Bulletin for the Study of Religion

Home About Bulletin Book Reviews Cookie Policy

← Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Casey on Jesus (3) – Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Casey on Jesus (5) – Did Connect with us
The Gospel of Mark’s Missing Ending Jesus consider himself to be “The Son of Man”? → Follow @religionbullet
Me gusta A 2,7 mil personas les
gusta esto. Regístrate
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Casey on Jesus (4) – para ver qué les
gusta a tus amigos.
Inconsistencies and Deliberate Changes in the Gospel Post-
Resurrection Accounts
Posted on April 20, 2011 by Deane Galbraith
None of this would
be possible without
Review of “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?” in the support of Equinox Publishing.
Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Thank y ou.
Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching.
London and New York: T&T Clark (Continuum), Search
2010.
Recent Posts
Study ing Religion in the Age of
Part 4: Inconsistencies and Deliberate Changes in the a ‘White-Lash’
Gospel post-Resurrection Accounts On By zantine Apocry pha and
Erotapokriseis Literature
Discourses of Religion and the
Of all the episodes in the four Gospels which are recorded in Non-Religious/Secular in
parallel, none are more radically at odds than the accounts of Islamic Contexts: Call for
Expressions of Interest
the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. A Review of Emily Ogden’s
Credulity : A Cultural History of
The typical conservative evangelical rejoinder at this point is to argue that each of the four US Mesmerism
Name it and Disclaim it: A Tool
Evangelists recorded different aspects of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, and that for Better Discussion in
they can all be seen to fit together perfectly if we just spend some time considering how Religious Studies
they may be harmonized. Sometimes this argument is accompanied by the analogy of
Recent Comments
independent witnesses at a crime-scene. We would ordinarily expect different witnesses to Karen Zoppa on Study ing
recall different aspects of the whole, to disagree on the minor details, but to be in Religion in the Age of a ‘White-
fundamental agreement about the story as a whole. Lash’
tenzan eaghll on Study ing
Religion in the Age of a ‘White-
However, such arguments are not so much interested in reconstructing what really Lash’
happened, that is, the historical details (if any) of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. Karen Zoppa on Study ing
Religion in the Age of a ‘White-
Rather, they are primarily interested in saving the credibility of the story for believers, Lash’
and a certain type of believer at that. What is more, the harmonizing approach to the Matt Baldwin on So You’re Not
Gospels runs into at least two significant problems. First, and Casey also makes the point a Priest? Scholar Explain What
They Do to Outsiders: Natasha
(p. 464), the resulting harmonization looks nothing like any of the individual accounts. In L. Mikles
order to incorporate the details of each of the different stories, the resulting harmonization Willi Braun on Something I
almost inevitably ends up in tension with the overall picture offered by each individual Learned from J.Z. Smith:
William O’Connor
Gospel. Second, the “independent witness” analogy simply does not apply here, because
none of the Synoptic Gospels are independent from the others; unlike the scenario of Bulletin for the study of
independent witnesses, neither Matthew nor Luke provide a witness which is religion feed
Rock, Rattle, and Roll: Rattling
“independent” of their common source, Mark. According to the most widely accepted Cages and Challenging the
account of the evident literary dependence between the Synoptic Gospels, Mark was the Study of Religion
first Gospel to be written, and it was used extensively as a source by Matthew, and almost On Theory (as Pedagogy ) in a
Time of Excess: Asking
as extensively by Luke. While John records independent traditions, the problem with the Questions in 2017
Fourth Gospel is precisely the opposite: the traditions are so developed and expanded and Philosophy for Religious
bear so little relationship with the traditions in the three Synoptic Gospels that they cannot Studies: An Interview with
Kevin Schilbrack
begin to corroborate the detail in the other Gospels; in fact, it looks as if John did not
On Finding Common Ground: A
even know the other traditions. These points provide caution against the naive, (Very Brief) Reflection on a So
uncritical approach of harmonizing the Gospel accounts. What? Question
Some More Delightful
Iconoclasm: A Response to
Casey makes one further and decisive argument against attempting to harmonize the Andrew Kunze
Gospels: when we compare the parallel accounts in the Gospels, it is clear that Matthew “They Were Talking about
Themselves”: Michael Altman,
and Luke not only produce inconsistent accounts, but they deliberately change what Mark American Hinduism, and
wrote. Critique from the Inside of
Religious Studies
If Discourse Is All There Is: On
One example of these deliberate changes Study ing Religion in the
concerns Mark’s conception that Jesus was going Ancient Context
ahead of the disciples, to meet them in Galilee The Insularity of the Study of
Ancient Religions and
(Mark 14.28; 16.7). For Mark, the first “Religion”
appearance of Jesus was not in Jerusalem,
outside of which Jesus was crucified, but in Archives
August 2018
the region that Jesus commenced his movement:
July 2018
Galilee (p. 461). May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
Matthew agrees with Mark that the post-
February 2018
resurrection appearance of Jesus to his disciples January 2018
was to occur in Galilee (Matthew 28.7; cf. Mark December 2017
November 2017
16.7), and Matthew consequently narrates Jesus’ Maurice Casey: "the Resurrection narratives
October 2017
first appearance to the disciples as occuring in in our Gospels are not reports of real facts"
September 2017
Galilee (28.16-20). Yet in Matthew we August 2017
July 2017
find that two facts have been deliberately June 2017
changed. First, instead of “saying nothing to anyone” (Mark 1.8), Matthew narrates the May 2017
women as leaving Jesus’ tomb with the express intention of telling the disciples what the April 2017
March 2017
angel had commanded them to tell. Secondly, Matthew includes a single post-resurrection
February 2017
appearance of Jesus, in Jerusalem, to the women. In this appearance, Jesus repeats what January 2017
the angel had said to the women, instructing the women to inform his disciples that the December 2016
November 2016
disciples will see him in Galilee. As Casey notes, Matthew inserted this post-resurrection
October 2016
appearance into the narrative received from Mark September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
only so that Jesus could tell them to tell other people to get to Galilee for June 2016
the most important appearance. He was not anticipating the later tradition May 2016
of appearances in Jerusalem. (p. 463) April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
So, as Casey observes, the two earliest Gospels are unanimous in placing the major post- January 2016
resurrection appearance of Jesus, to his disciples, in Galilee. But Luke has deliberately December 2015
November 2015
rewritten the tradition “to put all the appearances in Jerusalem” (p. 463).
October 2015
September 2015
In Luke’s account, Jesus no longer goes ahead of the disciples to Galilee in order to appear August 2015
July 2015
to them there. Instead, Jesus appears to the disciples in Jerusalem. Casey carefully
June 2015
explains how Luke has deliberately changed the Markan tradition in order to effect this May 2015
change of locations. Whereas the angel in Mark April 2015
March 2015
says to the women at the tomb, February 2015
January 2015
But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; December 2014
November 2014
there you will see him, just as he told you
October 2014
(Mark 16.7), September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
the angel in Luke, at precisely the same point of
June 2014
his address to the women at the tomb, says, May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
Remember how he [Jesus] told you, while February 2014
he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man Maurice Casey: Luke has deliberately January 2014
must be handed over to sinners, and be rewritten the Galilean post-resurrection December 2013
appearances "to put all the appearances in November 2013
crucified, and on the third day rise again Jerusalem" October 2013
 (Luke 24.6-7). September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
Luke has deliberately changed the significance of “Galilee” in the angel’s speech June 2013
about Jesus’ earlier prediction of his death! In Mark, the point of Jesus’ mention of May 2013
April 2013
“Galilee”, according to the angel, is to let the disciples know where they should meet him
March 2013
after the resurrection. But in Luke, by contrast, the angel only mentions “Galilee” as the February 2013
location at which Jesus’ made the prediction of his death. While Luke has retained Mark’s January 2013
December 2012
mention of Galilee, he has changed it to prepare for his subsequent narrative, in which
November 2012
Jesus innovatively appears to his disciples in Jerusalem, not in Galilee! Therefore, between October 2012
the writing of Mark and Luke, a whole series of post-resurrection appearances have been September 2012
August 2012
created which centre on Jerusalem, rather than at Galilee (as in the earliest tradition). As
July 2012
Casey notes, Matthew may have been aware of a tradition of appearances at June 2012
Jerusalem when he created an appearance of Jesus there to the women. But Matthew May 2012
April 2012
reserved the major post-resurrection appearance of Jesus, that is, to the disciples, to
March 2012
Galilee. As Casey summarises, with Luke, we have the “deliberate replacement of one February 2012
tradition with another” (p. 463). Not only that, but Luke proceeds to narrate every one of January 2012
December 2011
the appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem, followed by Jesus’ ascension to Heaven (Jesus’
November 2011
“resurrection-after-resurrection-after-death”). As Casey notes, this leaves “no room for October 2011
any appearance in Galilee” (p. 463). Luke has deliberately changed the narrative of post- September 2011
August 2011
resurrection appearances in his major source, Mark, and he does this so as to include a
July 2011
series of traditions in which Jesus appears to the women and to his disciples in Jerusalem June 2011
rather than Galilee (p. 464). The stories of post-resurrection appearances in Luke are May 2011
April 2011
creative inventions which have little to do with the earlier tradition (noted in Mark,
March 2011
recorded in Matthew), in which Jesus’ disciples first imagine they have seen Jesus at some February 2011
stage after fleeing Jerusalem and returning to their homes in Galilee. January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
Luke rewrote the early tradition of appearances in Galilee, and replaced it October 2010
with his own tradition of appearances in Jerusalem… Consequently, we September 2010
August 2010
cannot expect much early history in Luke’s tradition of appearances. (p.
481) Categories
"Gender" in/and the Study of
Religion
Apart from the location, the stories in Matthew and Luke do not contradict
A.T. Coates
each other so much as give an impression of total disassociation, as if Academy
neither of them knew the traditions to which the other had access (apart Adam Miller
Aly ssa Beall
from the story of the empty tomb, which both of them took from Mark. (p.
Andrea R. Jain
463) Announcements
Ben Brazil
Better Know a Blog
The question remains: why was Luke determined to deliberately change the Galilee
Book Reviews
appearances to Jerusalem appearances? One probable reason is that Luke had uncovered BookNotes
many of these stories about Jesus’ appearances in Jerusalem, during his “careful Brad Stoddard
Buddhist Studies
investigations” (Luke 1.3). That is, Luke encountered the testimonies of certain Christian
Bulletin Book Reviews
faithful who claimed that they had personally “witnessed” (Luke 1.2) the resurrected Jesus Call for papers
in visions, and Luke then assessed which of these accounts were true and real, and his Carl Stoneham
Cathy Gutierrez
assessment resulted in”eyewitness” stories we now have recorded in Luke’s Gospel. For if
Charles McCrary
Luke’s reference to “careful investigations” of the reports of “eyewitnesses” means Conference Notes
anything, it probably does not refer to his copying of two-thirds of Mark, a Gospel not Craig Martin
Critical Questions Series
claimed to be written by an eyewitness, and indeed already forming a secondary stage of
Deane Galbraith
the transmission of the tradition. It may possibly refer to some of the oral or written Deeksha Sivakumar
material shared with Matthew and not Mark (i.e. Q), if these traditions were associated Dennis LoRusso
Donovan Schaefer
with eyewitnesses, and some of the special Lukan material – but in most cases we would
Editorial
have no way of telling which of these sources might be considered to derive from Emily Bailey
“eyewitnesses”. However, Luke’s “careful investigations” of traditions attributed to Eoin O'Mahony
Film Reviews
eyewitnesses must at minimum refer to his recording of post-resurrection sightings
Gregory L. Reece
experienced by Christians. For in these post-resurrection visions we certainly have Guest Contributor
something that Luke would have considered to be a true and first-hand eyewitness Housekeeping
Humor
tradition.
Ian Brown
If I Only Knew Then … Tenured
For as shown in the historical works of Josephus, our only other extant example of first- Scholars on Professionalization
Interviews
century Jewish-Greek “historiography”, vision reports were widely accepted as a
Ipsita Chatterjea
legitimate historical source. As Robert Gnuse explains (in Dreams and Dream Reports in Jack Tsonis
James Dennis LoRusso
the Writings of Josephus, 1996), Josephus considered that by virtue of the revelations that
Joseph Lay cock
he received in dreams, he was also a prophet, and treated his revelatory experiences on a Justin Stein
par with other historical sources. Josephus believed that “the best historians were the Karen de Vries
Kate Daley -Bailey
prophets who interpreted events under divine inspiration” (Gnuse, p. 23), and also
Kelly J. Baker
believed that he was creating an “inspired” historiography based on his own revelatory Kenneth G. MacKendrick
experiences. This only goes to show us how different Luke’s historiographical criteria Kenny Paul Smith
Lay ing it All Out: On Moving
would have been from our own modern standards. Richard Bauckham then (in Jesus and
from Dissertation to Book Series
the Eyewitnesses, 2006) only tells half the story when he tries to argue that some of Life After Religious Studies
Luke’s traditions go back to traditions of eyewitnesses. Sure some of them probably do go Matt Sheedy
Michael Graziano
back to eyewitnesses – but at least some of this “eyewitnessing” was “seen” during a
NAASR Notes
visionary experience that had nothing to do with reality! Natasha Mikles
Nathan Rein
Open Submission
Casey provides a further reason for Luke’s transference of Jesus’ post-resurrection
Pedagogy
appearances from Galilee to Jerusalem. In Luke 24.46-49, Jesus designates Jerusalem as Philip L. Tite
the centre and sending-point of the Gentile Mission (p. 463), a designation unique to Picture Book
Politics and Religion
Luke’s Gospel and revealing Luke’s special interest in Jerusaelm. Therefore, by assigning
Reflections on Islamic Studies
all of Jesus’ appearances to Jerusalem, he heightens his idealization of Jerusalem as the Religion and Popular Culture
hub of the Christian movement. When we turn to John’s post-resurrection Religion and Society
Religion and Theory
appearances, Casey makes the interesting observation that John is written “as if its
Religion in the News
authors did not know the tradition of Galilean appearances” (p. 464). That is, by the time Religion Snapshots
that John was written, Jerusalem was simply accepted as the location of Jesus’ post- Ruminations
Scholarship on the Road
resurrection appearances, and – in contrast to Luke – John does not narrate the
Sean McCloud
appearances as though he is deliberately excluding the Galilean tradition. Even when Sexuality and Gender
Galilean appearances are included in John 21 (possibly a redacted appendix to the book), South Asian Studies
Southeast Asian Studies
they barely overlap with the earlier Galilean tradition found in Matthew (p. 464).
Stacie Swain
Steven Ramey
As Casey summarizes: Summar Shoaib
Suzanne Degnats
Suzanne Owen
It has become clear from scholarly analysis that the Resurrection Tenzan Eaghll
narratives in our Gospels are not reports of real facts (p. 461). Theory & Religion Series
Theory and Method
Theory in the Real World
Casey’s astute analysis demonstrates that the post-resurrection traditions were still Theses on Professionalization
developing some time after Jesus’ death, as a result of new visionary experiences and the Tim Morgan
Tim Murphy
different interests of later Gospel authors. The Gospels, far from constituting a harmony of
Travis Cooper
different aspects of the appearances of Jesus, should be understood as deliberately Uncategorized
contradicting each other.
Meta
Log in
Next part: (5) Did Jesus consider himself to be “The Son of Man”? Entries RSS
Previous part: (3) The Gospel of Mark’s Missing Ending Comments RSS
WordPress.org

Share this: Tag Cloud

AAR Aaron Hughes affect
  
American
theory
Academy of Religion
This entry was posted in Book Reviews and tagged angel, contradictions, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, Galilee, american religion and Pedagogy
inconsistencies, Jerusalem, Jesus of Nazareth, Maurice Casey, post-resurrection appearances, resurrection. Atheism Belief Bruce Lincoln
Bookmark the permalink. Bulletin for the
← Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Casey on Jesus (3) – Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Casey on Jesus (5) – Did
Study of Religion
The Gospel of Mark’s Missing Ending Jesus consider himself to be “The Son of Man”? →
Christianity Craig Martin
Donald Trump Emile Durkheim
Hinduism Islam
Islamophobia J.Z. Smith
Leave a Reply Jacques Derrida Jesus Karl Marx
Matt Sheedy Max Weber Michel
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Foucault Mircea Eliade
NAASR North American
Comment Association for the Study of
Religion pedagogy Pierre
Bourdieu politics Practicum:
Critical Theory
Religion
 religious studies
Richard Dawkins ritual
Russell
McCutcheon SBL
scholarship
secularism Sociology of
Religion So You're Not a Priest?
Scholars Explain What They Do to
Outsiders Stev en Ramey Talal
Asad teaching world religions
Name *

Email *

Website

Post Comment

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Bulletin for the Study of Religion Proudly powered by WordPress.

We may use cookies to collect information about y our computer, including where available y our IP address, operating sy stem and browser ty pe, for sy stem
administration and to report aggregate information for our internal use. Find out more. I Agree