[2] Gutwenger, E., ‘Auferstehung and Auferstehungsleib Jesu’, ZKT 9 (1969) 32.Google Scholar

[3] See Bultmann, Rudolph, ‘Neues Testament und Mythologie’, in Kerygma und Mythos I, ed. Bartsch, Hans-Werner, 5th ed., TF 1 (Hamburg: Herbert Reich, 1967) 44–8Google Scholar. Very typical is R. H. Fuller's characterization of the resurrection as a ‘meta-historical event’ (Fuller, R. H., The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives [London: SPCK, 1972] 23Google Scholar), a phrase which is actually a self-contradiction, since an event is that which happens and so is ipso facto a part of history. Robinson rightly scores Fuller's disclaimers that this ‘meta-historical event’ left only a negative mark on history: ‘Yet the negative mark by which he evidently means not simply that there was nothing to show for it but that there was nothing to show for it (i.e. an empty tomb) is ‘within history’ and must therefore be patient of historical inquiry.’(Robinson, J. A. T., The Human Face of God [London: SCM, 1973] 136.)Google Scholar

[4] See Jeremias, Joachim, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, 4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 95–8Google Scholar and the thorough discussion in Lehmann, Karl, Auferweckt am dritten Tag nach der Schrift, QD 38 (Freiburg: Herder, 1968) 68–157.Google Scholar

[5] See Ulrich Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte, 3rd ed., WMANT 5 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1974) 190–223. According to Wilckens, the formula of 1 Cor 15 and the preaching of Acts both presuppose the same pattern, which stems out of the tradition of the passion and Easter reports. ‘Lukas hat das Schema der an Juden gerichteten Apostelpredigten als solches nicht selbst gebildet, sondern aus christlich vermittelter Tradition judischer, deuteronomi-scher Umkehrpredigten übernommen.’ (Ibid., 205.)

[6] So So Grass, Hans, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 95.Google Scholar

[7] Bultmann, Rudolph, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 7th ed., ed. Merk, Otto (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1961) 48.Google Scholar

[8] Grass argues that even if Paul held that the old body would be raised transformed, that does not guarantee that Paul knew of Jesus's empty tomb. It would only show that he would have believed it to be so on dogmatic grounds. (Grass, , Ostergeschehen, 172.)Google Scholar

[9] Orr, James, The Resurrection of Jesus (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1909) 39Google Scholar; Robertson, Archibald and Plummer, Alfred, First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, 2nd ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1967) 334Google Scholar; Allo, Ernst-Bernard, Première épître aux Corinthiens (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1934) 391Google Scholar; Mánek, Jindrich, ‘The Apostle Paul and the Empty Tomb’, NT 2 (1957) 277–8Google Scholar; Moule, C. F. D., ‘St. Paul and Dualism: the Pauline Conception of the Resurrection’, NTS 12 (1965–1966) 122Google Scholar; Clark, Neville, Interpreting the Resurrection (London: SCM, 1967), 82Google Scholar; Moule, C. F. D., ed., The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ, SBT 8 (London: SCM, 1968) 8Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968) 339Google Scholar; Mussner, Franz, Die Auferstehung Jesu, BH 7 (München: Kösel Verlag, 1969) 134Google Scholar; Robinson, J. A. T., The Human Face of God (London: SCM, 1973) 133Google Scholar; Kremer, Jacob, ‘Zur Diskussion über “das leere Grab”’, in Resurrexit, ed. Dhanis, Edouard (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1974) 143–4.Google Scholar

[10] Harnack, Adolf von, Die Verklärungsgeschichte Jesu, der Bericht des Paulus (I. Kor. 15, 3 ff.) und die beiden Christusvisionen des Petrus, SAB (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1922) 64Google Scholar; Lichtenstein, Ernst, ‘Der älteste christliche Glaubensformel’, ZKG 63 (1950–1951) 7–8Google Scholar; Lohse, Eduard, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955) 115Google Scholar; Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich, Die Auferstehung Jesu, 4th rev. ed. (Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1960) 51–2Google Scholar; Grass, , Ostergeschehen, 146Google Scholar; Conzelmann, Hans, ‘Zur Analyse der Bekenntnisformel in I Kor. 15, 3–5’, ET 25 (1965) 7Google Scholar; Güttgemanns, Erhardt, Der leidende Apostel und sein Hen, FRLANT 90 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 262–4Google Scholar; Campenhausen, Hans Freiherr von, Der Ablauf der Osterereignisse und das leere Grab, 3rd rev. ed., SHAW (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1966) 21Google Scholar; Hahn, Ferdinand, Christologische Hoheitstitel, 3rd ed., FRLANT 83 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 203–4Google Scholar; Jeremias, , Abendmahlsworte, 96Google Scholar; Lehmann, Karl, Auferweckt am dritten Tag nach der Schrift, QD 38 (Freiburg: Herder, 1968) 68, 157Google Scholar; Bode, Eduard Lynn, The First Easter Morning, AB 45 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970) 98Google Scholar; Klappert, Berthold, ‘Einleitung’, in Diskussion urn Kreuz und AuferstehungGoogle Scholar, ed. idem (Wuppertal: Aussaat Verlag, 1971) 16, 48.

[11] Grass, , Ostergeschehen, 146–7.Google Scholar

[12] See Kramer, Werner, Christos, Kyrios, Gottessohn, ATANT 44 (Stuttgart and Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1963) 15Google Scholar; Mussner, , Auferstehung, 60–1Google Scholar; Wilckens, Ulrich, Auferstehung (Stuttgart and Berlin: Kreuz Verlag, 1970) 20Google Scholar; Schmitt, Joseph, ‘Le “milieu” littéraire de la ‘tradition’ citée dans 1 Cor., XV, 3b–5’, in Resurrexit, ed. Dhanis, , 178. The fourfold ŏτι serves to emphasize equally each of the chronologically successive events, thus prohibiting the subordination of one event to another.Google Scholar

[13] Künneth, Walter, Theologie der Auferstehung, 4th ed. (München: Claudius Verlag, 1951) 81Google Scholar; Rengstorf, , Auferstehung, 61Google Scholar; Wilckens, , Auferstehung, 22.Google Scholar

[14] This phrase implies a bodily resurrection, according to Robertson, and Plummer, , Corinthians, 351Google Scholar; Kremer, , “Diskussion”, 144Google Scholar; Gundry, Robert H., Sōma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 177CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Hoffmann, Paul, Die Toten in Christus, 3rd rev. ed., NTA 2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1978) 180–5.Google Scholar

[15] On these verbs see TWNT, s.v. ‘άνίστημι, άνάστασις, έξανίστημι, έξανάστασις’, by Albrecht Oepke; TWNT, s.v. ‘έγείρω, ἒγερσις, έξεγείρω, γρηγορέω (άγρυπνέω)’, by Albrecht Oepke; Evans, C. F., Resurrection and the New Testament, SBT, 2nd Series 12 (London: SCM, 1970) 21–6.Google Scholar

[16] See the excellent study by Bornhäuser, Karl, Die Gebeine der Toten, BFCT 26 (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1921Google Scholar). Some critics acknowledge the accuracy of Bornhäuser's exposition of resurrection in the Old Testament, but brush it aside with a word, that the New Testament knows nothing of such a conception. They ignore his clear statement that what is here most important is not what is said in the New Testament, but what is presupposed by the New Testament. (Ibid., 6.) Bornhäuser's thesis is that in the Old Testament the grave is the place where the corpse decays but the bones remain and rest until the resurrection, at which they are raised. There is no Auferweckung of the soul, nor even of the flesh; it is much more, properly speaking, an Auferstehung and Auferweckung of the bones. (Ibid., 26.) The New Testament presupposes this same conception. Mt 23. 27; Jn 5. 28 shows that Jesus regarded the tomb as the place where the bones are, which would be raised at the resurrection. Paul's terminology is thoroughly Pharisaic; it should never have come to be, states Borahaϋser, that in spite of the έτάΦη, the ‘he was raised’ should be understood as anything other than the resurrection from the grave. (Ibid., 33.) Phil 1. 23; 2 Cor 5. 8 show clearly that for Paul it is not the spirit that is asleep in death. When he says that those who are asleep will rise at the last trumpet (1 Thess 4. 13–17), he means the dead in the graves. Thus, the grave would have to be empty after the resurrection. (See also Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, s.v. ‘Bones’, by Robinson, H. WheelerGoogle Scholar; Bonsirven, Joseph, Le Judaisme palestinien au temps de Jésus Christ, 2 vols. [Paris: Beauchesne, 1934] I: 484Google Scholar; Künneth, , Theology, 94.)Google Scholar

[17] Rengstorf, , Auferstehung, 62Google Scholar. Comments Ellis: ‘It is very unlikely that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive of any distinction between resurrection and physical, “grave-emptying” resurrection. To them an anastasis (resurrection) without an empty grave would have been about as meaningful as a square circle.’ (Ellis, E. Earle, ed., The Gospel of Luke, NCB [London: Nelson, 1966] 273Google Scholar.) See also Moule, , Significance, 9.Google Scholar

[18] Grass, , Ostergeschehen, 172.Google Scholar

[19] The mention of the empty tomb would not pass well with the structure and rhythm of the formula in any case, since the subject of each sentence is Xριστός; and the empty tomb is not something that Christ did.

[20] See Lichtenstein, , ‘Glaubensformel’, 32Google Scholar; Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, s.v., ‘Resurrection’, by Robinson, J. A. T.Google Scholar; Taylor, Vincent, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1966) 606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[21] So Lichtenstein, , ‘Glaubensformel’, 33Google Scholar; Nauck, Wolfgang, ‘Die Bedeutung des leeren Grabes fur den Glauben an den Auferstandenen’, ZNW 47 (1956) 247–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mánek, , ‘Empty Tomb’ 277–8Google Scholar; Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. ‘Resurrection’ by Robinson, Google Scholar; Perry, Michael, The Easter Enigma (London: Faber & Faber, 1959) 92Google Scholar; Rengstorf, , Auferstehung, 61Google Scholar; Künneth, , Theologie, 79–85Google Scholar; Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 81Google Scholar; Hooke, S. H., The Resurrection of Christ as History and Experience (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1967) 114Google Scholar; Mussner, , Auferstehung, 101Google Scholar; Wilckens, , Auferstehung, 21Google Scholar; Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel according to John, AB 29A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1970) 977Google Scholar; Klappert, Berthold, ‘Einleitung’, 16Google Scholar; Gundry, , Sōma, 176–7.Google Scholar

[22] See Nauck, , ‘Bedeutung’, 263Google Scholar; Koch, Gerhard, Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi, GHT (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1959) 33Google Scholar; Von Campenhausen, , Ablauf, 12Google Scholar; Ellis, , Luke, 273Google Scholar; Blank, Josef, Pauhts und Jesus, SANT 18 (München: Kösel Verlag, 1968) 153–6Google Scholar; Lohfink, Gerhard, ‘Die Auferstehung Jesu und die historische Kritik’, Bib Leb 9 (1968) 95Google Scholar; Schenke, Ludger, Auferstehungs-verkündigung und leeres Grab (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968) 108Google Scholar; Delling, Gerhard, ‘The Significance of the Resurrection of Jesus for Faith in Jesus Christ’, in Significance, ed. Moule, , 80Google Scholar; Kremer, Jakob, Das älteste Zeugnis von der Auferstehung Christi, 3rd ed., SBS 17 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970) 4Google Scholar; Jeremias, Joachim, Neutestamentliche Theologie, 2nd ed. (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973) 288–9Google Scholar; Kremer, , ‘Grab’, 142.Google Scholar

[23] Hunkin, J. W., ‘The Problem of the Resurrection Narratives’, ExT 46 (1935) 153Google Scholar; Masson, Charles, ‘Le tombeau vide: essai sur la formation d'une tradition’, RTP 32 (1944) 170Google Scholar; Lichtenstein, , ‘Glaubensformel’, 41Google Scholar; Hahn, , Hoheitstitel, 205–6Google Scholar; Lampe, G. W. H. and MacKinnon, D. M., The Resurrection, ed. Purcell, William (London: A. R. Mowbray, 1966) 42.Google Scholar

[24] Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 160–1, 337Google Scholar; Bode, , Easter, 117–19.Google Scholar

[25] Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 161.Google Scholar

[26] Field, Frederic, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899) 11–13Google Scholar; Kittel, Gerhard, Rabbinica: Paulus im Talmud, ARGU 1:3 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920) 31–8Google Scholar; Kümmel, Werner Georg, Verheissung und Erfüllung 3rd ed., ATANT 6 (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1956) 61Google Scholar; Billerbeck, Paul, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 vols., ed. Strack, Hermann L. (München: Beck, 1922–1963) 1: 649Google Scholar; TWNT, s.v. ‘ήμέρα’, by von Rad, Gerhard and Delling, GerhardGoogle Scholar; Taylor, , Mark, 378Google Scholar; Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 163–6.Google Scholar

[27] Schwartz, E., ‘Osterbetrachtungen’, ZNW 7 (1906) 1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clemen, Carl, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments, 2nd ed. (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1924) 105–7.Google Scholar

[28] Rordorf, Willy, Der Sonntag, ATANT 43 (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1962) 174–233Google Scholar; see also Grass, , Ostergeschehen, 131–3Google Scholar; Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 185–91.Google Scholar

[29] Clemen, , Erklärung, 95–105Google Scholar; Bousset, Wilhelm, Kyrios Christos, 5th ed., FRLANT 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 22–6.Google Scholar

[30] Künneth, , Theologie, 39–53.Google Scholar

[31] Grass, , Ostergeschehen, 133Google Scholar; cf. 134. See also the critique and literature in Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 193–200Google Scholar; Bode, , Easter, 110–11.Google Scholar

[32] Bousset, , Kyrios, 25Google Scholar; McCasland, Selby, ‘The Scriptural Basis of “On the Third Day”’, JBL 48 (1929) 124–37Google Scholar; Hoskyns, E. G., The Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed., ed. Davey, F. N. (London: Faber, 1967) 199–200Google Scholar; Metzger, Bruce M., ‘A Suggestion Concerning of I Cor. XV.4b’, JTS 8 (1958) 118–23Google Scholar. On the Jewish belief, see Mach, R., Der Zaddik in Talmud und Midrasch (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1957) 174Google Scholar. For a critique, see Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 200–4Google Scholar; Bode, , Easter, 113–15.Google Scholar

[33] Goguel, Maurice, La foi à la résurrection de Jésus dans le christianisme primitif (Paris: Leroux, 1939) 164–5Google Scholar; Cadoux, Cecil J., The Historic Mission of Jesus, 2nd ed. (London: Lutter-worth Press, 1941) 286–8Google Scholar; Bauer, J. B., ‘Drei Tage’, Bib 39 (1958) 354–8Google Scholar; Lindars, Barnabas, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM 1961) 59–72Google Scholar; Nock, A. D., Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background (New York: Harper, 1964) 108Google Scholar; Dufour, X. Léon, Resurrection and the Message of Easter (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1974) 9Google Scholar. Fora critique, see Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 176–81Google Scholar; Bode, , Easter, 111–12.Google Scholar

[34] See especially TWNT, s.v. ‘ήμέρα’ by Delling, GerhardGoogle Scholar; Notscher, F., ‘Zur Auferstehung nach drei Tagen’, Bib 35 (1954) 313–19Google Scholar; Grass, , Ostergeschehen, 136–8Google Scholar; Dupont, Jacques, ‘Ressuscité “le troisième jour”’, Bib 40 (1959) 742–61Google Scholar; Mildenberger, Friedrich, ‘Auferstanden am dritten Tage nach der Schrift’, ET 23 (1963) 265–80Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London: Collins, 1965) 77, 103Google Scholar; Evans, , Resurrection, 48–50.Google Scholar

[35] Other scriptures such as Jonah 2. 1; 2 Kings 20. 5 are so far removed from the idea of resurrection that they could not possibly have prompted belief that Jesus rose on the third day. Kirsopp Lake, after examining the various passages, admitted they were all improbable and confessed that the basis for the third day is unknown. (Lake, Kirsopp, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus [London: Williams and Norgate, 1907] 29–33Google Scholar. According to Lehmann most critics choose Hos 6. 2 out of desperation and want of an alternative. Among those who see Hos 6. 2 behind 1 Cor 15. 4 are F. C. Burkitt, C. R. Browen, J.Weiss, M. Goguel, J. Finegan, G. Delling, H.-D. Wendland, J. G. S. S. Thompson, J. Dupont, C. H. Dodd, U. Wilckens, H. Grass, H. E. Todt, H. Conzelmann, F. Mildenberger, G. Strecker, G. Schunack, P. Stuhlmacher, J. Bowman, J. W. Doeve, J. Wijngaards, W. Rudolph, B. Lindars, M. Black, T. Bowman (for particulars, see Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 228–9).Google Scholar

[36] Metzger, , ‘Suggestion’, 121Google Scholar; cf. Weiss, Johannes, Der erste Korintherbrief, 9th ed., KEKNT 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 348Google Scholar; Kremer, , Zeugnis, 4Google Scholar; O'Collins, Gerald, The Easter Jesus (London: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1973) 15Google Scholar. For a critique, see Grass, , Ostergeschehen, 135Google Scholar; Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 242–61Google Scholar; Bode, , Easter, 117.Google Scholar

[37] Kittel, Georg, ‘Die Auferstehung Jesu’, DT 4 (1937) 160Google Scholar; Bode, , Easter, 115–16.Google Scholar

[38] Grass, , Ostergeschehen, 137–8.Google Scholar

[39] See Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 226–7.Google Scholar

[40] Bode, , Easter, 116.Google Scholar

[41] As von Campenhausen urges, the detail ‘on the third day’ must have a biblical counterpart to warrant its inclusion, but the scripture passages are so vague that the third day must have been somehow already given before it could be discovered in the Old Testament, (von Campenhausen, , Ablauf, 11–12Google Scholar.) So also Ramsey, Michael, The Resurrection of Christ (London: Centenary Press, 1945) 25Google Scholar; Moule, C. F. D., The Birth of the New Testament, 2nd ed. rev. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1966, 84–5Google Scholar; Barrett, , First Epistle, 340.Google Scholar

[42] Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 262–90Google Scholar; Bode, , Easter, 119–26Google Scholar; McArthur, Harvey K., ‘“On the Third Day”’, NTS 18 (1971) 81–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, holds a related view, but still casts his lot with Hos 6. 2; Fuller, , Formation, 27.Google Scholar

[43] Wengst observes that Lehmann actually produces only 25 passages, not ‘nearly 30’ and of these only nine can be truly said to have the theological significance that Lehmann sees in the third day (Gen 22. 4; Ex 19.11, 16; Judg 20. 30; 1 Sam 30.1, 2; 2 Kings 20. 5, 8; Esther 5.1; Hos 6.2). (Wengst, Klaus, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums, SNT 7 [Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1972] 96.)Google Scholar

[44] Full citations may be found in Lehmann and McArthur.

[45] Full citations may be found in Lehmann and McArthur.

[46] See Vermes, G., Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961) 193–227Google Scholar; Déaut, R. Le, La nuit pascale, AB 22 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) 198–207Google Scholar; Wood, J. E., ‘Isaac Typology in the New Testament’, NTS 14 (1967–1968) 583–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[47] Conzelmann dismisses Lehmann's case out of hand on this consideration alone. (Conzelmann, Hans, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, KEKNT 5 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969] 302Google Scholar.) See also Wengst, , Formeln, 96.Google Scholar

[48] Lehmann, , Auferweckt, 174Google Scholar; Bode, , Easter, 125–6.Google Scholar

[49] Lichtenstein, , ‘Glaubensformel’, 43.Google Scholar

[50] Actually if Paul was in Jerusalem prior to his trip to Damascus, as Acts reports, then he probably would have heard of the empty tomb then, not, indeed, from the Christians, but from the Jewish authorities in whose employ he was. For even if the Christians in their enthusiasm had not checked to see if the tomb of Jesus was empty, the Jewish authorities could be guilty of no such oversight. So ironically Paul may have known of the empty tomb even before his conversion.

[51] Pesch, Rudolf, Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols., HTKNT 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 2: 519–20Google Scholar; idem, ‘Der Schluss der vormarkinische Passionsgeschichte und des Markusevangelium’ in Sabbe, M., L'Evangile selon Marc (Leuven: Gembloux, 1974) 365–409Google Scholar. Taylor also finds that the burial and empty tomb stories were part of the pre-Markan passion story; his qualification that 16. 1–8 cannot have been a part of that tradition is entirely arbitrary and cannot explain what happened to the original story and why. (Taylor, , Mark, 659Google Scholar.) See also Dhanis, Edouard, ‘L’ensevelissement de Jésus et la visite au tombeau dans l'évangile de saint Marc (Mc XV.40–XVI.8)’, Greg 39 (1958) 391–2, 396Google Scholar; Jeremias, Joachim, ‘Die alteste Schicht der Osterüberlieferungen’, in Resurrexit, ed. Dhanis, , 186.Google Scholar

[52] Mk 15. 40–41, which first names the women, cannot be an independent piece of tradition, since it makes sense only in its context. But neither can these verses be editorially constructed out of 15. 47 and 16. 1 because then the appellation ‘the younger’ is inexplicable; as is the fusion of what would normally designate the wife of James and the wife of Joses into one woman, the mother of James and Joses. But if 15. 40–41 are part of the pre-Markan tradition, then so are probably 15. 47 and 16. 1. For rather than repeat the long identification of Mary in 15. 40, the tradition names her by one son in 15. 47 and the other in 16. 1; thus 15. 47 and 16. 1 actually presuppose each other's existence. And their juxtaposition is by no means a useless duplication: the omission and re-introduction of Salome's name suggests that the witnesses to the crucifixion, burial, and empty tomb are being recalled here.

[53] Thus Wilckens argues that 16. 1 is a later addition designed to protect the women against the charge of breaking the Sabbath. Originally 16. 2–6a was the close of the Passion story. (Wilckens, , Auferstehung, 56–63Google Scholar.) For a critique of Wilckens' hypothesis see Blinzler, Josef, ‘Die Grablegung Jesu in historischer Sicht’, in Resurrexit, ed. Dhanis, , 65–6Google Scholar. Blinzler argues that all the lists are old and unchanged. (Ibid., 65–8.)

[54] Wilckens, , Auferstehung, 61Google Scholar. The passion story could not have ended with the death and burial of Jesus without assurance of victory; the discovery of the empty tomb by the wofnen was part of the passion story. (Brown, , John, 978Google Scholar; Blinzler, , ‘Grablegung’, 76Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, Rudolf, Das Johannesevangelium, 3 vols., 2nd ed., HTKNT 4 [Freiburg: Herder, 1976] 3: 353.)Google Scholar

[55] Bultmann, Rudolf, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 8th ed., FRLANT 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 309.Google Scholar

[56] Nauck, , ‘Bedeutung’, 243–67Google Scholar. According to Kremer, every theological reflection on the meaning of the resurrection is lacking, so the tradition must come from a very early time. For its origin in Palestine (Jerusalem) counts not only the interest in the empty tomb itself, but also the names of the women and the Semitic τῇ μιᾷ τ⋯ν σαββάτων (cf. πρώτῃ σαββάτου [16. 9]; ‘after three days’ [8. 31;9. 31; 10. 34]). (Kremer, , ‘“Grab”’, 153.)Google Scholar

[57] So Brown, , John, 940Google Scholar; Blinzler, , ‘Grablegung’, 81Google Scholar; Lane, William L., The Gospel according to Mark, NLCNT (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974) 585.Google Scholar

[58] Semachoth 8; EbelRabbathi 4. 11. See further Lohmeyer, Ernst, Das Evangelium des Markus, KEKNT 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1937) 351Google Scholar; Blinzler, , ‘Grablegung’, 81.Google Scholar

[59] Blinzler, , ‘Grablegung’, 83.Google Scholar

[60] Koch, , Auferstehung, 29Google Scholar; Brown, , John, 982.Google Scholar

[61] Dhanis, , ‘Ensevelissement’, 383Google Scholar; Gaechter, Paul, ‘Die Engelerscheinungen in den Auferstehungs-berichten’, ZXT 89 (1967) 195Google Scholar; Bode, , Easter, 14, 16.Google Scholar

[62] So Blown, , John, 984Google Scholar. Mahoney's answer that v. 13 is singular because Mary is being addressed a personal question misses the point that the Semitic idiom means precisely “I” and would therefore be entirely appropriate. (Mahoney, Robert, Two Disciples at the Tomb, TW 6 [Bern: Herbert Lang, 1974] 216Google Scholar.) Bode attempts to support the Semitic usage by other uses of οἴδαμεν in Jn 3. 2, 11; 9. 31; 14. 5; 21. 24 (Bode, , Easter, 73–4.Google Scholar), but most of these are in fact genuine plurals! Bernard, Hoskyns, Barrett, Schnackenburg, and Kremer agree that οἴδαμεν implies more women. (Bernard, J. H., Gospel according to St. John, 2 vols., ICC [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928] 2: 656Google Scholar; Hoskyns, , Fourth Gospel, 540Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St. John, 2nd ed. [London: SPCK, 1978] 563Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, 3: 358Google Scholar; Kremer, Jakob, Die Osterevangelien-Geschichten um Geschichte [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977] 166.)Google Scholar

[63] On νεανίσκος; as an angel, cf. 2 Macc 3. 26, 33; Lk 24. 4; Gospel of Peter 9; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 5.277. The white robe is traditional for angels (cf. Rev 9. 13; 10.1). In Mark fear and awe is the typical response to the divine. The other gospels understood Mark's figure as an angel.

[64] It is highly unlikely that the pre-Markan tradition lacked the angel, for the climax of the story comes with his words in vs. 5–6 and without him the tomb is ambiguous in its meaning. (Wilckens, Ulrich, ‘Die Perikope vom leeren Grabe Jesu in der nachmarkinischen Traditionsgeschichte’, in Festschrift für Friedrich Smend [Berlin: Merseburger, 1963] 32Google Scholar; Schenke, , Grab, 69–71Google Scholar; Alsup, John E., The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition, CTM A5 [Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975] 92–3Google Scholar; Kremer, , Osterevangelien, 45–7.)Google Scholar

[65] Bultmann, Rudolf, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 19th ed., KEKNT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968) 529Google Scholar; Mahoney, , Disciples, 216Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, 3: 373.Google Scholar

[66] Gardner-Smith, P., The Narratives of the Resurrection (London: Methuen, 1926) 136Google Scholar; Bultmann, , Geschichte, 308–9Google Scholar; Michaelis, Wilhelm, Die Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen (Basel: Heinrich Majer, 1944) 19–20Google Scholar; Marxsen, Willi, Der Evangelist Markus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956) 51, 75–6Google Scholar; Grass, , Ostergeschehen, 21, 120Google Scholar; Gutwenger, E., ‘Auferstehung and Auferstehungsleib Jesu’, ZKT 91 (1969) 274Google Scholar; Schenke, , Grab, 43–7Google Scholar; Evans, , Resurrection, 78Google Scholar; Bode, , Easter, 35–7Google Scholar; Kremer, , ‘Grab’, 151Google Scholar; Fuller, , Formation, 53, 60–1.Google Scholar

[67] For example, Schenke's troop of objections against v. 7: (1) it introduces a thought independent of v. 6; (2) ήγέρθη is not mentioned further; (3) 14. 28 is an insertion; (4) v. 7 does not correspond with the women's reaction; (5) v. 7 introduces the apostles and switches to direct speech. (Schenke, , Grab, 43–7.) Except for (3) these hardly merit refutation. V. 7 introduces a thought no more independent of v. 6 than v. 6b of v. 6a. There is no need to mention further the resurrection; having been raised, Jesus is going before the disciples to Galilee. Given Mark's theology, the women's reaction is typical. The introduction of the apostles says nothing for v. 7's being an insertion, nor does direct or indirect speech.Google Scholar

[68] It is sometimes urged that the Fayum Gospel Fragment, a third century compilation from the gospels which omits v. 28, testifies to a tradition lacking this verse. (Grundmann, Walter, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 7th rev. ed., THKNT 2 [Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1977] 395Google Scholar.) But as a compilation the fragment by its very nature omits material and is no evidence for the absence of v. 28 in the passion tradition. See Lagrange, M.-J., Évangile selon saint Marc (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1966) 383Google Scholar; Lane, , Mark, 510Google Scholar; Pesch, , Markusevangelium, 2: 381.Google Scholar

[69] See Jeremias, Joachim, Neutestamentliche Theologie, 2nd ed. (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973) 282Google Scholar; Pesch, , Markusevangelium, 2: 381–2.Google Scholar

[70] If there is an insertion, it is all of vs. 27–31; cf. Lk 22. 31–34; Jn 13. 36–38. (Lagrange, , Marc, 383Google Scholar; Lane, , Mark, 510.)Google Scholar

[71] See helpful chart and discussion in Bode, , Easter, 37–9.Google Scholar

[72] So Moule, C. F. D., ‘St. Mark xvi.8 once more’, NTS 2 (1955–1956) 58–9Google Scholar; Dhanis, , ‘Ensevelissement’, 389Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel according to Saint Mark, CGTC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 469Google Scholar; Lagrange, , Marc, 448Google Scholar; Marshall, I. Howard, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978) 887Google Scholar. See the helpful discussion of the women's silence in Bode, , Easter, 39–44Google Scholar. He distinguishes five possible interpretations: (1) The silence explains why the legend of the empty tomb remained so long unknown. (2) The silence is an instance of Mark's Messianic secret motif. (3) The silence was temporary. (4) The silence served the apologetic purpose of separating the apostles from the empty tomb. (5) The silence is the paradoxical human reaction to divine commands as understood by Mark. But (1) is now widely rejected as implausible, since the empty tomb story is a pre-Markan tradition. (2) is inappropriate in the post-resurrection period when Jesus may be proclaimed as the Messiah. As for (4), there is no evidence that the silence was designed to separate the apostles from the tomb. Mark does not hold that the disciples had fled back to Galilee independently of the women. So there is no implication that the disciples saw Jesus without having heard of the empty tomb. It is pointless to speak of ‘apologetics’ when Mark does not even imply that the disciples went to Galilee and saw Jesus without hearing the women's message, much less draw some triumphant apologetic conclusion as a result of this. In fact there were also traditions that the disciples did visit the tomb, after the women told them of their discovery, but Mark breaks off his story before that point. As for (5) this solution is entirely too subtle, drawing the conclusion that because people talked when Jesus told them not to, therefore, the women, having been told to talk, did not. Therefore (3) is most probable. The fear and silence are Markan motifs of divine encounter and were not meant to imply an enduring silence.

[73] See Mahoney, , Disciples, 209.Google Scholar

[74] See Brown, , John, 1119–20.Google Scholar

[75] Morris, Leon, The Gospel according to John, NICNT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Erdmans, 1971) 10.Google Scholar

[76] Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, 3: 359–60.Google Scholar

[77] I find it implausible either that the Beloved Disciple should have lied to his students that he was there when he was not or that the entire Johannine community should lie in asserting that their master had taken part in certain historical events when they knew he had not. See excellent comments by Brown, , John, 1127–9.Google Scholar

[78] So Brown, , John, 840–1; 983Google Scholar; Kremer, , ‘“Grab”’, 158Google Scholar. Von Campenhausen, , Ablauf, 44–5Google Scholar, also maintains the presence of disciples in Jerusalem, but his view that Peter, inspired by the empty tomb, led the disciples back to Galilee to see Jesus fails in light of the traditions that the empty tomb did not awaken faith and is predicated on a doubtful interpretation of Lk 22. 31, which says nothing about Peter's convincing the others to believe that Jesus was risen.

[79] Pesch, , Markusevangelium, 2: 21; cf. 2: 364–77.Google Scholar

[80] Ibid., 2: 522–36. Pesch thinks the stone's being rolled away is the product of door-opening miracle stories. When it is pointed out that no such door-opening is narrated in Mark, Pesch gives away his case by asserting that it is a ‘latent’ door-opening miracle! The angelic appearance he attributes to epiphany stories, though without showing the parallels. Finally, he appeals to a Gattung for seeking, but not finding someone for the search for Jesus's body, adducing several unclear OT texts (e.g. 2 Kings 2. 16–18; Ps 37. 36; Ez 26. 21) plus a spate of post-Christian or Christian-influenced sources (Gospel of Nicodemus 16. 6; Testament of Job 39–40) and even question-begging texts from the New Testament itself. He uncritically accepts Lehmann and MacArthur's analysis of the third day motif, which he equates with Mark's phrase ‘on the first day!’ His assertion that the fact that the women were known in the Urgemeinde cannot prevent legend since many legends are attested about the disciples is a petitio principii. He fails to come to grips with his own early dating and never shows how legend could develop in so short a span in the presence of those who knew better. For a critique of Pesch's position as well as a timely warning against New Testament exegesis's falling into the fallacies of the old history of religions school, see Stuhlmacher, Peter, ‘“Kritischer müssten mir die Historisch-Kritischen sein!”‘, TQ 153 (1973) 244–51.Google Scholar

[81] Bode, , Easter, 161Google Scholar; Brown agrees: ‘… the basic time indication of the finding of the tomb was fixed in Christian memory before the possible symbolism in the three-day reckoning had yet been perceived.’ (Brown, , John, 980Google Scholar.) The fact that τ⋯ μιᾷ τ⋯ν σαββάτων is probably a Semitism (Barrett, , John, 467Google Scholar; Bode, , Easter, 6Google Scholar; Kremer, , ‘Grab’, 152Google Scholar, contra Moulton, J. H. and Howard, W. F., A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol.: 1 Prolegomena, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908) 95–6) also points to the early origin of the phrase.Google Scholar

[82] Wilckens, , Auferstehung, 64.Google Scholar

[83] On the low rung of the social ladder occupied by women in Jewish society see J Sot 19a; B Kidd 82b. On their lack of qualification to serve as legal witnesses, see M Rosh Ha-Shanah 1.8.

[84] Bode, , Easter, 162–3.Google Scholar

[85] Mahoney, , Disciples, 159. His further objection that this admission by the Jews is found only in a Christian document also misses the point; the course of the argument in the polemic presupposes the empty tomb. The Christians were doing their best to refute the charge of theft, an allegation which tacitly presupposes the tomb was empty.Google Scholar

[86] Mahoney, , Disciples, 243.Google Scholar

[87] van Daalen, D. H., The Real Resurrection (London: Collins, 1972) 41Google Scholar. So also O'Collins, , Easter, 91.Google Scholar

[88] Kremer comments that ‘By far, most exegetes hold firmly … to the reliability of the biblical statements over the empty tomb. …’ (Kremer, , Osterevangelien, 49–50Google Scholar) and he furnishes this list, to which his own name may be added: Blank, Blinzler, Bode, von Campenhausen, Delorme, Dhanis, Grundmann, Hengel, Lehmann, Léon-Dufour, Lichtenstein, Mánek, Martini, Mussner, Nauck, Rengstorf, Ruckstuhl, Schenke, Schmitt, K. Schubert, Schwank, Schweizer, Seidensticker, Strobel, Stuhlmacher, Trilling, Vögtle, Wilckens. He should also have mentioned Benoit, Brown, Clark, Dunn, Ellis, Gundry, Hooke, Jeremias, Klappert, Ladd, Lane, Marshall, Moule, Perry, J. A. T. Robinson, and Schnackenburg, as well as the Jewish scholars Lapide and Vermes.