Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:49:50.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Recent Catholic Writing on the Resurrection (II) The Appearance Stories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Having described the new approach to the empty tomb narratives (NEW BLACKFRIARS, July 1977), we must next investigate what some Catholic theologians now believe about the gospel narratives about appearances to the disciples of the resurrected Jesus. As before, we limit our enquiry to The Common Catechism, and to the recent books by Walter Kasper and Hans Kung.

Hans Küng in fact says almost nothing about the appearance narratives themselves. He behaves here like the most traditional scholastic theologian. He develops his view in opposition to that of the distinguished young Catholic exegete Rudolf Pesch, and indulges in a good deal of speculation about the metaphysics of the risen body. He leaves aside all detailed reference to the gospel texts.

As far as the speculation goes, Kung starts from the assumption that the Resurrection is “essentially a work of God on Jesus” (p. 349): that is to say, he is in no doubt that the Resurrection is something that happened to the crucified Jesus—it was not something that happened in the minds and hearts of the disciples. Kung cannot be accused of subjectivising Easter or of reducing it to any kind of human discovery or projection. Since the Resurrection is “an act of God within God’s dimensions”, Küng believes that it cannot be described as a historical event, as he says, “in the strict sense”:

“For the raising of Jesus is not a miracle violating the laws of nature, verifiable within the present world, nor a supernatural intervention which can be located in space and time. There was nothing to photograph or to record. What can be historically verified are the death of Jesus and after this the Easter faith and the Easter message of the disciples. But neither the raising itself nor the person raised can be apprehended, by historical methods” (p. 349).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

Dormeyer, Detlev: Die Passion Jesu als Verhdtenmodel, Munster, 1974Google Scholar
Feiner, and Vischer, : The Common Catechism, London, Search Press, 1975Google Scholar
Gundry, R. H.: Soma in Biblical Theology, Cambridge 1976Google Scholar
Kasper, Walter: Jesus the Christ, London, Burns & Oates, 1976Google Scholar
Küng, Hans: On Being a Christian, London, Collins, 1977Google Scholar
Moule, and Cupitt, : “The Resurrection-a Disagreement”, Theology, October, 1972 10.1177/0040571X7207501002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesch, Rudolf: “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Aufentshung Jesu”, Theologische Quartalschrift, 1973Google Scholar