The accounts of the Resurrection in the Gospels
From the discovery of the empty tomb three days after Jesus' crucifixion, to the apparitions before the Apostles, to the accounts of other witnesses, what do the Gospels have to say about the Resurrection?
Why do the Gospels present different accounts of the Resurrection?
"The Resurrection narratives are the least harmonized of all the Gospels," says the Dominican Renaud Silly. It makes little sense to consult a synopsis, a book that presents the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew not in sequence but in parallel, comparing their accounts of the same event. How is it possible to explain why there are so many different accounts of the Resurrection, the most crucial episode of the New Testament? On the one hand, "these extracts are undoubtedly the rawest, the least retouched and the oldest," explains Renaud Silly. On the other hand, "while Christ's public life took place in front of crowds, the accounts of the Resurrection have a private, almost intimate character that the evangelists did not hide," he adds.
The differences between the texts generally stem from the different perspectives of the authors, based on their identity and the communities they address. They emphasize different appearances, even though the Gospels refer to each other internally - Mark, for example, mentions the appearance to the pilgrims on the road to Emmaus that Luke recounts. "When the event is reported in very different versions, it's actually a good sign," asserts Renaud Silly. "A historical fact is better attested when it is corroborated by independent witnesses who do not tell the exact same story.
Why do the disciples of Jesus have difficulty recognizing the Risen One?
Like the pilgrims on the road Emmaus, the disciples do not immediately recognize Jesus: "Their eyes were prevented from recognizing him," says the Evangelist (Luke 24:16). A first reason for this blindness is historical: "We had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel," the two pilgrims confide on the way (Luke 24:21). The resurrection of Jesus overturns their expectations and marks the beginning of "a transitional period until the messianic kingdom, which the Apocalypse seeks to postpone until the end of time," explains Renaud Silly. In Mark's Gospel, after the Transfiguration, the disciples "questioned among themselves what rising from the dead meant" (Mark 9:10). For many Jews of that era, who expected a general resurrection of all the elects, this idea was indeed strange - some of them, the Sadducees, did not even believe in the resurrection of the dead.
There is also a more theological reason for the difficulty of Jesus' disciples to recognize him: the resurrection is more than a simple reanimation of the body, as in the case of Lazarus. Daniel Marguerat, Swiss exegete and biblical scholar, explains that "the Resurrection introduces a different order of reality" whilst "there is an identity between the one who died on the cross and the risen one." This ambiguity refers to what theology calls the "glorified body": at the end of time, every saved person will rise in their own flesh, which will also be transfigured in glory. As Paul explains, "What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable" (1 Corinthians 15:42-44).
Are the resurrection Gospels just conversion stories, or are they also reliable historical testimonies?
Paul, at the beginning of his First Letter to the Corinthians, clearly states the stakes: "if Christ has not been raised, then empty is our preaching; empty, too, your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14). To strengthen the credibility of this event, he refers a few lines earlier to "a multitude of appearances" (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). But what is the value of the testimonies of these apparitions? "The Easter events are visionary experiences, fundamentally subjective," explains Daniel Marguerat. However, the narratives testify that the disciples were transformed by a revelation. "This is not a hallucination, but an unexplained intervention," he specifies. "The theologian says that this revelation comes from God; the historian simply observes the transformation of the witnesses. He can then come up with another explanation, which the evangelists do no provide."
Luke is the one who is most eager to show that Jesus is not a mere ghost: following his project as a historian, he attempts to convince of the credibility of the resurrection. In the third and last apparition he reports, the disciples are invited to touch Christ, who thus offers a kind of verification of the reality of his resurrected body - "a spirit does not have flesh and bones," he tells them.
What does the "empty tomb" prove? Can one believe in the Resurrection without having seen the Risen One?
"He saw and believed" (John 20:8): the Gospel of John's account is succinct about the beloved disciple, who first notes that the tomb is empty. This sign should be enough to enter into the understanding of faith and to believe. But while the empty tomb establishes the possibility of the resurrection, it is not a visible proof. If the beloved disciple does not need the appearances of Christ, it is because the most important thing is what is not seen. In the Gospel of Mark, there is no appearance of the Risen One, except at the end, which is a later addition (Mark 16:9-20).
The authentic ending abruptly terminates with the fear of the women (16:8), which is a real challenge for the reader. The evangelist invites us to believe the word of the angel: "He (Jesus) is going ahead of you to Galilee"; that should be enough. While the other Gospels report many apparitions, those who benefit from them are invited not to stop at what is seen: "Each time, the real experience is subsumed in a spiritual experience and allows for an act of faith," summarizes Renaud Silly. "Sensory vision is not enough, but signs lead to an understanding of the resurrection."