Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus

In the *Supper at Emmaus*, Caravaggio depicted the moment the disciples recognise Jesus

The Resurrection appearances of Jesus are reported in the New Testament to have occurred after his death and burial (Mark 16:9–20 see also Mark 16, Matthew 28:8–20, Luke 24:13–49, John 20:11–31, 21, Acts 1:1–11, 1 Corinthians 15:3–9).

Appearances reported in the New Testament

1 Corinthians 15

To Cephas (Simon Peter)
and "the twelve." 15:5
To "five hundred brothers at once." 15:6
To James
and "all the apostles." 15:7
To Paul himself. 15:8–9, also claimed in 9:1

Matthew 28

To Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary," as they were running from the empty tomb to inform the disciples. Jesus tells the women to instruct the disciples to go to Galilee to meet him.
To the eleven, on a mountain in Galilee where Jesus had told the apostles to go, see Great Commission.

Mark 16

To Mary Magdalene.
To two of Jesus's followers as they were walking in the countryside (Jesus appeared to them in "another form").
To the eleven while they were dining.

(Note that the verses of Mark 16 that describe resurrection appearances are absent in the oldest manuscripts).

Luke 24

To Cleopas and one other disciple as they walked to Emmaus. At first "their eyes were holden" so that they could not recognize him. Later while having supper at Emmaus "their eyes were opened" and they recognized him.
To "Simon." This appearance is not described directly by Luke but it is reported by the other apostles. It is not clear whether it happened before, after or contemporaneously with the appearance at Emmaus.
To the eleven, together with some others (including Cleopas and his companion), in Jerusalem.

John 20–21

To Mary Magdalene. At first she did not recognize him and thought that he was a gardener. When he spoke she recognized him.
To the disciples (not including Thomas) on that same day. They were indoors "for fear of the Jews."
To the disciples including Thomas. This was eight days later, again indoors.
To Peter, Nathanael from Cana of Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples, by Lake Tiberias, see also Catch of 153 fish. The disciple whom Jesus loved was present in this group.

Acts 1

To the Church in Jerusalem— forty days after the resurrection when he ascended into heaven, with a prophecy to return (1:1–11).

Appearances reported outside the New Testament

Gospel of the Hebrews

To James the Just^[1]

Problems with Mark's account

Each appearance has been the focus of much literary comment during the mediaeval era, and the York Cycle of English mystery plays has a whole play about the appearance to Mary. However, the ending of Mark varies substantially between ancient manuscripts, and scholars are in near universal agreement that the final portion of the traditional ending, in which all Mark's resurrection appearances occur, is a later addition not present in the original version of Mark's gospel. Unhelpfully it is the general opinion of textual scholars that none of the known variant endings, including the traditional one, is actually the original ending.

According to the theory of Markan priority, Matthew and Luke are largely derived from Mark. Some scholars however favour an earlier date for Matthew. (See the Augustinian hypothesis.)

The appearance to Mary Magdalene

While Mark doesn't mention when the incident occurred, Matthew states that Jesus appeared to Mary and Mary while they were returning to tell the disciples what they had seen. John, on the other hand, presents a completely different incident. John's account parallels the synoptic accounts of Mary's first visit to the tomb, though in John, Mary has already been to the tomb once, and Peter has already inspected it. Unlike the first visit, the second, in John, is much more similar to the synoptic account of the empty tomb, with Mary peering into the tomb and witnessing two angels inside dressed in shining white. Having been questioned by the angels about her concern for the tomb's emptiness, Mary turns and sees Jesus, according to John.

Mary's presence at the tomb, however, jars with the preceding narrative in John, which presents Mary as having left the tomb, and having told Peter that it was empty. C.K. Barrett has attempted to resolve this by suggesting that Mary may have gone with Peter to witness his examination of the tomb.^{[citation needed]} Some scholars feel that Mary never really left the tomb in the original form of John, and that Peter's visit has somehow become misplaced before she sees the angels in the tomb, rather than after.^{[citation needed]} Brown has argued that the text for John 20 was combined from two separate sources, that John inexpertly interlaced together. To many it seems illogical for Mary to not have actually looked into the tomb before going and telling Peter and the Beloved Disciple that Jesus' body was gone. This is the only time in the Gospel of John that angels appear, and so some scholars believe that the angels were a later addition to the narrative ^{[citation needed]}, perhaps in an attempt to harmonise the account of Mary's visit to the tomb with the synoptic Gospels. Rationalists like Rudolf Schnackenberg, however, believe that the angels were added to reinforce the lack of a corpse—by indicating that the angels were sitting where the head and feet of Jesus's corpse should have been, it shows that a full examination of the spot had been conducted. As a later addition, or misplacing of the text, an explanation is provided for why the angels are so quickly forgotten in the rest of the chapter, and for why the angels failed to appear to Peter when he examined the tomb.

Why John describes Mary as loitering outside the tomb is unknown, though Augustine of Hippo proposed that when the men went away, a stronger affection kept the weaker sex firmly in place. Bruce believed that Mary was hoping someone would pass by who could give her some information, though why Mary does not seek out Joseph of Arimathea, the owner of the tomb, for information is an obvious question. One theory is that Joseph was so far above Mary's in terms of social class that it would not be right for her to disturb him, but a more obvious solution is presented by Schnackenberg—the Codex Sinaiticus version of John has Mary waiting inside rather than outside, and this may be the original form—though again this still raises the question of why she was waiting at all, with several textual scholars^{[citation needed]} arguing that Mary waiting outside is a redaction that was added once the angels part of the narrative, for the original tomb visit, became misplaced.

Iconically, John depicts Mary as weeping, ultimately causing her name to be associated with Maudlin. Both the angels address Mary as woman, and then ask why she had been crying. This is not as uncouth as it first appears, since the underlying Greek term—gunai—was, in Greek, the polite way to address an adult female. While the synoptic Gospels demonstrate an awareness of Jewish beliefs, and people there are presented as being shocked and afraid of angels, John demonstrates no such awareness, instead presenting Mary as responding nonchalantly, and while some believe that this is due to Mary not recognising the figures as angels, due to grief or tears, some scholars tend to see this as owing to issues surrounding the author of John. The conversation itself differs considerably from the one reported by the synoptics, and the angels are brief and do not give any hint of resurrection having happened, which Calvin attempted to justify by arguing that John was only including what was necessary to back up the resurrection. At this point the angels abruptly disappear from the narrative, and John and the synoptics begin to share the order of events again.

Mark mentions Mary's post-tomb encounter with Jesus but gives no details, though he does remark that Jesus had cast seven devils out from her, presumably indicating an off-screen exorcism. Matthew instead reports that Jesus met Mary and Mary as they were returning to the other disciples; that they fell at his feet and worshipped him; and that he instructed them to tell the disciples that they would see him in Galilee.

John presents a far more elaborate conversation. According to John, once Mary has explained to the angels about her concern at the emptiness of the tomb, she turns and suddenly sees Jesus, but mistakes him for a gardener (the word gardener is a hapax legomenon in the bible). In John's account of the conversation, Jesus repeats the angels' question of why Mary is weeping, and Mary responds similarly, by requesting to know what Jesus (whom she has mistaken for someone else) has done with Jesus' body. After this response, John states that Jesus says Mary's name, she turns, and apparently realises who he is, whereupon Jesus enigmatically tells her to Touch [him] not, for [he is] not yet ascended to [his] father (see Noli me tangere) and then to inform the disciples. To resolve the differences between the Gospels, some inerrantist scholars like Norman Geisler believe that after the events recounted by John, Mary runs into another group of women, whereupon the events of the synoptic accounts occur, though there is no evidence whatsoever for such a conclusion from John itself.

The significance of Mary Magdalene

*Saint Mary Magdalene approaching the Sepulchre* by Gian Girolamo Savoldo

That three of the Gospels portray Mary Magdalene as the first to see Jesus post-death, is generally considered to be of significance. Mary Magdalene was a major figure in Gnosticism, and one of the main teachers besides Jesus, the only other of similar significance being Thomas Didymus. Supporters of Gnostic priority (that Gnosticism is the original form of Christianity) see this as clear evidence that Mark, and hence, due to Markan priority, the entire resurrection narrative, was intended to be interpreted gnostically. Though owing to intrinsic beliefs about the nature of the physical world, Gnosticism generally viewed women as equals, in Judaism of the era women were not considered valid legal witnesses. Westcott, and other supporters of John's authenticity, sometimes use this to argue that the narratives must be factual, since someone faking it would be more likely to use a prominent and respected witness.

Why John portrays Mary as initially not recognising Jesus, even though she had known him well for a long time, is something of much debate. One theory is that, since Luke records two disciples as failing to recognise a post-death appearance of Jesus, the physical form of Jesus after resurrection must have been different, either due to the resurrection process itself, or due to the ordeal of crucifixion. More down-to-earth explanations have also been advanced, the most prominent being that Mary's tears had clouded her vision, or alternately that she is so focused on recovering Jesus' body, that she is temporarily blind to its being in front of her. However, John Calvin, and many other Christians, read this as a metaphor: that Mary's blindness despite seeing Jesus represents the blindness, according to Christians, of non-Christians who have already been informed about Jesus. Why Jesus initially encourages Mary's lack of recognition is also something of a mystery, though Dibelius sees it as a literary conceit, since the trope of a returning hero's being unrecognised or disguised dates back at least as far as Homer's Odyssey, and Feuillet sees echoes of the Song of Solomon in this passage.

Amongst those who see John as a deliberate piece of polemical orthodox propaganda, it is seen as a deliberate attack by John against the gnostics, by portraying one of their key figures as being stupid. The frequently raised idea that John is orthodox propaganda has also been proposed to explain the reference to gardeners. A Jewish anti-Christian story from the period sought to discredit the resurrection, by claiming that a gardener named Judas moved Jesus' body to another tomb to avoid his cabbages' being trampled upon by the crowds that came to see it, causing the resurrection myth to arise when Mary and the others found the tomb empty.^{[citation needed]} Hans Von Campenhausen has argued that John adds the mention of a gardener as a deliberate reference to this Jewish story, and as an attempt to discredit it, though Rudolf Schnackenberg regards the sequence of cause and effect to be the reverse—that the Jewish story originated from John's mention of a gardener. Amongst Victorian commentators, Hoskyns and Lightfoot regarded the mention of a gardener as a metaphor relating to the Garden of Eden.

Noli me tangere

What is meant by Jesus telling Mary to Touch [him] not, for [he is] not yet ascended to [his] father has historically been the subject of extremely heavy debate. Touch me not became an extremely well known phrase, albeit in Latin as Noli me tangere, and is still generally regarded as a direct reference to John's account of Jesus making this statement. The phrase does appear to be quite at odds with the other gospels and even with later parts of John, since John has Jesus asking Thomas Didymus to probe his wounds, and Mark has Mary and Mary holding Jesus by his feet.

There are a wide variety of solutions, perhaps the most obvious being the suggestion of textual corruption, with some suggesting that the word not was not originally there, while W.E.P Cotter has proposed that the text originally said fear rather than touch (i.e. do not fear me), and W.D. Morris has proposed it originally said fear to touch (i.e. do not fear to touch me). There is however no linguistic evidence for these suggestions, and so most scholars concentrate on other avenues of argument. Some have proposed that Jesus' wounds were sore and so he disliked the pain inflicted by being touched, while others believe there to be ritualistic reasons involved. Kraft proposes that it was against ritual to touch a corpse, and Jesus wished to enforce this, regarding himself as dead, while C. Spicq proposes that Jesus saw himself as a (Jewish) high priest, who were not meant to be sullied by physical contact, and others still have proposed that Mary is being ordered to have faith and not seek physical proof.

All of the aforementioned non-textual solutions, however, neglect the fact that John later describes Thomas Didymus as being encouraged to touch Jesus' wounds, apparently contradicting the prior arguments. Consequently many proposals hinge on portraying Jesus as upholding some form of propriety, with Chrysostom and Theophylact arguing that Jesus was asking that more respect be shown to him, a view often linked to the notion that while it was not appropriate for a woman to touch Jesus it was fine for a man like Thomas. Kastner has argued that Jesus was naked, since the grave clothes were left in the tomb, and so John portrays Jesus as being concerned with Mary being tempted by his body.

Interpretations concentrating more on the subsequent context have also been proposed. H.C.G. Moule suggested that Jesus is merely re-assuring Mary that he is firmly on Earth and she need carry out no investigation, and others have suggested that Jesus is merely concerned with staying on-topic, essentially instructing Mary don't waste time touching me, go and tell the disciples. Barrett has suggested that as Jesus prohibits Mary by arguing that he has not ascended to [his] father, he could have ascended to heaven before meeting Thomas (and after meeting Mary), returning for the meeting with Thomas, though this view implies that the meeting with Thomas is some form of second visit, hence raising several theological issues, including that of a second coming, and is consequently unfavourably viewed by most Christians. John Calvin argued that Mary (and Mary) had started to cling to Jesus, as if trying to hold him down on Earth, and so Jesus told them to give up; in consequence many Protestant translations, particularly those that are Calvinist, use cling to describe how Jesus refers to Mary's behaviour (i.e. do not cling to me), and touch elsewhere, such as with Thomas, even though both these are translations of the same Greek word. Nevertheless, if we focus on the actual situation rather than always resorting textual criticism to try to solve every assumed variation in the accounts, it does look as if Jesus was concerned with motives here: Jesus was willing to provide Thomas with sufficient evidence to overcome his unbelief, whereas this was not a problem for Mary. In the case of Mary, she had evidently loved Jesus deeply, not surprising in view of her deliverance (Mark 16:9), and was reluctant for Jesus to leave her now that he had returned. This shows Jesus' ability to penetrate beneath the surface and understand each individual's deepest motivations.

Historically, the phrase formed one of the main arguments in the debate on Christology, seemingly suggesting some form of intangibility—a view shared in the modern era by Bultman—and hence appearing to advocate docetism (a view where Jesus' body is not resurrected as a physical object—do not touch me because you can't). This is quite at odds with John's general emphasis elsewhere against docetism, and so those who regard John as deliberate polemic tend instead to see this verse as an attack on Mary. Gnostics frequently viewed Mary Magdalene as being greater than the other disciples, and much closer to Jesus on both a spiritual and personal level, and hence Jesus treating Mary with disdain would question the respect and emphasis that gnosticism placed on her, much in the same way that Thomas Didymus is presented as doubting Jesus is physically there until he actually confirms it, while Gnostics viewed Thomas as a great teacher who had many revelations, and advocated docetism. All of this however presupposes Gnosticism is earlier than the Gospel of John.

Mary's report

Mark reports merely that Jesus met Mary, and Luke doesn't even report this, but Matthew reports Jesus as instructing Mary to arrange for the disciples to meet him, while John has Jesus giving Mary a specific message to deliver—that he ascend[s] to [his] father and [her] Father, and to [his] God and [her] God. Matthew also reports that while Mary and Mary were returning to the disciples, the watchmen of the city informed the chief priests of the things that were done, and the sanhedrin gave money to the soldiers to spread the message that Jesus' corpse had been stolen by his disciples. Matthew mentions that this had become a common claim of the Jews.

Typically for John, the message that Jesus gives Mary seems to strongly assert a specific Christology, though many dispute quite which one. Jesus identifies the intended recipients of his message as being his adelphoi, a Greek term meaning both cousin and brother, which Alford believes is an implication that a new closeness exists between Jesus and his followers and an indication that Jesus is still fully human and a brother to other men. The message itself is one that is central to the debate between Monophysitism and Dyophysitism, with Dyophysitism holding that the passage asserts that Jesus was both human and divine. That the passage is seen more to uphold the orthodox position than the non-orthodox position is often cited as evidence that the author of John wrote the Gospel as deliberate propaganda for the purpose of refuting non-orthodoxy in the second century, rather than being a devout work of an eyewitness from the first century, a period when the Monophysitism/Dyophysitism debate was a non-issue. That the message seems more concerned with the ascension than with the resurrection itself is sometimes read, particularly by Pentecostalists to imply that the ascension has far greater importance.

Textual features

In John, after Mary has first turned around and seen Jesus, and after Mary and Jesus have started conversing, when Jesus states her name Mary turns around again and speaks to him. Almost no-one believes that this means that when Jesus calls her name she turns her back to him and converses, and so the question arises as to how she could still be facing him if she has twice turned around. One school of thought is that Mary had turned away between these two turns, Kastner arguing that she had done so due to Jesus being nude, while another school of thought suggests, like Brown, that the first turn was only partial and the second was a complete turn—as if she was standing at right angles to Jesus the first time she speaks. Schnackenberg and many textual scholars argue that the initial part of the narrative is misplaced, and hence that these two turns occurred at originally quite separate incidents.

According to John, when Jesus calls Mary's name she responds by stating Rabboni. Mark translates (into Greek) the word Rabboni, claiming it means beloved teacher, while John translates it (into Greek) as teacher. The exact translation of Rabboni is disputed, but most linguists see it as sharing the same etymology as Rabbi, though a more polite form—something like my dear Rabbi. Mark's translation agrees with this, since Rabbi is generally considered to mean teacher, while John's demonstrates slightly less knowledge of Aramaic, apparently unaware of Aramaic grammar. While many religiously conservative scholars, like W.F. Albright, agree with this linguistic analysis, a few have sought to claim the term as evidence of divinity; Hoskyns, for example, has claimed that the similarly spelled word Rabbuni was used in works of the period as a name for God, and hence that Mary was claiming that Jesus was divine. Due to the lack of certain forms of punctuation in early manuscripts of the Gospels, it is uncertain whether Rabboni is used as an exclamation of recognition, or whether it is questioning and uncertain—Rabboni?.

John uses the wording Miriam when Jesus is described as speaking Mary's name, which according to Brown is more Hebrew than the Aramaic term Mariam (from which, via Latin, her English name—Mary—derives). Several scholars argue that this is evidence that the author of John wasn't actually a disciple, and didn't really understand Jewish culture, since though Hebrew was still the liturgical and scriptural language, everyday speech of the period was generally Aramaic. Other scholars, though, disagree, arguing instead that authors in this period tended to vary between Miriam and Mariam indiscriminately.

Other explanations

Critics have suggested that Jesus may have existed and the events chronicled in the Bible may have happened but were misinterpreted by his followers. Some suggest that Jesus only appeared to be dead because he was a temporal lobe epileptic. It has also been suggested that Jesus may have been under the influence of reserpine, a botanical extract found in shubs in the area at that time. The massive release of stress hormones brought on by physical abuse and restraint may have induced a coma like form of hypothermia; once the hormones dissipated and his body warmed up 48 hours later Jesus would have emerged from that coma.^[2]

References

^ [1]
^ Spignesi, Stephen (2005-05-01). Resurrection. Citadel Press. pp. 297–301. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Barrett, C.K. The Gospel According to John, 2nd Edition. London:SPCK, 1978.
Westcott, B.F. The Gospel of St. John. London: John Murray, 1889.
Brown, Raymond E. "The Gospel According to John: XIII-XI" The Anchor Bible Series Volume 29A New York: Doubleday & Company, 1970.
Bruce, F.F. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983.
Leonard, W. "St. John." A Catholic Commentary on the Bible. B. Orchard ed. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953.
Schnackenberg, Rudolf . The Gospel According to St. John: Volume III. Crossroad, 1990.
Wesley, John. The Wesleyan Bible Commentary. Ralph Earle ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.
Westcott, B.F. The Gospel of St. John. London: John Murray, 1889.

External links

Resurrection Appearances Appearances Can Be Deceiving: GodShew.Org
original manuscript for the mystery play on the appearance to Mary
What did the angels tell Mary?
a commentary on the appearances according to John, written by John Calvin
Jesus Appears to His Disciples—a Protestant commentary
Recognizing Jesus—an evangelical argument
A Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts by an evangelical
The Resurrection Account: Does it Make Sense?—the view of a Puritan
The Historical Resurrection of Jesus-Part One of a four-part series of articles on the Resurrection by a Christian apologist

[1] [1]

[2] Spignesi, Stephen (2005-05-01). Resurrection. Citadel Press. pp. 297–301. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1]

[2]