JESUS RESURRECTION AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS:

ARESPONSE TO N.T. WRIGHT

Michael Goulder
University of Birmingham
Birmingham, UK
ABSTRACT
While acknowledging Wrights competent handling of a wide range of primary
sources, this response takes issue with his conclusions by arguing that the bodily
resurrection did not happen and that the Gospel accounts are legendary and at
times contradictory. It is also argued that there are two distinct traditions of under-
standing the resurrection in earliest Christianity, i.e. a more spiritual transforma-
tion associated with the Jerusalem church and the bodily resurrection associated
with the Pauline churches and represented in narrative form in Mk 16.1-8. This
response is divided into the following main areas: ideas of post-mortal life in
Judaism; 1 Corinthians 15; the Gospel narratives; and conversion-visions.
Key words: resurrection, empty tomb, historical Jesus, Pauline Christianity, Jeru-
salem church, N.T. Wright
This response to N.T. Wrights recent work on the resurrection takes issue with
his conclusions by arguing that the bodily resurrection did not happen, and that
the Gospel accounts are legendary and at times contradictory.
1
I will argue that
there are two distinct traditions of understanding the resurrection in earliest
1. David Bryan told me in the spring (2004) that Wright would be giving a paper on
Jesus resurrection to the British New Testament Conference Jesus Seminar (Edinburgh,
September 2004) and invited me to be a respondent to it. I agreed but on the condition that
there was a paper to respond toI have defective eyesight, and it would be impracticable for
me to read an 800-page book on the subject. Wright has in fact been unable to produce such a
paper; but fortunately he had written a preview of his book as the McCarthy Lecture for 2002,
delivered to the Faculty of Theology at the Gregorian University. This lecture is available on
the Internet on the N.T. Wright page, www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm.
Mark Goodacre was kind enough to nd and print this lecture for me; and this paper is a
response to it. Unfortunately I had a stroke in May 2004, which prevented me from attending
the conference; but this response was written and circulated so that Wright was able to make
his answer to it at the seminar. I have not read all of Wrights The Resurrection of the Son of
God, and it may be that there are important differences between the book and the lecture, but I
have to do my best with what I have. References to Wrights book are added from time to time
below in parentheses.
Journal for the Study of the
Historical Jesus
Vol. 3.2 pp. 187-195
DOI: 10.1177/1476869005058195
2005 SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi
http://JSHJ.sagepub.com
188 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
Christianity, that is, a more spiritual transformation associated with the Jeru-
salem church and the bodily resurrection associated with the Pauline churches
and represented in narrative form in Mk 16.1-8. I should like to comment on
four points: (1) ideas of post-mortal life in Judaism; (2) 1 Corinthians 15; (3) the
Gospel narratives; and (4) conversion-visions.
Ideas of Post-mortal Life in Judaism
Wrights account of post-mortal life in Judaism is not unfair, although some-
times the emphasis needs changing. He writes, Resurrection is thus a point on
the spectrum of Jewish beliefs about life after death. The Jewish term in rab-
binic Hebrew is techiyat ha-metim, translated by George Foot Moore as the
revivication of the dead.
2
This refers in mainstream (Pharisaic) Judaism to the
resurrection of all (faithful) Jews in the future. There remains, however, the
problem of national heroes in the meantime. Wright properly cites Wisdom of
Solomon 3, as evidence of souls of the righteous as persevering after death;
they only seem to have died, but they are at peace with God. Very likely, as
Wright says, this is a kind of temporary suspended life, with full bodily
resurrection to follow; but often heroes of the faith are thought of as having more
to do than be at peace. In 2 Macc. 15.12-16 Judas Maccabaeus sees in a kind of
dream the high-priest Onias and the prophet Jeremiah interceding with God for
Israel, and actively encouraging the leader and his troops. Interestingly, there is
a similar thought in Acts 7 where the dying martyr Stephen sees the heavens
opened and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Probably he is standing, not
sitting, because he is interceding with his Father, and encouraging his faithful
servant. Similarly, in Rom. 8.32 Jesus is thought of as interceding for the
Church, which cannot be separated from his loving concern. It is not therefore
so surprising if Christians in general came to think of their Messiah as having
risen again after death.
Nor is there much surprise to be taken at the Christian idea of transformation
after death. Philo describes Moses death in terms of God abolishing the dualism
of his body (ooo) and soul (u_q), and transforming him into mind (vou,),
pure as the sunlight (Mos. 2.288). Furthermore, we may think that the same
idea of transformation may underlie the taunt of the Maccabaean martyrs that
they would receive back (|oiooooi) their mutilated limbs (2 Macc. 7.11-12).
If you had had your tongue wrenched out and been boiled alive, you might well
prefer to have a new, transformed tongue and body to the old abused ones.
2. G.F. Moore, Judaism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950), Index,
Resurrection.
Goulder Jesus Resurrection and Christian Origins 189
1 Corinthians 15
Directly after Wright has spoken of the spectrum of Jewish beliefs, cited above,
he continues, If Christianity had been simply a sect of miscellaneous Jews who
had followed Jesus or approved his teaching, we might have expected a similar
spread of views, and the fact that we do not is a major part of our question about
Christian origins. This is puzzling because notoriously some people in the Cor-
inthian church said that There is no resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15.12,
ovooooi, vt|pov ou| toiv, there is no upstanding of corpses). Wright
himself concedes this two pages later, but he adds surprisingly, they were most
likely reverting to pagan views. He gives no reason for this, and we might have
thought in view of the spectrum mentioned above that this was part of the
variety of Jewish beliefsfor there were Jews in the congregation (7.19). The
context also seems to indicate a Jewish background, for Paul cites two authori-
ties for the Christian preaching, whether I or they, that is, Paul and the Jeru-
salem leadership. This Jewish background of the deniers is conrmed by no less
than four features of the subsequent discussion.
The deniers based their belief on an exegesis of Psalm 8. The psalm said that
God subjects all things under the feet of man/son of man. They took it that this
referred to resurrection: Jesus now had all the powers under his feet, including
Death. Paul interprets the psalm to refer to the Parousia: it is only after his
Coming that the subjugation of the powers will take place, and Death will be the
last of these powers to be so subjected.
The discussion of the rst and second man in 15.44-49 depends upon a sophis-
ticated Jewish tradition of the double creation of man in Gen. 1.27 and 2.7.
Paul continues, Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (15.50).
This is the same controversy which we had in ch. 4, where some Corinthians
thought they were reigning already, but the kingdom of God did not consist in
talk but in power (4.8, 21). This is in the context of Corinthians boasting of
men (3.21) and being puffed up for the one against the other (utp ou tvo,
uoiouot |oo ou ttpou, i.e. for Peter against Paul).
Paul concludes the argument on a surprising note: The sting of death is sin,
and the power of sin is the law (15.56). This again resumes an earlier discus-
sion. In chs. 12 Paul was contrasting his gospel, the word of the cross, with the
gospel of his rivals, taught words of human wisdom (2.13). The taught words
were taught by the ooo,, ypootu, and ouqqq,that is, the Jewish
Mkx, rps and N#rd (1.19). The people who insisted on Jewish laws in Galatians
2 were Jewish leaders, Peter and James. With ch. 15 Paul returns to the central
theme of his gospel, now extended to the resurrection; but he has not forgotten
that his rivals proclamation centred on Jewish expositions of the law, in his
view a fundamental error, and a provocation to sin. Thus in four distinct matters,
190 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
ch. 15 betrays a Jewish background to the position of those who deny the bodily
resurrection of the dead.
The position taken by the deniers is not entirely clear; but we may think that
it is not dissimilar to that taken by Solomon. The souls of the baptized are in the
hands of God, and are at peace. They have not really died, and are not in Sheol/
Hades. Death has no dominion over them. Even if they have not been baptized
in their lifetime, it is not too late to do it by proxy now (15.29). This could then
be related to the message preached to the Thessalonians, one of whose members
later died, causing such alarm and dependency (1 Thess. 4.13).
The controversy in 1 Corinthians 15 is about the future of Christians, who
Paul maintains will be raised at the Parousia, while the deniers dispute this. But
this then invites the further question, what did the deniers think about Jesus
himself? If they said baldly, There is no resurrection of the dead, and asked
derisively With what kind of body do [the dead] come [back to life]? (15.35),
it sounds as if these words applied to Jesus as much as to his followers. As Paul
himself argues from the precise parallel, it is difcult to think that they would
have missed it. In the opening of ch. 15 Paul describes the gospel which he
received as including the statement that Jesus has been raised (tyqytpoi, 15.4);
and he goes on to say that this gospel was in common between him and the
Jerusalem leadership, Whether I or they, so we proclaim and so you believed.
We should therefore have to think that both groups proclaimed that Jesus had
been raised, but interpreted that slightly differently. Is this likely? We might
think not; but Mk 9.10 has Jesus tell the apostles to keep quiet about the Trans-
guration until the Son of Man should rise from the dead; and the evangelist adds,
They kept the saying to themselves, questioning what the raising of the dead
was. Mark is often critical of the apostles and this is one case in which he shows
their lack of understanding, inamely, their difference from Pauline teaching.
In this way Wrights alleged problem over the lack of a spectrum can be seen
to disappear. He said, The fact that we do not have a spread of views is a major
part of our question about Christian origins: but in fact it now appears that there
was such a spread, even among the original witnesses. Paul, brought up as a
Pharisee, took the Pharisaic position with a full bodily resurrection, Jesus as the
rstfruits (oop_q ), the full harvest of Christians at the Parousia. It was part of
the original tradition that Jesus had been raised on the third day according to the
scriptures: which scripture is referred to has been a problem, and the best can-
didate from a weak eld is probably Lev. 23.11-12. Here the rstfruits (oop_q)
of the wheat harvest is to be offered on the day after the Sabbath following Pass-
over, that is, the third day after the crucixion in the year of Jesus death. This
would then explain the reference to Jesus as the oop_q in 15.20. In 15.44-49
Paul emphasizes that the rst Adam was of the earth, earthy, while the second
man, Jesus, is the Lord from heaven, that is, at the Parousia. The Jerusalem
leaders, on the other hand, think there is no upstanding of corpses. To them
Goulder Jesus Resurrection and Christian Origins 191
Jesus has been raised and is with God in heaven, like Onias and Jeremiah and
the Patriarchs; he has not been in Sheol with the dead, and baptized Christians
share his risen life in the same way that Paul himself expects to be with Christ,
for it is far better (Phil. 1.24).
How the Jerusalem leaders reached this conclusion is unclear to us. It appears
to have something to do with the discussion about the creation of the rst and
second man in Philo; for Paul is plainly polemical on this topic in 15.44-49.
Genesis 2.7 said Man became a living soul; but Paul cites this as, The rst
man Adam became a living soul, and later he insists that the natural is rst and
the spiritual is second. It may also have something to do with their having seen
Jesus: this did not suggest that he was there bodily, any more than Onias and
Jeremiah.
The Gospel Narratives
Wright is impressed by the dovetailing of the Gospel narratives with the Pauline
teaching of bodily resurrection, and infers that the second is due to the rst. I am
impressed also, but draw the opposite inference. There are problems with each
of the four Gospels.
The earliest narrative is in Mk 16.1-8, but it is such a tissue of contradictions
as to defy credulity. The women are informed by the angel that Jesus has been
raised and are instructed to tell Peter so that he may go to Galilee and see Jesus
there; but they say nothing to anyone so that the story is left in the air. They know
that a huge stone has been rolled over the mouth of the tomb and do not know
who will be able to roll it away for them; but although they have come to Jeru-
salem with a party of able-bodied men, some of them probably their relatives,
they would rather roam the streets at half-past three in the morning on the chance
of nding a friendly gardener than actually request the help of someone to hand.
Joseph is said to be an honourable councillor and expecting the kingdom of
God, but he has presumably just taken part in the unanimous vote to condemn
Jesus as blasphemer.
Wright attempts to escape the rst difculty with four weak evasions. First,
I do not think that Mark nished the Gospel at chapter 16 verse 8: many other
people have suggested this but the consensus of Markan scholars rejects this. If
Wright means that the last verses were lost by wear and tear, we have Austin
Farrers ironic suggestion that the lector said to the church on Easter Day, I am
afraid, brethren, that the end of the story has been eaten by mice.
3
If Wright
3. A.M. Farrer, A Study in St. Mark (London: Dacre Press, 1951), p. 173.
192 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
prefers the idea that as Mark was writing, there was a knock on the door, he will
have to suppose that Mark said to the police, Please wait a minute while I nish
the sentence, for 16.8 neatly closes the sentence. Alternatively, he suggests that
Mark did not mean that the women said nothing to anyone permanently; but was
intruding to explain why they had not made so important an announcement at
once. I agree with this, but in a more plausible context. Jewish Christians had for
a generation thought of Jesus as being raised in a spiritual form, while Pauline
Christians thought that resurrection meant bodily resurrection. So in time a
Pauline Christian like Mark feels the need to supply a narrative with an empty
tomb; and this then is likely to raise the objection: But why have we never
heard this story before? Mark supplies the obvious answer: You know what
women are like. They were so scared that they never passed the message on.
Wright does not attempt to counter the other contradictions in Marks narrative.
Matthews account stresses Jewish slanders about the disciples stealing the
body; Wright correctly says that this shows that the empty tomb story was
known, but once it was in Marks Gospel it was naturally known and this does
not show it to be historical. A more considerable problem arises from Mt. 27.52-
53, where there is an earthquake, the tombs are rent, and the bodies of the saints
appear to many. How is the historian to evaluate this? Wright comments that odd
things do happen in history; but surely the historian will treat anything as odd as
this with scepsis, especially in view of Matthews fondness for earthquakes (8.24;
28.2). If he is sceptical, why should he not be sceptical about Marks empty tomb
story? Wright provides convincing Old Testament texts as the basis for Matthews
additions, but he denies that Matthew has simply used them as the basis for his
inventing them (636). Wrights suggestion that they are just vivid metaphor
(635) is fanciful. He objects that the Old Testament texts were understood escha-
tologically, and therefore Matthew would hardly have invented his narrative out
of them; but then Isaiah 60 was also understood eschatologically, and Matthew
has invented the gold, myrrh and frankincense in Matthew 2 on the basis of this
chapter.
Both Luke and John strongly add emphasis to the physicality of the post-
mortal Jesus. He is known in the breaking of bread at Emmaus. He eats with the
disciples at Jerusalem and shows them his wounds. In Acts he is mentioned as
having eaten and drunk with the apostles. John adds further stress to this physi-
cality. Jesus says to Mary, Do not hold on to me; for I am not yet ascended;
and the tale of Thomass doubts leaves the physical image powerfully in the
hearers mind. The motivation for this emphasis is made plain by Ignatius, a
committed Pauline. He cites Lk. 24.39 in the form Handle me and see that I am
not a bodiless demon (oioviov ooooov, Smyrn. 5.1). Wright protests
against such explanations that this is anti-docetic. But docetic, an ambiguous and
muddling word, is not relevant here. Jewish Christians thought that Jesus had
been raised spiritually; to Pauline Christians like Ignatius this was a mistake: if
Goulder Jesus Resurrection and Christian Origins 193
Jesus did not appear to the apostles in bodily form, he was just a bodiless demon.
We are again reminded of Mark. Jesus came walking on water in full three-
dimensional form, and the disciples thought he was a ghost (Mk 6.46). The
Jerusalem apostles never understood it properly.
The tradition of Jesus burial goes back toq (1 Cor. 15.4); it was important
as conrmation of Jesus death, according to Morna Hooker.
4
But it is uncertain
how that burial was rst understood. It is often thought that after being left on
their crosses the bodies of criminals were thrown into a common grave: cer-
tainly Josephus refers to many thousands of Jews being crucied and only one
set of bones of such a victim has been recovered from an ossuary. Also the
Place of a Skull may well indicate that crucixions were common where Jesus
died and that the skull of a criminal was in evidence thereabouts. The narrative
of the empty tomb which follows in Mark reads more like legend than history.
Legends have clearly been developing behind the Gospel of Peter and other apoc-
ryphal Gospels and Acts; and it would be just canonical prejudice to deny the
same process behind the New Testament Gospels. In time the Pauline churches
felt the need of some explanation of how Jesus had come to be buried and raised;
and Marks church has supplied such a narrative, albeit a very unconvincing one.
Later still Luke, another companion of Paul, has felt the desirability of extending
the physical emphasis. Jesus is now known in the breaking of bread and shows
his hands and side to the apostles, saying that a spirit does not have such esh
and bones. And so to John, with Mary Magdalene and doubting Thomas to make
the same point still more memorably.
Conversion-Visions
Wright considers a number of alternative explanations for the Churchs convic-
tion that Jesus has been resurrected. Some of these seem like straw men but the
visions proposal is a genuine alternative. Wright criticizes it by drawing a com-
parison with the supposed vision of Peter in Acts 12, but this is not to the point.
Conversion-visions are the experiences of people in crisis as they reorient their
lives on a new basis: neither Paul, hearing the words, Saul, Saul, nor Augus-
tine, hearing the words, Tolle, lege, is experiencing a trivial misunderstand-
ing. Both men are hearing the voice of heaven at the turning-point of their lives.
There is a good number of instances of such experiences in the literature of the
4. M.D. Hooker, The Gospel according to St Mark (London: A. & C. Black, 1991), p. 380.
194 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
psychology of religion,
5
and I have argued the case in an article, The Baseless
Fabric of a Vision,
6
which should not be repeated here.
Conclusion
Wright has written a monumental book, and his mastery of the sources must
command respect; but I do not think that his arguments are strong enough to
carry his conclusions. The primary evidence for Jesus resurrection is the visions
of Peter, James and others, listed in the opening verses of 1 Corinthians 15. It
appears that the leading Jerusalem authorities, and their Corinthian converts after
them, interpreted Jesus raising in a spiritual way; he was alive after his passion,
with God, in the same way that Onias and Jeremiah were understood in 2 Macca-
bees 15 as interceding with God and encouraging the faithful. They took it that
Jesus raising implied his subjection of the powers, including death, and that this
overthrow was valid for Christians also. In other words, they held a more
Hellenized form of Judaism, such as we nd in Wisdom 3 and Philos account
of Moses survival of death. There is sufcient evidence here of Jewish notions
of transformation after death, and it is no surprise if the rst Christians took the
same view. It may be that Galilee of the Gentiles was a centre for more Hellen-
ized forms of Judaism. Paul, however, was from a Pharisaic background, and to
him survival after death implied a bodily resurrection. Mainstream Judaism
expected this in the future, when God would bring many, that is, all faithful
Jews, back to physical life. Paul similarly expects this for faithful Christians at
the Parousia, and he takes the same view of Jesus resurrection on Easter Day.
This involves a two-phase resurrection, with Jesus as the rstfruits and the full
harvest at the Parousia; and it may be that this was early understood from Lev.
23 as part of the prophecy according to the scriptures.
Wrights further arguments on the Gospel narratives are weak. He speaks of
historians and of historical enquiry, but historians are sceptical of self-contradic-
tory narratives, and are careful not to dismiss inconvenient counter-evidence.
The belief in Jesus burial is early (1 Cor. 15.4), but it would be impossible for a
historian to infer that from the historicity of the Gospel accounts. Mark 16.1-8 is
so full of implausibilities that no historian could treat it seriously; and Wrights
5. M.J. Meadow and R.D. Kahoe, Psychology of Religion (New York: Harper & Row,
1984), p. 90, document the case of Susan Atkinss conversion to evangelical Christianity,
among others. W. Sargant, Battle for the Mind (Garden City, NY: Heinemann, 1957), p. 85,
describes the conversion of Arthur Koestler to Marxism, from his autobiographical, Arrow in
the Blue (London: Collins, 1952). See also E.D. Starbuck, The Psychology of Religion (New
York: Scribners, 1903); and F.J. Roberts, Some Psychological Factors in Religious Conver-
sion, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology (1965), pp. 185-87.
6. In Gavin DCosta (ed.), Resurrection Reconsidered (Oxford: One World, 1996), pp.
48-61.
Goulder Jesus Resurrection and Christian Origins 195
attempts to evade the problem of the womens silence are profoundly uncon-
vincing. So although we may salute Wrights attempt to provide a bulwark for
Christian orthodoxy as a high endeavour carried through with learning and zeal,
we have to conclude that his arguments do not carry the day.