Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE CLIMAX OF JESUS' MISSION §18.2
related with the dead body as we have supposed for the Jerusalem conceptualization
of resurrection. 62
The likely explanation for the divergent conceptualizations is that Paul was
operating in a much more characteristically Hellenistic milieu, which took for
granted a greater discontinuity between flesh and spirit than the Jewish conception
of the body. I will follow that point through later. 63 For the moment, its relevance
is twofold. First, Paul's understanding appears to be a second-stage conceptualization,
occasioned by the spread of the Christian gospel into the wider
Hellenistic world beyond Palestine. Which also implies that it was in some degree
a reaction to or moving on from an older conceptualization (still summarily
recalled in the burial clause of the confession received by Paul). Which in turn
brings us back to the empty tomb tradition. 64 Second, to some extent the two
streams of tradition (empty tomb, resurrection appearances) were independent
from each other: 65 Paul could virtually ignore the former; and the earliest accounts
of the empty tomb make no mention of any appearance at the tomb itself.
This restraint makes it hard to argue that one stream of tradition gave rise to the
other. 66 On the contrary, though interdependent in terms of the earliest conceptualization
of Jesus' resurrection, the traditions themselves seem to have emerged
from and to have kept alive independent memories.
Here then we find a tradition (Mark 16.1-8 pars.) which, like most of the
62. But the argument of M. Goulder, 'Did Jesus of Nazareth Rise from the Dead?' in
Barton and Stanton, eds., Resurrection 58-68, that Mark's empty tomb story was created to
supply 'the exact need of a Pauline church that believed in a physical resurrection' (64-65) is
odd: where is the evidence that a Pauline church believed in a physical resurrection?
63. See below, §18.5b.
64. It should be noted that I am reversing the common argument that the earliest traditions
were only of appearances and that the empty tomb tradition is a later, legendary embellishment
to provide proof for an already existing belief in Jesus' resurrection and indicative of a
growing materialistic conception of the resurrection (particularly Grass, Ostergeschehen 88-90,
173-86). Paul's treatment of the subject cannot serve as an example of earlier conceptualization
of Jesus' 'resurrection' within Palestine. See further below, § 18.5b.
65. Cf. the main thrust of von Campenhausen's argument: the two 'essential and reliable
pieces of data' which emerge from his analysis are 'a series of indubitable appearances of
Christ, which must be placed in Galilee, and the discovery of the empty tomb in Jerusalem'
('Events of Easter' 77). Similarly U. Wilckens, 'The Tradition-History of the Resurrection of
Jesus', in C. F. D. Moule, ed., The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in
Jesus Christ (London: SCM, 1968) 51-76 (here 71-72); J. E. Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance
Stories of the Gospel-Tradition (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975) 85-116. The same observation
is the beginning point for Pannenberg's discussion of 'Jesus' Resurrection as a Historical
Problem' (Jesus 88-89). See also I. U. Dalferth, 'Volles Grab, leerer Glaube? Zum Streit um die
Auferweckung des Gekreuzigten', ZTK 95 (1998) 379-409.
66. Cf. Lüdemann, Resurrection 171-72; but contrast also his earlier conclusion that
'The story [Mark 16.1-8] is first inferred from the "dogma"'(121), referring to 1 Cor. 15.3-5.
840