(avg. read time: 6–12 mins.)
As we continue our series on resurrection harmonies, the one we evaluate today comes from:
Eckhard J. Schnabel, Jesus in Jerusalem: The Last Days (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018).
In his larger work, Schnabel seeks to analyze in sequence the events, persons, places, and times detailed in the Four Gospels concerning the events of Jesus’s last visit to Jerusalem, which culminates in his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. I make no comment here one way or the other on how strong his arguments are concerning the sequencing of other events. What is pertinent for us are two of his sections on the empty tomb narratives and Jesus’s appearances to his disciples.
At the outset, it should be noted that Schnabel explicitly rejects the ending of Mark, thinking (like many others) that it originally ended at 16:8. But he has detailed his reasoning elsewhere.1 His arguments to this effect are flawed for reasons I have noted elsewhere. Unfortunately, this already presents us with a weakness for his harmonizing work, as his approach necessitates leaving biblical text unaccounted for.
One matter that is beneficial about Schnabel’s work is how detailed his timelines are in terms of sequencing. Since his lists are in two sections, I will number the events as first “1.” to signify that this is the number given in that first section and then “2.” to signify that this is the number given in the second section. The first list is given on pp. 354–56 and the second list is given on pp. 366–67.
1.1 Before dawn, there was an earthquake (Matt 28:2).
1.2 An angel comes and rolls away the stone (Matt 28:3).
1.3 The guards are terrified and flee into the city (Matt 28:4).
1.4 Three women buy fragrant oils: Mary Magdalene (Mary I), Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Mary II), and Salome (Mark 16:1). They may have come to the tomb from Bethany or Jerusalem.
1.5 These same women go to the tomb (Mark 16:2; cf. Matt 28:1; John 20:1), while other women also brought fragrant oils (Luke 23:56; 24:1).
1.6 The three women wonder who will remove the stone (Mark 16:3).
1.7 They find the stone already removed (Mark 16:4; John 20:1).
1.8 Mary I, and perhaps the other two (at least), enter the tomb and find that Jesus is not there (John 20:2).
1.9 Mary I immediately leaves and goes to tell Peter and John (John 20:2).
1.10 Mary II and Salome see an angel inside the tomb (Matt 28:2; Mark 16:5).
1.11 The angel tells these two women that Jesus is risen, not here, and that they can see where he was laid (Matt 28:6; Mark 16:6).
1.12 The angel tells them to go tell the disciples, especially Peter, that he is going to Galilee, and he will meet them there, just as he told them (Matt 28:7; Mark 16:7).
1.13 These two women then go to Jerusalem, overwhelmed by what they were told, saying nothing to anyone on the way to the disciples (Matt 28:8; Mark 16:8).
1.14 Joanna and Galilean women arrive at the tomb, not encountering Mary I, Mary II, and Salome on their way from either Bethany or an alternate route from Jerusalem (Luke 23:56; 24:1, 10).
1.15 These women see the stone removed and enter to find Jesus’s body not there (Luke 24:2).
1.16 These women then encounter the two angels mentioned in Luke (Luke 24:4, 23).
1.17 The two angels tell the women that Jesus is alive and remind them of his words (Luke 24:5–7).
1.18 Joanna and the other women leave the tomb to report to the Eleven and the rest (Luke 24:9).
1.19 Peter and John react to the report of Mary I by running (perhaps from Bethany) to the tomb without meeting the women on the way (John 20:3; Luke 24:12).
1.20 John arrives first and, without entering the tomb, sees Jesus’s burial clothes lying where his body used to be (John 20:4–5).
1.21 Peter arrives and goes into the tomb (John 20:6–7).
1.22 John goes into the tomb, sees, and believes (John 20:8).
1.23 Peter and John return to their homes (John 20:10).
1.24 Mary I, who had followed Peter and John without encountering any of the other women, weeps and stoops to look into the tomb after Peter and John have left (John 20:11).
1.25 Mary sees and speaks with two angels now sitting where Jesus’s body used to lie (John 20:12–13).
1.26 Jesus reveals himself to Mary I (John 20:14–16).
1.27 Jesus commands Mary I to go to his disciples (John 20:17).
1.28 Mary I tells the disciples that she has seen the Lord (John 20:18).
1.29 Jesus reveals himself to Mary II and Salome, and he tells them to go tell his disciples (Matt 28:9–10).
1.30 Jesus tells them to tell his disciples to go to Galilee, where they will see him (Matt 28:10).
1.31 Mary II and Salome go to tell his disciples (Matt 28:10).
1.32 The disciples do not believe the women’s reports (Luke 24:10–11), despite at least four named women (and other unnamed ones) having seen his empty tomb and three having received resurrection appearances; Peter and John had seen the empty tomb, but no angels or Jesus, and John’s belief does not appear to have had a deep impact.
2.1 Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene/Mary I (John 20:14–18; Sunday early morning).
2.2 Jesus appears to Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Mary II and Salome (Matt 28:9–10; Sunday early morning).
2.3 Jesus appears to Simon Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5; unclear time on Sunday).
2.4 Jesus appears to Cleopas and another disciple near Emmaus (Luke 24:13–32; Sunday late afternoon).
2.5 Jesus appears to the Eleven, Cleopas, the other disciple, and others who are present (Luke 24:33, 36–49; Sunday evening).
2.6 Jesus appears to the disciples without Thomas (John 20:19–23; 1 Cor 15:5; Sunday evening).
2.7 Jesus appears to the disciples with Thomas (John 20:26–29; eight days later).
2.8 Jesus appears to seven of the disciples in Galilee (John 21:1–22; “after these things”).
2.9 Jesus appears to the Eleven in Galilee (Matt 28:16–20).
2.10 Jesus appears to more than 500 followers (1 Cor 15:6).
2.11 Jesus appears to James, his brother (1 Cor 15:7).
2.12 Jesus appears to the apostles over the course of the forty days (Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:7).
2.13 Jesus appears to the disciples, including the Eleven, women followers, and his family after the forty days (Luke 24:50–52; Acts 1:6–14).
2.14 Jesus appears to Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:3–6; 1 Cor 15:8; dated to “probably AD 31/32”[367]).2
Obviously, these events as laid out are not in completely distinct sequence, as 1.26–28 overlaps with 2.1 and 1.29–31 overlaps with 2.2. For the events he lays out in the first chapter, he also offers three proposed timetables for these events (357–59). But we need not go over those in detail, as they are simply meant to illustrate the plausibility of all this moving about by three different groups on Sunday morning. Given the geography of Jerusalem and Bethany, these are not long trips, and it is possible for one group to pass by another either without seeing them or being too far away in enough of a rush to necessitate stopping and interrogating. This makes his work rather similar to Wenham’s in this regard, and it is good that Schnabel gives his readers options for timetables as a way of signaling that these are not matters that we definitely know, but they are plausible.
Some of the points that Schnabel makes are quite similar to what we have already covered in this series. For example, he says much the same thing that we have already noted about angels being referred to as youths (especially in Luke, where the descriptions are clearly interchangeable). As such, we will not be revisiting those points again here.
For as detailed as Schnabel’s sequence is, his explanation of it is not without its weaknesses. I have already noted the first one in that he leaves Mark 16:9–20 unaccounted for, although he obviously thinks he does not need to account for it. A second weakness is that with so much detail, he seems to find difficulty with keeping some matters straight. For example, in referring to the angel’s statements in Matthew and Mark, which he distinguishes from the events related in Luke as involving different women, he still describes the angel as speaking to “three women” (361). It seems that he has forgotten that in his own outline these words are said to two women, not including Mary Magdalene. He might suggest that there were more women present still, but we have been given no reason to restrict this to three women specifically, other than Schnabel forgetting that Mary Magdalene is not on the scene at this point in his reconstruction. This also means that he does not keep clear track of what he has addressed and what he has not, as I will note in my more direct survey of his sequence.
I have no particular comment on 1.1–3, except to say that, unlike Wenham’s work, there is no further comment on Matt 28:11–15 here, as he briefly treated the matters on pp. 347–48. The notion assumed throughout 1.4–5 that different women could have bought oils at different times is unobjectionable. The notion underlying 1.4–18 that two different groups of women went to the tomb is not inherently implausible, and so I do not feel the need to dismiss out of hand like some might. But what I would want to see is a positive argument to this effect from Schnabel, which is lacking here. The lack of such an argument, as well as his allowance for multiple timetable possibilities, make Dale Allison’s mischaracterization of Schnabel as an example of an author endeavoring to “iron out every discrepancy,” frankly, laughable.3 Likewise, while I do not think it is implausible that Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Salome could be the women to whom Jesus appeared in Matt 28:9–10 and to whom the angel spoke in the absence of Mary Magdalene, I do wish that Schnabel had endeavored to address issues that I have raised previously. Again, I am not suggesting that the issues are intractable, but they ought to be addressed and not ignored. His particular reconstruction would also need to deal with the fact that Luke’s account in 24:8–10 would seem to most naturally imply that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were part of the same group that heard what one of the two angels said in this account and reported to the other disciples. Perhaps Schnabel could argue that Luke is condensing and conflating here by including their reports with the women who specifically heard these words in distinction from the Marys (plus Salome). But again, that argument—or something else in its place—should be clearly articulated.
I do not see any real issue with the sequence of 1.19–32. A particular highlight of his presentation is in his comments on 1.22 and 1.26. Concerning 1.22, he notes that John would have surmised the transformation of Jesus’s resurrection body from the state of the burial clothes being where they are while Jesus’s body is absent (364), which sets this event apart from Lazarus’s resurrection (which he needlessly calls a “resuscitation”; 364). Naturally, further revelation will be forthcoming, but this alone gives some indication of transformation, that his body now has different characteristics, even if it is numerically identical to the body that was buried. This is one of the roots of theologizing about Jesus’s resurrection, besides the angelic proclamation and Jesus’s own teachings before and after his resurrection.
Likewise, concerning 1.26, Schnabel says the following about Mary’s desire to cling to Jesus upon seeing that he is alive:
When Mary holds on to Jesus, she does not truly understand that Jesus’ post-resurrection body is not the same as his pre-resurrection body: while it is the same physical body, the latter made Jesus’ everyday physical presence with his followers a matter of course, while the former is characterized by his presence in God’s glory. The statement does not address the question when Jesus’ ascension took place. But it implies that the “place” where Jesus’ body is located is no longer continually and tangibly with his disciples on this earth but continually, and no less real, in the presence of the Father. Mary, and with her all disciples, should no longer rely on Jesus’ physical presence, although he will still be present in his glorified body through the promised Spirit (John 16:7), the Spirit of God who is Jesus’ Father and their Father, Jesus’ God and their God. (365)
He has more to say on this matter than what I have quoted here, but this helpfully shows the linkage between this conversation and the earlier teaching in John 14–16 (for more, see here and here).
As far as the sequence of the list in 2 is concerned, my only issue is why there should be a distinction between 2.5 and 2.6. This is not only unaddressed, but Schnabel later writes of these narrations as referring to the same event (369–70). Moreover, as I have noted previously, there is no need to think all of Luke 24:36–49 covers one day or one appearance. The rest of the sequencing is at least plausible, although I think he falls into the common error of thinking that 1 Cor 15:6 implies that the 500+ were believers already before Christ appeared to them, which is not necessarily the case, and I think that needs to be argued.
After this harmonization work, Schnabel then puts forth a positive argument for the historical reality of Jesus’s resurrection, against the various views he cites as alternative notions to either Jesus’s resurrection or to the possibility of affirming it as a historical reality (370–75). As that lies beyond our scope of looking at harmonization work as such, I will simply say that this is a good survey of the issues and the problems with alternative claims.
I commend Schnabel’s detailed sequencing work and for his work in composing the potential timetables for keeping all the details straight. Some of his exposition on particular events is also worth reading, beyond what I have noted here. However, for all the virtues of his thorough sequencing, not everything is properly argued for. Even where I think his suggestions are plausible, I think he needed clear articulation for his reasoning. Issues I have noted in other harmonies have been left unaddressed. I think Schnabel’s work could be the basis for a strong harmony, provided that the person who builds on his work supplies argument that Schnabel omitted, and provided that the argumentation thereof is of good quality.
Eckhard J. Schnabel, Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 18–23.
This indicates a broader disagreement I have with his dating, but that is besides the point here. See here for more.
Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2021), 181 n. 79.