22: The Gospel of John
22
The Gospel of John
According to virtually all New Testament scholars, John is the last canonical Gospel to be written. It is usually dated in the last decade of the first century, or about 90–100 AD.1 Even the Jesus Seminar fits right into the same time frame with their date, also placing John in the last ten years of the first century.2
A Perspective Like That of Luke 1:1–4?
Though we are not dealing with the authorship of this Gospel in this book, an amazing aspect of recent studies of John’s Gospel is that even critical scholars often recognize there are a number of signs that indicate eyewitness or otherwise reliable data that shows up in various places in this volume.3 Further, it is not rare for the Gospel to be ascribed with some likelihood to tradition supplied by the apostle John himself, whether or not he was the author. However, the question here is not who wrote the book, but rather whether is it possible that the author of this Gospel indicates by his often excellent grasp of the data that much of his careful information demonstrates that his overall account is reliable? In other words, it is possible that John is showing throughout what Luke was asserting in the introduction to his Gospel. Thus, perhaps these authors have more than one way of indicating for the reader that these texts impart responsible reporting.
For example, Brown asserts that no other ancient tradition presents “any considerable body of evidence” for any author besides that of John, the son of Zebedee. Further, after setting out and analyzing the different stages in the Gospel and who could have been present during those times, plus the book’s claims that it reports eyewitness testimony, Brown concludes, at the least, that the apostle John exercised much influence in its composition and writing.4
Other examples are not difficult to locate. Johnson explains, “The claim to such firsthand traditions was once regarded as entirely fictitious, but the FG [Fourth Gospel] shows as good a knowledge of first-century Palestinian terrain, customs, and ideology, as the Synoptics.” After a number of examples, Johnson concludes, “Archaeology in fact has verified some specific facts that earlier critical scholars had dismissed as spurious (see 5:2; 19:13).”5
Like Johnson, Keener also notes some significant areas where eyewitness data seems to be the option that makes the best sense of specific information contained in the Gospel itself, such as the author’s knowledge of local geography, specifically his acquaintance with the Jerusalem area, along with the sense one gets that the author could well have been present at a number of key events such as the disciples’ last meal with Jesus.6 Considerations like these even caused Ehrman to state that some of the traditions in John’s Gospel may go back to an original apostle.7
Guthrie discusses a number of important indications of the author’s eyewitness testimony mentioned above. These include the knowledge of each of the following: Palestinian backgrounds; Jewish customs, including accurate information regarding Jewish disputes during the time just before the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans; Jewish history; Palestinian geography; and topographical details. More specific eyewitness information would include items such as the two Bethanys, the brook Kidron, Tiberius as an alternate name for the Sea of Galilee, the pool of Siloam, the paved region outside the Praetorium, as well as a number of other details. In sum, Guthrie concludes, “It seems impossible to deny that the author was either himself a native of Palestine or else in very close touch with someone who was.”8 He adds concerning the view that the apostle John was the author: “This view would, on the whole, seem to account for more facts than any other, even if it is not without its difficulties.”9
Without much doubt, the volume that has probably garnered the most attention along these lines during the last few years is Richard Bauckham’s detailed text Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, an exceptionally bold work from one of the most accomplished New Testament scholars of the present generation. Bauckham’s theme is that “fresh attention” needs to be given to the abundant number of relationships between eyewitness testimony and the four Gospels. Regarding the Fourth Gospel, Bauckham proclaims, “I conclude, very unfashionably, that an eyewitness wrote it.”10
More specifically, Bauckham devotes at least four full chapters to various aspects of this question (14–17), concluding that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John the Elder, who casts himself in the text as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” An enigmatic character mentioned in Christian writings beginning in the early second century, this John, according to Bauckham, was a resident of Jerusalem (which helps explain his firsthand familiarity with the city) who was also present for many of the most crucial aspects of Jesus’s ministry.11
So we return to the suggestion above that the author of John may have been doing or modeling just what Luke was asserting in reference to having made a careful check of the eyewitness sources. No Gospel provides more evidence than does John that the author, whoever he was, occupied a position that allowed him to know the truth regarding a great many of the geographical, archaeological, and historical items spoken about throughout the text, many of which can still be ascertained today.12 Therefore, the reader has a choice to make when the author (or editor, as per below) asserts regarding observing the details of Jesus’s crucifixion firsthand, “He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth” (19:35 NRSV).
Such a statement concerning the specifics of Jesus’s crucifixion could be ignored or questioned, as is so often done with comments in the New Testament. But is that the wisest option in this case, when the author has been correct on perhaps dozens of other occasions throughout the book? It would seem that the impetus would be on the side of the writer being correct once again, unless there are specific reasons to question the comment. We are not asking here about the truth of a particular saying of Jesus or an interpretation of a specific doctrine. Rather, the author who has already given reports that he has shown himself to be very adept at, namely, correctly reported physical places and events especially in the environs of Jerusalem, is now telling us what he asserts are particular details that took place precisely at Jesus’s crucifixion near Jerusalem and that he was a witness.
A last, related matter here is the meaning of John 21:24. Many contemporary scholars think that it is perhaps a group of witnesses who are affirming that the author of the book wrote factually and they knew that his testimony was true. But the comment seems to say much more than that, for it appears to proclaim that the disciple whom Jesus loved, the subject of the previous four verses (21:20–23), is the author of this book. Whether or not the convictions of these witnesses were true or false, many scholars today think that they are indeed affirming in 21:24 “that the Beloved Disciple composed the Gospel, whether or not he wielded the pen,” with or without assistance or editing.13
The discussion concerning whether the chief author of the Gospel of John was an eyewitness source or otherwise a credible reporter is absolutely crucial to making the best sense of the resurrection appearances. It is no coincidence that John 21:35 purports to relate events at Jesus’s crucifixion, and 21:24 comes at the close of the Gospel, immediately after identifying and affirming the truthfulness of the volume’s author and after two chapters of narrating Jesus’s resurrection appearances.
John 20:1: Mary Magdalene Goes to Jesus’s Burial Tomb
As with the other Gospels, we begin by viewing the initial report of Jesus’s empty tomb and the women who came to anoint Jesus’s dead body. It may be recalled that Mark and Luke had each named three women while Matthew named two. All three of the Synoptic Gospels include two identical women: Mary Magdalene and a second Mary, identified as the mother of James (and Joses in Mark 15:47). However, in John only Mary Magdalene is named specifically (20:1).
It also must be recalled that the three Synoptic Gospels also explain that other, unnamed women were also present at the crucifixion (Matt 27:55–56; Mark 15:40–41; Luke 23:49), at the burial (Luke 23:55), and at the tomb (Luke 24:10). In John, there are four women14—three Mary’s (Jesus’s mother, Mary; her unnamed sister; Mary the wife of Clopas; and Mary Magdalene)—plus “the disciple whom Jesus loved” present at the foot of the cross while Jesus was dying.
A variation from two or three women spread across three Synoptic Gospels is not a very wide deviation, especially when the three previous writers all acknowledge other women who are not being named. This simply indicates that exhaustively naming everyone present was not the goal of any of these three authors’ accounts.
But what is to be done with John naming only Mary Magdalene at the tomb? However, when she runs and tells the disciples that Jesus’s body is gone, Mary states that “we” do not know (ouk oidamen) where the body has been placed. Wenham thinks that, being younger, Mary Magdalene ran back to the disciples alone, leaving the two older women at the tomb.15 Keener thinks it unlikely that the disciples would have allowed one woman to travel to the tomb alone anyway.16
A popular option taken by a number of scholars is to conclude that the plural we is the key in 20:2, and that John thereby discloses his knowledge of there having been at least one other woman present at the tomb besides Mary Magdalene.17 Brown raises the issue too, mentioning Bultmann’s critical response that John’s plural we is simply a Semitic way of speaking. But Brown responds that, if that is the case, then why does Mary flip back inconsistently to the singular in 20:13?18 We might add that John 20:15 also uses the singular pronoun here as well.
Brown adds that citing the presence of only one person when others are also present serves as a means that John uses elsewhere to “individualize” and emphasize an aspect of a story.19 Franz Neirynck seems to agree here,20 as does Keener.21 Further making this a possibility is that, like with the Synoptics, John also posits that other women were present at the cross and so they might have joined Mary Magdalene on the way to the tomb too.
John 20:3–10: Peter and John Run to the Tomb
When Mary told the disciples what she observed including how the tomb was empty, Peter and at least one other disciple (presumably “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” frequently identified as John; see 21:20, 24) ran to the tomb to check on these matters. This is the counterpart to Luke 24:12, 24, where “some” of the disciples went to the tomb.
Some studies have indicated the presence of early traditions behind Peter and John(?) checking Mary Magdalene’s message of the empty tomb. After surveying some of the available studies in his chapter “Pierre au Tombeau Lc., 24,12,” French scholar Jean-Marie Guillaume concludes with praise for Luke regarding the pre-Synoptic tradition of the women visiting the tomb: “Luc semble ainsi refléter la tradition primitive plus ancienne certainement que la tradition présynoptique servant de fond à la péricope des femmes au tombeau.”22 (“Luke seems therefore to reflect the primitive tradition more certainly than the presynoptic tradition serving as background for the pericope of the women [going] to the tomb.”) Even so, Guillaume thinks that John’s account in 20:3–10, in all probability, “mieux préservé les grandes lignes originales” (“better preserves the original”) and is “plus ancien que le récit de Luc” (is “more ancient than the story of Luke”).23
Additional details are supplied by other scholars. Fuller thinks that of these two accounts, Luke’s is “a tradition which was known to Luke independently of John.”24 Perkins also agrees that there could well have been an earlier pre-Lukan source for Luke, but also mentions the idea by other scholars that John’s overall account may be earlier still.25 Staudinger makes the more general point that the entire scene, besides being reported independently, is what would be expected in that culture to double check the women.26 Neirynck treats the versions in much detail, including the assertion that many scholars think the accounts in Luke and John are not independent, along with his own view that the scene originated with Luke and then John adopted it.27 Guillaume adds many more details on relevant questions.28
As just seen, there is a fair amount of variety in the responses here. But contrary to Neirynck’s comment above regarding the well-recognized stance (about thirty years ago) that John may very well have been dependent on Luke’s account, hence militating against the accounts being independent, it should be obvious from the other comments above that this is far from an overwhelming or even a consensus position. Nonetheless, the issue of independence depends in large part on the outcome of this discussion.
John 20:11–18: Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
Jesus’s appearance to Mary Magdalene in John 20 introduces a number of both theoretical as well as practical questions. Was she the first person to see the risen Jesus after his crucifixion? Why didn’t she recognize him immediately even after looking at him? Why did Jesus tell Mary not to touch him, but then later he allowed and even offered for others to do so? These are a few of the ones that will be addressed here briefly.
Earlier we discussed the question of whether Jesus’s first postresurrection appearance was to a small group of women (Matt 28:8–9) or to Mary Magdalene here. Traditionally, most comments appear to favor Mary, but that may in large part be due to the long pseudo-Markan ending (16:9), which states that Jesus appeared to her first (ephanē prōton). However, if that text is late and nonauthoritative, it is much more difficult to explain the popularity of this position, for that is the only canonical text where an appearance to Mary Magdalene alone occurs separately from a group. Making it more difficult, as noted often by commentators, is that no woman appears by name in the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:5–8, making Peter a candidate for the honor of the first appearance for some.
More intriguing for many is Mary’s lack of recognition of Jesus, even after she turned around and looked at him directly (John 20:14). In our chapter on Luke’s resurrection appearances, we commented on the multiple reasons for this failure to react to Jesus immediately with joy, much like the women appear to have done in Matt 28:9. There we mentioned that once or twice it was an issue of perception (Jesus being 100 yards away when the disciples were fishing in John 21), or the time on the Galilean mountain when he may have been a little too far away until he began walking toward them (as perhaps indicated by the Greek proselthōn in Matt 28:18a). At least once we are told that they were kept from recognizing him perhaps by a divine act (Luke 24:16). The pseudo-Markan ending states that Jesus appeared to the two disciples “in another form” (en hetera morphē) as they walked along (16:12), raising questions concerning what that might involve.
But as was suggested in the earlier treatment of this question, a relatively simple explanation is that Jesus just looked somewhat different than he did before the crucifixion. Perhaps the degree of difference might be similar to what a friend might look like after we have not seen her for a few years. It is what may cause us on occasion to do a “double take.” But Paul’s treatment (1 Cor 15:35–57; Phil 3:21) requires some change. Paul’s example involves the difference between seeds and the plants that they turn into later (1 Cor 15:37–38)—a simply huge amount of change! But huge change is not at all required; two stars do not differ from each other very much (1 Cor 15:41b), especially not from our perspectives.
Again, Scripture teaches that we will be ourselves in eternity, even having our own bodies restored. That was one of the main lessons that Jesus taught best by showing his disciples his scarred hands, feet, and side. But we absolutely cannot remain exactly the same or we would have to die again! Those are the sorts of bodily changes that could easily make even our best friend do a heavenly double take!
So we definitely do not know all of the potential reasons for the inability of some of Jesus’s followers to recognize him immediately. But to deepen the mystery, according to the Gospel reports not only did others recognize him right away (though perhaps shying back due to fear of having seen a ghost or something), but once they got their bearings seemingly had to restrain themselves from jumping directly into Jesus’s open arms! So the bottom line is that a bit of the mystery still remains, since we just do not always know each of the circumstances, even though we would like to be allowed in on the secret! To sum up this matter for now, Osborne makes an excellent point: “God permits blindness only until the time is ripe.”29
Mary occupied a halfway house between the two categories just mentioned above. Although she does not recognize Jesus initially, as soon as she gets her bearings she experiences a joyous reunion with her Lord. But why did he instruct her and a very few others not to touch him, at least according to the old King James translation? This is one of the questions that arises most frequently in studies of John 20, especially when Jesus shows himself and his wounds to his disciples just a short time later (20:19–23) with the seeming implication that they were free to reach out and touch him.
Most commentaries and translations have now straightened out this matter. As noted by the Greek specialist John A. T. Robertson, the phrase in question (mē mou haptou) means “‘cease clinging to me’ rather than ‘Do not touch me.’”30 For the most part, other New Testament commentators have followed suit after studying the wording of the Greek text. Keener gets his point across well by making the intriguing comment that the term “touch” (haptou) in this context “probably refers to ‘embrace’” since we can hardly imagine Mary Magdalene being satisfied to simply touch Jesus’s arm with her finger or to hold his hand!31 Brown too affirms that the phrase probably means that Mary already had a pretty good hold on Jesus, causing him to request that she desist.32
Osborne notes that this is a fairly widespread view among other critical scholars who often take this same approach as well.33 To Osborne’s list of scholars we might also add a few others such as Dale Allison, Pheme Perkins, C. F. Evans, and John Frederick Jansen.34 F. X. Durrwell remarks very descriptively that Mary Magdalene clung to Jesus, supported by the violence of her love.35 Even Willi Marxsen has Jesus allowing Mary’s touch here, but only through an exceptionally convoluted reworking of Jesus’s intended meaning in this text.36 Many other commentators could be added here too with similar comments.37
Also following the lead of the scholars on this subject are the more recent major translations of the New Testament. Most of the newer ones read, “Stop clinging [or stop holding] on to me.”38 As a general rule, it is chiefly the older translations that read “Don’t touch me” and hence fed the problem that was more commonly raised a few decades ago.39 So, with all this being said, the question appears to have lost its old force.
John 20:19–31: Jesus Appears Twice to His Disciples
By evening on the very first Easter Sunday, the Gospels report that several resurrection appearances had already occurred that day to Mary Magdalene, a small group of women as they left the tomb, the two disciples as they walked together to the town of Emmaus, and Peter. Now Jesus appears to the largest group yet—to the disciples. John does not tell us, but there may very well have been ten of the apostles (minus Judas and Thomas), plus others such as the women. After all, when the apostles and others gathered in Jerusalem after Jesus’s ascension, Luke tells us that 120 were there (Acts 1:15), though the group in John 20 had to be much smaller. They had no desire to draw any unwanted attention to themselves.
As with the disciples in the parallel account in Luke 24:36–49, the scenes both begin with the disciples’ fear. In John, the disciples “were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19 NIV). In Luke, when the disciples saw Jesus for the first time, they were described as being terrified and frightened, thinking that a ghost was standing there in front of them (Luke 24:37). Then Jesus asked them why they were afraid and doubting (24:38). In both cases, seeing Jesus’s wounds put the finishing touches and caused them to relax. When they realized that it was really Jesus, they rejoiced (Luke 24:39–41a; John 20:20).
In John, the apostle Thomas was not present in the first meeting with Jesus. He had proclaimed that he would not believe Jesus had risen from the dead unless he saw Jesus and checked out his wounds for himself. The next time Jesus appeared one week later, Thomas was present and got his opportunity. Witnessing Jesus and his wounds up close was the clincher for Thomas, who then acknowledged Jesus’s presence with an acclamation of worship (John 20:24–29).
Neither Luke nor John comment on whether the disciples touched Jesus when the offer presented itself.40 So we do not know from these two Gospel accounts alone if that occurred. However, apparently discussing the account from Luke 24:36–40, Ignatius (writing about AD 107–110) reports just a few years after John’s Gospel was composed that Peter and the other disciples did indeed touch Jesus’s body when they were given the opportunity. This experience served to transform their lives, after which they “despised death” (Smyrn. 3).
On C. H. Dodd’s very influential grid of “concise” narratives versus the “tales” or “circumstantial” accounts already discussed in an earlier chapter, the “concise” passages indicate those Gospel texts that are “drawn directly from the oral tradition” or that “represent most closely the corporate oral tradition of the primitive Church.” The significance here is that these “concise” narratives are deemed likeliest to be reliable reports. According to these widely used standards, John 20:19–21 makes the grade as a concise narrative, while John 20:26–29 is viewed as a sort of appendage to the earlier account, in that it depends on it for much of its meaning.41
Perhaps quite surprisingly, the Jesus Seminar also lists John 20:19–23 as a “concise” account, while referring to John 20:26–29 as an “intermediate” story, which is also a category used by Dodd. The Seminar employs this group of texts as those being ranked somewhere in between “concise” passages and “legends.”42 Brown also agrees with Dodd (given a few caveats) regarding the “concise” designation for John 20:19–23, though he concludes that John actually created the Thomas story.43 Still, the respect given to at least the first appearance to the disciples (and to a lesser degree the Thomas account, at least for Dodd and the Seminar) all the way across the wide range of views from Brown and Dodd to the members of the Jesus Seminar is rather amazing.
John 21: Jesus’s Appearance by the Sea of Galilee
Before any comments here, John 21 needs to be placed in perspective. John is the only canonical Gospel with two chapters devoted to the resurrection appearances of Jesus. As Bauckham notes, “A very large majority of modern scholars” think that the Gospel of John ended at the close of chapter 20.44 So John 21 is widely viewed as a Johannine appendix of some sort, perhaps added soon after the book was completed but before it was sent out, maybe even with the intention of circulating them together.
The regular journalistic questions abound: Who wrote the last chapter and for what purpose? How did it become part of the Gospel? Who is bearing witness to the author’s testimony in 21:24? Potential conclusions include the minority option that most of the appendix was either written by the book’s original author or the original author perhaps had just died or was close to dying (21:22–23) so a group who knew him well certified the author’s veracity in 20:24.45
But as Merrill Tenney asserts, “The epilogue . . . is unmistakably genuine.”46 This could of course mean several things. But there is no evidence from either the earliest copies or from any early scholars that the Gospel was ever circulated without chapter 21, nor does it appear that the material was added to an existing manuscript by another person. Bauckham argues that what makes the most sense from these and other data is “that the Gospel was originally designed to end just as it does in the version we have and never existed without the claim about its authorship that 21:24 makes.”47
We will leave right here the debate over the nature of John 21. This introduction simply sets the stage regarding the provenance and reliability of this material and its relevance to this Galilean appearance along with a few other items here.
John 21 is the story of Jesus’s appearance to his disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (or the alternate name Sea of Tiberius, as the author calls it; 21:1; cf. 6:1). It is the third time that Jesus appears to a group of his disciples (21:14). Seven disciples were in a boat, fishing, but failed to recognize Jesus standing onshore 100 yards away (21:4, 8). Since they had not caught any fish, Jesus calls out and tells them to cast their net on the opposite side of the boat, and doing so they pull in 153 fish. After pulling the fish to shore, they find that Jesus has already cooked a little lunch of bread and fish (21:9).
After their meal, Jesus initiates a discussion with Peter, asking him three times if he loves Jesus. Peter answers positively each time, getting a little annoyed and hurt that Jesus keeps asking him the same question. After each answer, Jesus tells Peter to feed either his lambs or his sheep. As Brown and others have pointed out, it is widely thought that this discussion served as a sort of reconciliation between Jesus and Peter, with Jesus inviting Peter back into the apostolic fold and re-bestowing his apostolic authority after his three denials of Jesus.48
This questioning is followed by Jesus’s prediction that when Peter grows older, he will die as a martyr (21:18–19). Keener notes that many scholars hold not just that this is indeed a prediction of Peter’s martyrdom (cf. 2 Pet 1:14, especially the latter portion about Jesus having previously made this clear to Peter), but that the reference to “stretching out your hands” probably signifies Peter’s own crucifixion.49 As mentioned earlier, there is also scholarly speculation here that either the imminent expectation or the actual death of the disciple whom Jesus loved may well be in view here as well (21:22–23).50
We have already discussed the significance of John 21:24 above and saw that there were several possible interpretations. But the idea of being a witness or testifying to the truth of the author’s comments in this book is a rare comment among the canonical Gospels and is reminiscent of John 19:35, where the ideas of testimony, eyewitness, and truth also all come together. Outside of John, as discussed above, it is also reminiscent of Luke 1:1–4. We also saw in that discussion the significant possibility, according to a number of scholars, that John 21:24, especially following 21:20–23 as it does, is a statement that the disciple just mentioned (21:20), the one whom Jesus loved, is the author of this book. If we is meant as a reference to more than one person “signing” the statement here, then the authors are testifying of the truth of the Gospel reports.
John 20:28: From the Resurrection to the Deity of Jesus
Thomas declared that he would not believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead unless he personally saw him. He was probably quite surprised when Jesus obliged him and appeared in front of him! Although we do not know what initial conversation may have gone on between them, if any, it appears that Thomas knew quite quickly that nothing else was to be done other than to respond in faith and worship, which he did (John 20:24–28). Jesus seems to indicate that Thomas’s faith was initiated at that point (20:29).
Thomas responded to Jesus with the words “My Lord and my God!” Many commentators are agreed that, given syntax and other factors, this text may actually be the clearest of the occasions in the New Testament where Jesus is given the title of “God.”51 Raymond Brown states straightforwardly of John 20:28, “This is the clearest example in the NT of the use of ‘God’ for Jesus.”52 Further, in his proclaimed New Testament Christology, Oscar Cullmann declares more than once that the title “Lord” (Kyrios) could even be a loftier term than “God,” with one of the reasons being that Kyrios is used in the Septuagint to translate both Adonai and the holy name YHWH.53 Thus, especially by using both of the terms “Lord” and “God,” the argument in Thomas’s mind had moved from Jesus’s now-obvious resurrection to the two most important titles that could be used for Jesus.
In the New Testament as well as down through church history, the twofold evidential punch that accompanied the preaching of the Gospel was the use of miracle and prophecy. These could serve either as individual arguments or they could be used in tandem, weaving the arguments together. Whether in the book of Acts or winding down through the centuries since that time,54 as stated by philosopher Bernard Ramm, “an unbroken belief stretches from earliest Hebrew times to the present century that supernatural knowledge in the form of a fulfilled prophetic utterance, and supernatural power in the form of a miracle are indicia of a divinely given revelation. . . . Few convictions in Christendom have such a sustained historical continuity.”55
It should be noted, however, that the fulfilled prophecy argument has almost dropped completely off the stage in scholarly discussions in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries,56 at least in other than popular circles where it is still employed. On the other hand, the miracle and resurrection argument has actually gotten much stronger in the last two or three decades, dividing into at least three independent arguments today.57
F. F. Bruce takes Ramm’s observation one step further. He indicates that the twofold argument from prophecy and miracle “coincided and culminated in the resurrection of Jesus.” This event served as “the greatest demonstration of the power of God.” It was even stronger in the early church when the living eyewitness could attest to having seen Jesus personally, which is Paul’s apparent point in the words of 1 Cor 15:6b.58 Though it did not begin this way, this was certainly the case for Thomas, who began with serious doubts but then actually became one of these resurrection witnesses himself.
John 20:20–23, 29–31; 21:18–19, 24: From the Resurrection to Theology and Practice
These present volumes are chiefly concerned with the philosophical and historical issues relevant to whether or not, and in what sense, the resurrection of Jesus really occurred. While of course not approaching these areas with anything close to modern precision, the New Testament authors were also quite interested in apologetic aspects of the resurrection. When defending the faith, the resurrection was used far more than any other approach.
Beyond apologetics, the New Testament also links the resurrection with many other topics. Besides arguing for the veracity of the Christian faith, the other huge focus is the significance of the resurrection as the event that grounds and anchors the proclamation of the Gospel message, consisting at a minimum of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.59 Dodd summarizes nicely from the Acts sermon summaries both the central Petrine kerygma as well as the essential Pauline kerygma. Then Dodd reports that this combined message “provides the framework within which the Jerusalem kerygma is set.” As for Paul, he “must have received the tradition very soon after the death of Jesus.”60 Further, the sermon summaries from Peter and Paul are very close in their essence.61 Whatever their own views, many other scholars agree on the outline of the central apostolic Gospel message.62
In each of the canonical Gospels, the resurrection of Jesus is not merely an end in itself. It is more than just a wonderful, miraculous event that leaves us in awe. In the remainder of the New Testament, many themes follow from the truth of this event. In many texts, Jesus’s resurrection guarantees the truth of theology, such as indicating the truth of Jesus’s deity,63 as well as the truth of the believer’s resurrection.64 Further, it should spur Christians onward to proper ethical conduct such as caring for those in need (1 Cor 15:58–16:2; Acts 4:32–34). And the resurrection even challenges believers to lead holy and totally committed daily lives in step with the Holy Spirit (Rom 6:8–14; 8:5–13).
For example, it is because Jesus rose from the dead that Christian theology and worldview beliefs are shown to be true while, conversely, those of other competing religious worldview systems were false. It is amazing how tightly this connection is made in the New Testament and how easily it is sometimes followed. For instance, the apostle Thomas makes the move almost instantly. He doubted Jesus’s resurrection, but as soon as the risen Jesus appeared to him, he responded, “My Lord and my God!” (Ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou; John 20:28).65 He doubted until he saw Jesus raised from the dead, then the loftiest of theological truths directly followed. After all, perhaps Thomas wondered why else would God raise Jesus from the dead if he were only a false prophet? That would be rather counterproductive!
Other theological connections also emerge in the four Gospels from the words of the risen Jesus, whether it be the association between Jesus and the coming work of the Holy Spirit (John 20:22; Luke 24:48; Acts 1:4–5), the possibility of forgiveness for sins (John 20:23; Luke 24:47), or the duty of the disciples to be chief witnesses to the truth and assume the roles of leadership in the church. As in John 21:24 (cf. 19:35), the apostles themselves were now uniquely positioned to testify to the truth of the resurrection in whatever situations arose as their Lord’s designated witnesses (John 20:21; Luke 24:48). They were personally to become the evidence as living witnesses to the appearances. But more than that, with Jesus’s absence arriving in just a few days hence, the disciples would assume the major roles in the young church.
In terms of the risen Jesus applying resurrection truth to pastoral areas of Christian practice, by far the most prominent single topic in the Gospels is Jesus sending his disciples into the world to evangelize, baptize, make disciples, and teach. If the long ending in Mark is counted, this theme is found in all four Gospels plus Acts (Matt 28:19–20; Luke 24:47–48; John 20:21, cf. 20:31; Acts 1:8; pseudo-Mark 16:15–16, 20). Of course, Acts tells the story of approximately the first three decades of church growth.66
Another pastoral application emerging from the teaching of the risen Jesus is that of dealing with religious doubt. Once again, this theme is also found in all four Gospels (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:11, 37–42; John 20:26–29; pseudo-Mark 16:11, 13, 14). Sometimes the pericopes dealing with this theme are extended as well—such as Jesus’s meeting with his disciples in Luke 24:37–42 and a second meeting with so-called doubting Thomas in John 20:26–29. The frequency with which this theme reoccurs is of course due largely to the extraordinary event of a rising from the dead. But it also indicates that even among believers doubt is quite pervasive.
An intriguing contrast occurs in the Gospels when Jesus is challenged by those who are apparently also experiencing doubts of their own. On a couple of occasions, the Pharisees approach Jesus and ask for a sign. Jesus responds rather harshly, retorting that only a wicked and adulterous generation seeks out a sign (Matt 12:38–42; 16:1–4). Nonetheless, even for them, Jesus would provide the sign of Jonah—his own resurrection (Matt 12:40; 16:4).
When John the Baptist is put in jail by Herod, he sends his own disciples to ask Jesus if he is indeed the Messiah or if they should look for someone else (Luke 7:18–20)? However, Jesus never answers firmly that only adulterous generations sought a sign. Rather, on the spot, Jesus heals a number of ailing people including the blind. Then he patiently instructs the men to go tell John what they had just seen. Granted, Jesus’s way of answering questions was not always the normal approach, but it was an affirmative response just the same—yes, of course he was the Messiah!
Then as we saw in this chapter, Thomas refused to believe his colleagues and asserted that he would not believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead until he saw him for himself and touched his wounds. Thomas receives his wish when Jesus appears to him, to which Thomas responds by worshipping him and calling him God (20:26–29).
One might well wonder about the difference between these three cases. It seems that in the circumstance with the Pharisees, they would scarcely have believed even if they had seen the risen Jesus. The sign would occur and they would be without excuse. Perhaps they were among those whom Jesus was describing when he taught that some Jews would not believe even if someone had been raised from the dead (Luke 16:31). Their hearts were hardened—like hard soil where the seed did not stand a chance.
In contrast, John the Baptist was a righteous man whose heart was in the right place (Luke 7:28). Jesus perhaps also knew that John was probably experiencing a very rough time in Herod’s prison away from his ministry, and that he would even die there shortly. John just needed a little help and Jesus understood that.
Perhaps Thomas was a little more brash and slightly more hardened than John, so when Jesus appeared to him, he did give him a mild rebuke, almost a “Don’t do this again” sort of thing (John 20:29)! But in two out of three cases, Jesus grants the doubter’s requests. The passages involving the Pharisees were the only exception.
It seems that there are some lessons here for us. As the saying goes, there are different strokes for different folks. Jesus apparently answered roughly the same question quite differently because the questioners’ hearts were in different places. Still, believers in the New Testament are told to minister to doubters (Jas 5:19–20; Jude 22a).
But more practical lessons also follow from the words and example of the risen Jesus. The connection between the resurrection and enduring persecution would have been apparent even if Jesus and the disciples had chosen not to utter a single word at the outset of their first meeting. The disciples could simply observe the scars on the wrists, feet, and side of their risen Lord. This was certainly a reminder that provided more than ample indication that similar future possibilities could well await them. Further, Jesus’s prediction of Peter’s martyrdom (John 21:18–19) may have served as a shocking wake-up call too, assuring them that they could well be in danger themselves.
Yet, in spite of these visual observations as well as the “dark” reminders from Jesus, as far as we know there is no early historical record that any of Jesus’s disciples either stopped following their Lord or ever recanted their faith.67 Their own firsthand persecution placed the disciples in the position to have earned the right to counsel and comfort other believers who were struggling in this area as well.68
These themes of persecution, suffering, and dying for the faith were also picked up in the early church (2 Pet 1:13–14; Heb 11:35–38), with Jesus’s resurrection guaranteeing the reality of the eternal prize set before those who were being persecuted (2 Cor 4:7–18; 1 Pet 1:3–7). Little did the disciples realize as the risen Jesus instructed them that that the torment and even death would begin almost immediately around the corner (Acts 5:40–41; 7:54–60; 12:1–2).
Yet another related practical theme addressed by the resurrected Jesus is that of grief and the imparting of comfort to hurting people that accompanies it. Even before the crucifixion, the disciples were present when Jesus delayed for two days after getting the word that his good friend Lazarus was very sick. Then the group journeyed to Bethany, though Lazarus had already died (John 11:1–16).
Readers are privileged to “watch” the picturesque scene woven by John as Jesus comforts Martha, Lazarus’s sister, with the beautiful words that are often read today at funerals and graveside services. Jesus explains to Martha: “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live” (11:25 NRSV). Amazingly, before his resurrection, Jesus points to that event as providing the ultimate comfort for grieving believers. In spite of the undeniability of present pain caused by death, what long-term message could possibly provide a greater blessing than Jesus’s assurance of future reunion forever?
Paul revisits this theme when he reminds his readers that believers naturally mourn when their loved ones die. Why not—Jesus did so (John 11:35–38). But then Paul points out that due to the resurrection of Jesus, there is a world of difference between grieving without hope and grieving with the hope of eternal reunion (1 Thess 4:13–14). These words should bring comfort in the toughest of times (4:18).
As Andrew Lincoln points out so well in addressing the situation in John 11, Martha and Mary needed to realize that the truths that Jesus taught were more than just good theology—the reality behind these doctrines is “now presently available in and through Jesus.” John’s readers may also benefit from this message. What Martha missed was “a true grasp of the believer’s connection with Jesus. That connection changes everything.”69
Yet we dare not miss the forest for the trees here. Jesus implied his forthcoming resurrection with Mary and Martha during their grief. Then, after the resurrection was history, Jesus also dealt with his own disciples, mainly by allowing or offering himself to be touched. With both Lazarus’s sisters as well as the disciples, Jesus’s own resurrection and the truth of the afterlife was the foundation of Jesus’s message. Jesus confronted grief with the use of truth. The grief of both Lazarus’s sisters as well as that of the disciples tended to be corrected and then dissipated after Lazarus and later Jesus rose from the dead!
The last area of practical application to be mentioned in this chapter is the frequent connection of joy, thanksgiving, comfort, and peace with the resurrection message. A short time after Lazarus was raised from the dead (even if only to die again), Martha and Mary arranged a wonderful dinner to honor Jesus (John 12:1–3). Obviously, Lazarus had been restored to them and things were going much better by then.
In the other cases after Jesus’s resurrection, the joy was associated with the presence of Jesus himself. Initially, the disciples needed to overcome their initial surprise and fear at seeing Jesus alive again and worried that he might be a ghost. But once realizing that Jesus was indeed standing in front of them, their joy knew no bounds (as in Matt 28:8–9, 17; Luke 24:41, 52; John 20:16, 20–21).
Later in the New Testament, there are several places where the topic of Jesus’s resurrection is connected in the vicinity of joy, thankfulness, or praise. Shortly after reporting more than once that the disciples’ central message in the early days of the church was that of Jesus’s resurrection (Acts 1:22b; 4:2, 33), Luke tells us that the disciples were flogged for their message by the Jewish leaders. Their immediate response was to rejoice that they were counted worthy to suffer for Jesus (Acts 5:41).
In the “resurrection chapter” in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul winds his way through more than fifty wonderful verses, making observations on different aspects of Jesus’s resurrection, only to get to the end and seemingly shout out triumphantly the words of Hos 13:14 and declare that death has lost its sting and is no longer victorious (1 Cor 15:54–57)! It is difficult to imagine a “higher note” of rejoicing than this message.
In 2 Corinthians 4, Paul discusses some of the tough times that he had experienced, including our earlier topic of persecution (4:7–12), with his response being that the God who raised the Lord Jesus will raise believers from the dead as well. In the process, Paul makes the beautiful point that he and all believers will be raised together and arrive in the presence of Jesus. For this reason, Paul concludes, thanksgiving will overflow (4:14–15). Then he ends these thoughts with one of the most beautiful crescendos in all of Scripture (4:16–18).
Lastly, Peter begins a brief discussion of suffering and persecution by asserting the especially poignant thoughts that praise should be directed to God, who raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Further, Jesus’s resurrection bestowed on believers a heavenly inheritance that will never perish, spoil, or fade, secured in heaven for us. He notes that we rejoice in this truth, even amid trials. Then Peter’s own crescendo rises as he repeats that believers may “rejoice with an indescribable and glorious joy” since we are receiving our salvation (1 Pet 1:3–9 NRSV).
In the more than 300 verses in the New Testament on the grandest subject of all—the resurrection of Jesus—this theme is related to far more topics than matters of defending the faith and the gospel of salvation alone. Granted, apologetics and salvation are also central biblical concerns, and these are the two areas that are most popularly tied to the resurrection. However, these 300 biblical passages are also connected to most of the other major theological doctrines, as well as being related to many areas of Christian practice too. Thus the resurrection is truly a many-faceted diamond which, when turned one way, relates perfectly to a particular theme, only to be turned in another direction to discover an entirely new angle waiting at our fingertips for study and exploration.
Growth in Canonical Accounts of the Empty Tomb and Jesus’s Appearances?
The Jesus mythicists in particular, along with a few other critical scholars, sometimes introduce the question of the potential legendary growth from the early to later canonical Gospel accounts of the empty tomb and resurrection appearances, moving from Mark to John, i.e., from earlier to later accounts. Examples may include the number of women who went to the tomb, the presence of angels, or the number of appearances themselves. Is the sort of progress or growth indicative of what might be termed as some sort of “creeping legend”?
To be sure, the way the different commentators approach their subject is often a lesson in contrast. In general, the mythicist popularists are far more often quite outspoken, even bombastic, and appear to be entirely sure of themselves, as if they think they are sounding an alarm for all to hear their fuming. On the other hand, the critical scholars are easily more measured, careful, and nuanced.70 Of course, the scholars are still capable of registering their thoughts.71
Some of the examples of what is sometimes termed “legend” in the Gospel accounts is that in Mark, three women visit the tomb, while only two women are mentioned in Matthew, with three women again making the walk in Luke, and only one woman in John, although the plural pronoun we is also included in John 20:2. In Mark, there is a “young man” dressed in white inside the empty tomb,72 while Matthew has a single angel stationed there. For Luke, two young men dressed in “dazzling clothes” (NRSV) are at the tomb, and for John, two angels are also present at the tomb.73
Lastly, no appearances of the risen Jesus are narrated in Mark, though he is certainly aware of them, given the many predictions by Jesus himself of the appearances in this Gospel, plus the angel’s proclamation at the tomb, namely, that the disciples would see the risen Jesus in Galilee (Mark 16:7).74 Matthew presents two resurrection appearances, one to the women who respond by holding Jesus by the feet (28:9–10) and a second visit to the disciples on a Galilean mountain (28:16–20). Luke narrates an appearance of Jesus to two travelers on their way to the village of Emmaus (Luke 24:13–35), a stark report of Peter seeing the risen Jesus (24:34), another appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem (24:36–49), and possibly a separate fourth occasion on the day of the ascension (24:50–52). John records an appearance to Mary Magdalene who also holds onto Jesus (20:14–18), a second appearance to the disciples minus Thomas in Jerusalem (20:19–23), then another to the disciples a week later including Thomas (20:24–29), and a fourth and final appearance to a smaller group of disciples in Galilee while they are fishing (21:1–23).
This tally of Jesus’s narrated appearances in each of the four canonical Gospels yields none in Mark, two in Matthew, three or four in Luke,75 and four appearances in the Gospel of John. As can be seen, Jesus’s appearances present a greater number and diversity of details than either the number of women or the angelic count.
Do these data regarding the empty tomb and Jesus’s resurrection appearances seem to indicate an increasingly complicated set of descriptions and details? A few additional thoughts must be added here for the sake of perspective. Regarding the women, as notes John Dominic Crossan, the numbers actually decrease from Mark on to John—from three women to two, back to three, then to one, plus John’s use of the pronoun we in 20:2. There does not seem to be much variation in numbers or details here.76
How about the angelic count in or around the tomb? Moving from the likely earliest Gospel to the latest one, the angels only vary in number by one, with either one or two angels being present in each case. There is very little variation here.77 After all, according to the old saying, if there were two people or angels present, then one was also present. But there is an additional consideration here as well. There are actually two visits to the tomb in Luke (the women plus some men later) and three visits in John, where Mary Magdalene apparently returns by herself after the men visit the site. But in both of the latest two Gospels combined, the angels are only mentioned in two of these five trips. This seems like a clear indication that, whatever else may have been happening here, multiplying the miraculous element was neither a tendency nor a goal. Otherwise, there were sufficient enough opportunities to present some wild scenarios such as depicted in the second-century Gospel of Peter.
One additional, relevant factor may be mentioned in this context. Of the four canonical Gospels, John—the last one to be written—actually narrates by far the fewest number of miracles. In fact, Mark, Matthew, and Luke each individually include two to three times more miracles than does John!78 This is yet another angle that appears to place a pause on discussions at least of wholesale Gospel legend hypotheses.
But do Jesus’s resurrection appearances present a different picture, expanding as they do from zero narrated reports in Mark to three or four each in Luke and John? It does seem as if the count may have grown here in the intervening decade or two. But what changes the overall picture significantly is that, according to all critical commentators, the very earliest report that actually precedes any of the Gospels is the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–7, where five appearances are listed—two to individuals and three more to groups, including one to at least 500 persons at once. Not only is this the largest number of appearances in a single text—but it appears in the earliest source of all. Further, the 500 persons present during this one sighting of the risen Jesus also makes it the most fantastic example. This actually reverses the process!
These five appearances in the early creed were not narrated, but that makes very little difference. After all, the Gospels consist of narrated accounts from the outset, since that is the very nature of biographies. But as Fuller notes, all of the earliest appearance reports were listed rather than being narrated, with the narrated versions being a later species of development due to their genre. Examples of the listed appearances include 1 Cor 15:3–7; Luke 24:34; and Mark 16:7 along with the “kerygmatic speeches of Acts” such as 2:32; 3:15; 10:40; and 13:30–31.79 First Corinthians 9:1 and 15:8 should be added here as well. These concise creedal texts actually predate the Gospel-narrated appearances. Thus, beginning with the earliest appearance notations, up to four appearances in each of the Gospels are not at all out of place.
A last point to make here is in many ways the most crucial. This entire resurrection study has been chiefly about the application of the minimal facts method—utilizing the lowest common denominator of historical facts to indicate that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. When this approach is applied to this question of legendary creeping, the answer is the same as for objections pertaining to Gospel discrepancies. The strength of the approach employed here is that using only those facts that are easily the best evidenced and which critical scholars therefore affirm, we have enough data to show that Jesus’s resurrection and subsequent appearances were the best explanations of what is known. So even though there appears to be no grounds here for pointing out legendary problems in the Gospel resurrection accounts, such arguments would still not disrupt the best resurrection argument.
Conclusion
The Gospels of Luke and John present some of the most graphic examples of resurrection appearance narratives. The two disciples on the way to Emmaus or Mary Magdalene weeping at the tomb only to turn and recognize the risen Jesus standing there are two scenes that come immediately to mind. Both have been the objects of many paintings and other works of art over the years.
Beyond the picturesque, we also saw that both Luke and John present some serious data in support of the resurrected Jesus. Whether it is the Lukan preamble in 1:1–4 or the Johannine emphasis on the crucial importance of being an eyewitness (as in John 19:35 and 21:24), both authors have a declared interest in the idea of presenting accurate information for their readers. Moreover, both authors appear to include early traditions lying behind their reports of the disciples’ trip to Jesus’s tomb to check out the women’s claims (Luke 24:12, 24; John 20:3–10). Luke preserves an important early creedal text that attests Jesus’s appearance to Peter (24:34). Both authors include what C. H. Dodd designates as “concise” appearance texts in Luke 24:36–49 and John 20:19–21, which reveal indications of being original historical observations.80 Taken altogether, these examples include some noteworthy indications of historicity.
There are multiple reasons for the recent reestablishment of interest in the historicity of the Gospels. This is due in part to the prevailing view over the last couple of decades that the Gospels actually fall into the genre of Greco-Roman bioi. Perhaps this trend also has to do with numerous studies on the early creedal traditions and other sources that may underlie the Gospels. Maybe these trends are augmented by a few very critical scholars who have supported moving the composition dates of the Synoptic Gospels closer to the time of Jesus. Or, it could have something to do with restoring a little faith in signs of eyewitness observations in the Gospels. Whatever the reason(s) for the current interest and signs of change regarding the evaluation of Gospel historicity, some of the things that we have pointed out regarding the reliability of the resurrection appearance traditions are part of that transformation.
Notes
1 Bart Ehrman dates John at about AD 90–95, and Luke Timothy Johnson agrees to the same span, while German New Testament scholar Gerd Theissen prefers a date as late as 100–120! In his benchmark two-volume commentary on John, Raymond Brown opts for 90–100. Keener likewise thinks that the mid-nineties is correct. Guthrie adds that the majority of scholars fit into the 90–110 range, providing some reasons for the options. Ehrman, New Testament, 43 (see chap. 4, n. 34); Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 470 (see chap. 4, n. 51); Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, 148, cf. 8 (see chap. 10, n. 20); Brown, John, 1:lxxxvi (see chap. 9, n. 148); Keener, Gospel of John, 1:140 (see chap. 9, n. 111); Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 297–303 (see chap. 10, n. 134).
2 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 18 (see chap. 2, n. 19); Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 2, 8 (see chap. 4, n. 84), which is an interesting contrast with Theissen’s date above.
3 In personal correspondence, New Testament specialist Craig Keener confirmed (January 24, 2017) his conviction that “the majority of Johannine scholars globally do acknowledge eyewitness material going back to whoever the ‘beloved disciple’ is.”
4 Brown, John, 1:xcii, xcviii–cii; the quotation is on xcii.
5 Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 469.
6 Keener, Gospel of John, 1:89–91.
7 Ehrman, New Testament, 161.
8 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 261–64, quotation on 263. Cf. also James H. Charlesworth, “The Johannine Community and Its Jewish Background,” Studies in Philosophy and Theology 38 (2013): 46–51.
9 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 275.
10 The volume is subtitled The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 6. For more angles on the book’s theme, see 240, 260, 304–5. This volume was revised and substantially updated in 2017.
11 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, particularly 396–400. Of course, championing the authorship of such an obscure, minor disciple as John the Elder, Bauckham’s choice leaves him to address questions regarding explicit evidence for such a conclusion. However, Guthrie presents a survey of a number of scholars who also agree in casting their support with John the Elder being the author of the Fourth Gospel; see New Testament Introduction, 278–81. As Brown notes decades before the appearance of Bauckham’s volume, there is really no specific evidence in the early sources for anyone but the apostle John; see Brown, John, 1:xcii. Further, if someone were going to go to all this trouble discovering various arguments in favor of eyewitness testimony behind the Fourth Gospel, only to pick someone that we know next to nothing about, and without specific evidence for his authorship, why not just choose the apostle John, especially when his lack of mention by name in the Gospel seems to single him out, not to mention the exceptionally strong testimony in the early church; on the last point, see Keener, Gospel of John, 1:91–98; Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 275.
12 It is worth noting that the Gospel of John has undergone significant reassessment pertaining to its historical value. See especially the following three volumes edited by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher: John, Jesus, and History, vol. 1, Critical Appraisals of Critical Views (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007); John, Jesus, and History, vol. 2, Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015); and John, Jesus, and History, vol. 3, Glimpses of Jesus through the Johannine Lens (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016).
13 The quotation is from Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 362. Other scholars who agree or who think that this may have been the case include Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 146–47, 153 (see chap. 10, n. 23); Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, 158; Ehrman, New Testament, 160–61 (with some caveats); Brown, John, 2:1127, but compare Brown’s more recent statement in An Introduction to the Gospel of John (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 195–96; Keener, Gospel of John, 1:82–115; Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 22–41.
14 Keener makes the point that the second Mary, identified as the wife of Clopas, also could have been Jesus’s aunt, reducing the number of women present there to three, each of whom was named Mary. While this is a less likely option, Keener notes that it was not unheard of that, at least in Roman homes, two sisters were sometimes given the same name; see Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1141–1142.
15 Wenham, Easter Enigma, 83 (see chap. 20, n. 5). Murray Harris makes a very similar point; see Raised Immortal, 69–70 (see chap. 8, n. 17).
16 Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1178.
17 See the suggestions by Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 199 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1178; Wenham, Easter Enigma, 87; A. T. Robertson, “The Fourth Gospel,” in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1932), 5:309. Reginald Fuller is undecided about whether the use of the plural indicates more than one woman being present at the tomb according to John; see Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 134 (see chap. 10, n. 23); A. J. M. Wedderburn also seems to think that the question might turn either way; see Beyond Resurrection, 254n49.
18 Brown, John, 2:984.
19 Brown, 2:999.
20 Neirynck, “John and the Synoptics,” 167 (see chap. 15, n. 74).
21 Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1183.
22 Guillaume, Luc interprète des Anciennes Traditions sur la Résurrection de Jésus, 65 (see chap. 15, n. 28).
23 Guillaume, 201.
24 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 102–3.
25 Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 36, cf. also 40 (see chap. 10, n. 70).
26 Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 324 (see chap. 10, n. 76).
27 Neirynck, “John and the Synoptics,” 172–79, particularly 172–73, 175, 179.
28 Guillaume, Luc interprète des Anciennes Traditions sur la Résurrection de Jésus, 50–65, 265–74.
29 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 119.
30 Robertson, “Fourth Gospel,” 5:312.
31 Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1193.
32 Brown, John, 2:992–993. Brown then surveys more than a dozen interpretations of scholars who seem unsure of how the touching and the ascension relate in John’s text here.
33 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 162, mentioning Sanders, Lindars, Morris, and Brown as examples.
34 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 281n327 (see chap. 1, n. 30); Perkins, Resurrection, 174–76 (see excursus 2, n. 111); cf. Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 38–40; Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament, 87 (see chap. 17, n. 74); Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 50–51 (see chap. 15, n. 28).
35 Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus, chap. 6 (see excursus 2, n. 111).
36 Willi Marxen, Die Auferstehung Jesu von Nazareth (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1968), 64.
37 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 605, 665–66 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Harris, Raised Immortal, 55; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 209, 628 (see chap. 2, n. 13); Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 161–64; Wenham, Easter Enigma, 95.
38 These readings are found in the NRSV, ESV, CSB, NASV, NIV, NLT, NEB, RSV, Williams, and the Kingdom New Testament (translated by N. T. Wright).
39 Such as the KJV, the ASV of 1901, the Confraternity New Testament, or the French Bible Society’s translation.
40 We saw earlier that Matthew does answer this question regarding the women who met the risen Jesus after they left the empty tomb (28:9–10), as does John regarding the appearance to Mary Magdalene (20:17). But none of the canonical Gospels state whether the male disciples ever did the same.
41 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 102–33 (see chap. 20, n. 39), esp. 103–4, 115–16, 118, 127, 131–33. The two quotations are on pages 103 and 127 respectively.
42 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, particularly 450, also 452–55, 533.
43 Brown, John, 2:1028–29, 1031.
44 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 363.
45 There is much scholarly speculation that those who were doing the testifying here were members of the Johannine community, perhaps in Ephesus, the traditional location from which this Gospel was often said to have been written. But familiarity would seem to be a prerequisite, since the language and ideas in chapter 21 are very similar to those of the book and author as a whole, hence the popularity of the idea that it may be a Johannine school of thought here. See Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 146–47, Merrill C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief, an Analytic Study of the Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 287, cf. the remainder of chap. 10. A few other responses are found in Brown, John, 2:1077–82; Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1217–22; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 254–56. A number of options are discussed in Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 138–51 in particular (see chap. 10, n. 20).
46 Tenney, John, 287.
47 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 363; cf. Bauckham’s extended argument in support of this statement on pages 362–83. See also the discussion of John 21:24 in the sources above. Brown confirms some of these items on the early circulation of John’s Gospel as well in John, 2:1077–78.
48 Brown, John, 2:1110–17.
49 Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1237–38; Brown agrees in John, 2:1117–22; cf. also Tenney, John, 293.
50 Brown, John, 2:1118; Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1240–41.
51 Even Rudolf Bultmann treats John 1:1 and 20:28 as the two best cases in the New Testament where Jesus is called God. But given all the questions concerning the anarthrous Greek construction in John 1:1, the acclamation of the clearest case would probably go to 20:28. See Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:129 (see chap. 4, n. 84).
52 Brown, New Testament Christology, 188–89 (see chap. 8, n. 17). Likewise, on John 20:28 see Murray J. Harris’s highly regarded monograph, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 105–30.
53 Cullmann, Christology of the New Testament, 200–201, 207–9, 213, 216, 234–35, 237, 307 (see chap. 11, n. 14). But compare Harris, Jesus as God, 123n85, also 111n28.
54 Some examples of this twofold approach would include Acts 2:22–28, 31–32; 3:13–26; 13:23–39; 17:1–4; 26:22–25.
55 Bernard Ramm, “The Evidence of Prophecy and Miracle,” in Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 253–63. The quotation above is found on 253.
56 Any study of the most sophisticated prophecy arguments by careful scholars should include at least the following works: Hugh G. Gauch, “Best Practices for Prophecy Arguments,” Philosophia Christi 16 (2014): 255–82; Hugh Gauch, John A. Bloom, and Robert C. Newman, “Public Theology and Scientific Method: Formulating Reasons That Count Across Worldviews,” Philosophia Christi 4 (2002): 45–88; Newman, Bloom, and Gauch, “Public Theology and Prophecy Data: Factual Evidence That Counts for the Biblical World View,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46 (2003): 79–110. The following citations constitute a four-part dialogue in print between a Christian physicist (Newman) and an atheist philosopher (Evan Fales): (1) Newman, “Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle,” in Geivett and Habermas, In Defense of Miracles, 214–25 (see chap. 7, n. 18); (2) Evan Fales, “Robert C. Newman: Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle,” Philosophia Christi 3 (2001): 22–25; (3) Newman, “On Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle,” Philosophia Christi 3 (2001): 63–67; (4) Newman’s final response is included in the Gauch, Bloom, and Newman, “Public Theology and Scientific Method” cited above, 77–78; Newman, ed., The Evidence of Prophecy: Fulfilled Prediction as a Testimony to the Truth of Christianity (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1988); Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995); Kenny Barfield, The Prophet Motive: Examining the Reliability of the Biblical Prophets (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1995); Bernard Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidences (Chicago: Moody, 1953), esp. 91–124.
57 These three forms include the excellent historical evidence that Jesus was a miracle worker, as is admitted by virtually all critical scholars today (however these events are defined), the case to be made for carefully documented contemporary miracles occurring around the world today, and the resurrection argument by itself.
58 F. F. Bruce, The Defence of the Gospel in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 14–15, 18–19 in particular. The quotation is on 14.
59 This message is found in early creedal traditions such as Rom 1:3–4; 4:24–25; 10:9; 2 Tim 2:8–9, as well as in Acts sermon summaries like 2:31–36; 4:10; 5:30–32; 13:29–39; 17:2–4.
60 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching (see chap. 2, n. 22). The two quotations are from 24 and 26 respectively.
61 Dodd, 16.
62 Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 310 (see chap. 2, n. 15); Casey, Jesus, 134, 137; Johnson, Real Jesus, 119–20 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 270, 380–81; cf. 319; Robertson, “Fourth Gospel,” 5:317; cf. Brown, Jesus: God and Man, 96–102, 104 (see excursus 2, n. 123).
63 Even in the earliest creedal traditions (Rom 1:3–4; 10:9) and Acts sermon summaries (2:22–36; 5:29–32; 10:36–43; 13:27–39; 17:30–31), this was the case.
64 Such as John 14:19; Acts 4:2; Rom 6:4–5; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:18, 20–23, 53–57; 2 Cor 4:14; Phil 3:20–21; 1 Thess 4:13–18; 1 Pet 1:3–4, 8–9; 1 John 3:2–3.
65 For an examination and refutation of ways in which to take John 20:28 that do not include worship of Jesus as fully divine, see Randy Rheaume, An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of the Son’s Relationship to the Father in John’s Gospel: God’s Equal and Subordinate (Lewiston: Mellen, 2014), 125–34.
66 For many excellent and worthwhile thoughts on this subject of witness, see Joel B. Green, “‘Witnesses of His Resurrection’: Resurrection, Salvation, Discipleship, and Mission in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 227–46.
67 See McDowell, Fate of the Apostles (see chap. 12, n. 19). Regarding the question of whether any of the original apostles recanted their faith in the face of persecution, the threat of death, or otherwise, see 6, along with McDowell’s summarized conclusions on 263.
68 See William L. Lane, “Living a Life of Faith in the Face of Death: The Witness of Hebrews,” and Allison A. Trites, “Witness and the Resurrection in the Apocalypse of John,” both in Longenecker, Life in the Face of Death, 247–69 and 270–88 respectively.
69 See Lincoln’s very thoughtful essay, “I Am the Resurrection and the Life,” 122–44, esp. 139–44 on Lazarus, Mary, and Martha (see chap. 19, n. 29).
70 For an example of the contrast here, see Habermas and Shaw, “Agnostic Historical Jesus Scholars,” 485–95 (see chap. 17, n. 5).
71 A few examples of the latter include the following scholars: Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 73 (see chap. 5, n. 40); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 74–79; Keith Parsons, “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 446.
72 As discussed in the chapter on Mark above, critical scholars almost always interpret the men dressed in white in Mark and in the dazzling clothes in Luke as angels.
73 Incidentally, Luke records two angels at the site of Jesus’s ascension to heaven (Acts 1:10–11), though no angels are mentioned in Luke’s corresponding ascension account (Luke 24:50–52).
74 See the discussion in the chapter on Mark for further explication of these comments.
75 Luke records at least two other appearances in Acts 1:1–11, but it is difficult to ascertain if these are repeated accounts of the last two appearances in Luke 24, to the disciples and with the ascension. Also, the appearance to Peter in Luke 24:34 is simply recounted rather than being narrated.
76 While discussing some of these matters (181–88), Crossan mentions that the count for the women visitors to the tomb takes a reverse order from Mark to John in that “the women seem to be gradually disappearing, from three to two to one.” Crossan also notes John’s “we” comment in 20:2. See Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 182 (see chap. 6, n. 151).
77 It is not being considered here whether the angels were located outside or inside the tomb and so on, because we are not referring to differences in the accounts, but rather to the presence of multiplied details in the narration.
78 As noted by David Wood in his chapter, “A Response to Dan Barker’s ‘Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?,’” in Defending the Resurrection: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, ed. James Patrick Holding (Maitland, FL: Xulon, 2010), 87.
79 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 66–67.
80 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 103–4, 111–13, 118, 124, 131.