Musical expression is a particular gift and genius of the human person. And our capacity for music is not just to make crude sounds. Rather we are possessed, at least collectively, of creative genius in this regard. The video below illustrates this genius.
Do you remember your grammar and the grammatical term Onomatopoeia? An Onomatopoeia is a word that sounds like the object it describes. Words like oink, meow, Wham! Sizzle, and my personal favorite:”Yackety Yak”
There are times too when music takes up a kind of onomatopoetic quality. In the video below Moses Hogan, one of the great modern arrangers of the old African American Spirituals describes his arrangement of “Joshua Fit the Battle of Jericho.” He has the male and female voices in a frenetic dialogue with lots of staccato notes dominating in the male voices. This creates the very sound of an intense battle! The song sounds like what it is describing. It’s a kind of “musical onomatopoeia.” There are other aspects of the same concept, you’ll hear the trumpet in the soprano and the battle reach climax in a moment of dissonance. And wait till you hear the walls fall at the very end in a cascade of notes!
In this three minute video Moses Hogan describes his intent of echoing the sound of a battle and then the song is sung. Enjoy this brilliant and beautiful arrangement of the Spiritual. Admire too the wonderful discipline of the choir that is necessary to execute this spiritual flawlessly.
I awoke this morning to a text from my sister – “I love her dress!!!!!” Like many women, I ran down the stairs to catch a quick glimpse of the soon-to-be princess as she stood in Westminster Abbey next to her prince. I must say, I completely agree with my sister. I too, love her dress! It was quite refreshing to see feminine beauty expressed in such an eloquent and sophisticated style. For a brief moment I thought, maybe Kate’s choice in dress will be a trend setter and bring modesty back into bridal fashion.
Then suddenly, my attention was turned to the Bishop of London. He started his sermon with these words, “Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire.” I couldn’t believe it! Today the Church celebrates the feast of St. Catherine of Siena and as millions watched to see the dress, the first balcony kiss, the complete “fairytale wedding” they would also have the opportunity to hear the words from one of our great saints. In some sense, these words which are echoed through time, give meaning today to sacred nature of the marital bond.
God created us out of love as a means to reflect His love. And marriage, as authored by God, is one of the ways we can express that love. For it is in the sacrificial love shared between husband and wife, that man and woman become what God desired them to be – a reflection of His love! When we allow our lives to reflect His goodness, His truth, His love, we reach one conclusion. We set the world on fire. Saint Catherine of Siena, pray for us!
I was ordained a Catholic Priest in 1989, and had received my seminary formation at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg Maryland from 1984-1989. The Seminary shared a campus with and was affiliated with Mount St. Mary’s College (now University) also in Emmitsburg. More on that in a minute.
I noticed in a recent listing of Colleges in First Things magazine, Mount St. Mary’s University was listed in the top ten colleges for Catholic Identity. Specifically Catholic Identity refers to a number of factors such as: friendliness to religious faith, vibrancy of campus ministry, faith and theological reasoning among the faculty, students and administration, overall student practice of the faith, and a holding to the religious mission of the school. Mount At. Mary’s (aka “The Mount”) ranked number ten among the 12 colleges listed. See the full list at the upper right. The full article in First Things is here: College Rankings
This fact is, to me nothing short of extraordinary and an example of wonderful reform. I think a great deal of credit is due to the Mount for working so diligently on the Catholic Identity of the University. Special mention ought to be given to Msgr. Stuart Swetland who leads the Council for Catholic Identity at Mt. St. Mary’s. Among other things he and the Council promote on-going discussions about implementing faith in everyday life across the campus. They have also created a series of one-day retreats for administration and staff to assist in this reflection. More on all this here: Msgr. Swetland. Many of you may recognize Msgr. as a regular on EWTN.
As I say, this is a wonderful example of reform. For in my day, back in the mid 1980s the Mount was in terrible shape, if you ask me, when it came to the faith. The most grievous problems in those days, centered on student life which was bacchanalian and pagan to say the least. The seminary where I studied shared a campus and some facilities with the college but was technically a separate entity. I remember how frustrated and angry I would get at the terrible things I observed “over at the college.” In those days drinking and drugs were a terrible problem. Sexual promiscuity and lewd conduct were simply awful. I remember that “jello wrestling” was held in the student union on Friday evenings. When I lodged a protest with the college administration I was informed that it was harmless fun. Eventually it was discontinued because it “caused a real mess to clean up.” It would seem, in those days, the administration was more worried about dirty buildings than dirty souls. Each year there were serious incidents related to heavy drinking. In several of the years I was there, students were killed in drinking related incidents. One died falling out of a third floor window. Another died of alcohol poisoning, several others were killed in car accidents near the campus, related to intoxication. Little was done by campus security to monitor drinking, which, for students under 21 was illegal. Keggers were quite common in the dorms. Students often proudly boasted that the school had made Princeton’s list of top party schools, a fact I could never verify, but I did not doubt that all the necessary qualifications had been fulfilled.
I will say there was little open dissent from Church teaching, on the campus that I was aware of. There were some questionable lectures etc. but, to be honest, there wasn’t a lot of religious study or formation that was a big part on the college side, most of that took place on the seminary side.
Five years after ordination, I returned for a reunion of sorts and college president spoke to us priests and asked us to encourage our parishioners to send their kids to the Mount. I took him aside later and explained that I would never do so until the moral life of the students was addressed and something approaching a lifestyle suitable to the Catholic faith was insisted upon. He seemed angry with me, but was cordial and insisted that progress was being made.
A Middle States Accreditation in my time there gave the Mount academic approval but insisted that they must address Catholic identity to be true to their mission and advertising. It was fascinating and ironic to me that a secular agency would say that and insist upon it.
But that began a process that it looks like the Mount has taken seriously. And I am most happy to see the Mount now ranked high as a truly Catholic School. It is for me a moving story of reform and the power of prayer.
There is a beautiful statue of Mary on the Bell Tower overlooking the campus (see at left). I used to go up on the hill and play the carillon in the bell tower regularly and make sure the bells rang the hours on time. (It was a little side job I had). And as I played those bells I wondered if anyone below might hear gentle reminder of God and heaven. And as Mother Mary looked down from the hillside on the Campus named for her, I know she prayed and kept watch. I know too that many fine priests who were educated in the seminary there have also kept the Mount in fond prayer. And some of those fine priests, like Msgr. Swetland, have returned to work there and make a difference. May God be praised for what he has done for Mount St. Mary’s. Thanks be to God too for the many dedicated faculty, administrators, alumni, and students who have helped the Mount emphasize her Catholic Identity.
It is possible to lament the great loss of so many Catholic Colleges in this country to secularism, and dissent. But here is a story of one of our Universities that had some troubled times, and surely the early 1980s were troubled and uncertain times in the Church, but now the Mount has taken her place on First Things list of the Most Catholic of Catholic Schools.
“Peace be with you” are words we share at Mass. However, this is not just a specifically Catholic form of greeting, and it’s more than a simple expression of best wishes. Instead, this peace is a real gift- a gift that only Jesus can give. In today’s gospel, Jesus gave this peace to his friends when he appeared to them on Easter. Jesus extends this same peace to us at Mass, and invites us to share it with each other.
When Jesus offered his peace to his friends, the wounds of his Passion- the marks of the nails in his hands and feet- were plainly visible for all to see. We know, therefore, that a life touched by his peace is not necessarily free from conflict and pain.
Instead, we might best understand this peace as the peace of heart, and the peace of mind, that comes with the assurance that Jesus is always present with us. It’s the peace of knowing that in the midst of life’s ups and downs, the risen Lord is always at our side- offering us consolation, guidance, and challenge; instilling gratitude, joy, and wisdom; filling us with faith, hope, and charity; calling us to conversion and forgiveness; and strengthening us to carry our cross. With this peace comes an assurance that the Lord will always provide, that his love will never fail, and that the risen life he promises us, will never come to an end.
This blog post is a follow-up from yesterday’s blog. You can read yesterday’s post by clicking HERE.
When we encounter the resurrection accounts in the New Testament we face a challenge in putting all the pieces together in a way that the sequence of the events flow in logical order. This is due to the fact that no one Gospel presents all, or even most of the data. Some of the data also seems to conflict. I tried to show in yesterday’s blog that these apparent conflicts are not, usually, true conflicts. Another problem with putting all the facts together in a coherent and reasonably complete manner is that the time line of the events is often unclear in some of the accounts. Luke and John are the clearest as to the time frame of the events they describe but Matthew and Luke given us very few parameters. Both Acts and Paul also supply data wherein the time frame is not always clear.
Nevertheless I want to propose to you a possible, even likely, sequence of the Resurrection events. The work is my own and I make no claim that this scenario is certain or backed up by recognized ancient authority. St Augustine has done quite a lot of work in this matter and you can read that by clicking HERE. My attempts here are simply the fruit of 20+ years of praying over and pondering the events of those forty days between the Lord’s resurrection and ascension. My reflections are based as solidly as possible on the actual biblical data with a small sprinkling of speculation. I realize that the attempt to do this will irritate some modern biblical scholars who, for reasons unclear to me, seem to insist it is wrong to attempt any synthesis of the texts.
Nevertheless I boldly press on figuring that the average believer will benefit from it and find such a synthesis interesting. Take it for what it is, the work of an obscure pastor who has prayed and carefully sought to follow the sequence of the forty days. You may wish to offer correction or alternative interpretation and are encouraged to do so in the comments. I have posted a PDF of this Document that is easier to read here: Resurrection Chronological Sequence
I. The Morning of Day One
A. Very early in the morning a group of several women, including Mary Magdalene, approach the tomb to complete burial customs on behalf of Jesus (Matt 28:1; Mk 16:1; Jn 20:1).
B. They behold the tomb opened and are alarmed.
C. Mary Magdalene runs to Peter and John with distressing news of likely grave robbers (John 20:2)
D. The women who remain encounter an angel who declared to them that Jesus had risen and that they should tell this to the brethren (Mk 16:5; Lk 24:4; Matt 28:5).
E. They are filled with fear at first and depart from the tomb afraid to speak (Mk 16:8)
F. Recovering their courage they decide to go to the Apostles. (Luke 24:9; Matt 28:8)
G. Meanwhile Peter and John have gone out to the tomb to investigate Mary’s claim. Mary Magdalene followed them back out to the tomb arriving before they left. Peter and John discover the tomb empty though they encounter no angel. John believes in the resurrection. Peter’s conclusion is not recorded.
H. The other women have reported what the angels say to the Apostles. Peter and John have not yet returned and these remaining apostles are dismissive of the women’s story at first (Lk 24:9-11).
I. Mary, lingering at the tomb weeps and is fearful. Peering into the tomb she sees this time two angels who wonder why she weeps. Jesus then approaches her from behind. Not looking directly at Jesus, she supposes him to be the gardener. Then he calls her by name, and Mary, recognizing his voice, turns and sees him. Filled with joy she clings to him. (APPEARANCE 1) (Jn 20:16)
J. Jesus sends her back to the apostles with the news to prepare them for his appearance later that day. (Jn 20:17)
K. The other women have departed the apostles and are on their way possibly back home. Jesus then appears to them (Mat 28:9) after he had dispatched Mary. He also sends them back to the apostles with the news that he had risen and that he would see them. (APPEARANCE 2)
II. The Afternoon and evening of day one.
A. Later that Day, two disciples on their way to Emmaus are pondering what they have heard about rumors of his resurrection. Jesus comes up behind them but they are prevented from recognizing him. First Jesus breaks open the word for them, then sits at table with them and celebrates the Eucharist whereupon their eyes are opened and they recognize him in the breaking of the bread. (APPEARANCE 3) (Luke 24:13-30)
B. The two disciples returned that evening to Jerusalem and went to the Eleven. At first the eleven disbelieved them just as they had the women (Mk 16:13). Nevertheless they continue to relate what they had experienced. At some point Peter drew apart from the others (perhaps for a walk?) And the Lord appeared to Peter (APPEARANCE 4)(Lk 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5) who informed the other ten who then believed. Thus the disciples from Emmaus (still lingering with the apostles) were now told (perhaps by way of apology) that it was in indeed true that Jesus had risen (Lk 24:34).
C. Almost at the same moment Jesus appears to the small gathering of apostles and the two disciples from Emmaus. (APPEARANCE 5) Thomas was absent (although the Lucan text describes the appearance as to “the eleven” this is probably just a euphemism for “the apostles” as a group) They are startled but Jesus reassures them and opens the scriptures to them (Lk 24:36ff).
D. There is some debate as to whether he appeared to them a second time that night. The Johannine account has significantly different data about the appearance on the first Sunday evening from the Lucan account. Is it merely different data about the same account or is it a wholly separate appearance? It is not possible to say. Nevertheless since the data is so different we can call it (APPEARANCE 6) (John 20:19ff) though it is likely synonymous with appearance 5.
III. Interlude –
A. There is no biblical data that Jesus appeared to them during the week that followed. The next account of the resurrection says, “Eight days later” namely the following Sunday.
B. We do know that the apostles surely exclaimed to Thomas that they had seen the Lord but he refused to believe it. (Jn 20:24-26)
C. Were the apostles nervous that Jesus had not appeared again each day? Again we do not know, the data is simply silent as to what happened during this interlude.
IV. One week later, Sunday two.
A. Jesus appears once again (APPEARANCE 7) to the apostles gathered. This time Thomas is with them. He calls Thomas to faith who now confesses Jesus to be Lord and God. (John 20:24-29)
V. Interlude 2
A. The apostles received some instructions to return to Galilee (Mat 28:10; Mk 16:7) where they would see Jesus. Thus they spent some of the week journeying 60 miles to the north. This would have taken some time. We can imagine them making the trek north during the intervening days.
VI. Some time later –
A. The time frame of the next appearance is somewhat vague. John merely says “After this.” Likely it is a matter of days or a week at best. The scene is at the Sea of Galilee. Not all the Twelve are present. They have gone fishing and Jesus summons them from the lakeside. They come to shore and see him (APPEARANCE 8 ) . Peter has a poignant discussion with Jesus in this appearance and is commissioned to tend the flock of Christ (John 21).
B. The Appearance to the 500. Of all the appearances you might think that this one would have been recorded in some detail since it was the most widely experienced appearance. Many accounts it seems would have existed and at least one would have made its way into the scriptures. Yet there is no account of it other than it did in fact happen. Paul records the fact of this appearance: 1Corinithians 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. (APPEARANCE 9) Where did this take place. What was it like. What was the reaction? We simply do not know. Proof once again that the Bible is not a history book in the conventional sense. Rather it is a highly selective telling of what took place, not a complete account. The Bible makes no pretenses to be something it is not. It is quite clear that it is a selective book: (John 20:30).
C. The Appearance to James. Here again we do not have a description of this appearance only a remark by Paul that it did in fact happen: 1Cor 15:7 Then he appeared to James. (APPEARANCE 10) The time frame is not clear. Only that it happened after the appearance to the five hundred and before the final appearance to the apostles.
VII. The rest of the forty days.
A. Jesus certainly had other on-going appearances with the disciples. Luke attests to this in Acts when he writes: Acts 1: 3 To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.
B. During this time there is perhaps the one appearance we can attribute to this time period as recorded by Matthew (28:16ff) and Mark (16:14ff). It takes place an “a mountaintop in Galilee.” Mark adds that they were reclining at table. For these notes this appearance (time frame uncertain) is referred to as (APPEARANCE 11) It is here that he give the great commission. Although Mark’s text may seem to imply that Jesus was taken up from this mountain, such a conclusion is rash since Mark only indicates that Jesus ascended only “after he had spoken to them” (Mk 16:19).
Evidently Jesus had also summoned them back to Jerusalem at least toward the end of the period of the forty days. There they would be present for the feast of Pentecost. We can imagine frequent appearances with on-going instruction for Luke records that Jesus “stayed with them.” Most of these appearances and discourses are not recorded. Luke writes in Acts: And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:4)
VIII. The final appearance and ascension:
A. After forty days of appearances and instructions we have a final account of the last appearance (APPEARANCE 12) wherein he led them out to a place near Bethany, gave them final instructions to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit was sent. And then he was taken up to heaven in their very sight. (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1).
So here is a possible and, if I do say so myself, likely chronological sequence of the resurrection appearances. It is a kind of synthesis that attempts to collect all the data and present it in a logical order. There are limits to what we can expect of the Scriptural account, and fitting perfectly into a time frame and logical sequence is not what the texts primarily propose to do. Yet such a chronological sequence can prove helpful and it is in that spirit that I present this.
One Easter Sunday Mass, as I went through the church and sprinkled the people with Holy Water, was struck by how many long, gloomy, and sad faces I saw. After I was done I said, “I just want to remind you that it’s Easter Sunday- so it’s okay to smile in church!”
There were long faces on Easter in today’s gospel as well. When the risen Jesus joined two disciples on their journey and asked what they were talking about, “They stopped, looking downcast.” Or as another translation puts it, “They stood still, looking sad.” Just like so many of the people I saw at Easter Mass.
But let’s not forget the rest of the gospel story. After they recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread, the two disciples were so filled with joy that they ran to tell their friends. The risen Jesus had replaced their sadness with joy!
The good news that Jesus has risen should also fill us with joy this Easter season. As St. Augustine once wrote, “A Christian should be an ‘alleluia’ from head to foot!” Do you remember the Opening Prayer at this Mass? We thanked God for the joy of the resurrection, and asked that the joy of our celebration may bring us to the joy of eternal life. And as we prayed together in the responsorial psalm, “Rejoice, O hearts that seek the Lord.”
Easter joy doesn’t mean that we ignore life’s real difficulties and problems. But it does mean that we confront them with the assurance that if we have a God who loves us so much that he died and rose for us, then surely he will lead us through our present troubles into his everlasting peace. Mother Teresa once put it very well. “Never let anything cause you so much sorrow,” she said, “that you forget the joy of Jesus risen.”
When we read the various accounts of the Resurrection in the four Gospels, Acts and Pauline Epistles we can easily be puzzled by some apparent discrepancies in the details.
The Pope in his recent book, Jesus of Nazareth (Vol II) says, We have to acknowledge that this testimony [of Scripture] considered from an historical point of view, is presented to us in a particularly complex form and gives rise to many questions. (P. 242)
The Pope goes on to explain what he considers to be the reason for this complexity and apparent divergence in some of the details.
What actually happened? Clearly for the witnesses who encountered the risen Lord, it was not easy to say. They were confronted with what, for them, was an entirely new reality, far beyond the limits of their own experience. Much as the reality of the event overwhelmed them and impelled them to bear witness, it was still utterly unlike anything they had previously known. (p. 242).
The Pope then reminds us that Jesus’ resurrection was experienced by them as something far beyond the resuscitation of a corpse. Rather, Jesus had taken up a wholly new and transformed humanity that was beyond anything they could fully describe or had ever experienced.
With all this in mind we are better able to appreciate the ecstatic qualities of the resurrection accounts and appreciate why all their details do not perfectly line up. The accounts have a rather crisp, “lets get to the point” quality; especially the accounts of the first day of the appearances. Frankly, one would be surprised if every detail in the account of an astonishing event were exactly the same. One might even suspect a story that was too controlled and wonder as to a kind of brainwashing or conspiracy having taken place. But as they are, these accounts have every hallmark of the accounts of people who experienced the events truly, but, due to their ecstatic and disorienting quality, recall the details differently or emphasize different facets.
It is important to recall that the Scriptures record the things Jesus actually said and did but they are not written like history is today: Today we attempt or think we write history as an exact chronological and comprehensive analysis of an event or era. But the Scriptures are selective, story based accounts rather than our modern journalistic approach to history. They will often collect the sayings and deeds of Jesus around certain theological themes, rather than follow an exact time line. They do not intended to be an exhaustive account of everything Jesus said and did in exact detail (cf Jn 20:30; 21:25). Rather the Evangelists select what is suited to their theological purpose. And yet, despite these distinctions we must be clear that the gospels are historical accounts, in that they recount the things Jesus actually said and did.
Now, for the record, there are some apparent, and also real discrepancies in the accounts. The word “apparent” is important though, because not all the discrepancies are real or substantial if we take a closer look at them. Some who wish to cast doubt on the historicity of the Resurrection often wish to make more of these differences than necessary. Many, if not most of the differences can be dealt with quite easily and we are able to ultimately stitch together a reasonably clear account of the resurrection, if we are disposed to do so.
So, lets consider some of the apparent conflicts that emerge in the accounts:
How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (Jn 20:21) two (Matt 28:1), or three (Mk 16:1)?
Did Magdalene alone go to just Peter and John (Jn 20) or did the several women go to the Apostles (Matt 28; Mk 16)?
How many angels did they see there that morning, one (Matt 28:2; Mk 16:5) or two (Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12)?
Did the women run to the other disciples and tell what they had seen (Mt 28:8; Lk 24:9) or did they say nothing out of fear (Mk 16:8)?
Did Jesus see them first in Galilee (Mk 16:7; Mt 28:9) or in Jerusalem (Jn 20; Lk 24:36)?
Among the Apostles, did he appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)?
Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)?
Lastly, did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)?
At one level some react that some of these details are picky. Who cares really who many women went or how many angels? Perhaps but it does not seem wise to simply dismiss the differences this way. Some of the differences ARE quite significant. For example, did Jesus appear to them first in Jerusalem? Luke and John are quite clear that he did. But why then do Mark and Matthew completely ignore this and tell the angel instruct the women to have the disciples go to Galilee where they will see him? Now, as has been stated, these differences can be addressed in a thoughtful manner but they should not be simply dismissed as of no account.
In what follows I propose to address these difference and give possible resolutions. I am also aware and expect to hear from some who consider any attempts to resolve these matters “simplistic.” But I and others who have pondered these matters are not simpletons and would prefer if those who might have a different explanation or view would avoid dismissive, demeaning or ad hominem argumentum. If something seems wrong state why and give evidence or an alternative point of view. So, on to possible solutions.
How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (John 20:21), two (Matt 28:1) or three (Mk 16:1) and how many angels were there, one (Mk 16:5, Mat 28:2) or two (Lk 24:4, Jn 20:12)? One solution here is to recall that neither John’s Gospel nor Matthew’s absolutely deny that three women went to the tomb that day. They simply do not mention three whereas Mark does. John especially wishes to focus on Mary Magdalene and may have found it unnecessary to mention the others. Additionally, Matthew and Mark’s mention of one angel need not be seen as an absolute denial that there were two as described in Luke and John. Another solution is simply to acknowledge the discrepancies in the accounts but underscore the fact that the number of women and the number of angels is not the central point. The point is that the tomb was discovered empty by one or several women and they were instructed to tell the apostles what they saw and heard.
Matthew (28:8) and Luke (24:9) indicate that the women went and told the disciples of the empty tomb but Mark (16:8) says they were afraid and said nothing. True but in the verses that follow in the appendix to Mark’s own Gospel (Mk. 16:10) Mary Magdalene does in fact tell the apostles. Rather than conflicting with the other texts, Mark may merely supply additional detail about the startled nature of the women, that at first they were startled and said nothing but soon after went on, as Mark in fact says, a did tell the apostles.
Mark (16:7) and Matthew (28:9) indicate, according to the angel’s instructions, that Jesus would see them in Galilee but Luke (24:36 and John 20) describe the first appearances in Jerusalem. In addressing this difference we must recall that the gospels are not written as chronological or complete histories. The evangelists selected events from among the many things Jesus said and did and may also have altered the order. John (20:30 & 21:25) explicitly states that his account is selective. Hence we ought not conclude that any one gospel completely details all the resurrection appearances. It is true Mark and Matthew speak only of appearances in Galilee. Thus these accounts might only include the angelic instructions to go to Galilee since that they did not intend to describe appearances elsewhere. In other words it is possible to speculate that the angelic instructions were more elaborate and included instructions as to being prepared to meet Jesus first in Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark however paired these details down in their accounts since they did not intend to include the Jerusalem appearances in their accounts. This may not satisfy our notions of historical accounts wherein we expect and want a complete accounting of all the details. But, as has already been noted the Scriptures simply do not record history in this way. Rather they are selective accounts that open windows on history but do not claim to exhaustively report it. Note also that Matthew and Mark are not clear as to the time frame of the appearances they describe. Luke and John however, set the first appearance in Jerusalem and are rather clear that the day is the same day as the resurrection. Hence we reasonably conclude that the first appearances took place in Jerusalem and later appearances took place in Galilee. In other words the Jerusalem appearances do not conflict with the Galilean appearances in any way. Rather they simply add details that Mark and Matthew, for reasons of their own, chose not to include. Such a conclusion is speculative to be sure. It does, however, help us to see that the accounts do not absolutely contradict each other.
Among the Apostles, did Jesus appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)? There seems to be a good case for the fact that the Lord appeared first to Peter even though we do not have a direct account of this appearance in the scriptures. The Gospel of Luke makes mention of it, And they [the disciples traveling to Emmaus] rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”(24:33-34). Paul also records it [The Lord] was raised the third day in accordance with the scriptures…he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time…Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles (1 Cor 15:3ff). So it seems a pretty good case can be made that Peter did see the risen Lord before the other apostles. This quote from Paul also helps us recall that the gospel accounts are selective in terms of which resurrection appearances they report. Thus, as we read the various accounts, we get from each of them only a part of the full picture (see John 20:30). According to Paul there were appearances to Peter, to five hundred disciples, and to James. The details of these appearances are left to our imagination. It also follows that we do not need to see the accounts of John and Matthew cited above as conflicting. They may well be describing different appearances.
Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)? Again, we need not place these texts at odds with one another. Most likely they are describing different appearances. Since the time frame of John is clear that the appearances in the upper room took place on Resurrection Sunday and then a week later we can presume that these appearances took place first. The mountaintop appearance was in Galilee and the time frame is not clear. It may have been days or weeks later.
Did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)? At first glance the texts from Luke and Mark do seem to imply that the ascension was the same day as the resurrection. However, a closer look will show that they are rather vague as to the time frame. Mark begins the passage leading up to the ascension with the word “afterward.” How long after the previous appearance is uncertain. Luke’s passage is also vague regarding the time. However Acts (1:3,9) also written by Luke is quite specific that the time of the ascension was forty days later. Thus, Acts need not be seen to conflict with the gospel accounts; it merely supplies the details that are lacking in them. This case is made stronger when we note that Luke is generally accepted to be the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles and it seems unlikely that Luke would directly contradict himself.
So here then is a short tour of some of the apparent discrepancies and possible ways to resolve them.
In the end we simply have to accept that the Gospels do not record history in the same systematic and strictly chronological manner we moderns prefer. But they DO record history. It is for us to accept the evidence and accounts as they are given. The fact is that to develop a precise time frame and blow by blow chronological description may not be fully possible. However, careful study of the texts can help somewhat in this regard.
In tomorrow’s blog I would like to propose a somewhat chronological account that attempts to weave the many strands into one narrative. Such an attempt as we will see involves some speculation given the nature of ancient historical accounts. But it can help us to sort our the many details by trying to order them. So stay tuned for tomorrow.
A beautiful love story lies at the heart of today’s Easter gospel. In a subtle way, the evangelist has portrayed Mary Magdalene as the woman lover in the Old Testament’s Song of Songs.
This lover searches for her beloved in the night, just as Mary Magdalene went to the tomb before the sun had risen. The lover asks the city watchmen if they had seen her beloved, just as Mary Magdalene laments to the angels keeping watch that she doesn’t know where Jesus is to be found. As it was in a secret garden that the lover would meet her beloved, so Mary Magdalene first mistook Jesus for a gardener. And finally, when the lover finally discovered her beloved she took hold of him and refused to let go, just as Mary Magdalene clung to Jesus, after he revealed himself to her.
Mary Magdalene’s deep love for Jesus gave her the courage to overcome the doubts and fears that seemed to paralyze the disciples after the crucifixion. As a reward for her courageous love, Jesus appeared to her first and appointed her the messenger to tell the others the good news of the resurrection. Because of this, she has been honored throughout history as the “Apostle to the Apostles.”
Mary Magdalene’s courageous love is an inspiration and example for us, because so often we need courage in order to be a follower of Jesus. For instance:
• We need courage to trust God, when we can’t see the road ahead of us;
• We need courage to confess our sins when our shame would hold us back;
• We need courage to witness to our faith in the face of injustice and ridicule;
• We need courage to love others when we risk being rejected by them;
• We need courage to forgive, when we’re afraid of appearing weak;
• And we need courage to grow in holiness, when we fear the change that growth requires.
Mary Magdalene serves to remind us that perfect love casts out fear, because we love a Lord whose love for us conquered not only fear, but even death itself.
