Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus: 016 (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity)

ASSESSING THE NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCE FOR THE HISTORICITY OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS WILLIAM LANE CRAIG

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG EARNEDA bocrORATE IN PHILOSOPHY Ii! 11\E U!'jJVE'S.1J'Y OF J!.jRMINGHAM, ENGLAND, BEFORE TAKING A GOCTOIU\TEiN THEOLO-

GY FROM THE LUDWIG MAXIMJtJANS l:JNIVERSITATMONCHEN, GEAAjANY, AT !"l;II.CH LA~ INSTITUTION HE WAS FOR TWO )'EARS A FEL1!:OW OF THE A LEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT-STIFfU G, WRI'FlNG ON THE HlSToRittrv OF THE RESURREGIlON OF JESUS.

HAVING SPENT SEYEN.(NEARS AT J:HE KATHOtlKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN, B ELCruM, HE IS CURRENTLY A R ESEkR€H PR0FESS0J( A'f TAtBOT SCHOOL OF E HAS T HEOLQ0 restricts the meaning of the pronoun. This p resuppo s iti on i s unj us t i f ied, f or t he Ow~a may l i mit the me aning of the pronoun a s in "She s lapped his f ac e;- - She slapped hi m. - In f act, al ~ the pla ce s whe r e Paul inte rchanges oid~o wi t h pe r sona l pronouns ar e example s o f th i s ki nd; t he emphasis is on t he physi cal . Hence , Rom. 6:12-1 4, 16a is s trongly phys i ca l; not e iv • 7For example, i n his att empts to find a r i gi d dual i sm in the Old Testament , he cannot ex pl a i n t he r ef erences to co r pses as s ou l s (Lev . 21:1 1; Num. 6 :6) , and he ove rdoes it when he maintains that Paul's · pr e s e nt in s pi rit" but "abs ent i n body " (I Cor . 5: 3-5 ) e nt ai ls a l i t er a l pr es e nce of Pau l 's spi r it , f or t his would tec hnica l l y i mply the de-animat ion of Paul 's body wh i l e hi s s pirit wa s abroad (Gundry , Soma, pp. 122 , 141 ) 1 Mos t of Gundry ' s texts do not support duali sm, but me rely dspe ct i va l i s rn ; but it does prove a ubiquitous us e of dual i s t i c language . When it comes to t exts t hat cl early contemplate the separation of soul or s pir i t and body at death , th en Gundry' S argument for dualism is stro ng and pe r sua s i ve· 8Gu ndry , Soma, pp . 29-80 .

owuon , the para ll e l

the term ol Ao , the re f ere nces to sexua l i mmoral i ty (6:1 9; 7:1-3) . Similarly II Cor. 4: 10-1 2 i s physica lly oriented: note the p hysical ch aract er of t he pers ecution (I Cor . 1:8- 10 ), the earthen vess el met aphor f or the body ( 4: 7) , t he cont rast between the oute r and inne r man (4 : 16 ) , t he ea r t hly t ent which can be d estroyed a s a figure for the body (5 :1) , and the cootrast be t ween be i ng at home in or away f r om t he body (5 :6 , 8- 9 ) . And in Eph . 5 :2 8- 29 t he physica l orientation of the passage is apparent from t he us e of OGc ( ( in a morally neutral sense) in a physical way parall el to t he use of owuo . Thus the interchang e of pronouns wi t h 0;;'\10. by no means implies that ClW~o refers t o t he "person- in i so l a t i on f rom the body. Elsewhere Paul ' s use o f ClWLlO is equa lly phys i cal. I n I Cor . 7:4 ; Rom. 1:24 the or i entation is sexual and phys ical. The same i s t rue of I Cor . 6:12-20 , a pa s s age in which Bultmann's exeges i s oscillates back and forth between phys i ca l an d exist ential meanings f or oWUO . If the meaning wer e holistic, the n marr iage would a180 brea k union wi th Chr i s t . The -one f l e s h- r e f e r s t o physical union of two bodies in sexual int e rcourse. In Rom. 12 :1 owuo s tand s f or the phys ica l lif e of mao; i t i s contrast ed with the mi nd ( 12: 2 ) a nd is clea r l y physical in 12: 4. I Cor. 9: 26 refers to t he phys i ca l side of ma n, as the cont ext and the ath letic metapho r s s how; I Cor . 13:3 can only mean the body, fo r t he whol e sel f or person cannot be bu rned. Phil . 1:20 ref ers to the phys i ca l pre se nc e in the world, as the phrase "to r emain in t he f l e s h" ( 1 :2 4) makes c lear . Rom. 8 :11 r efers t o the body in which t he Holy Spirit dwells. There are sever a l pa s s ages in whi c h O"'\l(l: appears to equa l OGP ( in the morall y ev il sense (Rom. 6: 6; 7: 24 ; 8 : 10, 12-13). But in t hese cases t he OW\lO is the i ns trument of OGpt , not necessarily i t s eq uivalent; "body of d eath " and "body of sin " a r e not t he f l e s h pe r se but t he physical body enslaved and doomed t o death by sin . The body of f lesh in Co l . 2 :11 refers to Chrlst 's physi ca l body (c f. Col . 1: 22; uo..."

/22

Rom. 7 : 4; I Pet . 2:24; 4 :1 ) . 9 The r ema1010 g pas sage i n whi ch CWJjCl might a ppear to equa l oapt in a morally e vi l s ense is Rom. 8:10 . Now even if t hey we r e he r e s yno nymo us , t hat do es no t wi n a holistic mean i ng fo r OWI.< (I , f or oapt is the sin fu l pr oc l i v ity wi t hi n man 's na t ure . But in fa c t the only way to eq uate t he t wo i s t o make a r adical break before v. 11 , f or t here God is s aid to make al i v e the body, which he would neve r do to t he evil fl esh. But th e c arry-ove r of vocabu l ary prec lude s any s uch break . The dead bodies in v . 10 a re the bodie s to be made a l ive in t he e schaton by Chr i s t in v. 11 and therefore mean "mo r t a l bodies ~ ( cf. 6:12; 7: 24 ) .

Thus OWl.JCI ne v e r means t h e mora ll y evi l

aapt

s impl ici ter . Pau l 's r eferences t o "bod i l y pres ence · ( I I Cor . 10 : 10) a nd - abs e nt in body · ( I Cor . 5:3; c f . Col . 2:5; I The as . 2: 17 ) r e f er t o physical presence . Other passages are obviously phy si cal : the wounds on Pa ul's body (Ga l . 6 :17 ) , Abraham's i mpot e nt body (Rom. 4 : 19 ) , t he physica l deeds i n t hi s world ( Rom. 8 : 13 ) , t he transformation of the physical body (P hi l . 3 :21 ) . Gundry ' S con cl usion is worth quoting : The s oma denotes th e phys i ca l body, r oug hly s ynonymous with 'fles h ' i n t he ne utra l sense . I t f orms tha t part of man i n a nd through whi c h he li ve s and acts i n t he world . It be comes t he bas e of opera tions for s i n i n t he unbelie ver , f or the Holy spir it i n t he be l ieve r . Barri ng prior occurrence of the Pa r ous i a , t he soma wi ll die . That i s t he l ingering ef fe ct of s i n even in t he be l ieve r . But i t wil l a l s o be r esur r ec t ed. That is its ultimat e end, a major proof of its wor th a nd necess ity t o who leness of human being , an d the reason for i t s sanct if i cation ne w;" 9Thi s is, I thi nk , the most di fficu lt passage for Gundry . But e ve n if th e r ef er enc e he r e is not to Christ ' s body, ~t is none thele s s apparent t ha t bo dy does not equa l fle s h 1n the passage , for th en it would be unint elligib l e to s peak of the "body of fl esh . M I t ma y be tha t "body- is here a p hys i ca l metaphor, as in "body of Christ ,M meaning th e of sins . At a ny rat e the use o f Mbody " as who le mass "flesh M in the moral sense does not figure in I Cor . 15 . 10Gundry, Soma, p . 50 .

The i mpor t a nce of this conclusio n ca nnot be ove remphasiz ed. Too long we have b een told that f or Pa ul awuo i s t he ego , the MIM of a man . n Like a da sh o f co l d water ,

11For e xample, Con zelm a nn wr ites , • . oiOuo designat es th e ' I ' . • . t he ' I' in so fa r a s i t can be gra sped by it sel f and ot hers a s t he pos s ible objec t of a c t i on through others and through its e lf . I a m aidllo i n s o far as I can s tand ove r against mys el f , govern myse lf a nd ri sk myse lf. I am obiuo i n so fa r a s I des ire • . . . oiO\lO i s t hu s the I a s a s ubjec t which a c t s and an Obj ect which is a c ted upon, espec i al ly the I as one that acts upo n itself " (Hans Conzelmann , An Outl ine of the The ol o gy of the New Tes t ame nt [ New York : Harper & Row, 196 8] , pp . 176- 77 ). Cf . Bu1tman n , Theologie, pp. 196- 98 . Thi s l eads to the f a l lacy of Ma r xs e n that becaus e the aW\lCI i s t he ~ I , - the oppo sit i on between the present bo dy and the resurrection bod y is really between the ea r t hly - I- Bnd t he spi ritua l - I" (Wi l li MBrxsen, Th e Resurrec ti on of J esus of Nazareth, tra ns . Margaret Kohl ( London : SCM Pres s, 1970 ] , pp: 69-7 0; cf . Er hardt GUttgemanns, Der leidende Aposte l und sein Herr, FRLANT 90 [G6tti ngen : Van de nhoeck & Ruprecht , 1966], pp . 247- 8 1 ) . Logi cally t hi s i mplies t hat death a nd re s urrec t i on i s t he dea th a nd r esu r r ection of the ego, a viewpoint whi ch is indis t i ngu ishabl e from t he reviv i f i ca t i on and s ubsequent i mmortal ity of t he soul. Robinson ' s error is somewha t dif f erent. He r ecog ni zes that a"'\lO- a s the empirical ego (Bul t ma nn) is strictly po st -Carte sian end tha t oW\I~ as t he who l e per s ona li ty i s unHe br a ic . He holds that aiOuo is the body c re ated fo r God, but tha t it is not in the l ea s t constitut ed by its being phy s i ca l . I t f ulf il l s its e s sence by be i ng utte r l y subj ect to Spi rit , not by bei ng either m~te rial or immateria l. I t s substance de pe nd s ent ire ly on t he na t ure of the medium t hr ough whi c h the Spi rit i s mani fes ting itself (Robinson, Body , p. 32) . Not hing in Robinson 's prior 31 pa ges justifies such a conc lus ion . Robinson neve r shows that OW\lO- ca n be used in abs t raction from the material component or aspect to describe a pur e ly immaterial entity . He has only proved aW\lCI is not the - pr i me matter " of which thi ngs are made . I t is true that t he body is fulfill ed in its s ub j ec t io n to Spirit as a aiO\lo ~vc uiJ.Cl n,dv ; but what i s the proof that materialit y is non- essentia l? Robinson never renders i nte ll igible t he notion of a litera l, non -phys ical, immaterial body . The idea t hat cW \lQ may have an immaterial substa nc e or medium s ur r ept i t i ous l y i ntroduc es the not i on t ha t aW\lo ~v cu1J Ctn M6v is a body mad e out of spirit, whic h i t is not ( see p . 13 2) .

m Gundry's study brings us back to the genuine anthropological co nsc i ous ness of first century man. The notion of body as the · 1 " i s a perversion of the biblical meaning of ow~a : Robert Jewett asserts , "Bu l t ma nn has turn ed aw ~a into its virtual opposite: a symbol f or that structure of individua l existence wh ich is essent ially non -phys ical . -u Henc e , Gundry concludes , exis t enti alist tr ea tments of a w~a , as much as idealist treatments, have been .a positive i mpedi ment to accurate his torical -critica l exegesis of I Cor. 15 and ha ve sacrif iced t he ol ogy t o a philosophica l fa shion that is a l r e ady pass e .11 To say that owua r efers pr imarily to t he phys i ca l body is not to say that the word cannot be us ed as synecdoche to refer to the w h o l~ man by r e fe re nc e t o a part . "The s oma may represent t he whol e person simply bec aus e the soma lives i n union with t he soul/spirit. But soma doe s not mean ' whol e person ,' becaus e its use is desi gned to c a l l a t tent i on to the physica l ob j ect which i s t he bod y of t he p erson rather t han the whol e persona Ii t y • • 1. Nor does thi s prec l ude metaphorica l use o f the word, as in the "body of Christ " f or the church ; fo r i t is a physical metapho r : t he church is not the "I" of Christ . Whe n we turn to I Cor . 15 and inquire about the nature of the resu r rection body, th erefore, we sha l l be inquiring about a body , not about a n ego, an "I , · or a "per s on" abstractly conc eived apart from the body . IS 12Jewe t t , Term~ , p . 21 1. 13Gundr y , Soma , p . 167 . 14 Ib i d . , p , 80 .

1

I have al ready alluded to Paul's use of aa pt , a nd it wi ll not be necessary to say much here . Iii Theologians are familiar with aaol; as the evil proclivity wit hi n man. This touches sensitive ne rves in German theo logy because the Cre ed in German states that I beli ev e in t he re surrect ion of t he Flei s ch , not o f th e body as i n the Engl i s h . t r anslation." Hence , many theologians are r ight ly anxiou s to di sassociate thems elves f r om an y doct rine t ha t t he f l e sh as a morall y evi l princip l e will be resurr ected . But they seem prone t o overloo k the f a ct that Pau l oft en us es oa pt in a non-moral se nse s i mp ly to mea n t he phy sical fl e sh or body. In t his morally neutr a l s ense the resurrection of the f lesh = resurrection of the body . Now in I Cor. 15 Paul i s cl earl y s peaking of o~p l; i n a phys i ca l , morally neutra l sen se , for he speaks o f the fl esh o f bi rds, animals, and f i sh , whi c h wou l d be absurd in a ny moral sense. Hence , Harrington i n Bib 58 (1 977 ):136 38, considers himsel f in d isaar ee ment with Gundry 's view, still he as ser ts that t he OWUll 4ovx~ " ov is the tota l ity of the cr eat ed , corporea l pe rson wi t h particular attention to th e morta l , physical body and the awua r;v~v~ a n " ov is the totality of t he resur rect ed, heavenly, corpore a l person a ni mated by t he Spir it. This is only a shade diff e r ent f rom Gundry'S v i ew, however , and Gillman agrees that " . . • t he believ er has a bod y now a nd wi l l have t he same body, t ransformed , a f te r death M ( Ibid ., p . 330) . The point is t hat a w~a does not r e f er to t he ·self " in abstraction f r om t he phys i cal body . As for th e t wo r ev i ews , only Dunn ob jects to Gundry 'S concept of OWUll , but even he agrees that owua designates man a s embodied i n the world . But he goes beyond the evidence a nd dege nerates into self- contradicti on when he ass er ts that it is a phy sica l embodiment in this wor l d and a spiritua l embodiment in t he next . 16See TWNT, s v , acipl; , allP "~ Jlo~ , a cip ,,~vo< , by Eduard Schweizer , Fr iedrich Baumgartel , a nd Rudolf Meyer ; . Bultmann, The ologie , pp . 232-39; Alexander Sand , Der Begr~ ff "Fl ei s ch " in den Paul inischen Hauptbriefen , BU 2 (Regensburq: Fr iedr i ch Pustet , 1967 ); E. Br a nde nburger, Fleisch und Geist (Ne uki r chen- Vluyn: Neukirchner v erlag, 1968 ) ; J ewet t, Terms, pp . 49-166 . c

15Even Weis s, who be lieve s t hat aw~a ca n sta nd fo r the whole persona lity, admit s t hat in I Cor . 15 s uch a meaning i s inadmis s abl e (Joha nnes weis s , Der erste Korintherbrief , 9t h ed . , KEKNT 5 (Got t i ngen : Va nde nhoec k , Ruprecht , 1910] . p. 372 ) . See al s o J ohn Gil lma n , "Tr a ns f ormat ion i n I Cor. 15 , 50- 53 ," ETL 58 ( 1982) : 328- 29 . Although Gill man , appeal i ng t o the r eview s of Gu ndr y's work by J .D .G . Dunn i n SJT 31 (1 978) : 288- 91 an d Da nie l ~ .

M

M

17See Kar l Bo r n h ~ u se r, Das Rech t des Bekenn tni sses zur Auferst eh ung des Fleis ches (Gut er s l oh : C. Ber tel smann , 1899 ) .

J '20

m ~ewett

dr aws attent ion to -the stri king de pa r tu re fr om t he

tec hnica l 'flesh ' categor y a nd a n appropri ation o f

;

t raditional Judaic us e of oao';: as i nt e r c ha ngea ble wi th ",Will;< • • 11 Unde r stood in t hi s physical sense , the doctrin e

I

of the res ur rect i on of the f l e s h i s therefore morally unobjectionable . Finally a bri e f word on th e thi rd t erm 4o ul{ ti : 19

Pau l

d oe s not teac h a con sistent dua l i s m o f llWUO - lIouxti , but o f t e n us e s wccue and othe r t e r ms t o d esignate the immaterial

e l e me nt o f man .

1

I n f act , in thl!! ad j e c t i val form , "'UXl,. M &~

bas a meaning t hat does not c onnote i mmat e r i al i t y at a ll, but r at her t he natural character of a t bing in cont r adi st i ncti on to the s uperna t ura l ch a rac t e r of God' s Spirit . Thus in I Cor . 2 :1 4- 3: 3 Pau l d ifferent iates t hree t ypes of me n: the ua 1Vtuuo.l\,. 1I4"

meani ng here . The Two Adams Having d es cr i bed t he fou r diff er en c e s be t ween the present bod y and the resurrection body, Paul el aborates the doctrine o f the two Adam s . ~ He cites Gen . 2:7 LXX t o pr ove that the first Adam became t ~ ,. ""Jx ~\l tli)aa", , and he adds t o this that the last Adam became r':,. . ",·r ulla t",ot:o..ou", . By thi s last expression he doe s not mean t ha t Chri st turned into a di sembod ied spirit a ny more t ha n he means by the fi rs t t hat Adam turned int o a d i sembod ied s oul. ~ Rathe r

has bee n u s ua l ly tra n s l ated ws p i r i t ua l

bod y, - f or s uc h a render i ng te nds t o be ve r y mis l eading , as Her i ng ex p la i ns: This term is very we l l - chos e n; for it gives us an ind icat ion of t wo qua l ities of t he r es urr e ct i on bodi es whi ch we have difficu lty conce iving, but which Paul i ne t heol ogy i nvit es u s to con sider: f irst , t he supe rnat ural life b estowed by the Holy Spirit a nd second , its perfe ct su bmission to the spi r it, which wil l make it t ruly i ts t emp l e . I n French , however, the l i ter a l t ranslation s pirit ual body risks cr ea ting worse misundersta ndings . For most French r eaders, be i ng more or less conscious ly Ca r t e s i a ns , yiel d to the tendency of i de nti fying the spiritual with t he non - ext e nd ed and o f cou rse with the immat e r i al as wel l, whi ch i s the op pos ite o f Pauline idea s and create s , moreove r , It contradict io in adjecto; for what wou ld be a body without either exte ns ion or matter?» Hi ring therefore s uggest s that it is be tter t o t r an sl at eo~ uo as the opposi te of na tu ra l body ( OWllO ,"ux... &'" ), t hat is , as superna tural bod y .- Although th is has th e

•

. ",rullon.. &'"

3 7 H ~ r i n g , Premiere ~pj tre, p . 147 .

3B 1t is i nt er e s t i ng t hat the RSV an d NEB t ransl ato r S al so us e supernatura l to render ' ''' E UUOTlo ~b ", in t he expr e s s i ons . ", rllllo n. ~b ", 8p ~1I0 KO'" '.0110 in I Cor . 10:3- 4: - a l l ate the same s upernatura l f ood a nd a l l drank the same supernatural dr ink. - The ma nna and water i n the d esert were certainly not imma t e r ial o r une xtend ed , ra t her t hey were f r om hea ven ( LXX Ps . 77 : 24) and t hus be l ong i ng to t he s upe r natu r al order .

1

\

39There haS bee n much discu ss ion of the rela t i on be t wee n Paul's doctrine of the t wo Adams a nd phi l o' S theory of God's creat ion of the eart h l y a nd heavenl y man ( P ~ i l o De opi f i ci o mundi 134 ' i dem, Legum allegoria e 1. 41- 43; 1dem, De pl ant a t i one Hoe 44:4 5; i dem, De confusione linguarum 62 -64 ) . I n content Pa ul ' s though t is utterly d iverse. phi l o ' S theor y co ncerns t he Neoplaton ic dichotomy between the r~a lm of the universal a nd t he pa r t i cu l a r . The heavenly ~a~ 1S. 4 Platonic form or i dea ; the earthly ma n i s an exemp11f1cat10n t he r eof . For Paul t he distinction is historical, not phi lo sophi ca l . The first Adam i s the historical fa ther of t he human r ace; the s eco nd Adam I s Je su s the Me s s i a h an d r edeeme r of mankind. Philo bas no soter iology and Pau l no Platonism in mind . Cf . In . 3 :3 4. 40 TWNT, " ."' t\l UO , ~ by Kl e i nkne cht , ec . e i . I am astound ed by t he number of s ch ol a r s who appea l t o I Cor . 15: 45 ; I I Cor . 3 :17-18; et c . to prove t ha t Christ t ur ned . i nt o the Spirit at the r e s ur r ec t i on a nd so is now immat er1al a nd invis ible (eg . Robinson, "Ea s t er to Valentinus, - p. 13). Morissette shows f r om J ewis h text s t hat - l i f e- g i v i ng - means - t o resurrect- and comments , . -The appel lat i on ' Sp i r i t , ' f or its part , is somet 1me s used by Pa ul t o des ignate C h rist. L~ None t he l e s s , there 110 The is no forma l i de nt if i ca t ion wha tever. ident if ication is always f unc t i onal : i t serve s to sh ow

139

t he same entit ies are d es c r i bed a s cr..Jwa <J,uxuov ( v , 44 ) , lJ;vx ri ""'a [v , 45 ) , ,0 <J,VX~HOV ( v , 46 ) and as~ aWlJa ."fvwa'~H6" ( v , 44) ""t\lwa c:",OllOlO\l,, ( V . 45 ), TO l'.'t uWQH Mb" [ v . 46 ) . I t is be ca use of t he paral l elism of his play on t he wor ds of Ge n. 2 : 7 that Paul omits exp l icit r eference to Chris t's bo dy in v . 45 . Pau l teaches in v . 45 that t he natu r a l bo dy came int o being at creation, whi l e the supernatura l bo dy came i nt o exist ence via the re surrecti on (cf. vs . 42 -44 a ) . 41 Simil arly, we bear first th e natural body, but we s hal l in t he resurrection bear the supernatural body pa t tern ed a ft er Jes us ' s (vs . 46 , 49). Now Paul calls t he na t ur al body XO~ MOS a nd co nt rasts it wi th the he aven l y body ( vs . 47-4 9 ), whi ch mig ht l ead us to th i nk t hat th e di ffere nce be t we en t he two is, after al l , the stuf f of which t hey are made . But whi l e Pa ul does seem t o associa t e t he <J,UX ~H O S a nd t he XOi:MO S, he i n no way imp lies t ha t the heave nly body wi l l be imma t er i a l. Tha t material i t y is not the is s ue seems clear from v . 47 : ~ .P~TOS & ,,~pw . o s iM Y ~ S xO~M 6 s o -tltu u:pos a " ap", . o s

it

o upa "o i)

what Chr ist mean s 'now' f o r the fa ithf u1. 13l The st at em~ nt of I Cor. l 5 .45b i s no exception , as t he verb t'llo ~a~o uv • • a nd t he en tire cont ext indicate . . L~C ~ . I I Cor . 3 .l 7a, l8c; comp o Rom. 8 .9 -1 1 .

Thi s

~if1,rm2 a t 10n is impli ed occasionally by Luke : comp o Lk .

1302 1.15; Act s 16 . 6 , 7 . Between II Cor . 3.l7a ( 'the Lord is the Spiri t ') a~d ~8c !'the Lord who is t he Sp i r i t ' ) , Pau l d1st1ngu1shes i n v . l7b ' where the Spirit of the Lor d is , etc .' . IlIThe Apostle frequent ly attributes similar f unct i ons to Christ and the Spirit; w. o. Davies in Paul and Rabbini c Judaism, p . 177, has a good summa r y of these texts" (Rodolphe Mori s s et t e "L ' a nt i t he s e entre I e 'psych ique' et Ie 'pneumatique' , en I Corinthiens, XV, 44 a 46, " RScR 46 [ 197 2 J : 141 ) . .

41Tha t t he o ne verb 'C Y{Vt TO holds t he sentence 7an not f or ce th e conc lusion that t he s ame a ct o f ~re~ t 1 0 n 1S . r efe rred to, a s is thought by wei s s, or~ntherbr~ef, p . 473, for this violat es th e context . t o get~e r

Ther e i s something conspicuous ly missing in this para llel betwe en ,~lQ u lt o ll n (; ;Q ooMc.l lo\,la l. , ve rs es contain Ma r kan expr e s s i ons ( &a u\,lckw ' . " ) . but , ..,'" " .", is a unique coc. struction Mt \l T UP,:' W\I . E l t PWT""" . .. her e , a nd !>r.lo to\l al. a nd ,, ';'\,1 0 ar e techni ca l t erms , together r e fl ecting perhaps t he o ffi cia l l anguage o f t he governor ' s or der : dona vi t cada ver . This would i nd i cat e t r a di t i ona l ma t e ria l . The s t ory i ts e lf i s p l a us i b l e and doe s not seem t o me r it Bul t man n 's judgment a s l egendar y . ~ Al l t he gospel s ind icate t hat Joseph then took down the body of J e sus a nd c ar ried i t away. This does not nec es sit at e t hat Jos eph himsel f a sce nde d the ladder and pu l l ed out t he nail s. The Roman s may have t a ken down t he body fo r him; i n a ny cas e Joseph no doubt had , as a man of a uthority, s erva nt s to hel p him. In teresting i s that Mk . 16: 6 s t a t es, "Se e th e place where they l a i d him ~ (c o nt r a s t Mt. 28:6) . J oseph hi mse lf would probably not have touc hed th e corpse, a s he woul d then have been de f i l ed and co u l d not

i

24Th i s i s r ecogni zed by Ge ra ld O' Col lins , The Ea s t er Jesus , 2d ed . (London: Darton , Longman, & Todd , 1980 ), p . 24.

j

2550 Gr ass, ost er ges c hehen , ~ . 174; Lagr ang e, Mar c, p . 441; Tay l or, Mar k , pp . 600 -01 ; B l ~ n z l e r, "Gr ab l egung ," p.

I

59 .

I

\

I

m have eate n t he Pas sover (Nurn . 19 :11). Simi lar l y, se rvants . could hav e taken ca r e of the buying of the l inen sh r oud in Accor di ng t o John's accoun t , Nicode mu s a ssi sted Jos eph those of one ohn J n i s i t he buria l. Like J os eph, Nicode mus s in among t he autho rities who s eem to be incipi ent bel iever re in Jes us (In . 3:1-1 5; 7 : 50-52) . Joh n reintr oduce s hi m he John f o c ti ris the same way as in c h. 7, wh ich is cha racte that (cf . 11:2; 12 :1; 12 :21; 21:2 , 20) . It mi ght be t hought Nicodemus is an unhi stor ical f igure b ecaus e he d ~ e ~ not ls in appea r i n th e Synop tics; but t here a r e oth er indivi dua John who do not appea r in the Synop tic s, but se em to be noneth eles s histor ical pe rson s . The re is no inhere nt or imposs ibil i t y i n Ni code mus's a iding Jos eph in t he burial in be may which , t s i Chr n ev en in his haVing corne t o laith i the backgr ound h e r e .~ The Burial i n t he Tomb The ma nne r of J esus ' s bur i a l is a matt er of great he contro versy. Though none of t he gospel s men tion it , t (c f . body would norma lly have bee n was hed, as was cus t oma r y fresh n i ty swea nd a Act s 9 : 7), r athe r than wrappe d bloody linen. The waShin g of a corps e prior t o buria l was con s i dered so ne ce s s ar y that i t wa s even allowe d on the it s abbath (Mishn ah Shabba t h 23 .5; B Moe d Qa tan 2ab ). But

i nve nt 26schna cken bur g th i nks that John did not . 's additi on N1cod emus ; but his being at the burial is John 3 vol s. , (Rudol f S chn~ ckenburg, Das Joha nnesev a ngeliu.m,Blinzl er s ta t es 48) 47:3 3 J, 1976 , Herder : g 1bur Fre HTKNT ~ ( buria l ; the in helped ve ha not could t here 1 ~ no r eason he d iscipl e of and it 1S pos si bl e that he was a counci l o r and John A. T. Jes~s (Sl inz l er , -Cr ab l egung , - p . 77 ; so also n: (Londo y Coakle F. J. ed. , ohn J of ty Rob1ns on , The Priori thinks t ha t the SCM , 1?85l , p . 287 ) . Remark ably , Mahone yburi ed J e s us J ohannl ne t r a di t i on was t hat Nicodemus soning is rea his But ). 129-30 . pp es, l Di~cjp , y (Mahone said to be not is oseph J , le examp or l : d rather co nt~ 1ve emus bold in a SK1ng for the body, whil e in In. 7 :50 Nicod spices no brings oseph J that a9ain or ; out speaks boldl y ) , whil e ( but the se are not men~ 1 0 n ed in t he Synopt ic s either to be rich, Ni cod! mus does; or ag a1 n t hat J o seph is not ofsaid s pi ce s . but Nlcode mus ca n af f ord t o buy 100 pounds

II'J

•

I

I)

I I I

be could have be en that time d id not pe rmi t t he corps e to wa shed . The sy noptic s state simply that the bod y wa s ; Mt. 27: 59 . Lk. 23 :53 : ( vnAl", wr apped (Mk . 15 : 46 : ( al.v6..!v ) . John says t hat it was t vtvA,;'aa", ) in a s hroud that bound ( 6l"'l in linen cloths ( 066vl.o ) wi t h the spic e s, i al bur he t i s, the myr r h and a loe s broug ht by Nicodemus , i n custom of the J ews . v undoub ted ly , John g i ves us to h i on unders tand that Jesus was bu ried in t he same t ypi ca l fa~ feet as Laz a r us , who came out of t he tomb wi th his hands a nd d wrappe e fac his bound ( 6l",) with banda ges ( "tI.P,;'o ) and ( 'tPI.6lo\.l'05 ) ar med wi th swords and c lubs , de legated by th e J ewish hierarchy ; bu t he lat er r efer s to t he u l ~ o l l Q ~ (1 4: 65 ) whi ch inc l uded J ewi sh mi l i ta ry po l i ce . J ohn al so s tate s t hat these J ewis h guards were involve d in t he a r r est, but he alone adds t hat a Roman cohor t ( O I( ~ OQ ) a nd i t s commander ( x~ ~~oo x o ~) parti cipat ed act ive ly in t he seiz ure and binding o f J esus (1 8 : 12). Thi s co uld provide s ome pr e ced ent f or furt her invo lvement o f Roman sol diers i n the gua rd at the tOmb . It ne ed not be though t that t he whole cohort (th eo r e t i cal l y 1, 000 men, bu t usually , i n f act , about 600 ) were invol ved in t he arre s t ; a detachme nt large en ough to war ra nt the commander 's pre s en ce may hav e bee n i nvolve d . rear of i nsu rrec t ion during t he Feast days could have prompt ed Roma n i nvol vemen t. The hi storicity of J ohn ' s i nf ormat i on, however, is dispu ted . On th e one hand , there Univers ity, 19661 , p . 17 . This does not commit one t o Johnson 's v i ew t hat th is was an appearance t r ad i t i on .

,

I

! \

,I

I

doe s not s eem t o be any conVi ncing reason why J ohn would cr eat e t he Roman pa rticipa t i on . Indeed, s ince he t end s to exone r ate the Roma ns at th e expe nse of -the J ews, · i t seems l i ke l y t ha t thi s i nformat i on is t r adit i ona l . On t he other hand , su ch pa rt i c ipat ion seems out o f place, f or the J ewi s h leade r s had not yet f r amed a charge against Jesus t o Pi l ate, a nd upon J e sus ' s a r r est t he guards take him, not t o Pi lat e , but to the high pr iest . But In . 18 : 30 might be t a ken as an expr e s sion of su r pris e on t he part of the ch ief priests, i nd i ca ting t hat s ome pr i or und erstand ing witb t be governor had ex isted on wbi ch he va s nov ambi va l ent . And the pr oc eedi ng t o t he high pri est ' s house coul d indicat e that the Jewish leader s we re d irecting the affair, t he Romans mer e l y supply i ng t he muscle . We do not know. Ar r a ngement s cou l d have been s i milar in the s e t t ing o f the gua rd at t he tomb. Matthew a t tribute s its i ns t i ga t i on to t he · c hi ef prie sts and Pharisees · (27 : 62; c f . In . 17: 3) , a t r ad i t i ona l phr as e for him, and ca l l s the guard "so l di e r s " ( OlO ,:n~~ l O~ 28 : 12) rather than u'noLT a~ (cf . 26 : 58 ). However , even if J ohn is accurate conce rn i ng t he Roman involvement i n the a r r e s t , th i s really a f f or d s no g rou nd f or inference co n c ~ rn i ng the i den t i t y of t he gua rd at t he tomb. The i ns tigat i on of the sett ing of t he guard by t he J ewi s h leader s also pr ovi de s no f i ~ c l ue . Matt hew' s use of Ol ~Q l ~ l O ~ is s ignificant , but i t s hou l d be noted t hat 26 :58 i s the on ly p lace i n the gospe l whe r e u l~c l l O~ appears , ' and he r e i t is Marka n (Mk. 14: 54 ) a nd ma y re fe r t o ser van t s a s well a s gua r d s . But in 28 : 12 he is spe ci fica ll y referr ing , pe r haps , t o U . ~O {l O\ , who ar e o1call.(~lo ,. . p i l a t e ' s words i n 27 : 65 may mean the J ews have t he governor 's pe r mi s sion to us e the i r arme d soldie rs at t he tomb . The f ac t t hat the gua r ds ret ur n t o the c hief priests se ems to be evidenc e t ha t a J ewis h gua rd is intended ; co nt r as t t he Gos pe l o f Peter, whe r e t he Roman guard report t o Pilat e t he events a t the tOmb . The mention of the governor in v . 14 might i ndicate a ROMan gua r d , but t hen it wou ld not be cl ear how the Jews

2/f!

211

could do an yt hing to keep t hem out o f troub l e . The fa ct that Roma n guards could be executed f or s l eeping on watch and taking a bribe coul d f urther poi nt t o a Jewis h guard. I n the Gospel of Peter th e br i be a nd t he s l ee pi ng story are el i mi na t ed ; Pilate simply comma nds the Roma n guard to keep s ile nt . The story is perhaps mor e plausible if one a s sume s t ha t t he guard is J ewish ; but Matthew may well be desc ribi ng the setting of a Roman gua rd . So the guard is set and t he s epu lchr e sea l ed. I t has been sa id that Matthew omi t s the a noi nt i ng motif because o f t he guar d a nd t he sealing, ~ but t his surmi se ho lds li ttl e we i ght, fo r the women we r e c learly ignor an t of such act ions ta ken on the s ab bath. Rat her i t could be t hat Matt hew i s fol l owi ng d i ffe rent t r aditions he r e , s ince v . 15 mak e s i t evide nt that the r e i s a t radi t ion hi story behind Matthew's story . ~ Be fo re t he women a r rive, an a ngel of t he Lor d r o l l s back th e ston e , a nd the guard are paralyz ed wit h fea r . I t is oot said t hat the gua r d s ee t he res urrection or even

24Ki r s opp Lake, The Hi st orical Eviden c e for t he Res ur recti on of Jesus (London : Wil liams ' Nor ga te , 1907 ), p . 61; Gr undmann , Ma t t h§us , p. 568 ; Bl inz ler, -Gr ab l egung , - p. 82; Gundry, Matth ew, p . 586 . . 25Evidence of pre - Matthean tradit i on i s a l so fo und 1n the many words which ar e h ~pax l egomena f ~r t he New I . ). Q•", " , MOIiCt 1ol6 t.a • , Testamen t : (. . QUOI-O\! • • ,• • ' .Qp aClM( Ull , . "av o ~ Q CI "Q A ~ ~ loI , C