Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§18.5 Et Re surr exit
saw was given them to see. 212 This is the basis of Hans Grass's often cited attempt
to distinguish an 'objective vision' from a subjective vision. 213
(3) The appearance to Paul sharpens these very issues. For his seeing is of a
'light body' in heaven (above n. 138) rather than of a companion on earth. The
performance variations in Acts leave it unclear what if anything those with Paul
on the road to Damascus saw or heard (Acts 9.7; 22.9). Luke does not hesitate to
have Paul himself describing it as a 'heavenly vision' (Acts 26.19). And for his
own part Paul describes it as God's revelation of his Son 'in me (en emoi)' (Gal.
1.16). 214 At the same time, however, it should be noted that Paul was no stranger
to visionary experiences, including heavenly journeys (2 Cor. 12.1-7). Yet he was
quite clear that the resurrection appearance to himself was of a different order
from such experiences: it was the same 'seeing' as characterized the earlier resurrection
appearances (öphthe); and it was 'last of all', not to be confused with any
subsequent 'visions and revelations'. 215 So it is hardly likely that Paul would
have accepted that his seeing was a purely 'subjective vision'.
Given the core emphasis on 'seeing Jesus' we can hardly conclude other
than that that is what they 'saw'. A more refined psychological analysis has no
212. I echo the formulation of Wilckens, 'Tradition-History' 67 ('the person who receives
the appearance is passive, he experiences the appearance. In this sense, such an experience
means something which is given to the seer to see'); but the attentive reader will also recognize
an echo of the postmodern debate about meaning (§§5.6 and 6.4 above). See further
A. C. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 1197-1203.
213. Grass, Ostergeschehen 189, 233-49, especially 247-49; he makes a point of noting
that 'in distinction from the subjective vision hypothesis, it [the objective vision hypothesis] is
a theological and not a historical hypothesis' (248). The argument which rooted belief in Jesus'
resurrection in 'purely subjective' visions was classically expressed by Strauss, Life of Jesus
728-44, particularly 742-44. For the influence of the 'subjective vision' hypothesis see
P. Hoffmann, 'Die historisch-kritische Osterdiskussion von H.S. Reimarus bis zu Beginn des
20. Jahrhunderts', in Hoffmann, ed., Überlieferung 15-67; and for a brief review see
Lüdemann, Resurrection 54-59; others who follow the 'subjective vision' hypothesis in
Carnley, Structure 69 n. 81, 152-53. Pannenberg takes care to point out that in his use also the
term 'vision' 'can only express something about the subjective mode of experience, not something
about the reality of an event experienced in this form' (Jesus 95); similarly Carnley,
Structure 245-46.
214. However, Marxsen plays down the element of sight indicated in 1 Cor. 9.1 in order
to interpret Paul's 'vision' as (only) 'revelation' (Resurrection 98-111).
215. Cf. Grass, Ostergeschehen 226-32; Pannenberg, Jesus 93-95; D. Kendall and
G. O'Collins, 'The Uniqueness of the Easter Appearances', CBQ 54 (1992) 287-307; Schräge,
1 Korinther 4.49. It should be recalled that Paul was writing these words some twenty years
later; no other 'appearances' had evidently taken place in the interval. On the possibility of confusion
between experiences of Jesus and experiences of the Spirit (cf. particularly Carnley,
Structure) see further my Jesus and the Spirit 100-103; Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection 11-
85.
873