[davis, st. et alia] seeing the risen jesus

‘Seeing’ the Risen Jesus

of 19

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: University ofOxford; date: 28 October 2014

UniversityPressScholarshipOnline

OxfordScholarshipOnline

TheResurrection:AnInterdisciplinarySymposiumontheResurrectionofJesusStephenT.Davis,DanielKendall,andGeraldO'Collins

Printpublicationdate:1998PrintISBN-13:9780198269854PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:November2003DOI:10.1093/0198269854.001.0001

‘Seeing’theRisenJesus

StephenT.Davis(ContributorWebpage)

DOI:10.1093/0198269854.003.0006

AbstractandKeywords

IfyougrantthatJesuswasgenuinelyraisedfromthedeadandthatthewitnessestotheResurrectionsawhim,thequestionstillremainswhatsortof‘seeing’thisis.Somesaythatitwas‘grace‐assistedseeing’,i.e.thatthewitnessessawtheraisedJesusonlybecauseGod,byaspecialgrace,allowedthemtodoso.IargueagainstthispositioninthepresentpaperandinfavourofthetheorythatthewitnessessawJesusinanormalorfairlynormalsenseoftheword‘see’.Whattheysaw(Jesus’raisedbody)wasaphysicalobject,andtheirperceptualsenseswereworkinginanormalway.

Keywords:Davis,grace,normal,perceptualsenses,physicalobject,seeing

ITheNewTestamentclaimsthatcertainpeople—MaryMagdalene,Peter,Thomas,Paul,andothers—sawtherisenJesus.‘HaveInotseenJesusourLord?,’Paulasks(1Cor.9:


of 19


1).Throughthethreewomenatthetomb,thedisciplesreceivethepromise:‘heisgoingaheadofyoutoGalilee;thereyouwillseehim’(Mark16:7).AndtheotherdisciplessaytoThomas(John20:25),‘WehaveseentheLord.’1

SupposeweassumethatJesusreallywasraisedfromthedeadandreallydidappeartocertainpeople—thatis,thatthewholestoryofhispost‐resurrectionappearancestoindividualsandtogroupswasnotsimplyalegendoracaseoffraudoramistakeofsomesort.Suppose,thatis,thatthewitnessestotheresurrectiondid,asclaimed,seetherisenJesus.

Whatkindof‘seeing’wasthis?Wasitnormalorabnormalseeing?Wasthethingthattheysaw—thatis,Jesus'risenbody—amaterialobjectlikeatreeorahouseoranotherhumanbody?WeretheperceptualprocessesthatwereatworkinseeingJesusnormal;thatis,weretheyworkinginthesamewayastheyworkedwhenMaryMagdalenesawatreeorahouseoranotherhumanbody?ThisiswhatIaimtodiscussinthepresentchapter.Whatkindofseeingwasinvolvedinthoseexperiencesdescribedbysuchwordsas‘WehaveseentheLord’?

Letmedistinguishamongthreedifferentwaysofseeingorvisualizingsomething.Thefirstisnormalvision.Insuchcases,somethinglikethishappens:photonsoflightaredisturbed—thatis,are(p.127) eitherscattered,deflected,orabsorbedbyinteractingwithanexternalobject;someofthosedisturbedphotonsareabsorbedbytheretinaoftheeye;theycontaininformation—thatis,thespecificwavelengthofthelight,aswellasitsintensityanddistributionontheretina,determineourinterpretationofwhatwesee;fromtheeye,electrical‐chemicalmessagesaresenttothebrain,whichinterpretsthosesignalsandrecognizestheshape,location,colour,andsoonoftheexternalobject.Ishallassumethatnormalvisionentailsboth(1)thattheperceptualprocessesworkastheyregularlydo,and(2)thattheobjectseenisamaterialobject.

AttheotherextremeiswhatIwillcallsubjectivevision.Thisisasituationwheresomeonesincerelyclaimstoseesomething,nooneelsecanseeit,andthereasonthatnooneelsecanseeitisbecausetheitempurportedlyseenisnotreal,isnotobjectivelytheretobeseen.(Iwillsaylittleaboutthiscategory—usuallycalledahallucination—inthepresentessay.)

Thethirdcategoryfitsbetweenthefirsttwoandisimportantforpresentpurposes.Letuscallanobjectivevisionasituationwheresomeonesincerelyclaimstoseesomething,nooneelsecanseeit,andthereasonthatnooneelsecanseeitisbecauseitisnotthesortofthingthatcanbeseenbynormalvision.Thatis,thepersonwhohastheobjectivevisionhasbeenenabledbyGodtoseetherealandobjectivepresenceofthething;thesee‐erhasanabilitytoseeitthatotherslack.2

ThustheissuethatIwilldiscuss—whatsortofseeingwasinvolvedinseeingtherisenJesus—is,sotospeak,anintramuraldebateamongpeoplewhobelievethatJesusreallywasraisedfromthedeadandreallywasseen.PeoplewhoholdthatJesuswasbodilyraisedfromthedead3canalsoengageinthedebate,(p.128) becauseitisstillopento


of 19


questionwhatsortofbodywearetalkingabout.

GiventheassumptionthatJesusreallywasraisedand,accordingly,thattheappearanceswerenotsubjectivevisions,thetwopossibilitieswithwhichwemustconcernourselvesarenormalvisionandobjectivevisions.Thefirstpossibilityis,asnoted,thattheseeingofJesusbythewitnessestotheresurrectionwasfullynormalineveryorvirtuallyeverysense.MaryMagdalene'sseeingJesuswaslikemyseeingacolleaguewalkingdownthecorridorinPitzerHall.Mary'seyesandbrainwereworkingnormally,andwhatshesawwasamaterialobject—thatis,abodythattookupspace,occupiedacertainlocation,deflectedphotons,andsoforth.(Thisdoesnotentail,incidentally,thatJesus'resurrectionwasamereresuscitation;asIwillarguelater,hisraisedbodymightwellhavebeenbothatransformed‘glorified’bodyandamaterialobject.)AnybodywhohadbeentherebesideMaryMagdalenecouldalsohaveseentherisenJesus.AcameracouldhavetakenasnapshotoftherisenJesus.

Thesecondpossibility,asalsonoted,isthatwhatMaryvisualized(Jesus'raisedbody)wassoabnormal(a‘spiritualbody’fromheaven)thatitcouldonlyhavebeenseenbyherwithspecialassistancefromGod.Itwasnotthesortofobjectthathumaneyes,workingnormallyandunaidedbyGod,cansee(justastherearesoundsthatwecannothear).Her‘seeing’ofJesuswasenhanced,gracedseeing,seeingilluminatedbytheHolySpirit,anobjectivevision.Nooneelsewhowasthere,unaidedbyGod,wouldhaveperceivedorrecognizedJesus.Acamerawouldhavedetectednothing,oratleastnothingrecognizable.

Letuscallthesetwoperceptualexperiences‘seeing’and‘visualizing’,respectively.(Thesearetechnicaldefinitions;Idonotclaimthattheyreflectordinaryusage.)Seeingisthefirstpossibility,whereMary'sperceptionofJesuswasentirelyorbasicallylikenormalsight,andvisualizingisthesecondpossibility,whereMary'sperceptionofJesuswasassistedbyGod,anobjectivevision.Iwillusethewords‘perceive’and‘encounter’asneutralbetweenseeingandvisualizing;thatis,whenIsaythatsomeoneperceivedorencounteredtherisenJesus,Iamleavingthequestionopenwhetheritwasnormalsightoranobjectivevision.

Myownview,forwhichIwillarguehere,isthatseeingismuch(p.129) preferabletovisualizing.4Thatis,contrarytothetendencyofmanyofthetwentieth‐centurytheologianswhoholdthatJesustrulywasresurrectedfromthedead(andofcoursesometwentieth‐centurytheologiansdonotallowasmuch),thewitnesseswhoencounteredJesusintheresurrectionappearancessawhim.5

IIThereisnodenyingthataquickandpre‐criticalreadingoftheappearancestoriesintheNewTestament(togetherwithsomebriefclaimstohaveencounteredtherisenJesus—e.g.Luke24:34;1Cor.9:1;15:8)wouldnaturallyleadonetoholdthatthewitnessestotheresurrectionsaw,ratherthanvisualized,him.Thenaturalimpressionthatwegetfromthesestories—theirplainsense—isthatnormalvisionwasinvolved.6


of 19


PerhapsthehistoryofChristianartdepictingtheresurrectionhashadanunconsciouseffectonthewaywereadthestories—incountlesspaintings,drawings,andfrescos,theresurrectedJesusis(p.130) depictedasbeingjustassolidandperceivableandmadeoffleshandboneastheothersinthepictures.7Withthepossibleexceptionofahalo,hisbodylookslikeeverybodyelse's.

ButhowmightamorecriticalandtheologicallysophisticatedreaderoftheNewTestamentarguethatthewitnessessaw(ratherthanvisualized)therisenJesus?Primarilybyattendingtothebiblicaldescriptionsoftheappearances,assummarizedbyLuke:‘Afterhissufferinghepresentedhimselfalivetothembymanyconvincingproofs,appearingtothemduringfortydaysandspeakingaboutthekingdomofGod’(Acts1:3).Takingasynopticviewofallthestoriesandbriefclaims,Jesusissaidtohavebeenseen(ortohaveappearedortohaveshownhimself)(Matt.28:17;Luke24:34,39–46(‘Lookatmyhandsandfeet’);John20:14,18(‘IhaveseentheLord’),21;1Cor.15:5–8),tohavespoken(Matt.28:9,18–20;Luke24:17–30,36–49;John20:15–17,19–23,26–9;21:5–23;Acts1:4–8),tohavewalked(Luke24:13–28),tohavedistributedfood(Luke24:30;John21:13),tohaveeaten(Luke24:41–3;Acts1:4;10:41),tohaveperformed‘signs’(John20:30),tohavegivenablessingwithhishands(Luke24:50),tohaveshownhishandsandside(John20:20),andtohavebeentouched(Matt.28:9;Luke24:39;John20:17,27(onlythefirstofthesethreetextsspecificallystatesthatJesus'bodywastouched;theothertwoimplyit)).

Mypointisnotthatallthisphysicaldetailintheappearancestoriessettlesthequestionofseeingversusvisualizing.Thusfarmyonlyclaimisthatthenaturalwaytoreadthesestories—prior,thatis,toapproachingthemcriticallyorwithcertaintheologicalconvictionsinplace—isintermsofseeing.Intheabsenceofconvincingreasonstothecontrary(andwewillmomentarilyexploresomesuchpurportedreasons),itseemssensibletounderstandtheperceptionoftherisenJesusintheappearancestoriesintermsofnormalsight.(IwillreturntothispointinSectionVI.)

IIINevertheless,manycontemporaryexegetesandtheologiansoptforvisualizingasopposedtoseeing,andweneedtoconsiderthe(p.131) reasonsforthis.AsGeraldO'Collinspointsout,‘MostNewTestamentscholarswouldbereluctanttoassertthattherisenChristbecamepresentinsuchawaythatneutral(orevenhostile)spectatorscouldhaveobservedhiminanordinary“physical”fashion.’8Unfortunately,argumentsforthispositionarerarelygiven;soIhaveendeavouredtosupplyafew.Thereseemtobesixargumentsthatcanbegiveninfavouroftheresurrectionappearancesbeinginstancesofenhancedperception.Letmediscusstheminturn.

1.TheraisedJesusappearedonlytobelievers.Ifthisclaimweretrue,itmightconstituteapowerfulargumentfortheconclusionthatperceptualabilitiesenhancedbyGodwerenecessarytoperceivetherisenJesus,foritmightmakesensetoholdthatonlythosewhobelievedwereblessedbyGodwiththerequisiteenhancedperceptualabilities.

Butofcoursethemainclaimbeingmadehereisnottrue,anditisaltogethersurprising


of 19


thatsomanyscholarsmakeit.LetmementionthreepeoplewhowereunbelieversatthetimeoftheirencounterwiththerisenJesus.(1)ThomaswashardlyrepresentedasabelieverinJesusastherisenLordwhenheencounteredJesusinthehousewiththedoorsshut(althoughimmediatelyonperceivingJesushebecameabelieverinhimas‘MyLordandmyGod’(John20:28)).(2)ItseemsquitepossiblethatJamesthebrotherofJesuswasnotabelieverwhentherisenJesusappearedtohim(1Cor.15:7).Apparentlyanon‐believerduringJesus'earthlyministry(Mark3:21,31–5;6:3;John7:5),itcanplausiblybearguedthathecametobelievebecausetherisenJesusappearedtohim.NotethatJamesislistedamongthe120discipleswhoweretogetherinJerusalemafterJesus'ascension(Acts1:13–15;cf.also15:3;Gal.2:1f.).9(3)TheapostlePaulisanotherobviousexample,but(p.132) IwillpostponeuntillateradiscussionoftheissuessurroundinghisconversionandtheappearanceoftherisenJesustohim.

TheonlyclaimintheneighbourhoodofwhichwecanbesureisthattheraisedJesusmadenogreatandgrandioseappearancestothegeneralpublic—thatis,tofriendandfoealike.ThereisnorecordofanyappearancetoPontiusPilateortoCaiaphasortothecrowdthathadsorecentlycalledforhisexecution.AsLukehasPeteropenlyadmit,Jesusappearednotto‘allthepeoplebuttouswhowerechosenbyGodaswitnesses’(Acts10:39–40).ThetestimonyinfavouroftheresurrectionofJesusintheNewTestamentallcomesfrominsidersintheChristianmovement,notfromneutralorantagonisticobservers.

Butitisobviousthatthisratherthinfactisafrailreedwithwhichtobuttressaclaimthattheresurrectionappearanceswereepisodesofvisualizingratherthanseeing.Asnoted,somewhowerenotbelievers(andthuswereprobablynotidealcandidatesforgracedperception)encounteredtherisenJesus.

2.TheresurrectionofJesuswasnotaresuscitation.Thisclaimhaslongpuzzledme.Letmeexplainwhy.Supposewedefinetheterm‘resuscitation’astherestorationofclinicallydeadornearlyclinicallydeadhumanbeingstotheirpreviouslives.Resuscitationsoccasionallyoccurinhospitalsthesedays,andtherewereseveralapparentresuscitationsintheBibletoo—forexample,Jesus'raisingofLazarus.Onekeycriterionforaraisingfromthedeadbeingaresuscitation(asopposedtoaresurrection)isthattheresuscitantmustinevitablydieasecondtimeatsomelaterpoint,andatthattimedeathwouldpresumablybepermanent.

Whatpuzzlesmeisnottheclaimitself—itisobviouslyandunremarkablytrue.TheNewTestament'switnessisthatJesuswasnotmerelyrestoredtohispreviouslife,butratherwastransformedtoanewandgloriouslifefitforthekingdomofGod.WhatIfindoddisthevehemencewithwhichitisargued.EspeciallythosescholarswhosetouttoarguethattheresurrectionofJesusdidnotgenuinelyoccur,oroccurredonlyinsome‘spiritual’sense,invariablybeginwitharobustattackonresuscitation.Onealmostgetstheimpressionthattherearedefendersofresuscitationhidingbehindeverytree,andthateverythingdependsontheirbeingrefuted.

Indeed,Igotthisimpressionabouttenyearsago,when,asaninterloperfromanother


of 19


discipline,Istartedreadingthetheological(p.133) literatureonresurrection.Ikeptwaitingtoencounterthebooksorarticlesorthose(obviouslysightlyobtuse)resuscitationtheorists.Ittookmeawhiletorealizethattherearenosuchpeople.PerhapssomeunletteredChristianfolk,ifaskedwhattheybelieveaboutresurrection,wouldcomeupwithaninchoateversionofresuscitation,butIamawareofnoscholarswhodefendsuchaview.

Nevertheless,asnoted,theNewTestamentcertainlyteachesthatJesuswasresurrectedratherthanresuscitated,andsomescholarstakethistobeanargumentforvisualizingasopposedtoseeing.Butthereappearstobeconfusionhere.ItistruethattheresurrectedbodyofJesuspossessedstrangenewproperties.Withanapparentabilitytoappearanddisappearatwill,itseemedtobefreeofcertainofthenaturallawsthatwemustobey.NotethewayJohndepictsJesusasappearinginaroomdespiteitslockeddoorinJohn20:19,26,thewayhesuddenlydisappearedfromthesightoftheEmmausdisciplesinLuke24:31,andthewayheascendedoutofthedisciples'sightinLuke24:51andActs1:9.Someinterpretthistomean(andIagreewiththem)thattheappearanceswerenotencounterswitharesuscitatedJesus,butratherwere‘eschatologicaldisclosures“fromheaven”ofanalreadyexaltedOne’.10

ButmypointisthatitdoesnotfollowfromanyofthisthatJesus'raisedbodywasnotamaterialobject(althoughitcertainlywasanunusualone),somethingthattookupspace,occupiedacertainlocation,andcouldbeseen.Perhapsthefollowingfallaciousargumenthashadacertaininfluencehere:

(1)Aresuscitatedbodycanbeseen.(2)Jesus'bodywasnotaresuscitatedbody.(3)Therefore,Jesus'bodycouldnotbeseen.

NoticefurtherthatnobodytakesthesuddentransportationofPhilipfromthedesertroadnearGaza(wherehehadbeenspeakingwiththeEthiopianeunuch)toAzotus(Acts8:39–40)asevidencethathehadnophysicalbody.11

PaulBadhamhasargued12thatthereisacontradictioninvolved(p.134) inJesus'resurrectionbodybeingbothsufficientlyspiritualtopassthroughwallsandsufficientlyphysicaltobeseenandtouched.Butnotonlyistherenologicalcontradictionhere—thereisnotevenmuchinthewayofadifficulty.Theonlysortofthingthatlogicallycanappearandtakeupspaceinaroom,lockeddoorsornot,isaphysicalobject.Immaterialobjectslike,say,thenumbersix,failingastheydotopossessphysicallocation,nevertakeupspaceinaroom(oranywhereelse).IftheraisedJesusappearedinaroom,theraisedJesus'bodywasamaterialobject,andsopresumablycouldbeseenandtouched.

ButperhapsBadham'sdeepestconcernistounderstandhowaphysicalbodycan,ashesays,passthroughwalls.ButwheredoestheNewTestamentsaythatJesus‘passedthroughthewalls’oftheroom?IwouldhavethoughttheideawasthatJesussimplyappearedormaterializedintheroom.Itisofcoursenotpartofournormalexperiencethatphysicalobjectssimplyappearinagivenplace—thatis,withouthavingtraversedthe


of 19


interveningplacesbetweentheplacewheretheywereandtheplacewheretheyare.Still,Iseenologicalorconceptualdifficultyhere.Itseemsthatanomnipotentbeingwouldhaveitwellwithinitspowertomakeahumanbodymaterializeinaroom.

3.Themeaningofophthe.OphtheistheaoristpassiveformoftheGreekverbhorao(Isee).ThewordisusedninetimesintheNewTestamentinrelationtotheraisedJesus(Luke24:34;Acts9:17;13:31;26:16a;1Cor.15:5–8(fourtimes);and1Tim.3:16).Whenusedwiththedative,itisusuallytranslated‘Heappeared’,andassuchemphasizestherevelatoryinitiativeoftheonewhoappears.‘Helethimselfbeseen’isalmostthesense(asopposedtosomethinglike‘hewasseen’).

SomescholarswhofavourobjectivevisionsratherthanordinaryseeingarguethatthisconclusionisentailedbytheNewTestament'suseofophthe.ThusBadhamsays:‘mostNewTestamentscholarsbelievethatthewordophthe...referstospiritualvisionratherthantoocularseeing’.13Theargumentisthatthereligioususeofophtheistechnical,marksacleardifferencefrom(p.135) ordinaryvisualperceptionofphysicalobjects,andentailssomesortofspiritualappearance,vision‐likeexperience,orapprehensionofadivinerevelation.

Butotherscholarshavepointedoutthatophthecanalsobeused(andissousedinboththeNewTestamentandtheSeptuagint)forordinaryvisualapprehensionofahumanbeingoramaterialobject(e.g.Acts7:26).Thatis,itcanbeusedbothforordinaryseeingofmaterialobjectsandforthevisualizingofsupernaturalbeings.Indeed,thereareotherGreekwords(horamaandoptasia)thatarenormallyusedforwhatwewouldcallvisions,especiallyofthingsthatarenormallyinvisiblelikeGodorangels(seeMatt.17:9;Acts9:10;16:19).

Itistruethattheuseofophthedoesnotrequirethatthesensebethatofnormalvision,butnormalvisionisnotruledouteither.Indeed,thewordcoversawholerangeofvisualphenomena.WhenPaulsaysthattherisenJesus‘appearedtome,’thenotionofnormalvisionofamaterialobjectisneitherrequirednorruledout.However,fornon‐linguisticreasons,theappearancethatPaulcitesto‘morethanfivehundred’(1Cor.15:6)mustsurelyrefertoseeingratherthanvisualizing.RaymondBrownrightlyridiculestheveryideaofmorethan500peoplehavingthesameobjectivevisionas‘synchronizedecstasy’.14

Butthesimplepointisthatophthedoesnotrequirethesenseofvisualizingasopposedtoseeing,andinviewofexampleslikeActs7:26theargumentthatitdoescollapses.Wemustdecidewhatismeantineachinstanceofitsusebyanalysisofthecontext(amongotherthings),notsimplybylexicalfiat.ItisnotpossibletodecidethenatureofJesus'resurrectionappearancesonthebasisofalinguisticanalysisofoneverb.15

4.Doubtandfailureofrecognition.Anargumentinfavourofvisualizingasopposedtoseeingconcernsthecommonmotifsintheappearancestoriesof(1)failureatfirsttorecognizeJesus(Luke24:16,31,37;John20:14–15;21:4;cf.alsotheappendixtoMark:(p.136) ‘Heappearedinanotherformoftwoofthem’(16:21)),and(2)doubt


of 19


thatitisJesus(Matt.28:17;Luke24:11;John20:24–5).Theargumentwouldbethatthosewhowerenotblessedwithenhancedperception—thatis,whowerenotrecipientsoftheobjectivevisionoftherisenJesus—eitherdidnotrecognizeJesus(untilwithGod'shelptheywereabletovisualizehim)orelsedoubted.

Thisiscertainlyapossibleinterpretationoftheappearancestories.Butoneitemthatmightbetakeninsupportofitseemstomeactuallytoargueagainstit:namely,theexplicitstatementsintheEmmausstory(Luke24:13–35)thatCleopasandhisunnamedcompanionfailedtorecognizeJesusbecause‘theireyeswerekeptfromrecognizinghim’(24:16)andthatlatertheydidrecognizehimbecause‘theireyeswereopened’(24:31).Thispointseemstometocuttheotherway:itsuggeststhatthetwoEmmausdiscipleswouldquitenormallyhaverecognizedJesushadtheireyesnotbeensupernaturallykeptfromrecognizinghim.Theliteralsenseseemstobethattheireyeswererestrainedorheldback,andthatlatertheireyeswereopenedbyGod.16Inotherwords,itsoundsinthiscaseasifaspecialactofGodwasnecessarytopreventrecognitionuntiltheappropriatemoment.17Perhaps,then,anybodywhohadbeenthereontheroadtoEmmauscouldhaveseenandrecognizedJesus(apartfromsuchaspecialdivineact).Perhapsacameracouldhavetakenapictureofhim.

Arethereother,moresensiblewaysofexplainingthetwinmotifsofdoubtandfailuretorecognizethantopositobjectivevisions?Yes,Ibelievethereare.Foronething,weneedtoremindourselvesthatthediscipleswereconvincedthatJesushadtrulydied.Andcontrarytotheclaimsofsometwentieth‐centurytheologians(whomakeitsoundasiffirst‐centuryfolkwerealmostpantinglyeagertobelieveinresurrectionandothermiracles,andwoulddosoatthedropofahat),theywereasconvincedaswearethatdeadpeoplestaydead.TheyweredefinitelynotexpectingtoencounterJesus.

Accordingly,itoughtnottobesurprisingthatinitialencounters(p.137) withtheraisedJesusmighthaveproducedlackofrecognitionandevendoubt.ItshouldnotsurpriseusthatinsomecasesJesuswasrecognizedonlyafterhespoke,orafterheblessedandbrokebread,orafterheencouragedobservationofthepre‐mortemwounds,orafterhesuggestedfishingontherightsideoftheboat.Thedisciplesfirsthadtodealwiththeirownincredulitybeforetheycouldaccepttheresurrection.LatertheysurelyrecognizedwhattheChurchcametocalltheirown‘slownessofhearttobelieve’(Luke24:25).

Secondly,theremaybeseverallayersofexplanationforthetwomotifs.Asnoted,onatleastoneoccasionfailuretorecognizewassaid(asIinterpretthetext)tobeduetodivineinitiative(Luke24:13–33).Inothercases,therewereperhapsmorenaturalexplanations,likedistance(John21:4),acombinationofconfusionandlackoflight(John20:14–15),orthesuddennessofJesus'appearing(Luke24:36–7).ItalsoseemspossiblethatJesus'countenancehadbeenalteredsomewhat(thusthecommentintheMarcanappendix,‘Heappearedinanotherform’(Mark16:12)).ButthemainpointonwhichIwanttoinsististhatineverycaseofdoubtand/orfailureofrecognition,theoverridingfactorswere:(1)thefactthatthediscipleswereinshock,dealingwiththeirownanguishoverlosingJesusandtheirfearsfortheirownsafety,and(2)thefactthatseeingJesusaliveagainwasthelastthingtheyexpected.18


of 19


5.Paul'sconversion.ThestoryofPaul'sconversionontheroadtoDamascus(toldthreetimesinthebookofActs,at9:1–22;22:6–16;25:12–18)seemstohaveinfluencedthewaysomescholarsreadtheaccountsofJesus'resurrectionappearances.Forthatstorydoesseemtodescribesomethinglikeanobjectivevision,sincetheexperiencewasintelligibletoPaul(asanencounterwithJesus),butnottohiscompanions.Inthefirstaccount,theotherswhowerewithPaul‘heardthevoicebutsawnoone’(Acts9:7),andinthesecondaccount,they‘sawthelightbutdidnothearthevoiceoftheonewhowasspeaking’(Acts22:9).

Iamnotinterestedhereintryingtoharmonizethesetwoapparentlydiscrepantaccounts.MypointisthatsomepeoplemaythinkthattheresurrectionappearancesofJesuswerelikePaul'sDamascusRoadexperienceinbeingunseeableby,orunintelligibleto,otherpeople;thatis,theywereobjectivevisions—thisespecially(p.138) sinceinhisownwritingsPaulinsiststhathehasseentherisenJesus(1Cor.9:1;15:8;Gal.1:12,16),whichmostscholarsreadasreferencestohisDamascusRoadconversionexperience.

Interestingly,LukeseemstolimitresurrectionappearancesofJesustotheperiodbetweenhiscrucifixionandsomefortydayslater(seeActs1:3).ThismustmeanthatheholdsthatsubsequentencounterswithJesusthatinvolveanysortofvisualizationaretobeclassifiedeitherasvisionsorasresurrectionappearancesofadifferentsortfromtheearlierones.AndthisistheChurch'straditionalinterpretationofLuke'swords:aftertheascension,therewerenomoreresurrectionappearancesoftheparadigmaticsort.19Thismustmeanthat,accordingtoLuke'sscheme,Paul'sencounterswithJesus,howevermanytherewere,ofwhateversorttheywere,wereappearancesthatwereinatleastsomeimportantsensedifferentfromtheearlieronestoMaryMagdaleneandtheothers.(ThiswouldalsoapparentlyincludetheappearancestoStephen(Acts7:53–6)andtoJohnofPatmos(Rev.1:12–18).)

AndPaulhimselfmayhaverecognizedsomethinglikethisdistinctionwhenheintroducedareferencetohisownencounterwithJesuswiththewords,‘lastofall,astooneuntimelyborn,heappearedalsotome’(1Cor.15:8).20LukealsorepresentsPaulasreferringtohisconversionexperienceas‘aheavenlyvision(optasia)’(Acts26:19).Notealsothatin2Corinthians12:1–7(wherePaulwasalmostcertainlynotreferringtohisconversionexperience),21heseemstobedistinguishingbetweentwosortsofecstaticorrevelatoryexperiences,those‘inthebody’andthose‘outofthebody’.Perhapsthefirstsortincludesrealexperiencesandthesecondsortincludesvisions.

(p.139) Ifthisisthecase,thenPaul'sDamascusRoadexperience(atleastasitisdescribedbyLuke)isnotapropermodelforinterpretingtheresurrectionappearancesofJesus,fordecidingwhetherthewitnessessaworvisualizedJesus.Thepointisthis:thereisnogoodreasontointerprettheresurrectionappearancesrecountedintheGospelsandlistedin1Corinthians15:5–7asexperiencesthatwerelikePaul'sconversionexperience.Indeed,thereiseveryreasontodenythis‘DamascusRoad’interpretationofthem,becauseitrequirescompleterejection(perhapsaslegendaryaccretions)ofallthephysicaldetailoftheappearancestories.AndevenifPaul's


of 19


conversionexperiencedoes(contrarytowhatitseemsthatLukeissaying)countasaresurrectionappearanceinthefullestsense,thisdoesnotmeanthatitcanbeusedasagridtobeimposedontheotherappearanceaccounts.AsIhavebeenarguing,theysimplydonotfititverywell.

6.ThePaulinenotionof‘spiritualbody’.Sometheologiansarguethatin1Corinthians15Paulistalkingaboutaresurrectionbodythatisnormallyinvisibletohumansonearth,andthatthereforeallperceptionsoftherisenJesusareobjectivevisions.Inrespondingtothislineofargument,IamforcedtoskimlightlyoverpointsthatweremadeindetailinRisenIndeed.22InthatbookIargued:(1)thatPaul'snotionofaspiritualbodyinvolvescorporeality—thatis,thatPaulwastalkingaboutamaterialobject;(2)thatPaul'snotionofaspiritualbodyreconcileswhatotherwisemightlooklikediscrepanciesbetweentheheavilyphysicalmotifsintheappearancestoriesintheGospels(eating,beingtouched,etc.)andthemoreetherealornuminousmotifsinthosesamestories(appearinginaroomdespitelockeddoors,etc.);(3)thattheNewTestamentaccordinglyoffersaunifiedviewoftheresurrectionofJesus;(4)thatallredactionalattemptstoarguethatthephysicalmotifsarelateandunreliableandthattheyemergedthroughalongandquasi‐evolutionaryprocessfromearlier‘spiritual’appearancetraditionshavefailed;23and(5)accordingly,thatthenotionofbodilyresurrection(butnotresuscitation)isthebestwayforChristianstounderstandandpreachtheEastermessage.

(p.140) Althoughhedoesnotspecificallymentionseeing,WilliMarxsenperhapsimpliesthataspiritualbodycannotbeseenbutonlyvisualized.Hesays:‘AndofcourseaspiritualbodyinthePaulinesensecannoteatorbetouched.’24Evenmyfriendandconferenceco‐hostGeraldO'Collins(normallyhighlyreliableonallmattersresurrectional)seemstometolosehiswayatthispointbyreferringto‘glorious(normallyinvisible?)matter’.25(Butperhapsheredeemshimselfwiththeinsertedquestionmark.)

Myquestionis:wheredidMarxsenlearnthataPaulinespiritualbodycannoteatorbetouched?WhatmadeO'CollinsevenquestioninglysuggestthataPaulineglorifiedbodycannotbeseen?ItseemsperfectlypossibletoaccepteverythingthatPaulsaysin1Corinthians15aboutresurrectionbodiesandstillholdthattheyarematerialobjectsthatcanbeseen.Pauldoesinsistthat‘fleshandbloodcannotinheritthekingdomofGod’(1Cor.15:50).Butthismeansthattheold,earthlybodycannotenterthekingdomofGodasitis(thisisoneofthepowerfultheologicalargumentsagainstresuscitation),thatitmustfirstbetransformedintoaglorifiedbody(Phil.3:32).Butaglorifiedbody(soma)isstillabody—thatis,stillamaterialobjectthatcanbeseen.26

IVWehavebeendiscussingsixargumentsthatmightbegiveninfavouroftheclaimthattheappearancesoftheresurrectedJesustoMaryMagdaleneandtheotherswereobjectivevisionsratherthaninstancesofordinaryseeing.Someoftheargumentsarestrongerthanothers,butaswehaveseen,seriousobjectionscanberaisedagainstallsixofthem.

Thecentralclaimofthefirstargument—thattheraisedJesusappearedonlytobelievers


of 19


—issimplyfalse,nomatterhowmanytimesitisrepeated.Thesecondargument—theonethatconcerns(p.141) resuscitation—isirrelevanttothematterathandonceitisgranted(asitmustbe)thataglorified(andnotjustresuscitated)raisedbodycanbeamaterialobject.Thethirdargument—aboutophthe—isaseriousone,butaswesaw,thefrequentuseofthiswordinconnectionwithJesus'resurrectionappearancesdoesnotbyitselfsettlethequestionofseeingversusvisualizing.Thefourthargument—whichconcernsthemotifsofdoubtandfailuretorecognizeJesusintheappearancestories—isalsoanimportantconsideration,butIarguedthatthesemotifscanbeadequatelyexplainedeveniftheraisedJesuswasseenratherthanvisualized.Aboutthefifthargument—whichconcernstheinfluenceofPaul'sconversionstoryinActsonthe‘objectivevision’interpretationoftheappearancestories—Iarguedthatthereshouldbenosuchinfluence.Inresponsetothesixthargument—aboutPaul'snotionofa‘spiritualbody’—Iarguedthatthereisnogoodreasontothinkofitassomethingthatisnormallyinvisibleorunobservable.

Thestrongestargumentintheoppositedirection—thatis,infavourofseeing(asopposedtovisualizing)—isthemassivephysicaldetailoftheappearancestories.SupposetherisenJesusreallydid(asthestoriesclaim)appear(invarioussettings,atvarioustimesofday,forvariouslengthsoftime,tovariouspeopleandgroupsofpeople),walk,talk,distributefood,performsigns,andallowhimselftobetouched.Ifso,itseemssensibletointerpretthestoriesinthewaythattheChurchandChristianartistshavetraditionallyunderstoodthem:namely,thattherisenJesuswasphysicallypresentinawaythatcould,inaperfectlynormalsense,beobserved.27

ItissometimessaidthatthephysicaldetailoftheappearancestoriesinLukeandJohnwastoconvincethedisciplesnotthatJesuswasphysicalbutthathewasreal.Butthosewhomakethisclaimneverseemtogoontoanswerthequestion:arealwhat?28Perhapsthisomissionissoprevalentbecausethosewhofailtoanswerthequestionrecognizethatanyanswertoitthatdidnotinvolveaphysicalbodywouldinevitablyleadtoathoroughlynon‐biblicalviewof(p.142) survivalofdeath—forexample,tothePlatonicnotionoftheimmortalityofthesoul.IhavenoproblemwiththeclaimthatthephysicaldetailofthestorieswasdesignedtoprovethephysicalandthuspersonalcontinuityoftherisenLordwiththeJesuswhohadbeencrucified.ButIamarguingthattheprimaryreasonforthephysicaldetailisthatinitscanonicalwritings,theearlyChurchwascorrectlyrememberingtheactualnatureoftheappearancesthemselves.

Thestatusoftheevidenceatourdisposal(soitseemstome)issuchthatitismuchpreferabletoholdthattherisenJesuswasseenratherthanvisualized.Butwhyisthisviewsocommonlyrejected?OnesometimesgetstheimpressionfromthefriendsofobjectivevisionsthatthenotionofaphysicallypresentresurrectedJesusissomehowuncouthoroutré.29Idonotsharesuchfeelings;IfeelnosenseofembarrassmentwhatsoeverinholdingthatacameracouldhavetakenasnapshotoftheraisedJesus,say,feedingthesevendisciplesbesidetheSeaofTiberius(John21:1–14).

VIhavebeenarguingthatthebiblicalstoriesoftheresurrectionappearancesofJesusare


of 19


tobeunderstoodintermsofordinaryvision.Thusfarmyargumenthasbeenbasedentirelyonhistorical‐criticalgrounds,andIwanttoresttheclaimsofthepresentessayprimarilyonthosegrounds.However,itseemstomepossibletoargueforthesameconclusionintwootherways.Letmenowbrieflydoso.

1.TheearlyChurchinterpretedtheresurrectionappearancesintermsofordinaryvision.Iwillnottrytoestablishthispointindetail,especiallysincethemodernconceptofanobjectivevisionwasapparentlynotusedbyearlyChristianthinkers.Still,itisclearthatorthodoxtreatmentsoftheresurrectioninthesecondcenturyall(p.143) tookitforgrantedthatJesuswasseenbythewitnessesinanordinarysenseoftheword‘see’.

Oneextremeexample,whereitwasmadeexplicitthatnon‐believerssawtherisenJesus,istheremarkableresurrectionsceneintheGospelofPeter.Inthataccount,theguardsatthetombactuallyobservedtherisenJesusleavingthetombsupportedbytwoangels.‘Theheadsofthetworeachedtoheaven,’itsays,‘buttheonewhomtheyborewiththeirhandsreachedbeyondtheheavens.’ExplainingtheeventsatthetombtoPontiusPilate,theguardsdeclared,‘TrulyhewasasonofGod.’30

TurningtotheChurchFathers,IgnatiusofAntioch(c.30–107)isagoodplacetobegin.HecitedandstressedthebiblicalaccountsofJesusencouragingthedisciplestotouchhisresurrectionbodyandtoexaminethepre‐mortemwounds.Jesusrosefromthedead,Ignatiussaid,notjust‘inappearance’but‘inthebody’.‘Hebothateanddrankwith[thedisciples]duringfortyentiredays.’Ignatiusconcluded:‘AndIknowhewaspossessedofabodynotonlyinhisbeingbornandcrucified,butIalsoknowthatHewassoafterHisresurrection,andbelievethatHeissonow.’31

LikeIgnatius,JustinMartyr(fl.c.150)wascriticalofthosewhomaintainedthat‘Jesushimselfappearedonlyasspiritual,andnotinflesh,butpresentedmerelytheappearanceofflesh’.32AgainstDocetictendenciesintheChurch,Justinemphasizedtheresurrectionofthebody.HearguedthatitwastoconfirmhisbodilyresurrectionthatJesusappearedinphysicalform,allowedthedisciplestoexaminethepre‐mortemwounds,andatewiththem.Justinwentontosay:‘Andwhenhehadthusshownthemthatthereistrulyaresurrectionoftheflesh[and]thatitisnotimpossibleforfleshtoascendintoheaven...,“Hewastakenupintoheavenwhiletheybeheld”,ashewasintheflesh.’33

Doubtlesswithsomeofthesameheresiesinmind,Irenaeus(d.c.200)alsostressedthe‘fleshiness’oftheresurrectionandthebiblicalaccountsthatunderscorethatnotion.Hesaid,‘Inthesamemanner,therefore,asChristdidriseinthesubstanceoftheflesh,andpointedouttohisdisciplesthemarkofthenailsandtheopening(p.144) inhisside(nowthesearethetokensofthatfleshwhichrosefromthedead),so“shallhealso”,itissaid,“raiseusupbyHisownpower”.’34

Thereare,ofcourse,limitationsonhowfarthisfirstargumentcantakeus.Foronething,somepeopledonotparticularlycarewhattheFathershadtosay.Foranother,somemightarguethattheopinionsoftheFathersonthistopicaresuspectbecausetheywrotebeforetheadventofthehistorical‐criticalmethodinscripturalstudies.Forathird,some


of 19


mighttrytorelativizetheviewsofthesecond‐centuryFathersbyarguingthattheiremphasisonthephysicalityoftheresurrectionmerelyreflectstheirtheologicalcontext,oneinwhichorthodoxywasendangeredbyDoceticandGnostictendencies.

ButforthosewhowanttotakeChristiantraditionseriouslyandwhothink(asIdo)thatanytheologicalopinionwhichallorvirtuallyalltheFathersheldisatleastprimafacieprobable,theargumenttotheeffectthatthesecond‐centuryFathersallappearedtoholdthattheresurrectedJesuswasseeninanordinarysenseiscertainlyworthnoting.

2.Thetheologicalsignificanceofappearancesamenabletoordinaryvision.Asnoted,myprimaryargumentinthischapteristhehistoricalonethatJesus'resurrectionappearanceswereactuallyseenratherthanvisualized.Butthisdoesnotprecludetheologicalorevenapologeticsignificance.Irejectthenotion,implicitinsomeNewTestamentscholarship,thatfindingatheologicalpurposebehindacertainscripturalaccountisinconsistentwiththataccountbeingatrueaccountofwhatactuallyoccurred.

Wellthen,whattheologicaldifferencedoesitmake(ifIamcorrect)thattherisenJesuswasseenratherthanvisualized,thatanybody(believerornot)whohadbeenintherightplaceattherighttimecouldhaveseenhim,thatnospecialorextraordinarydivineassistancewasneeded?Thereareseveralpointsthatcouldbemade,butIwillfocusontwo,thefirstabriefpointaboutChristiandoctrine,thesecondamoredetailedapologeticpoint.

Thedoctrinalitemisthis:theclaimthatthewitnessessaw,ratherthanvisualized,JesusunderscorestheChristiannotionof(p.145) incarnation,theclaimthatGodbecameahumanbeinginJesusChrist.35AsAquinassaysinaslightlydifferentcontext(hewasdiscussingthequestionofwhytheangelofannunciationwasseenbytheVirginMaryvianormalsight),theangelwasseenbyMarybecause‘hecametoannouncetheIncarnationoftheinvisibleGod.Whereforeitisbecomingthat,inordertomakethisknown,aninvisiblecreatureshouldassumeaforminwhichtoappearvisibly.’36Inotherwords,incarnationrulesoutallGnostic‐likedenigrationofbodilyexistenceandthebodilysenses.TheclaimthatGodbecamefleshmeansthatsightandtheothersensesarenottobebelittledorabhorred.OfcourseIamnotsayingthatthefriendsofgracedseeingdenyorevenconsistentlyshoulddenyincarnation.ButtheclaimthattherisenJesuswasseenratherthanvisualizedisastrongwaytounderscorethenotionthatGodtookonahumanbody,andthatthehumanbodycannot,accordingly,beallbad.ThebodywasnotonlycreatedbyGodandisthusgood;thebodyisthevehiclethroughwhichwecometoknowGod.ThoselikeMaryMagdalenewhosawJesussawGodmadevisible.

Letmenowturntotheapologeticpoint.Aseveryonerecognizes,theclaimthatJesuswasraisedfromthedeadwasatthecentreofthemessagethattheearliestChristianspreached.Theywereverymuchinterestedintryingtoconvincepeopletobelieveastheydid.Nowimaginethefollowingsituation.Oneofthewitnessestotheresurrection(say,MaryMagdalene)isspeakingtoanon‐believingfriend.Shesays:‘Yes,Isawhim;that'swhyIbelievehewasraisedfromthedead;that'swhyI'msosure.Sorry,butyouwouldn'thaveseenhimevenifyouhadbeentherebesideme.Onlythosewhowere


of 19


especiallyblessedbyGodwithenhancedvisioncouldhaveseenhim.Themostyouwouldhaveseenwaspossiblyabrightlight.ButIwasoneoftheluckyones;Isawhim.’

Onesuspects—toputitmildly—thatsuchanargumentwouldleadthenon‐believingfriendtobesuspicious.EvenifitwereobviousthatMarywassincere—thatis,wasnotinvolvedinalieorfraud—thethoughtwouldstronglyoccurtothefriendthatMaryhadbeendeluded.Therewouldbeeveryreasontoholdthather(p.146) purported‘especiallyblessedvision’wasnotveridical.Ofcourse,thissamesuspicioncouldberaised—anddoubtlesswasraised—evenifMaryhadclaimedtoseeratherthanvisualizetherisenJesus.Still,itisclearthatthereisfarmoreroomfordoubtonthe‘visualization’accountthanonthe‘ordinarysight’account.Onthesecondaccount,Mary'sclaimsatleastcouldhavebeenempiricallyverifiedinarespectablepublicsense.Onthefirstaccount,theycouldnothavebeen.Accordingly,theapologetictaskfacedbythewitnessestotheresurrectionwasslightlyeasierbecausetheycouldsay(ifIamrightinmycentralclaimhere),‘IsawJesus.’

ThatJesuswasseenratherthanvisualizedbythewitnessestotheresurrectionaccordinglyhasthistheologicalimplication:whattheysawwasJesus,notanimpostororahallucinationoramassofectoplasmorasortofinteractivehologram.AndthefactthatitwasJesuscouldhavebeenverifiedinaquiteordinarysense—inasimilarwaytohowImightverifyaclaimthatacolleagueofmineiswalkingdownthehall—thatis,simplybylooking.Inotherwords,convincingevidencefortheresurrectionofJesuswaspresentforanyonetohaveseen.Itwasnotheldinreserveforthebenefitofafewinitiates.TheevidencefortheresurrectionofJesuswasnotarcaneandpsychological,butpublicandempirical.

VILetmeexplainwhatItaketobethelogicofmycentralargumentinthisessay.AsIarguedearlier,anysensibleattempttoarriveattheplainsenseofthescripturalaccountsoftheresurrectionappearancesofJesus—whetherthatreadingisdoneinthesecondcenturyorthetwentieth—wouldentailthattherisenJesuswasseenratherthanvisualized.Thatis,therisenJesuswasaphysicalbodythatwasobjectivelypresenttothewitnessesinspaceandtime,andhewasaccordinglyseeninanormalsenseofthatword.Nowthatreadingofthestories,likeanyreadingofanytext,canbeoverturnedinfavourofanotherreadingbyconvincingreasons.Wehaveexaminedsixargumentsthatcanbeusedtooverturnthetraditionalreading.Wehavefoundthemallunconvincingand,insomecases,rathereasytodefeat.Inmyview,then,weareleftwith(p.147) theChurch'straditionalreadingoftheresurrectiontexts.Jesuswasseen.37

SupposeIamrightinmymainclaim:thatitwasseeingratherthanvisualizing;anybodywhohadbeentherewithMaryMagdalenecouldsimilarlyhaveseenJesus;acameracouldhavetakenapictureofhim.Doesanythingofinterestfollowaboutthenatureofresurrectionfaith?

Hereitwouldbehelpfultodistinguish(asBrowndoes38)betweensightandinsight.Anybodywhohadbeenthere(Ihold)couldhaveseenJesus.Itwouldevenhavebeen


of 19


possible(Isuggest)foranunbeliever—one,let'ssay,whohappenedtohaveknownJesus—tohaverecognizedhim.‘ThisisJesusofNazareth,’suchapersoncouldhavesaid.ButapartfromtheilluminationoftheHolySpirit,suchapersonwouldlackinsight.‘Whatonearthhappened?Ithoughthehaddied,’suchapersonmighthavereflected.Or:‘Ihavenoideawhyheseemstobehere,buttheremustbesomerationalexplanation.’

Wereenhancedpowersofperception—powersthatweregrantedtosomeanddeniedtoothers—necessarytohaveseentherisenChrist?Iamarguingthattheanswertothatquestionisno.ButwasaspecialgracenecessarytoseetherisenChristinsuchawayastorecognizehimasLordandtograspwhathewascallingonetobeanddo?Ofcourse.

Inotherwords,onlythepersontowhomGodhasgiventhegiftoffaithwillhavetheinsighttobeabletosay:‘HeisherealivebecauseGodraisedhimfromthedead.’Oreven:‘HeisLord.’39Apersonwhomakessuchaconfession,whetherthatpersonwasamemberofthefirstgenerationofChristiansorlivestoday,isawitnesstotheresurrection.40

Notes:

(1)NotethefactthattheclaimtohaveseenJesusaliveafterhisdeathrunsfromtheearliestNTwitness(Paul)throughMarktooneofthelaterbooksintheNT(John).

(2)Ichoosetorefertothiscategoryas‘objectivevision’becausethattermisalreadyinuseinthetheologicalliteratureofresurrection.(Seee.g.W.Pannenberg,Jesus—GodandMan,2ndedn.(Philadelphia:Westminster,1977),93–9.)‘Grace‐assistedseeing’oreven‘gracedseeing’mightotherwisehavebeenbetterterms.Itshouldbenotedthatthedistinctionbetweenobjectiveandsubjectivevisionissometimesunderstoodinadifferentway;anobjectivevisionisasituationwhereGodintentionallyandperhapstelepathicallygrantsJonesavisionofsomethingdespitethefactthatthethingvisualizedisnotobjectivelythereinexternalreality,andasubjectivevisionisasituationwhereSmith'svisionofsomethingisinsomesenseself‐induced.

(3)AsIdoinmyRisenIndeed:MakingSenseoftheResurrection(GrandRapids,Mich.:Eerdmans,1993),43–61.ItshouldbenotedthatseveralassumptionsandargumentsofthepresentessaypresupposeconclusionsreachedinRisenIndeed,andprobablydonotstandverywellapartfromit.

(4)InmybookRisenIndeedIexpressedtheopinionthatthewitnessestotheresurrectionsawtherisenJesusinanormalsenseoftheword‘see’,butIdidnotargueforthatposition.Whenitcametimetoplanthepresentbook,co‐editorGeraldO'Collins,whodoesnotholdthisview,suggestedthatIusetheopportunitytomakeacasefornormalseeing.Atfirst,Iwasnotenthusiastic.IfeltthatwhenIwroteRisenIndeedIhadprettymuchexhaustedwhatIknewabouttheresurrection.Moreover(asIpointedoutinthatbook),Iamnotabiblicalscholar.Furthermore,Iknewthatthefriendsof‘gracedseeing’rarelyproduceargumentsonbehalfofthattheory,sothatifIweretowritethesuggestedessay,IwouldhavetosupplythemissingargumentssothatIcouldthentrytoanswerthem.Butdespitethesethreeconsiderations,Gerald'sjudgement(asisnow


of 19


obvious)prevailed.

(5)ThereisanimportantquestionthatisrelatedtotheonethatIamdiscussing:viz.whethertheresurrectionappearancesrecordedintheNTwereofauniqueandlimitedsort,inprincipleunavailabletolaterChristians.DespitetheargumentsofWilhelmMichaelisandothers(seehisarticle‘Horao’,inTDNTv.315–82),Iwillassumethattheanswerisyes.ThepointhasbeenconclusivelymadebyDanielKendall,SJ,andGeraldO'Collins,SJ,intheirarticle,‘TheUniquenessoftheEasterAppearances’,CBQ54/2(Apr.1992),287–307.SeeingJesus,theysay,‘wasanexperiencerestrictedtothefirstgenerationofdisciples,abovealltotheapostoliceyewitnessesofthatgeneration.OtherandlaterChristiansrelatepersonallytoJesus(throughfaithandlove),buttheydonotseehim’(p.299).

(6)IdonotopposetheattemptofScripturescholarstoarriveatsensibleconclusionsaboutthedatingandearlyformsofexistingbiblicaltexts(inthiscase,theresurrectionaccounts),butmyviewisthatChristiantheologyoughttobedoneonthebasisofthosetextsthattheChurchhastakenascanonical,notonthebasisoftheirhypothesizedliteraryancestors.Iwillsoargueinthepresentchapter.

(7)ThisplausiblesuggestionhasbeenmadebyGeraldO'Collins,SJ,inhisWhatAreTheySayingAbouttheResurrection?(NewYork:Paulist,1978),47–8.

(8)SeehisTheResurrectionofJesusChrist(ValleyForge,Pa.:JudsonPress,1973),59.

(9)ThedifficultyhereisthatofidentifyingwhichJames,amongthethreeorsomentionedintheNT,Paulwasreferringtoin1Cor.15:7.ItseemsprobablethathehadinmindJamestheLord'sbrother,theonewhobecamea‘pillar’oftheearlyChurch(Gal.2:9).NotethatCephasandJamesarementionedbynameinboth1Cor.15:5–8andPaul'sownaccountofhisfirstpost‐conversionvisittoJerusalem(Gal.1:18–19).Indeed,ReginaldFullersays:‘IftherewerenorecordofanappearancetoJamestheLord'sbrotherintheNewTestamentwewouldhavetoinventoneinordertoaccountforhispost‐resurrectionconversionandrapidadvance’TheFormationoftheResurrectionNarratives(Philadelphia:Fortress,1971),37.

(10)O'Collins,WhatAreTheysayingAbouttheResurrection?,11.

(11)IowethislastpointtoRobertH.Gundry,‘TheEssentialPhysicalityofJesus'ResurrectionAccordingtotheNewTestament’,inJoelB.GreenandMaxTurner(eds.),JesusofNazareth,LordandChrist:EssaysontheHistoricalJesusandNewTestamentChristology(GrandRapids,Mich.:Eerdmans,1994),214.

(12)PaulBadham,‘TheMeaningoftheResurrectionofJesus’,inP.Avis(ed.),TheResurrectionofJesusChrist(London:Darton,Longman&Todd,1993),28–9.

(13)PaulBadham,‘TheMeaningoftheResurrectionofJesus’,inP.Avis(ed.),TheResurrectionofJesusChrist,31.Michaelis(inhisarticlecitedinn.5)isprobablythemostinfluentialrecentscholarwhoholdsthattheappearanceswererevelatoryencounters


of 19


withJesusthatprimarilyinvolvedhearingratherthansight.

(14)RaymondE.Brown,SS,TheVirginalConceptionandBodilyResurrectionofJesus(NewYork:Paulist,1973),91.Nodoubtanomnipotentbeingcouldachievesuchathingasavisionsharedbyover500people,butinthelightofalltheevidenceitstrainscredulitytothinkthatGodactuallydidsointhiscase.

(15)SeeHansGrass,OstergeschehenundOsterberichte,4threv.edn.(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1970),186–9.

(16)SeeJosephA.Fitzmyer,SJ,TheGospelAccordingtoLuke(X–XXIV)(GardenCity,NY:Doubleday,1985),1563,1568.Fitzmyercallstheusageinv.31(‘theireyeswereopened’)thetheologicalpassive,whichsuggeststhatitwasanactofGod.

(17)SomeinterprettheblindnessofCleopasandhiscompanioninentirelynaturalterms,simplyascontinuingLuke'sthemeofspiritualblindness(Luke9:45;18:34;19:42).Seee.g.GrantOsborne,TheResurrectionNarratives:ARedactionalStudy(GrandRapids,Mich.:Baker,1984),238.IdonotreadtheEmmauspericopethisway,however.

(18)SeeMurrayHarris,RaisedImmortal(GrandRapids,Mich.:Eerdmans,1983),56.

(19)Theologicallythisseemsawisedecision.Otherwise,theChurchthroughoutitshistorywouldhavehadtocontendwith,andreachjudgementsabout,allsortsofpurportedresurrectionappearanceswithallsortsofpurportedlyauthoritativenewrevelationsfromtheRisenOne.

(20)HereIdisagreewithBrown,VirginalConception,53n.,whosays:‘[Paul]regardstheappearancetohimselfonthesamelevelastheappearancetotheothers,evenifitisthelast.’Atonelevel,ofcourse,Browniscorrect—Paulsurelyconsideredhisencounteranimportantpartofwhatvalidatedhisstatusasanapostle,andheheldthathewassecondtononeoftheotherapostlesinthisregard.MyquestioniswhetherPaulconsideredhisencounterwiththerisenJesusasbeingonanepistemicparwiththeearlierappearancestotheothers.Theevidencecitedinthepresentparagraphmakesmedoubtit.

(21)Thephrase‘fourteenyearsago’pointstoadateintheearly40sratherthantotheconversionexperienceinthe30s.

(22)Seeesp.43–84.

(23)Inmyopinion,noonehasconvincinglyarguedthattherewaseveraperiodinthehistoryoftheChurch,letaloneadocument,inwhichtheresurrectionofJesuswasunderstoodinnon‐physicalterms.Notethat1Cor.15:3–7,probablytheoldestdatableEastertraditionintheNT,speaksofresurrectionratherthanexaltation.

(24)WilliMarxsen,TheResurrectionofJesusofNazareth(Philadelphia:Fortress,1970),70.


of 19


(25)GeraldO'Collins,WhatAreTheySayingAbouttheResurrection?,46.

(26)ThispointiscompellinglyarguedbyRobertGundry,SomainBiblicalTheology:WithEmphasisonPaulineAnthropology(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1976),159ff.SeealsoWilliamL.Craig,AssessingtheNewTestamentEvidencefortheHistoricityoftheResurrectionofJesus(Lewiston,NY:Mellen,1989),120–6,133–7,158.

(27)HereagainIdisagreewithO'Collins,whoarguesthatthephysicaldetailofthestoriesisdesignedtohighlight‘(a)therealityoftheresurrection,(b)thecontinuitybetweentherisenLordandtheearthlyJesus,and(c)thedisciples’statusaswitnesses'.Headds:‘Thegraphic,physicaltouchesoftheEasterstoriesinLukeandJohnservetoexpressthesepointsandnomore’(WhatAreTheySayingAbouttheResurrection?,49–50).Icanaffirmeverythinghereexceptthecruciallastthreewords.

(28)SeeGundry,‘TheEssentialPhysicality’,210.

(29)BrownechoesthefeelingofmanytheologiansandScripturescholarswhenhesays:‘Thepartialambiguityofoursourcesaboutthenatureof“seeing”makesincrediblesomeofthemodernspeculationastowhethertherisenJesuscouldhavebeenphotographedortelevised,andwhetherhecouldhavebeenseenbynon‐believers.ThistypeofquestiondoesnotshowanyappreciationforthetransformationinvolvedintheResurrection’(VirginalConception,91fn.).

(30)SeeDavidR.CartlidgeandDavidL.Dungan(eds.),DocumentsfortheStudyoftheGospels(Philadelphia:Fortress,1980),85.Thequotationsarefromv.40and45.

(31)AlexanderRobertsandJamesDonaldson(eds.),ANFi.(GrandRapids,Mich.:Eerdmans,1989),85(TheEpistleofSt.IgnatiustotheSmyrnaeans,III).

(32)Ibid.295(FragmentsoftheLostWorkofJustinontheResurrection,II).

(33)Ibid.298(Fragments,IX).

(34)AlexanderRobertsandJamesDonaldson(eds.),ANFi.(GrandRapids,Mich.:Eerdmans,1989),532(IrenaeusAgainstHeresies,V,VII,1).

(35)IowethispointtoJanetMartinSoskice.Seeheressay,‘SightandVisioninMedievalChristianThought’,inMartinJayandTeresaBrennan(eds.),Vision(London:Routledge,1996),29–43.

(36)ST3a.30.3.

(37)Or,asSherlockHolmessays(neartheendof‘TheBerylCoronet’),‘Itisanoldmaximofminethatwhenyouhaveexcludedtheimpossible,whateverremains,howeverimprobable,mustbethetruth.’

(38)VirginalConception,112–13.


of 19


(39)Indeed,‘WehaveseentheLord’seemstobethenormaltestimonyofthewitnessestotheresurrection(1Cor.9:1;Luke24:34;John20:18,25;21:7),ratherthan‘WehaveseenJesus’.(TheoneexceptionisMatthew—see28:5,9,10,16.18.)

(40)IwouldliketothankProfessorsGeraldO'Collins,SJ,WilliamL.Craig,CareyNewman,andPhemePerkinsfortheirhelpfulcommentsonearlierdraftsofthisessay.

Accessbroughttoyouby: UniversityofOxford