Even at a cursory reading of the New Testament, it appears quite clearly that the events of the Passion of Jesus are almost identical in the four canonical Gospels — more specifically, each Gospel after Mark adds meaningful details to the same plot. The stories of the Resurrection of Jesus, instead, differ quite dramatically from each other.
Were the women who went to Jesus’ tomb early in the morning one, two, or three? Did they meet one or two angels? Did they speak with the angels or with Jesus himself? Did they run away in shock and not talk to anybody, or did they run to the male disciples to announce the good news of the Resurrection to them? Did Jesus appear first to Peter or to Mary Magdalene? (The last question having weighty implications in the post-Easter church about who holds authority).
Modern commentators have sometimes taken the discrepancies in the stories of the Resurrection of Jesus as the primary indication that the event itself is not credible. Other interpreters underline that if the disciples of Jesus wanted to concoct a fake story, they could have stuck to a much more consistent one. But they did not. Why?
Moreover, it is remarkable that the rumors insinuating that the body of Jesus was displaced — for example, that the disciples had stolen it to be able to say that he rose from the dead — are very well represented in the New Testament itself (Matthew 27:62f., 28:11f., and John 20,15). These rumors were not erased from the sacred texts, but somehow dealt with, implying at the very least that the modern projection of powerful church authorities able to hide truths and manipulate documents is, indeed, a modern fantasy.
My take on all of this is the following. Tragic events tend to stick in memory with uncanny precision. People are able to recount the last hours of a dear person down to the tiniest moment. In my Mediterranean culture, at least, you might hear for a long time the tale of someone’s last day(s). Grief does not want to let go.
Shocking, unexpected, life-altering events, but of a good kind, are instead always described differently by different people. Memories, in this case, seem to differ almost by design. Yet all these different versions are true to the speakers; there is rarely any intention of deception.
So it seems perfectly natural to me that the Gospel of Mark retells the fear of the women at the tomb, the Gospel of Matthew remembers that they saw Jesus who spoke to them, and the Gospel of Luke is convinced they were full of joyful astonishment. Besides, these and other Resurrection stories were also consistent with the particular theological and spiritual message embodied by each writing. Mark is the gospel of existential anguish, Matthew the gospel of Jesus talking and teaching, Luke the gospel of joy.
The first fundamental lesson to learn from a basic survey of the Resurrection stories of Jesus is perhaps that we need to be cautious in projecting our modern questions and fantasies onto these texts, and that to give them at least some credit does not mean to buy into any dogmatic system.
I am always surprised when I read or hear debates about the “bodily resurrection” of Jesus — for example — which take for granted a modern understanding of the body, of resurrection, and of church dogmas as well. Even though we cannot become contemporaries of the first followers of Jesus, we should at least try to use our brains and the available knowledge on their age and their writings, which is now conspicuous.
Yet contemporary church-goers as well as unchurched and atheists seem to agree by and large that one can debate religious and spiritual issues putting aside knowledge. Yet another sad example of the dominance of anti-intellectualism, if you ask me.
Banner Image: “He Is Not Here, He Is Risen As He Said.” Tiled panels from the church of St Paul in Knightsbridge, London. Photo by Fr. Lawrence Lew on Flickr.
Queries for Contemplation
Do you have examples of a spiritual issue that was resolved, or changed its appearance entirely, after you were enlightened about some aspects of it? Do knowledge and study contribute?
Related Readings by Matthew Fox
Charles Burack, ed., Matthew Fox: Essential Writings on Creation Spirituality
Sheer Joy: Conversations with Thomas Aquinas on Creation Spirituality
The Tao of Thomas Aquinas: Fierce Wisdom for Hard Times
Wrestling with the Prophets: Essays on Creation Spirituality and Everyday Life
Natural Grace: Dialogues on creation, darkness, and the soul in spirituality and science
A Spirituality Named Compassion: Uniting Mystical Awareness with Social Justice
3 thoughts on “Lessons from the Stories of the Resurrection of Jesus, part 1”
Faith in the Living Loving Wisdom Creative Spirit of Christ~Sophia within and among Us in all physical/nonphysical spiritual dimensions of Our sacred and evolving Co-Creation Cosmos in Loving Diverse Oneness….
Yes, my knowledge of the entire Bible was changed by my experience of “Enlightenment” in the “Mystical Experience” which I had when I was about 20, and which I gradually learned about, starting a few years later. My understanding of the entire religion, and my reading of the Bible, began to radically shift.
After I had it, I read about this same Mystical Experience happening in the original Jewish Bible (especially in the First Creation of Genesis 1 and in Moses’s Revelation); in Jesus’s Gospels and especially in John’s magnificent preface; in some of the Gnostic sects; in the Eastern Christian Church; in Meister Eckhart and John of the Cross (among others); in the Sufi branch of Muslims; in the ancient Upanishads and in several of the Hindu sects.
The beliefs around it (after it) were/are slightly different, and thus religions are different (for both this and other reasons), but the basic, core beliefs and the Experience itself are the SAME.
It is this ONE which is at the core of the Mystical Divine Experience. All other facets of existence flow out of this. There are many divine encounters, but they all are “experiences/perceptions” that flow FROM the ONE Divine (and THROUGH the ONE Logos/Christ). This has been attested to by mystics through the ages. THIS has been the core of our Religion.
And this is what I believe.
Such an interesting question. It is the substance of my play, “Discovery.” As the play is in the running for a September production, after reading your essay this morning, I wrote the following. When I post it, I’m going to include a link to today’s meditation.
On the surface “Discovery” is a play about an ancient manuscript—its discovery, restoration, publication, and repercussions. On a deeper level, it is about faith: in institutions, religion, science, politics, even our relationships. What do we do when new information comes to light? Do we reject it out of hand or grapple with it, possibly incorporating it into what we believe? What if the new information is true? What if it is not? How much do we doubt ourselves and our own beliefs?
The four canonical gospels differ on a number of details. Did Judas Iscariot hang himself or fall to his death in Potter’s Field? After his resurrection, did Jesus appear first to Mary Magdalene or to Peter? The gospels report different details. Why did the early church fathers allow these discrepancies to see the light of day when they chose four gospels to include in the Christian Bible? Do the details matter or do the very discrepancies allow us to search for the deeper meaning of Christ’s life? Finally, what do we do with the other thirty or so gospels written in the first and second century but excluded from the canon?