I'm afraid it's not going to be possible to get too much to the positions of contemporary theologians on these issues, because in order to do that with any justice to the complexity of their position, there would have to be something said about the background of the individual, not the personal background, but the theological background of their Christologies. Instead, I'd like to finish off by looking at another portion of the New Testament with regard to the resurrection, material which would be in the background of any type of presentation of contemporary authors on the subject anyway. I mentioned at the beginning that the material in the New Testament on the resurrection is not confined to the narratives of the finding of the empty tomb and the appearance stories and the Gospels, but that it also takes another form, which is not the form of narrative or story, but rather the form of comparatively brief formulas, sometimes hymns,

[01:02]

sometimes acclamations, sometimes what seem to be catechetical formulas that are found scattered through the New Testament but are particularly common in the Pauline epistles. We have a few examples of them relative to the resurrection, even in the Gospels. We saw, for example, in the Emmaus story in Luke, that the disciples in Jerusalem say to the returning disciples, the Lord is truly risen and has appeared to Simon. That's one example of a brief formula embedded in a larger story. There may be another example in Mary Magdalene in the 20th chapter of John's Gospel, where she says to the larger group of disciples, I have seen the Lord. A brief statement here embedded in a larger text, but the type of statement which can be pulled out and used independently, much as we use short formulas in Well, the antiphons, particularly liturgically, tend to be that type of material, or at least that type of material lends itself to that use.

[02:11]

Of the various texts in the Pauline material, Not all are concerned directly with the resurrection, but they tend to be more concerned with death and resurrection than with anything else. An example of a hymn is the famous hymn in the second chapter of Philippians about Christ emptying himself and becoming man. That's a hymn that doesn't use the word resurrection, but rather speaks simply of exaltation. humbled himself even to death on the cross, therefore God has exalted him and given him the name that is above every name. In that type of context, of course, the word exaltation includes what we envision under resurrection as well. The one text in Paul that is of particular importance in the discussion, in all the contemporary discussion of the resurrection, is found in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. It's the text that we looked at briefly before, but here I'd like to say just a couple of additional words about it because of its importance.

[03:22]

Why is it, before we even come to the text itself, why is it that so much attention is directed here and not to other parts of the New Testament? Well, first of all, It's partly the age of the written documents as we have them. First Corinthians is older in written form than the Gospels, probably written about the year 55 or something like that. It's hard to pinpoint it exactly, but it's probably in the mid-50s. That puts us 15 years or so ahead of the Gospel of Mark and even more ahead of the other Gospels. So if we're looking for older material on the resurrection, there's a better chance of getting it by going to Paul rather than by going to the somewhat later, more developed gospel tradition. Secondly, however, we noticed in the gospels, particularly with regard to the resurrection appearances, a great deal of variety, which makes it practically impossible to distill out of those texts a unified account.

[04:28]

And that means that as far as theological interpretation of the resurrection is concerned, the gospel stories are extremely useful because they illustrate one facet or another of the meaning of the resurrection. But they're not as helpful with regard to historical questioning in an effort to try to determine more precisely what happened when and where. That leads some authors who are interested in that type of question to look to the Pauline material, partly because it's older in itself. but also because this particular piece of Paul's writings explicitly presents itself as material that's still older, that Paul himself received and has passed on. So if we just take the text as Paul presents it, it's given to us as something that goes back perhaps even into the 40s or so, maybe even into the late 30s, into a period fairly close to the time of the events that are being discussed.

[05:29]

Let me read the passage and then make a few comments on the most significant parts of it. This particular formula remains brief, but it's not quite as brief as some of the others. It's somewhat more developed than many of the others. Paul says, For I deliver to you as of first importance what I also received. That's the indication of the background. It's not the first time he's told the Corinthians, but it's also not his formulation. It's something that he received presumably soon after his conversion. That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Kephas then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at once, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

[06:36]

Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." And then he goes on to discuss further his own standing as an apostle. Now, you'll notice in a text like that that Paul feels free to adapt certain parts of the text for his own purposes. Obviously, the part about the appearance to Paul himself, that's not something that he received from anybody else. So to the comment about more than 500 brethren, whether they're still alive or not, that's the type of comment that has to be brought up to date as time goes on. But the core of the text, the central part of the text, is something that Paul was given And then he then uses—here he's using it in a particular theological argumentation—but he uses in general in his preaching, and he also uses to classify his own experience as being on a par with the experience that are mentioned in the text.

[07:38]

It comes a little bit later, but according to Paul, at least, it's the same sort of thing. Whether Peter would have thought it was the same sort of thing or not, that may be another question. But certainly from Paul's point of view, he comes into the same category. Now, there are some parts of the text that take a little bit more comment than others. We've already mentioned the theme of Christ dying for our sins according to the scriptures. The burial is just mentioned briefly here, but it's still considered important enough to get mentioned in the formula. There is no reference to who conducted the burial. The agents of the burial are not discussed. This isn't that type of narrative text. There's also no reference to the finding of the empty grave. That's lacking in Paul. That's something we just have from the Gospels and from the other parts of the New Testament. Then he comes to the resurrection part itself, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.

[08:44]

That takes just a word or two of comment here. You remember the other day when we were speaking about this text in conjunction with the crucifixion material, I mentioned that there were two different possibilities of interpretation as far as the crucifixion passage, the death passage is concerned. We take died for us and died according to the scriptures either as two distinct comments on Christ's death. or as one unified comment, and it's hard to judge between the two because the formula is so compressed that it's difficult to unpack it.

[09:49]

Here the same question comes up. Why the reference to the third day? Why the reference according to the scriptures? The according to the scriptures part is strictly parallel to the previous according to the scriptures. The on the third day is parallel to for our sins. And that has led some authors, the man who has pursued this most thoroughly, actually, is a German theologian named Karl Lehmann, who is now the Bishop of Mainz. This was done in his dissertation some years ago. These authors have argued that this phrase here, on the third day, is not meant chronologically. that it looks like an indication of time, but it's not an indication of time. Notice that what Paul says, in this case what he says in repeating a formula he's received, what he dates on the third day is not the finding of the empty tomb.

[10:53]

He's not talking about that. Nor is it the first of the appearances. Those are the things that take place on the third day in the Gospels. What Paul relates to the third day is the resurrection itself. And these authors argue that the third day is meant as a qualitative statement at the last minute, at the moment of decisive divine action, Christ was raised from the dead. that this statement is not a dating of the resurrection, but rather indication of its importance as God's action on behalf of the crucified Jesus. Now, there's one passage in the Old Testament that may have a particular bearing on this

[11:54]

It's taken from the book of Hosea, chapter six. Let me read it. The application to this passage is uncertain, but at least it's a possibility. The text in Hosea says this, come let us return to the Lord, For he has torn that he may heal us, he has stricken and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will raise us up that we may live before him. Now the reference there is to Israel. It's not resurrection in the same sense that we're speaking of resurrection here. But it's still the use of the term on the third day as the moment when God acts here on behalf of Israel, here on behalf of Christ. That's at least a possible

[13:03]

interpretation of this material. There are some other biblical texts that might also play a role, but they're not as directly tied into it as this one. The greatest difficulty in making a connection between this passage and Hosea chapter 6 is that while there are lots of Old Testament texts that the New Testament directly cites to present Christ. This text isn't one of them. And so it's not clear, despite the similarities, that this is exactly what was in Mark. Then we come to the last part of the material, the part that was of particular interest, it seems, to Paul in this context, because it's what he's developed further, that he appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve, then as followed by the various listing, the more than 500, James, all the Apostles, and Paul.

[14:27]

Now, A couple of things about this part of the passage are important. First, there is a deliberate attempt reflected in the text to put these things in sequence. You get to Kaphos, then to the Twelve, after that. There's a deliberate organizing of things in this fashion. Paul, of course, has to come at the end. You'll notice that there are certain elements to this mentioning of appearances, not a description of the appearances, just a statement of appearances that are not reflected in the Gospels. The Gospels don't have an appearance to James. That's presumably the brother of the Lord who figures prominently in the early stages of the church, but the Gospels don't have any account of a separate appearance of that sort. The Gospels mention but don't give a story of the appearance to Peter.

[15:33]

Now, the other thing that is interesting here on that point is that the appearances to the Twelve and the appearances to all the Apostles don't seem to be the same thing. The Twelve are a fixed group. The Apostles are also a fixed group. We don't seem to be at a point here where those two terms are pretty much synonymous. Two other observations with regard to that. One is simply reinforcing of the idea that Paul gets this formula from someone else. Paul himself is not included in the appearance to all the apostles. But Paul is the first one to tell people that you don't have all the apostles until he is in the picture as well. This is the way others formulate it, and Paul takes it over here in faithfulness to the tradition that he has received. But he's engaged in a lot of Corinthians actually in an argumentation that he too is one of the apostles, even though he's not part of those who see the Lord in this group vision.

[16:48]

The second point, going backwards on this, notice the reference to the appearance to the 12. Generally, when we saw that discussed in the Gospel, you can think of the appearances in Jerusalem particularly, Luke, and the reference in Matthew, in Matthew's final scene. The reference there is not to the 12, but to the 11. Because, of course, there aren't twelve of them at this point. Judas is gone. Matthias has not yet been drawn into the picture. Why is it that the text here speaks of the twelve? Well, the answer seems to be that the twelve is something of an office, a collegial body, which can be referred to by that designation even if it's not complete, that this is the title for a group.

[17:59]

And so they're the twelve, almost with a capital T, even if there are only eleven of them. There are some other examples. I can't cite the exact text, but there are some similar examples in ancient Greek history. There's a group that I think was the group of the 30. I might be wrong in the number. One of the Greek historians tells of the group being involved in a battle. A half a dozen of them got killed, and then it says, when the battle was over, the 30 gathered again to deliberate what should be done next. Well, the theme is not at all one of resurrection of those who have been killed. It's that the group still operates under that designation, even when the full complement is not present. And 12, of course, is a highly significant symbolic number in the Jewish context. That's right, there are 57, no matter what you deal with.

[19:04]

And you can't add a 58 without damaging somehow the imagery. Well, we have it—the difference in Congress, you can think of it that way, but the difference in Congress is that our principle is that when we get a new state, we get two more senators, so that the number has fluctuated in that sense from time to time. But that's the idea behind it. The important thing, of course, here is that while with a body like Congress, the number is somewhat arbitrary. It's what's worked out at a certain time and then becomes fixed. Here, the notion of twelve has its connotations of the twelve tribes of Israel. It's long since ceased to be an arbitrary number. It's symbolic. When Jesus chooses an inner group of 12 in the first place, it's not as if he could have chosen an inner group of 11 or 9 and done the same thing. If you're going to do it, if you're going to do it with the impact that it's intended to have, this is the number you have to choose. You might in some context get away with 7, I suppose, but it's got to be a number that has some meaning to it.

[20:11]

Those are the more outside parts of the formula. How does this help us with regard to the appearance material? The word that's important here is the word that is translated appeared. There are different translations in different places. Appeared is the translation here used in the RSV. Was seen by is sometimes used as a translation. The Greek word here is ofte, and I mention it here in this formulation because some authors have argued that this precise form of the word is very significant. The basic idea behind it is one of seeing, in this case, seeing of Christ.

[21:16]

The formulation suggests a certain initiative on the part of Christ, to let himself be seen by. The accent is on, grammatically, the subject who who shows himself to these people, and of course it's clear from the listing he shows himself to these people and not to others. It's a select group, even though here it's a group of, say, five or six hundred people altogether. The question that comes up then is just how to interpret this reference to seeing, this goes back to Nathan's question earlier this afternoon with regard to one specific text. The most common interpretation is to speak of this seeing in a rather direct visual sense. That's the position that you'll find with some qualifications, for example, in O'Collins, in Cospe.

[22:24]

Qualifications are always that this is, in some sense, a special kind of seeing. It has to be some special kind of seeing. To go back to some of the gospel descriptions, there is no ordinary way of seeing someone walk through a wall. There is something distinctive about this. Still, most authors emphasize the visual dimension speak in terms of an eschatological vision, a seeing of Christ, in this case, in his risen glory. The difficulty that is always faced then comes in the effort to be more specific about just what was seen. Paul doesn't tell us. We can try to go to the Gospels for further information, but there again we come to the fact that the Gospels use different imagery to different purposes in their retelling of the story.

[23:27]

That has led some authors to suggest a somewhat different background to the use of this word. The background here comes from the Old Testament, initially. This particular form of the Greek word is used frequently in the Greek translation of the Old Testament for theophanies. This is the word that's used to say, God was seen by Abraham, or God was seen by Moses. The examples are very common. In Genesis and Exodus, you can think of the various stories that are presented there. Let me just give a couple of references. Genesis chapter 12, verse 7.

[24:34]

Chapter 17, verse 1. Chapter 18, verse 1. chapter 4, verse 1, chapter 6, verse 3. But the examples are quite common. The same word, ofte, is used a total of 17 times in the New Testament, including the references here. It's used several times by Paul in this context. And all of the New Testament references are to some type of heavenly vision. This particular form is never used in the New Testament to say that Jesus saw the Pharisees or the Pharisees saw Jesus or something of that sort. It's either this type of resurrection material or it's the sign that's seen in the heavens in the apocalypse, Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration, something of that sort, which is quite out of the ordinary.

[25:39]

And authors who draw attention to this part of the background tend to move somewhat away from the literal understanding of the word see. Partly because, of course, in the Old Testament, speaking of the appearances of God to these people, it's necessary to move a bit away from the literal understanding of that. These authors tend to argue that ofte is revelation terminology and doesn't tell us all that much about the manner of revelation. It speaks of revelation, asserts the revelation. It draws attention also to the importance of the privileged witnesses whose names are mentioned. But it may not yield that much information about the way in which revelation took place.

[26:42]

Here I just give you one example. I do with a little hesitation because it's dangerous to take modern examples and use them with reference to ancient texts like this. But let me take two examples, one with regard. Well, let's stick to this. Let me take an example that applies specifically to this vocabulary. Think of how we use the word see. We say we saw someone outside the chapel. We haven't seen someone for a long time. We also say we saw the point of something. We speak of having an insight into something. We say that I don't see it, meaning I don't understand. what's going on. The visual imagery is something that in our own language we use with a great deal of flexibility and with the presumption that we will not be misunderstood.

[27:52]

Now, as I say, you can't go from 20th century English vocabulary to 1st century Greek vocabulary without a lot of dangers being present. But the possibility that a word like this is intended to suggest revelation should at least also be taken, revelation without greater specification should also be taken into consideration. I note in this regard that while Paul speaks elsewhere of having seen the Lord and speaks also of God having revealed his son to him, Paul does not use this precise term to describe his own experience elsewhere. It seems that the reason he uses it in this context is the term that's given by the text that he's associating his own thought with. So that's the last, briefly, of the major New Testament text with regard to the resurrection.

[29:01]

Two divergent lines of interpretation on this last point, one emphasizing the theme of seeing but without being completely precise about the nature of that seeing, sometimes saying we can't know, sometimes simply being rather vague in the formulation. The other, interpreting this text as a revelation formula which, among other things, is intended to accent the position of the witnesses. not intended to provide that much information about the nature of the event. I think to go back to the question that came up this morning, it's clear that those who are in the first category emphasizing the seeing are people who then in their own theological thought tend to emphasize the difference between the situation of the first Christians and the situation that we're in. Those who accent the theme of revelation, the God-given recognition of who Christ really is, would tend to bring the two more closely together.

[30:08]

Yes? for I deliver to you as a first importance what I also receive, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. And you also said that one of the earliest documents was this. This text. So what scriptures would you be referring to if this pre-existed gospel message by several decades? Old Testament. Basically the Old Testament. It seems to be... There are two possibilities, and I don't think you can absolutely decide one way or the other. It may be that according to the scriptures has in mind very distinctive texts.

[31:11]

In other words, with regard to the death of Jesus, some of the Psalms, some of the material in Isaiah, the servant songs. It may have specific texts like that in mind. It may also have something like that in mind with regard to the resurrection, such as the passage in Hosea that I read. But it could also be a broader statement, saying that the death and the resurrection of Christ are to be understood against the background of the scriptures, not just with regard to isolated texts, but in the whole context that's formed by the history of Israel leading up to this time. So it's definitely not a reference to New Testament scriptures. It's a reference to Old Testament material. Any other thoughts, questions on that? I think you missed the point of Brother Sebastian's question, where I misunderstood.

[32:25]

But he's saying, what would Paul be copying these particular lines from? Where would Paul? Not a written, probably not a written text. But yes, I hadn't taken the question that way. What happened with Paul? First of all, we know that Paul was not in the position of these various other people who are mentioned here. He was not a disciple of Jesus. during his lifetime, but was then a convert. There's a period in Paul's life after his conversion, before he begins his missionary activity, which is clearly a period in which he thought things over, but also must have received some instruction.

[33:29]

Now, the most likely thing is that this formula, which he uses in his own writing here and previously used in his own preaching is something that he received in the course of that instruction. Let me take another example which is similar, though it's not on the same subject. In chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians, Paul is beginning to talk about the Eucharist, and he says, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and then he goes on with his account of the Last Supper. Well, Paul's received that from the Lord, but presumably he's received the formulation of these words through the mediation of the Church in some form. This is very similar to the accounts of the Last Supper in the Gospels, especially in Luke.

[34:33]

So, the indications are that this type of material that Paul has are things that he received after his conversion, but before the beginning of his missionary activity. And it came to him, in this case, with the references to according to the scriptures already in them. And we know it must have been a very active learner, because he had to escape from the city by being lured out on a basket. Going out on a basket, yeah. You can see in this both his persistence in using the received text. If I'm not mistaken, this is the only place where he uses the term 12. And he knows those people, but he usually talks to them of those who were apostles before me or something of that sort. He'll stick with the received text, but he also feels free to adapt it and to add to it as the situation calls for in his judgment.

[35:37]

But all that information that he might have received is part of the old tradition. Yes. So he could have been based on the stories that were being interpreted. Well... I don't think that depends on how you mean it. If you mean, is this text a compression of the stories? Is that? No, in the sense that, for example, that was when I asked St. Gregory of Celestine. It threw me off thinking about the scripture. And I thought maybe he heard all that information through the old tradition. No, he's not. And the third day that he rose, that he died for our sins. Is that part of the Old Testament, too? No, no, no, no.

[36:42]

Well, that Christ died for our sins, no, that's not taken from the Old Testament. But the themes that Christians use to understand Jesus' death, those themes are taken in large part from the Old Testament. You know, when I read that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures... then I say, well, according to the oral scriptures. No, he doesn't mean, he wouldn't use the word scripture. What's translated scripture is according to what is written. That's the formulation of it in Greek. And that's not a term that he would use for oral tradition. When he's speaking about oral tradition, he'll say something like, what I received. or something of that sort. It may still be fixed, but he won't use the word written unless he means the word written.

[37:49]

The scriptures for Christians at this time are basically the Old Testament scriptures. In a sense, the Christian scriptures are being written because Paul's starting to write his letters, but this is at a point before those letters even are collected and take the standing that they have later. Well, I think it would probably be best if we broke off here. I regret that we won't have time to go into individual modern authors on the subject, but to try to do Karl Rahner and Edward Skilovics in three minutes each or so is hardly a wise undertaking. So I'd like to thank you very much.

[38:39]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ