Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§18.2 Et Resurrexit
in preparation for the appearance to Mary (John 20.11-18) and makes a point of
including the eyewitness testimony of Peter and the other disciple to the emptiness
of the tomb (20.3-10); 18 the Gospel of Peter enhances an anti-Jewish motif
and decorates the retelling with a fuller conversation among the women (Gos.
Pet. 12.52-54).
As in other examples of the Jesus tradition it makes far too little sense to
explain the differences by the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke knew only the
version provided by Mark. 19 They could, of course, have adapted Mark's account,
but to conceptualize the traditioning process in terms of literary editing
hardly explains, for example, the diverse descriptions of the time of day (Mark
16.2 pars.). And overall it makes far greater sense to assume that there were various
versions of the story of the empty tomb in circulation, retellings of the core
tradition with variation of detail and embellishments of emphasis such as we
would expect in an oral traditioning process. Matthew and Luke had access to
Mark's version, but in their churches the story of the empty tomb had no doubt
been part of their common tradition, probably for as long as their churches had
been in existence. 20 We might well ask whether there were ever churches in the
circles from which the Evangelists came which did not know and retell with appropriate
dramatic intensity the story of the empty tomb? 21 The further alternative,
that the story of the empty tomb first emerged as part of the liturgical celebration
of the early Jerusalem community at the site of the tomb, 22 is still less
18. Is it so clear that 'he believed' in 20.8 denotes the 'transference of the rise of Easter
faith from the Christophanies to the empty tomb', as Fuller maintains (Formation 136)? The
note certainly emphasizes the priority of the beloved disciple's believing, but John at once adds
'for they did not yet know the Scripture that he must rise from the dead' (20.9) and goes on to
describe two transitions to Easter faith with Mary (20.15-16) and Thomas (20.25-28), where
the motif of seeing (Jesus) is emphasized (20.29).
19. Crossan assumes that all versions of the story of the empty tomb (including John 20)
derived from Mark's account (Birth 556); similarly Bultmann, History 287; L. Geering, Resurrection
— a Symbol of Hope (London: Hodder, 1971) 51; Funk, Honest 221; Acts of Jesus 23-
24, 465-66. Contrast Koester's conclusion that all three writings (Mark, John, Gos. Pet.), 'independently
of each other, used an older passion narrative . . .' (Ancient Christian Gospels 240).
20. The likelihood is that the pre-Markan Passion narrative included/ended with 16.1-8;
see particularly Pesch, Markusevangelium 2.519-20; U. Wilckens, Resurrection (Edinburgh:
St. Andrew, 1977) 29, 39-44; P. Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary
Reflection (London: Chapman, 1984) 115-24; Becker, Jesus 344.
21. H. von Campenhausen, 'The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb', Tradition and
Life in the Church (London: Collins, 1968) 42-89, gives particular weight to the reliability of
the tradition regarding the burial by Joseph of Arimathea (76; see above, §17.1g).
22. Notably L. Schenke, Auferstehungsverkündigung und leeres Grab. Eine
traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 16,1-8 (SBS 33; Stuttgart: KBW, 2 1969), and
Schillebeeckx, Jesus 331-37. Pesch observes that the central motif, 'He is not here', tells
against an interest in the empty tomb as postulated (by Schenke, Markusevangelium 2.537).
831