Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§18.3 Et Resurrexit
us is the one previously posed in relation to the empty tomb traditions: Why did
these Evangelists accord the role of first witnesses to women? As already observed,
it was hardly a tactic designed to inspire confidence in future hearers of
the claim that God has raised Jesus (§18.2a). Why did Matthew bother to include
the account at all, since its primary purpose seems to have been to reinforce the
message already given by the angels that the disciples would see the risen Jesus in
Galilee? 28.9-10 could easily have been omitted by Matthew without loss, leaving
the transition to the Galilee appearance (28.16-20) more straightforward. 72 The
only obvious answer is that there was a persistent report within the communal
memory of the earliest churches that the first witnesses had been women, a report
which Matthew could not ignore, however less than satisfying his telling of it.
Likewise, why did John give such prominence to Mary of Magdala at this
late stage in his narrative? Unlike the other characters who feature prominently in
John's appearance stories, 73 she was not one of the array of characters to whom
John gives speaking parts earlier in his narrative. John makes no attempt to identify
her as the woman taken in adultery (8.2-11 — if that was part of John's original
narrative) or as the Mary who anointed Jesus' feet (12.1-8). 74 Mary of
Magdala first appears as witness of the crucifixion (19.25) before taking solo centre
stage in the drama of 20.1-18. Here again the most obvious explanation for this
is that John (the Johaninne tradition) was in touch with an early memory (beloved
disciple?) that Mary of Magdala had indeed been the first to see Jesus. 75
(3) The appearance to Peter — Luke 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5.
Luke 24.34
The Lord has risen indeed and has appeared
(öphthe) to Simon.
1 Cor. 15.5
and that he appeared (pphthe) to Cephas,
72. It is unclear in what way 28.9-10 provides 'a better transition between the story
about the tomb and the concluding christophany' (Lüdemann, Resurrection 131).
73. Thomas in 11.16; 14.5; Simon Peter in, e.g., 1.42; 6.68; 13.6-11, 36-38; 18.15-18,
25-27.
74. The popular tradition of later centuries that Mary had been a prostitute is based
(without justification) on identifying her as the woman in John 8.2-11 and/or the 'sinner' in the
Lukan anointing story (Luke 7.36-38) parallel to John 12.1-8 (there is a striking overlap at
Luke 7.38/John 12.3); see, e.g., R. F. Collins, 'Mary', ABD 4.580, 581-82.
75. Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus 496-99; Funk, Acts of Jesus 478-79 ('Mary was
among the early witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus'). Liidemann's discussion is rather confused
{Resurrection 157-60). Byrskog justifiably asks concerning the women's witness, Mary's
in particular, 'How else but through their influence in the early community would the account of
their presence have endured the androcentric force of transmission and redaction?' (Story as History
78-82 [here 81]). 'The tradition was too resilient to be effaced' (J. Lieu, 'The Women's Resurrection
Testimony', in Barton and Stanton, eds., Resurrection 34-44 [here 42]). See further
C. Setzer, 'Excellent Women: Female Witness to the Resurrection', JBL 116 (1997) 259-72.
843