(avg. read time: 3–6 mins.)
In these last three entries in the series, we are moving beyond those referenced in Dale Allison’s book. First, we will be going a few decades back to one of the most significant books in modern scholarship on resurrection in the NT:
Murray J. Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).
This was one of the reference points for Schnabel’s own harmonization that we reviewed in the previous entry of this series. Unfortunately, as Harris’s harmonization work is simply a small part of one of his chapters, he lacks the detailed engagement of Schnabel or, more significantly, Wenham. It is something closer to O’Connell, but he does at least provide a thorough outline of how he thinks the events unfolded.
As with O’Connell, I would recommend Harris’s general discussion on objections to the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection. Also like with O’Connell, he provides an example from ancient history in which actual contradictions between accounts do not perforce show that the events in question never happened. The example he uses is of the accounts of Polybius and Livy regarding Hannibal’s march to Rome. These accounts are not reconcilable with each other, and while subsequent writers have taken different approaches to treating them, no one (as far as Harris is aware, at least) has yet posited that Hannibal did not pass over the Alps at all (68).
Over forty years later, I am obviously inclined to agree that this impression is still accurate. Moreover, he insists, “The fact that no two efforts at harmonisation will totally agree is a testimony, not to the impropriety of the task or the blatantly contradictory nature of the evidence, but merely to the paucity of the data and the evident lack of collusion between the witnesses” (69). He then provides his “tentative harmony” (69), which he invites readers to compare to earlier efforts of others, some of which he cites:
After the resurrection, but before dawn, there was an earthquake, an angel rolled away the stone, and the guards fled (Matt 28:2–4)
Around dawn, Mary Magdalane, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome approached the tomb to anoint Jesus with perfume also brought by other women (who he thinks set out later). They found the stone rolled away (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:1–4; John 20:1).
One or more of the women entered the tomb and announced that the body was not there (John 20:2).
Mary Magdalene immediately departed to tell Peter and John (John 20:2).
The other Mary and Salome saw an angel (with the appearance of “a young man” in Mark [and Luke]) inside the tomb who announced the resurrection and commanded the women to tell the disciples that Jesus would meet them in Galilee (Matt 28:5–7; Mark 16:5–7).
These two women return to the city without saying anything to anyone on the way due to being overwhelmed by holy awe (Matt 28:8; Mark 16:8).
Certain women from Galilee, along with Joanna, arrived at the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, where they met two men/angels and return to report the angels’ message to the Eleven and the rest (Luke 24:1–9, 22–23).
Peter and John (as well as others, maybe) ran to Jesus’s tomb after Mary Magdalene informed them, saw its emptiness, and returned home (Luke 24:12; John 20:3–10).
Mary Magdalene follower Peter and John, saw the two angels inside after they left, and met the risen Jesus (John 20:11–17; cf. Mark 16:9).
Mary Magdalene returned to tell the disciples Jesus had risen and she had seen him (John 20:18; cf. Mark 16:10–11).
The other Mary and Salome met Jesus and were commanded to tell his brethren that they will see him in Galilee (Matt 28:9–10).
The disciples refused to believe the reports from the various women (Luke 24:10–11; Mark 16:11).
During the afternoon Jesus appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, after which they returned to Jerusalem and reported the appearance (Luke 24:13–35; cf. Mark 16:12–13).
Jesus appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5).
That evening Jesus appeared to the Eleven and others, minus Thomas (Luke 24:33, 36–43; 1 Cor 15:5; cf. Mark 16:14).
One week later, Jesus appeared to the Eleven with Thomas included (John 20:26–29).
Seven disciples had an encounter with Jesus by the Sea of Gailee (John 21:1–22).
The Eleven met Jesus on a mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:16–20; cf. Mark 16:15–18).
Jesus appeared to more than five hundred brethren (1 Cor 15:6; Luke 24:44–49 [?]).
Jesus appeared to James (1 Cor 15:7).
Immediately before his ascension, Jesus appeared to the disciples near Bethany (Luke 24:50–52; Acts 1:6–11; 1 Cor 15:7; cf. Mark 16:19–20). (69–71)
Schnabel acknowledged that Harris was one of the sources his harmonization work built on, and it shows. One respect in which Harris is arguably better is that he at least attempts to incorporate the ending of Mark, but ultimately he is like Schnabel and others in denying its authenticity (14–16). Since he is only dealing with the matter in a cursory fashion, he lacks the detail of Schnabel or (especially) Wenham’s work, including in terms of the movements of individuals and groups across the geography of the Jerusalem area. Otherwise, most of the same issues apply to Harris’s work that we saw in Schnabel’s work. The particularities of Matthew’s report with the women have not been sufficiently addressed, not even in an endnote. The notion that Luke is reporting concerning a completely different group of women visiting the tomb is possible, but it should be argued for. I am also not sure that 1 Cor 15:5 should be linked with 15) as opposed to 16). I would also think that 14)—Jesus’s appearance to Peter—should probably be set before the appearance to the two on the road to Emmaus, although it is reported later. He at least does not state the linkage of 1 Cor 15:6 with Luke 24:44–49 too strongly, merely suggesting its possibility. But at the same time, it has once again not been clearly established that the 500+ were “brethren” at the time of the appearance.
If these problems could be addressed and the weaknesses shored up, I think this is otherwise a solid framework for a harmony. More detail could be added, even without making it the extent of Wenham’s work. I also think the introductory material is sound and is worth engaging with as a reader or a writer of other harmonization work. For anyone interested in earlier harmonization efforts, he also helpfully cites some examples that readers could compare, evaluate, and work from. Since I have read this whole book, I would certainly recommend it on the whole. I have my disagreements with it, but not to the extent that I have any reservations about recommending it as such. If one wants to see how he addressed controversy that arose about the book at the time (particularly because of Norm Geisler), one should also read his From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the New Testament, which incorporates and expands this book.