Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§18.1 Et Resurrexit
Evangelists' inclusion of Jesus' resurrection as part of their accounts of Jesus'
mission is a reminder to us that they viewed the whole life of Jesus in the light of
that climax. But we have seen sufficient indication of the impact made by Jesus
even before his death, so we can hardly avoid asking here too what it was that
was being remembered.
Third, I have emphasized from the beginning that there can be no real
hope, historically speaking, of getting back to an 'objective' Jesus (as though it
was possible somehow to strip away the 'subjective' elements of the responses to
him). All we have is the impact Jesus made on those who responded to him, the
impact crystallized in the tradition — the remembered Jesus. To that extent, the
final chapters of the Gospels are no different from the earlier chapters. They too
embody the impact made by Jesus; 'resurrection' is the crystallization ofthat impact.
As with the earlier chapters, we have to attempt to discern the outline of the
impacting body from the impression left by the impact. It also follows that as
with 'the historical Jesus' generally there is an unavoidable intangibility about
that which made the impact. If we cannot grasp 'the historical Jesus' in our own
hands, as it were, still less can we grasp the 'resurrection' of this Jesus. But the
challenge in terms of discerning and analysing the beginning of the tradition process
is essentially no different. 9
Here as before we can proceed only by scrutinizing the tradition itself.
Again and again we have found good reason to conclude that the core of the various
traditions so far examined was probably formed more or less by the impact
which Jesus made through his teaching and actions; the traditions themselves
were part of the impression made. That is, the very sharing of experience among
Jesus' followers gave lasting shape to these formative impressions. Traditions
were being formulated right away, and not only at several removes from the occasions
which they recalled, and were performed with diversity of emphasis and
Luke 24.26; John 20.17!); contrary to a common assumption, Matthew does not end with an
'ascension' (Matt. 28.16-20), and only Luke, and only in his second volume, clearly distinguishes
the two (Acts 1.9-11). The subject is better dealt with in vol. 2.
9. Bultmann's famous dictum remains true: 'If the event of Easter Day is in any sense an
historical event additional to the event of the cross, it is nothing else than the rise of faith in the
risen Lord. . . . All that historical criticism can establish is the fact that the first disciples came
to believe in the resurrection' ('New Testament and Mythology' 42). Similarly Bornkamm:
'The last historical fact available to it [historical scholarship] is the Easter faith of the first disciples'
(Jesus 180). The thrust of my inquiry, however, is slightly differently directed: not How
can we explain the rise of Easter faith? but How can we explain the rise of the Easter tradition?
To some extent that circumvents the impasse posed by Wedderburn's formulation of the problem:
' "Jesus is risen" is not a historical statement and is not open or accessible to the historian's
investigation' (Beyond Resurrection 9). The assertion is misleading: 'Jesus is risen' as a statement
is historical and accessible to historical investigation; the problem lies with what the
statement affirms.
827