen Christ which had occasioned a rumour which the final redactors80 thought it necessary to quash (21.23-24).

What are we to make of this? Is this the missing appearance to Peter? The fact that it is located in Galilee cuts across the clear assertion of Luke that the appearance took place in Jerusalem on the first Sunday (Luke 24.34). On the other hand, we have already noted Luke's seeming determination to restrict the post-resurrection appearances to Jerusalem.81 And the parallels between John 21.1-8

78. Or more precisely, the final redactor's account. John 21 is generally regarded as an addition to a Gospel which concluded with 20.30-31 (see, e.g., Brown, John xxxii-xxxix, 107782).

79. The point would be disputed, not least in relation to the issue whether the author of John 21 is the same as the Evangelist (details in Brown, John 1080).

80. Or, should we say, 'final final redactors' (see again Brown, John

and Luke's unique account of Peter's call (Luke 5.1-11) suggest to some that Luke did know of a post-Easter appearance to Peter at the lake in Galilee.82 More to the point. the report of Mark 16.7 ('He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him') seems to preclude appearances in Jerusalem! Could it be. then. as many conclude. that the communal memory was of initial appearances in Galilee, and that the whole tradition of initial appearances in (and around Jerusalem) was developed for public consumption by the Jerusalem church? The plot thickens; or is it simply that there is confusion on this point now impossible to resolve?

The key question for us is whether we can take the claim of the Johannine tradition seriously. that is. in effect. that the beloved disciple preserved an otherwise untapped source of testimony from the dawn of the new movement. If so. then one possible pointer towards a solution to the problem of such divergent versions is that throughout Peter's life the appearance to Peter was retained as personal testimony and never allowed to become church tradition as such. In which case. it was only after Peter's death that the testimony could be retold. and only then from a Johannine (beloved disciple) perspective. a perspective. it would appear. for which the issue of both Petrine and Jerusalem priority was not an important factor.83

(4) The appearance on the road toEmmaus — Luke 24.13-35.

on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus. about seven miles from Jerusalem. talking with each other about all these things that had happened. they were talking and discussing.

Jesus himself came near and went with them. their eyes were kept from recognizing him. he said to them. 'What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?' They stood still. looking sad. 18Then one of them. whose name was Cleopas. answered him. 'Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?' l9He asked them. "What things?' They replied. 'The things about Jesus of Nazareth. who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and

82. John takes for granted that (some of) the disciples were fishermen. a fact not previously mentioned in the Gospel; see also. e.g.. Grass. Ostergeschehen!9-81; Ludemann. Resurrection 86-87; Funk. Acts ofJesus 278-80. The points of parallel are similar in scope to those which relate Q 7.1-10/John 4.46-54 and Matt. 28.9-10/John 20.11-18 to each other; see discussion in Brown. John 1089-92. Crossan suggests that all the 'nature' miracles of Jesus have Jesus' 'resurrectional victory over death' as their background (Historical Jesus 396-410). Barker turns such logic on its head by arguing that the original 'raising' of Jesus was at his baptism (The Risen Lord 26).

83. By appending the encounter with Peter to the explicitly numbered 'third' appearance (21.14) the redactor in effect ignored (or surrendered) any claim that this was the first appearance.

all the people, 20andhow our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place. 22Moreover, women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. 24Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him'. 25Then he said to them, 'Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! 26Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?' 27Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the Scriptures. they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29But they urged him strongly, saying, 'Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over'. So he went in to stay with them. 30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he van ished from their sight. said to each other, 'Were not our hearts burn ing within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the Scriptures to us?' same hour they got up and returned to Jerusa lem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. 34They were saying, 'The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!' 35Thenthey told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Here is another unsupported account. It is clearly a Lukan version: the marks of Luke's style84 and his skill as a story-teller are evident.8 In particular, the theme of Jesus as prophet is characteristic of Luke as is the attribu tion of Jesus' crucifixion directly to the Jewish leadership (24.20).87 The motif of

84. The stylistic features are listed by Fitzmyer, Luke 1555-56.

85. See further Fitzmyer, Luke 1557-60; Catchpole, Resurrection People ch. 3, who draws particular attention to the parallel with the story of Tobit and the angel Raphael (94-98). Luke 24 is such a wonderful story that it positively invites an approach like that of J. I. H. McDonald, The Resurrection: Narrative and Belief (London: SPCK, 1989) here 103-109 (criticism by Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection 33). But it is still a necessary and valid exercise to inquire into the tradition which Luke has retold so superbly.

86. Note particularly Luke 4.24; 7.16, 39; 9.8, 19; 13.33-34; Acts 3.22-23; 7.37; see further R. J. Dillon, From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978) 114-27; D. P. Moessner, Lord ofthe Banquet (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989).

87. Acts 2.23, 36; 3.14-15, 17; 4.10; 5.30; 10.39; 13.28.

Scripture proving the necessity that the Messiah should suffer is also an important theme for Luke-Acts (24.26).88 And above all, the way the appearance climaxes in the revelation at the breaking of the bread (24.30-31, 35) provides Luke the link he evidently wanted between the table-fellowship characteristic of Jesus' mission and the breaking of bread characteristic of the earliest church (Acts 2.42, 46).89

At the same time, the signs of older tradition retold by Luke are also clear: the identification of one of the participants and of their destination the sort of expectations which Jesus' mission must have engendered for many of his followers (24.19 , 21),92 and the note that some of the male disciples also saw the empty tomb, despite the silence on the point in the rest of the Synoptic tradition (24.24).93 In addition, the account of Jesus' exposition of Scripture (24.27) probably reflects an early sense within the first post-Easter disciple groups that only in the light of the resurrection were they enabled to see prophecies in Scripture to which they had hitherto been blind.94 Likewise the episode may reflect that it was precisely in the breaking of bread that the first disciples became aware of Jesus' continuing presence, not simply as a recollection of Jesus' earlier table-fellowship, but in celebration of Jesus' presence with them in a new way. It is a feature of the resurrection appearances which not only Luke emphasizes,96 but also John (John 21.12-13).

Is it an answer, then, that Luke came across the Emmaus story in his search

90. Had the name been added later (a tendency in story-telling) it is likely that both disciples would have been named. Was the other his wife? Cf. John 19.25 — the wife of Clopas (not Cleopas) (cf. BDAG, Kleopas; Fitzmyer, Luke 1563). According to Hegesippus, there was a Clopas who was the brother of Joseph, so uncle of Jesus (Eusebius, HE III. 11). Ludemann, Jesus 412, is confused here: it was Symeon, Clopas's son, who was therefore 'cousin (anepsios)' of Jesus (HE IV.22.4). See further A. M. Schwemer, 'Der Auferstandene und die Emmausjunger', in Avemarie and Lichtenberger, Auferstehung 95-117 (here 105-106).

91. For the confusion regarding the location of Emmaus see J. F. Strange, 'Emmaus', ABD 2.497-98; Schwemer, 'Auferstandene' 100-101.

93. Fitzmyer also thinks that Mark 16.12-13 is a snippet of pre-Lukan tradition, which Luke built up into his dramatic story, rather than a late summary of the Lukan account (Luke 1554-55).

94. From as early as we can trace, Scriptures like Psalms 16 and 110 and Isaiah 53 were seen to have prophesied Jesus' suffering and resurrection. Would any of the first Christians have disagreed with Luke's attribution of that interpretation to the risen Christ? Schwemer notes the link both to the ha. 6.9-10 motif (see above, §13.1) and to the experience referred to in 2 Cor. 3.13-16 ('Auferstandene' 113-15).

95. Paul presupposes as a generally recognized given that the Lord's Supper was celebrated under Christ as host (1 Cor. 10.21; see my Theology of Paul 620-21).

96. Luke 24.41-43; Acts 1.4; 10.41. On Acts 1.4 see further below (7).

for eyewitness testimony (Luke 1.2)?97 Why otherwise would he attribute the first fully narrated appearance of the risen Jesus to two otherwise unknown and relatively obscure disciples, only one of whom is named (Cleopas)? The story cuts across the priority otherwise given to the appearances to Peter (despite 24.34) and to the twelve. So probably Luke took up the basic tradition simply because it was there, however awkwardly it fitted in with the overall schema.

(5) Appearances to the eleven in Jerusalem — Luke 24.36-49; John 20.1923; 1 Cor. 15.5.

Luke 24.36-49

John 20.19-23

36 While thev were talking about this. (Jesus) himself stood among them and said to them. 'Peace be with vou'. 37 Thev were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 He said to them, 'Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have'. 40 And having said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 While in their joy thev were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, 'Have you anything here to eat?' 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate in their presence. 44 Then he said to them, 'These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you — that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled'. 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46 and he said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high'.

When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you'. 20 And having said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you'. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'.

This is the closest we have in the resurrection appearance traditions to the traditioning pattern so familiar in earlier chapters. We seem to have a common core: 'Jesus stood among them and said "Peace be with you", and having said this he showed them his hands and his feet/side' ,98 followed by a note of the disciples' joy. The fact that the core is evident in a Luke-John parallel rather than the

97. Byrskog, Story as History, surprisingly makes nothing of this possibility.

98. Luke 24.36b, 40 belong to the phenomenon known as 'Western non-interpolations'. That is, they are absent from Western witnesses of the textual tradition, witnesses which more commonly add to the traditional text. This raises the possibility that the references here have been interpolated into Luke, presumably from the Johannine parallel. However, the theory of Western non-interpolation has been undermined by the publication of the early (third-century) p75, which contains the passages in question, and the majority opinion now concludes that they were all part of Luke's text. See again Metzger, Textual Commentary 186-87 (observing that an interpolation would probably have read 'his side' rather than 'his feet'), 191-93; Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament 33, 37.

more typical Synoptic parallel is also significant. since the Synoptic and Johannine traditions come so close only rarely.

The core has been elaborated by each Evangelist in their typical ways. Luke stresses the materiality of Jesus' risen body (24.39. 43);" he continues the fulfilled prophecy motif (24.44-46);100 he foreshadows the theme of a witness 'beginning from Jerusalem' and he gives the first clear indication that. so far as he was concerned. the disciples never stirred from Jerusalem John continues his negative portrayal of 'the Jews' he strengthens the 'peace' motif (20.19. 21);104 and he compresses into this first appearance to the chief disciples his own equivalent both of the Pentecostal commissioning (20.21-22)105 and of ecclesiastical authorization (20.23).106

Here then we probably can speak of a tradition told and retold in the early Christian communities; we have it only in two well-developed versions and one credal formula (1 Cor. 15.5). The fact that what was thereby recalled was a group experience rather than that of an individual is presumably significant. This was church tradition from the first. having been given its still visible spine. presumably. from the participants' talking about it among themselves.107

99. Luke makes a point of stressing the tangibility of divine action within the everyday world: the dove at Jordan 'in bodily form' (Luke 3.22). the witness of the transfiguration not a dream (9.32). the 'many convincing proofs' of the resurrection (Acts 1.3), the angel who released Peter from prison real and not a vision (12.9). the Spirit's coming evidenced by visible and audible phenomena (2.4. 6. 33; 4.31; 8.17-18; 10.45-46; 19.6). and so on (see further my Unity and Diversity 180-84).

102. For the centrality of Jerusalem as the point of continuity with Israel's history and fountainhead of the Christian mission. see below. vol. 2.

103. The negative role attributed to 'the Jews' is a feature of the Fourth Gospel; see. e.g.. several essays in R. Bieringer. et al., eds.. Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers ofthe Leuven Colloquium, 2000 (Assen: Van Gorcum. 2001). and further below. vol. 3.

104. The triple greeting 'Peace be with you' in the resurrection narratives (20.19. 21. 26). is clearly intended to hark back to the farewell bestowal of peace in 14.27 (also 16.33).

105. John 20.22 is traditionally called 'the Johannine Pentecost'. and can indeed be regarded as John's theological compression of the Pentecost tradition (Acts 2) into the single complex of Jesus' death and resurrection/ascension (cf. 19.30). Note also the deliberate use of emphysao ('breathe'). in obvious echo of the LXX Gen. 2.7 (already echoed in Ezek. 37.9 and Wis. this is new creation. See further my Baptism 173-82.

106. John 20.23 is closer to Matt. 16.19 and 18.18 than to Luke 24.47 (see further Brown. John 1039-45).

107. I press the point against those who argue too glibly from the fact that the earliest tradition is confession of resurrection appearances (1 Cor. 15.5-8) and conclude that there were no narratives of resurrection appearances in the beginning (e.g.. Wilckens. 'Tradition-History' 73-75). One form (kerygmatic confession) does not exclude another (narrative). It is much

It was as an expression of shared experience that such tradition was first for-

mulated.108

Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. the other disciples told him, 'We have seen the Lord'. But he said to them, 'Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe'. week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be withyou'. 27Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe'. answered him, 'My Lord and my Jesus said to him, 'Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe'.

This should probably just be regarded as a further variation on the basic appearance to the eleven tradition. It has the same core features: Jesus (again) stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you' (20.26), and having said this he (again) showed them (Thomas) his hands and his side (20.27). The pericope's function in John's Gospel is presumably to provide an answer to those who (like Thomas, one of the twelve!) doubted the testimony to Jesus' resurrection Significant is the fact that John does not actually describe Thomas as putting finger or hand in Jesus' wounds. The seeing alone is sufficient for Thomas to make a confession far beyond anything attested for the first disciples at that stage And the final blessing is for those who believe simply on the basis of the apostolic testimony without having even seen (let alone physically checked) for themselves (20.29).

(7) Appearances in Jerusalem — Acts The opening of the Acts account is so much oriented to the plot of Acts that it is more appropriately considered in volume 2 (as also Luke's ending of his Gospel — Luke 24.50-52). Here more plausible that the initial talk of a group experience among those who participated in it took a narrative form.

108. Cf. Theissen and Merz: 'The agreements are clear enough for it [to be] possible for us to infer a real event behind the accounts. ... in our view there is no doubt that it really happened' {Historical Jesus 496). What 'it'?

109. See particularly Brown, John 1031-33. The story of "doubting Thomas" deals with the problems of the second Christian generation, which has the Easter testimony only in the form of the Gospel of John' (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus 495).

The confession 'My Lord and my God' is the climax not only of John's high Chris-tology (cf. particularly 1.1, 18; 5.18; and 10.33) but of the second Christian generation's growing perception of who Jesus really was (see my Partings of the Ways ch. 11).

however we should note the way Luke describes Jesus' involvement with 'the apostles' in the days following his resurrection.

After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many con vincing proofs (tekmeriois), appearing (optanomenos) to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. 4While eating (synalizo-menos) with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the promise of the Father.

Three features deserve comment here. (1) Luke describes Jesus simply as 'alive', rather than 'risen'. This is no doubt a variation of the 'raised' formula (Luke 24.7, 46), but it is a distinctively Lukan emphasis (Luke 24.5, 23) and probably reflects one of the earliest reactions of all: that Jesus (who had died) was alive (again)! (2) By speaking of ie&mena,111 Luke is pressing his belief in the tangibility of the resurrection appearances (Luke 24.39),112 but the term presumably indicates his own response to those who questioned the Christian claims regarding Jesus' resurrection (cf. Acts 17.32). (3) Most intriguing is the use of synalizo in 1.4. It means literally to 'eat salt (hals) with', and so to 'eat at the same table with, share table-fellowship with'.113 Luke here extends his table-fellowship motif,114 possibly again as part of the 'convincing proofs' (again Luke 24.39). In context the implication is almost of a continuous period — a forty-day-long resurrection appear-Would Luke have denied this? Probably so, in view of Luke But he has made no effort to avoid giving that impression. There is a confusing mix here of far-reaching claim and imprecise formulation, rather as in Matthew's two resurrection appearances (Matt. 28.9-10, 16-17), which probably reflects the vagueness of traditional memory rather than the writers' deliberate choice.

(8) Appearances in Galilee— Mark 16.7; Matt. 28.16-20; John 21.1-23.

Matt. 28.16-20

John 21.1-14

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshiped him;

1 After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias; and he showed himself in this way. 2 Gathered there together were Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter said to them, 'I am going fishing'. They said to him, 'We will go with you'. They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. 4 Just after daybreak, Jesus stood on the shore; but the disciples did not know that

111. Tekmerion: 'that which causes something to be known in a convincing and decisive manner' (BDAG, tekmerion)\ 'necessaryproofs . . . leading to certain conclusions' (Barrett, Acts 1.70).

BDAG, synalizo 1; the text makes sense enough, so there is no need to hypothesize a variant spelling ofsynaulizo ('stay with'), as in NRSV (see Barrett, Acts 1.71-72).

115. Grass, Ostergeschehen 48-49.

111. Tekmerion: 'that which causes something to be known in a convincing and decisive manner' (BDAG, tekmerion)\ 'necessaryproofs . . . leading to certain conclusions' (Barrett, Acts 1.70).

BDAG, synalizo 1; the text makes sense enough, so there is no need to hypothesize a variant spelling ofsynaulizo ('stay with'), as in NRSV (see Barrett, Acts 1.71-72).

115. Grass, Ostergeschehen 48-49.

but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the endofthe age'.

it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them, 'Children, you have no fish, have you?' They answered him, 'No'. 6 He said to them, 'Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will some'. So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in because there were so many fish. 7 That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, 'It is the Lord!' When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on some clothes, for he was naked, and jumped into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land, only about a hundred yards off. 9 When they had gone ashore, they saw a charcoal there, with fish on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, 'Bring some of the fish that you have just caught'. 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three of them; and though there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, 'Come and have breakfast'. Now none of the disciples dared to ask him, 'Who are you?', because they knew it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.

In contrast to the accounts of the appearances to the eleven in Jerusalem, the accounts of the appearances in Galilee have no point of contact whatsoever. Even the common locale is not so much agreed, since in Matthew they encounter Jesus on a mountain,116 whereas in John the meeting takes place on the shore of the lake.

It is obvious that Matthew has used whatever tradition was available to to bring his Gospel to a climax with the affirmation of Jesus' divine authority, the great commission, and the conclusion to his 'God with us' theme.118 This in itself marks out the appearance from the other more 'earthbound' appearances, giving it a more 'heavenly' character.119 Another interesting feature is the close of 28.17: 'they worshipped (prosekynesan) him, but some doubted

Matthew evidently intended the 'mountain' to be understood as the place where divine revelation is given (Matt. 5.1; 15.29; 17.1; 24.3; 28.16); see particularly T. L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology (JSNTS 8; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985).

117. B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19: Missoula: Scholars, 1974) reconstructs a primitive commissioning narrative behind the several appearances to the eleven: 'Jesus appeared to the eleven. When they saw him they were glad, though some disbelieved. Then he said: preach (the gospel) to all nations, (baptize) in my name for the forgiveness of sins. (And behold), I will send the Holy Spirit upon you'

118. Since O. Michel, 'The Conclusion of Matthew's Gospel' (1950), ET in G. N. Stanton, ed., The Interpretation ofMatthew (London: SPCK, 1983) 30-41, it has been common to regard as the climax, if not the key, to Matthew's Gospel. On the 'God with us' motif (Matt. 1.23; 18.20; 28.20) see above, chapter 11 n. 20. Notable is the absence of any account of an ascension.

119. See my Jesus and the Spirit 124, and the distinction suggested by J. Lindblom, Gesichte und Offenbarungen (Lund: Gleerup, 1968) 104-105, 108-109, 111-12, between appearances on earth (what he calls 'christepiphanies') and appearances from heaven ('christophanies').

The first verb is quite a favourite of but only Mat thew of the NT writers uses the second (14.31; 28.17). Even at the end there are those of 'little faith (oligopistos)' (14.31). to whom Jesus appears (14.31). and even commissions despite their doubts! Unlike both Luke and John. who show how the doubts were Matthew leaves the note of doubt unresolved

(as in Is this a subtle pastoral tactic of Matthew or a reminiscence that in the shared experiences we call 'resurrection appearances' not all were so persuaded of what they saw and experienced?

Somewhat surprisingly. the distinctive notes of Johannine reuse of tradition are lacking in John 21.1-14. apart from the identification of the beloved disciple as one of the seven involved (21.7). Perhaps John saw the episode simply as setting the scene for the conversation with Peter (21.15-23). In fact. however. it is the indications of an early reminiscence. largely uncomplicated by later perspective. which catch the attention. At the heart of the story is a memory linked explicitly to seven disciples. the identity of two of them no longer clear to the memory It is a memory of disciples who had lost any sense of direction or motivation (21.3). The scene itself has an earthy homeliness: tired and frustrated fishermen (21.3-5). Peter stripped naked for the task at hand (21.7). the details of distance from the shore and the number of fish (21.8. II),125 and the breakfast of fish and bread. presumably on the shore (21.9. 12-13). Is this another memory that John attributes to the beloved disciple — hence the numbering of the account as Jesus' third appearance (21.14)?

6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time. most of whom are still alive. though some have died; he appeared to James. then to all the apostles. of all. as to an 'abortion'. he appeared to me also.

120. In context the 'some' can only mean 'some of the eleven' (Davies and Allison. Matthew 3.681-62).

121. Matt. 2.2, 8, 11; 4.9-10 (= Luke 4.7-8); 8.2; 9.18; 14.33; 15.25; 18.26; 20.20; 28.9, 17 (cf. Luke 24.52).

122. Luke 24.41-43; John 20.24-29. The motif is extended in the (second-century?) Epistula Apostolorum 10-12.

123. See further my Jesus and the Spirit 123-25.

124. The Gospel ofPeter breaks off in the middle of what was presumably a longer list: Peter. Andrew. Levi. the son of Alphaeus. whom the Lord . . .' (Gos. Pet. 14.60); why would Andrew not be mentioned by John? It is not inappropriate to recall the Jesus tradition's confusion over the identity of the less well-known members of the twelve (see above. §13.3b[2]).

125. No explanation for one hundred fifty-three as a symbol has succeeded in winning much ■ support (see. e.g.. Brown. John 1074-76).

Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul there is no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis (15.3).127 He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, 'I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance (en protois) what I also received (parelabon) ' (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to the Corinthians when they first believed This tradition, we can be en tirely confident, wa S formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death™

It is disappointing, then, that we have no further record of the appearances listed by Paul as third, fourth, and fifth, probably in chronological order.130 The intriguing question they raise is how lengthy was the period over which these appearances stretched. The appearance claimed by Paul could have been no earlier than about eighteen months after Jesus' death.131 Had there been no appearances beyond a few weeks after the resurrection — Luke says forty days (Acts 1.3) — the claim made by Saul/Paul would surely have been regarded with considerable

126. See, e.g., the debates and bibliography cited in my Jesus andthe Spirit98, 385 nn. 67, and the more recent discussion in Craig, Assessing 1-49; Schrage, 1 Korinther4.19-24. On the question whether the formula originated in Aramaic, see the review of the discussion in Lehmann, Auferweckt 87-115; if formulated in Greek, the credal formula must still go back to the Greek-speaking Hellenists of whom Acts speaks (Acts 6.1; 8.1-3; 9.1-2; 11.19). In any case, there is no question that the tradition included resurrection appearances, at least those to Peter and the Twelve: Paul uses the Aramaic Kephas, and 'the twelve' (hoidodeka) is hapax in Paul; the hotiat the beginning of v. 5 includes at least these appearances within the tradition received; and it is precisely for this appearance tradition that Paul introduced his discussion of the resurrection with it.

127. The language of tradition transmission (paradidomi, paralambano) is unmistakable (BDAG, paradidomi 3).

128. Hence also the frequent echoes of formulae confessing the resurrection in Paul's letters (above, n. 4); that Paul considered the resurrection of Jesus crucial for Christian faith as a whole is clear from 1 Cor. 15.12-19. See also the review of the discussion on 1 Cor 15.3-8 in Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus 487-90.

129. 'We can assume that all the elements in the tradition [15.3b-5, 6a, 7] are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus' (Ludemann, Resurrection 38). Contrast Funk's 'suspicion that the lists and reports were compiled long after the fact' (Honest 267).

130. The sequence of 'then .. . then .. . then (epeita/eita)' which links the second to fifth appearances could denote simply an ordered account. But usage elsewhere suggests a list set out in chronological order (BDAG, eita, epeita). And the fact that Paul introduces the final item (the appearance to himself) with 'last of all (eschaton depanton)'confirms that he is thinking of a sequence which spanned a period of time (Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit 101, and those cited on 38586 nn. 13-15; Schrage, I Korinther4.51-52). But the argument of the following paragraph does not depend on the six appearances listed having followed a strict chronological sequence.

131. On the date of Paul's conversion, see again below, vol. 2.

suspicion. That he was able to press the claim so emphatically132 and that it was accepted by the Jerusalem leadership133 presumably indicates that the span of appearances reached to nearer the time of Paul's conversion.134 This deduction is consistent with the numbers and personnel mentioned. For an appearance to 'more than five hundred' is most likely dated to a period when the new movement had begun to win converts and adherents.135 And 'all the apostles' probably indicates a time when the movement was becoming more missionary-minded.136 Where Luke and Paul agree is in signalling that the period of resurrection appearances came to an end: after forty days, says Luke; 'last of all to me', says Paul.137

The other striking tension introduced by the inclusion of the appearance to Paul within the listed resurrection appearances is that, according to the Acts accounts, the appearance was from heaven,138 whereas all the other appearances are recorded as appearances on terra firma. This adds a further dimension to the questions raised by the accounts to which we shall have to return (below § 18.5c). The compensation, if that is the appropriate word, is that with the appearance to Paul we have the closest thing to a firsthand personal testimony to a resurrection appearance. Not that we can attribute the Acts accounts without question to Paul

132. By including the appearance to himself with the same formula ('he appeared' — Paul implies that the appearance to himself was of the same order as that to those earlier in the list; the question asked in 1 Cor. 9.1 ('Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?') assumes that no responsible person would have replied negatively.

133. No other conclusion can be drawn from the albeit defensive Gal. 1.1-2.10.

134. Craig wishes to hold to Luke's timetable (no appearances after Pentecost), but he does not answer the question of whether and why in that case a claim to a much later appearance would have been accepted (Assessing 72-73 n. 31).

135. Cf. Grass, Ostergeschehen 101, 109-10; Fuller, Formation 36. Crossan cuts across the obvious implication of 1 Cor. 15.5-8 by pushing the suggestion of 'a trajectory of revelatory apparition moving the emphasis slowly but steadily from community to group to leader' (Historical Jesus 397-98). Ludemann, Resurrection 100-108, follows the well-worn line that the appearance to the 500-plus is a variant tradition to Pentecost (Acts 2.1-13) (similarly Funk, Acts of Jesus 455); but see already my Jesus and the Spirit 142-46.

136. Cf. again Fuller, Formation 40-42, and my Jesus and the Spirit 98, where it is pointed out that 'the apostles', for Paul at least, was not simply another name for the twelve, but included people like Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16.7) and Barnabas (Gal. 2.9; 1 Cor. 9.5-6); see further vol. 2. Probably irrelevant here, but worth noting nonetheless, is that Luke seems to count Cleopas and his unnamed companion as apostles (Luke 24.10, 13).

137. The force of Paul's self-description as 'an abortion' is often missed. An 'abortion' properly speaking is a premature birth. The implication is that Paul's conversion had to be forced ahead of due time in order that he might be included within the circle of apostle-making resurrection appearances before the circle closed (see my Jesus and the Spirit 101-102; Theology of Paul 331 n. 87; and further below, vol. 2).

138. 'A light from heaven' (Acts 9.3; 22.6: light and voice presumably from the same source; 26.13, 19: 'the heavenly vision').

himself. It is rather that Paul seems to refer or allude to the appearance on the Damascus road on other occasions as well as 1 Cor. 15.8. 'Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?'he asks in 1 Cor. 9.1. His talk of 'seeingthe light of the gospel of the glory of Christ'. and of 'the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ' (2 Cor. 4.4. 6) probably alludes to his great light experience on the Damascus road (n. And in Gal. 1.16 he expresses his conviction and gratitude that God has been pleased 'to reveal his Son in me' in a context where he is evidently thinking of his conversion and commissioning as an apostle.140

Study Aid

Study Aid

This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To Getting A Scholarship And Financial Support For Your Studies.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment