My reflection today has developed from the lectionary reading of Luke 24:36-48 and several books I have been reading recently. “The Meaning of Jesus” is a kind of dialogue between the conservative theologian NT Wright and the progressive theologian Marcus Borg. “The Trouble with Resurrection” is an account of how followers of Jesus shifted their views about resurrection during the first two centuries, written by a biblical historian, Bernard Brandon Scott. “The Power of Parable” is written by John Dominic Crossan, one of the truly great theologians of our day, who has been a progressive since the 1960s and is about to release his latest book just after celebrating his 90th birthday!
Let’s have a look at some accounts of the resurrection appearances of Jesus in the gospels. Which of these resonate with you?
Did you notice the significance of the text colour scheme? They are colour coded by the gospel where they are found. Let’s put them back in their “proper order”. Several things are immediately obvious. The appearances described by different gospel writers have almost no overlap, unless you consider appearing to the disciples a common theme. Also, where are the stories from the gospel of Mark? The answer to that is that there aren’t any in the original version. There is scholarly consensus that Mark 16:9-19, which contains a brief summary of three appearances, was added later.
The range of accounts is expanded in the next picture to add two brief accounts: from the book of Acts (which was written by Luke as a second volume of his gospel) and from Paul’s declaration from 1 Corinthians 15 which we heard earlier. The names of those who experience an appearance of the risen Jesus are highlighted in bold. Again, you can see the variation between accounts, both in names and the sequence of events. There are also differences in where the appearances take place. Mark’s gospel ends with the women being told by an angel that the disciples must go to Galilee where they will see Jesus. Matthew has an appearance in Jerusalem and then in Galilee. Luke’s account has all the appearances in Jerusalem, and indeed Jesus tells them to stay in Jerusalem until they receive the holy spirit.
My third reconstruction of these accounts puts them in what is generally accepted as the order of writing. The earliest is Paul’s declaration, contained in a letter to the community in Corinth which was written about 20 years after the crucifixion. Paul lists a series of appearances at the end of what is essentially a confession of faith, a creed: “For I handed on to you as of first importance what in turn I had received….”. Peter is top of a list which includes several we do not hear about in the gospels, but there is no narrative, no description of events, not even of Paul’s own experience.
At a similar time, a collection of Jesus sayings was being written, which was later incorporated into the gospels of Matthew and Luke – we call this material “Q”. There is no account of a resurrection appearance in Q; nor is there one in Mark, which was written about 20 years later. Then comes Matthew’s account, in which Jesus appears to the women as they run from the empty tomb and emphasizes the importance of going to Galilee. There he appears to the disciples on a mountain and sends them out in what is called the Great Commission, “to make disciples of all nations…”
By the time John’s gospel is written down another generation has passed and there is almost no similarity in the account. Mary Magdalene’s experience is elaborated to a detailed encounter with Jesus as she weeps by the tomb, the disciples are then commissioned by Jesus, but in Jerusalem not Galilee, and there is the specific experience of Thomas which occurs nowhere else. There is scholarly consensus that the final chapter of John (21) was added later.
Luke’s account brings in Cleopas and co. on the road to Emmaus, mentions Simon Peter as having received an earlier visit from Jesus (but with no description) and concludes with today’s reading in which Jesus demonstrates his physicality. He then leads the disciples out to Bethany, blesses them, and is “carried up to heaven”.
The latest additions to the appearance stories in the bible’s canon are written sometime after Luke’s account. John 21 has the disciples returning to Galilee and meeting Jesus while out fishing, a very similar setting to his life among them. The construction of the story builds up to a strong emphasis of Peter as Jesus’ chosen leader, which is lacking in the earlier ending of Chapter 20.
Mark 16:9-19 is evidently an insertion of elements from the Gospels of John (Mary Magdalene) and Luke (two walking in the country). No doubt the author of this supplement had good intentions to “complete” Mark’s account but in doing so he perhaps misses the point (and style) of Mark’s compelling oral story-telling. Throughout Mark’s gospel the listener is invited to participate in the story. The disciples are presented as slow witted so that the listener will think, “I know better than that! I know what Jesus was trying to say”. The sudden ending with the empty tomb and the call to return to Galilee invites the listener further into the role of to continue the story.
So, we have deconstructed, what now? How do we reconstruct and find deeper meaning? First, I think we have to accept that the differences reveal something significant about how the early followers developed their understanding of the significance of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Bernard Brandon Scott says in a Westar blog post that he wrote his book because he “was interested in how the followers of Jesus Annointed [Christ] shifted their views about the resurrection during the first two centuries.” There is a move from descriptions of “faith/trust/confidence” through to a stage where “the texts substitute proofs for faith”.
You can see how the narratives move from simple to elaborate, from an empty tomb, to the sound of his voice, to bodily appearances which do not obey physical laws (passing through locked doors, unrecognized then recognized, disappearing from sight), through to more physical interaction – the eating of fish and sharing breakfast in Galilee. As time went by, the writers four or even five generations after Jesus’ death needed more than just his voice to bring Jesus’ presence to mind. I could add that the different views probably also reflect the concerns of the different communities for whom they were written: there were growing tensions over who had the authentic message, who had authority (Peter, James, other disciples, Paul) and where that authority was seated (Galilee or Jerusalem).
John Dominic Crossan, in his book “The Power of Parable”, uses the example of Julius Caesar’s power grab in 49 BCE, which began the civil war which ended the Roman Republic, to illustrate how stories of historical events change with time and purpose. When Caesar crossed the river Rubicon, from his province of Gaul into Italy, with his legion he was committing insurrection. It was a decision from which there was no drawing back and two expressions from this event remain in popular literary use to this day: “crossing the Rubicon” and “Ilea iacta est” (the die is cast). Julius Caesar published his own account of the event several years later, which is very factual and doesn’t mention crossing the boundary, or the river, or the Latin quote. More than 250 years later Cassius Dio wrote a similarly factual account, but others, such as Suetonius and Appian, were more dramatic in their descriptions and it is their accounts which are remembered most vividly.
Appian’s description reads “When his course brought him to the river Rubicon, which forms the boundary line of Italy, he stopped and while gazing at the stream, revolved in his mind the evils that would result, should he cross the river in arms. “My friends, to leave this stream uncrossed will breed manifold distress for me; to cross it, for all mankind”! Thereupon he crossed it with a rush like one inspired, uttering the familiar phrase, “The die is cast, so let it be”.
Westar Associate and journal editor, Rev. Gordon Raynal suggests that “one of the powerful things about real wisdom communication is where it aims, so to speak. Namely it aims at sensory experience. Effective sayings and stories evoke “sensing” and effectuate a connection to “the bigger or big” experience.” In other words, good narration brings stories to life! The resurrection appearance we heard today in Luke includes sight, hearing, touch, even taste.
So, we accept that what was written is an exploration of reality, not a revelation of truth. A second element of reconstruction I can offer, is to consider why the writers of our biblical texts wrote what they did. A bodily resurrection was important for Paul because his views were firmly rooted in First Century Judaism. Paul describes his experience of Jesus as a revelation not a visual encounter, a call not a conversion. The images we have of the Damascus Road experience come from the book of Acts, a much later work which conflicts substantially with Paul’s own accounts of events.
And what was Paul’s revelation? As Brandon Scott puts it, “For Paul and the earliest Anointed-believers, Jesus’ resurrection is one moment, a pivotal moment, in an apocalyptic scenario, God’s plan”. Paul’s understanding is based on Jewish theology which developed during persecution of the Jews in the Second Century BCE, which imagined God would vindicate the Maccabean martyrs in some end-time event. Or, as Marcus Borg puts it, “the resurrection of Jesus is God’s vindication of Jesus… God’s yes to Jesus and God’s no to the rulers of this world…”. Resurrection was not about an afterlife, resurrection was proof of God’s intervention in this world. It was not about individuals, it was universal: all would be brought to God in the end times. And Paul’s generation believed those end-times had arrived.
We have our own context, nearly 2000 years of hindsight which Paul did not benefit from, and new ways of thinking. Dominic Crossan views the gospels as parables about Jesus, that is, stories which describe Jesus’ life and death and resurrection with a purpose. This is not to deny that there was a historical figure of Jesus at the core of the gospels; just that the gospel writers combined real events with challenging narrative. Dom Crossan explains that a parable is written “with a narrative that lures you into its [plot] to participate in ‘its ongoing adventure’ “. But, he goes on, a parable generates “a special mode of participation by hearers or readers. It does not want you to get into its story, but to get out of it”. The parable of the Sower does not want you to “get into sowing and ponder agricultural data”!
As Dominic Crossan puts it, “parables are traps for thought and lures for participation”. In other words, they make you think, and they encourage you to act. The power of the parables Jesus told was the way they “challenged and enabled his followers to co-create with God a world of justice, love, peace and non-violence.” The power of the parables that the gospels tell about Jesus is the challenge that “at least one human being could cooperate fully with God. And if one, why not others? If some, why not all?”
I’ll leave you with my own take on the resurrection stories. It’s not the stories that are important, it is the message within them! The stories of bodily resurrection were important to Paul, and the gospel writers, but are they helpful in a 21st Century world with all our scientific knowledge, our greater understanding of physics and chemistry? The message was that Jesus’ death was not the end of the movement, that God’s new world was here and now, and the only thing needed to bring it to fulfilment was participation, and that is still important here and now. And so, for me, the best resurrection story is the one in Mark – the one without any appearances, which invites us to continue the story in our own lives. Life before death.