Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Seeker2000 · 02-10-2006, 09:42 AM

On http://freelancetheology.typepad.com/ft/jesus_christ/ you can find a chronology of the Easter appearances from the biblical texts.

Quote:

Question from CV Alpha Group

This year Jon the freelance theologian answered questions ‘on the spot’ at a special Alpha evening. Here’s one of the questions that was asked:

How many people saw Jesus after his resurrection?

According to the various gospel accounts and the letters attributed to Paul, the following resurrection appearances took place. The various different accounts from the gospels were correlated by John Wenham in his book, Easter Enigma [Paternoster 1996, Appendix iv, p.139] as follows.

In or near Jerusalem
Easter Sunday morning – to Mary Magdalene
Easter Sunday morning – to other women, not all of whom were named
Easter Sunday midday – to Clopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus
Easter Sunday afternoon – to Peter
Easter Sunday evening – to ten of the disciples, plus others who were with them
Following Sunday – To the eleven surviving disciples, including ‘doubting Thomas’

Later, in Galilee
To the seven disciples who were fishing on the Sea of Galilee (John chapter 21)
To more than 500 ‘brothers’ in the hills of Galilee (1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 6)
To James, the Lord’s brother (later leader of the church in Jerusalem)

Back in Jerusalem
To the eleven disciples, followed by his Ascension from the Mount of Olives after forty days spent among them (Acts chapter 1)

Paul also claimed to have met the risen Christ on the Damascus road “as to one who is born abnormally�?, i.e. late, in1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 8.

What do you think of this chronology? Could this be possible (taking the complete NT into consideration) or are there any inconsistencies?

pharoah · 02-10-2006, 10:43 AM

Here's my list of the resurrection appearances, based on a quick reading of the relevant chapters. They are difficult to reconcile with each other. First of all, Mark 16:7 claims that Jesus was already in Galilee before anyone ever saw him. This would appear to invalidate all of the early Jerusalem sightings.

Matthew 28
9 To Mary Magdalene and other Mary in Jerusalem
16 To eleven disciples in Galilee

Mark 16
7 Jesus already in Galilee
9 To Mary Magdalene
12 To two unnnamed men
14 To the eleven

Luke 24
13-31 To Cleopas and unnamed man in Emmaus
36 To the eleven, Cleopas and unnnamed man in Jerusalem

John 20
15 To Mary Magdalene at the tomb same day in Jerusalem
19 To all disciples except Thomas (and Judas?) same day in Jerusalem
26 To all disciples eight days later in Jerusalem
(verse 17 contradicts several other passages that claim various people touched Jesus)

John 21
1 To seven of the disciples fishing on the sea of Tiberius
(verses 20-22 contradict both of the Judas death stories)

Acts 1
3 To the apostles that he had chosen (not sure if these are just the 11 or not)

I Corinthians 15
5 Seen by Cephas (Peter)
5 Seen by the 12 (including Judas?)
6 Seen by 500 brethren
7 seen by James (his brother?)
7 Seen by all of the apostles (who are they, the disciples?)
8 Seen by Paul himself

John Kesler · 02-10-2006, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker2000

What do you think of this chronology? Could this be possible (taking the complete NT into consideration) or are there any inconsistencies?

One needs only compare the accounts of Luke and Matthew to see a glaring inconsistency:

Quote:

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in, they did not find the body. 4 While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. 5 The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. 6 Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again." 8 Then they remembered his words, 9 and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles.

Quote:

After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, 'He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.' This is my message for you." 8 So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

In each account, Mary Magdalene is identified as one of the women who went to the tomb. How could she have grabbed the risen Jesus and worshiped him (Matthew) when according to Luke, all the women, which included Mary Magdalene, left the tomb without seeing Jesus?

This is just one of many inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives (see, for example, Mary Magdalene's encounter with Jesus in John 20) and attempts to harmonize them are fruitless.

Seeker2000 · 02-10-2006, 01:42 PM

Maybe the assumption has been made, that some events are just not mentioned in all accounts... so when trying to harmonize them it is perhaps assumed that e.g. in the account of Luke it is simply not mentioned that Jesus had appeared to the women after they had left the tomb to meet the apostles. Maybe some would argue that a reason for this could be incomplete oral traditions or something like that.

John Kesler · 02-10-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker2000

Maybe the assumption has been made, that some events are just not mentioned in all accounts... so when trying to harmonize them it is perhaps assumed that e.g. in the account of Luke it is simply not mentioned that Jesus had appeared to the women after they had left the tomb to meet the apostles. Maybe some would argue that a reason for this could be incomplete oral traditions or something like that.

This "maybe" won't work. Keep reading Luke 24:

Quote:

22 Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, 23 and 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. 24 Some 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."

Do you really think that Luke's narrative allows for the possibility that the women really met Jesus, but that Luke chose not to mention this fact? There is no end to "maybes," which is what apologists have to resort to to "harmonize" the accounts.

Seeker2000 · 02-10-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Do you really think that Luke's narrative allows for the possibility that the women really met Jesus, but that Luke chose not to mention this fact? There is no end to "maybes," which is what apologists have to resort to to "harmonize" the accounts.

Well, in the Luke account it is said that some of the apostles went to the tomb after they had heard the story from the women, "but they did not see him" - which could be understood as: they did not see him, in contrast to the women, who saw him, because he appeared to them.

But okay, you are right, it would be strange then that Luke didn't mention the appearance to the women. It could probably only be argued that he didn't know about it then. As I said, incomplete oral traditions could perhaps be named as a reason for his lack of knowledge.

Well, actually I regard the Easter appearance stories as Myth personally, but probably there is some kind of common 'core' from which the different versions originated. At least they all have in common that some women found the empty tomb and then Jesus appeared to the apostles (and other people).

It makes most sense to think that the different versions have been further elaborated at a later time, but it is nevertheless interesting to see if it is possible to harmonize them (from a theological point of view).

Koyaanisqatsi · 02-10-2006, 02:43 PM

Yes, well, don't forget that in the original version (Mark's), the tomb is not empty.

Quote:

Mark 16:5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

Not alarmed enough, apparently, to ask who the fuck the young man is (and what did he do with the body).

He just says, "He is risen." For all we know, that simply means Jesus was in a coma and came out of it and the whole mythological bullshit found in Matthew and Luke begins there.

:huh:

Steven Avery · 02-11-2006, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker2000

Well, in the Luke account it is said that some of the apostles went to the tomb after they had heard the story from the women, "but they did not see him" - which could be understood as: they did not see him, in contrast to the women, who saw him, because he appeared to them.

Sure this is the clear and consistent understanding
e.g. John Gill.
"but him they saw not"
...the women, as before observed, might report, that though they found not the body in the grave, yet they saw him alive by the way, but so did not the disciples; which made it look very strange, doubtful, and suspicious, that the women should see him, and not his apostles; they could not tell how to account for this, and this made them to be in suspense about the fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker2000

it would be strange then that Luke didn't mention the appearance to the women. It could probably only be argued that he didn't know about it then. As I said, incomplete oral traditions could perhaps be named as a reason for his lack of knowledge.

Or that Matthew was already circulating. And perhaps Luke did not have any additional first-person reporting to add. And that this is simply a good example of the 2 Timothy 3:16 inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon the gospel authors, that the full understanding is only seen with "All scripture".

The one thing that is inconsistent is to say that Luke "didn't know about it", since then "but him they saw not" is at very best an awkward, confusing redundancy. Clearly, the phrase only makes real sense in harmony with the Matthew account, whether that is palatable to the skeptic and textcrit mindsets or not.

Shalom,
Steven

Seeker2000 · 02-11-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker2000

it would be strange then that Luke didn't mention the appearance to the women. It could probably only be argued that he didn't know about it then. As I said, incomplete oral traditions could perhaps be named as a reason for his lack of knowledge.

Or that Matthew was already circulating. And perhaps Luke did not have any additional first-person reporting to add. And that this is simply a good example of the 2 Timothy 3:16 inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon the gospel authors, that the full understanding is only seen with "All scripture".

The one thing that is inconsistent is to say that Luke "didn't know about it", since then "but him they saw not" is at very best an awkward, confusing redundancy. Clearly, the phrase only makes real sense in harmony with the Matthew account, whether that is palatable to the skeptic and textcrit mindsets or not.

But if Luke really knew about the appearance to the women, why should he not have mentioned it directly? Of course he could have read it in Matthew (though it is not clear if he had access to that account), but why should that have been a reason for him to leave it out? He clearly wanted to write his own account and also mentioned other facts that are mentioned in Matthew as well, so why should he leave out this fact?

For me it makes more sense to think that Luke didn't know about the appearance to the women (or if he had heard of it, didn't consider it to be authentic). Of course the question would then be what he meant by "but him they saw not", but it's probably easier to explain that than to explain why he should not have mentioned the appearance to the women, had he known about it.

John Kesler · 02-11-2006, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker2000

For me it makes more sense to think that Luke didn't know about the appearance to the women (or if he had heard of it, didn't consider it to be authentic). Of course the question would then be what he meant by "but him they saw not", but it's probably easier to explain that than to explain why he should not have mentioned the appearance to the women, had he known about it.

And if the women in Luke's version really saw Jesus, why wouldn't they report this first-hand experience rather than simply stating that "a vision of angels" (v:23) said that Jesus was alive?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-10-2006, 10:43 AM	#2
pharoah Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,729	Here's my list of the resurrection appearances, based on a quick reading of the relevant chapters. They are difficult to reconcile with each other. First of all, Mark 16:7 claims that Jesus was already in Galilee before anyone ever saw him. This would appear to invalidate all of the early Jerusalem sightings. Matthew 28 9 To Mary Magdalene and other Mary in Jerusalem 16 To eleven disciples in Galilee Mark 16 7 Jesus already in Galilee 9 To Mary Magdalene 12 To two unnnamed men 14 To the eleven Luke 24 13-31 To Cleopas and unnamed man in Emmaus 36 To the eleven, Cleopas and unnnamed man in Jerusalem John 20 15 To Mary Magdalene at the tomb same day in Jerusalem 19 To all disciples except Thomas (and Judas?) same day in Jerusalem 26 To all disciples eight days later in Jerusalem (verse 17 contradicts several other passages that claim various people touched Jesus) John 21 1 To seven of the disciples fishing on the sea of Tiberius (verses 20-22 contradict both of the Judas death stories) Acts 1 3 To the apostles that he had chosen (not sure if these are just the 11 or not) I Corinthians 15 5 Seen by Cephas (Peter) 5 Seen by the 12 (including Judas?) 6 Seen by 500 brethren 7 seen by James (his brother?) 7 Seen by all of the apostles (who are they, the disciples?) 8 Seen by Paul himself

02-10-2006, 01:42 PM	#4
Seeker2000 Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 393	Maybe the assumption has been made, that some events are just not mentioned in all accounts... so when trying to harmonize them it is perhaps assumed that e.g. in the account of Luke it is simply not mentioned that Jesus had appeared to the women after they had left the tomb to meet the apostles. Maybe some would argue that a reason for this could be incomplete oral traditions or something like that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.