hat follows is a series of dense notes regarding the resurrection, and to some small extent the crucifixion (necessary at least when discussing Mark). These notes can be read several ways, but there is an implication here. It is that each writer or writers of Pauline texts and each Gospel is writing a rounded and full account for the time. The Gospels cannot be put together as a consistent whole. Built in here are the following: |
|
The questions Mark leaves open are issues that need answering later. Matthew answers these, and so does Luke with some disagreement with Matthew (for example, the place of the first resurrection appearance). The eschatological element in Paul and Mark, Paul's lack of detail in what the resurrection was, and the singularity of Mark's faith in the future, and not fear, is replaced by answers that lessen the eschatological element. Fear is combined with faith, the narratives get more and more detailed, with more and more church based and authority based theological points made wrapped into the narratives of resurrection. The most descriptive is the non-canonical Gospel of Peter, where a certain dullness over proceedings and a replacement of expectation takes over. The general assumptions regarding dates are made: Paul first writes some ten to twenty years after the crucifixion (so the tradition is already developing - we see exaltation becoming resurrection), Mark writes some twenty years later, and the rest follow on to some hundred years later. Getting to the history of what happened within these rich narratives of belief and authority is almost impossible. The question here is not honesty but the ability to write a story faithful to the Hebrew Bible (given what is wanted to be said about Jesus as Messiah) and to the claims in the communities, each of which have developed communal memories and issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eople, having read all the material, and critically, seek an answer inside these texts to the historical question. They want to know what happened. Texts constructed for theological purposes that answered once abstract points with more concrete and accessible stories based on the issues of the day do not readily present history. A Jesus who is recognised only when a theological point is made and then disappears is not history. Women told to be silent in one gospel, which reports it, is not dealing (primarily) with history, and neither is the contradictory account that the women did report it. The issue is not whether women or anyone else were there, but why this story came about (in Mark), and the implications of women taking the place of the disciples, and why other writers took another view given the inheritance of this story. The issue is not whether the location was Galilee for some future event in faith, or a meeting, or Jerusalem instead, but why these places were important to the story (and even the symbolism, never mind historicity, of Galilee is only open to speculation). |
The approach to this may probably be first to take an alternative view. This is the one that starts by saying that Jesus resuscitated and this provided sufficient miracle. This gives simple answers (principally of not enough time on the cross to suffocate) but raises many questions. If such reasoning, why then did the writers starting with Paul run with the language of appearances and struggle with what clearly was not an ordinary body (at its logical best)? It would be a deception when the obvious was available. |
There is a kind of big bang theory approach to Christianity. We know that there was rapid growth and that the accounts of the New Testament, whoever wrote them, deal with the theological issues of those communities. So clearly something set those communities going. It does not have to be a lot: even Mark forty years on wrote very little about what did happen. This is because we know that Paul, Mark and (must be) Jesus himself were working within a persecuted and expectant atmosphere of supernatural beliefs and expectations (the drama and urgency make no sense otherwise). We also know they were searching for an appropriate language that would not simply exalt the impacting Jesus but continue the project of redemption. Outside this arena (in Corinth), Paul had to argue that if the resurrection that others more easily believed did not happen, then Christians are the most to be pitied. It seemed that his argument held, with certain shifts more towards belief in Christ and Christ's mission, rather than the original general messianic totality. No doubt that there were other leaders with active expectations, but this religion had moved out of the place where Romans crushed Jewish movements and the Temple in 70 CE. Not all movements succeed, and those that do have fortunate incidents (for example, what if Christianity had never been become the Roman religion: even if it has spread further it would have had a very different character). |
Often other messianic figures were worshipped at their tombs, or not. Jesus was not. At some point or other, between Paul and Mark (20 to 40 years after Jesus' death) this was explained, or at least that explanation became wrapped up in matters of Jesus and the start of the general resurrection and expectations. The tomb tradition came about because there was a belief in resurrection, rather than the other way around. Mark may well have added this tradition, or used a very recent source. It may therefore have no more historical credibility than the birth narratives, despite the supposed greater accessibility of the event (although the event is placed after the crucifixion with disciples fled and before the charismatic growth of the community with accounts of appearances). |
There is no doubt that the biblical emphasis is that it is because Christ has died and risen that Christians live out the memory of Jesus and his works. Yet there is doubt that this is historical. Paul was convinced that Christ in his spiritual body had beaten death, and he wished to cast off his own earthly body to join Christ (but also wished to go on guiding Christians). That was his opinion, and the official account of appearances reads like a role call of Church officials in charge. We might doubt these: they spin the leadership. However genuine, many people have in any case lost this thought-world that makes after death appearances possible. Some do continue to have end of the bed (and elsewhere) appearances of a dead person seen and derive comfort, but only a few. Only some saw the risen Christ: many more did not. Others make claims about near death experiences, although here chemical induced electrical impacts are flying around the brain as its loses oxygen (though there are claims of viewpoints other than that of the brain dying or even dead person on the hospital bed). These also take away a fear of death. Taking such near death experiences, the spiritual figure often located at the end of the white tunnel of light is the one the individual has made close. It can be Buddha, the Virgin Mary, the hidden twelfth Imam or whoever, however great or small. There are also a whole series of psychological visions in daytime, and can be induced: was Paul's induced by an electrical storm linked to an earthquake, for example? However, there is much more than odd visions and dying experiences to the supernatural thought-world needed for a sustainable resurrection belief. Even if the thought-world is not valid or not recoverable, resurrection faith remains a response of devotion and behavioural impact during this life. It comes about as a result of the prior historical response among the same community in its earliest days. In other words, resurrection joins with the community's view of exaltation, the parousia and Pentecost. Resurrection faith is a staement of that historical response continuing. |
Adrian Worsfold
Avis, P. (ed.) (1993), The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, London: Darton, Longman and Todd.
Especially:
Fenton, J (1993), 'The Four Gospels: Four Perspectives on the Resurrection', in Avis, 1993, 39-49.
Houlden, L. (1993), 'The Resurrection: History, Story and Belief', in Avis, 1993, 50-67.
Lindars, B (1993), 'The Resurrection and the Empty Tomb, in Avis, 1993, 116-135.
and:
Hooker, M. D. (1979), Studying the New Testament, London: Epworth Press.