It's often mentioned that the appearance is to women (something unlikely to be made up because of the gender of the individuals involved) and is prior to any appearance to men (something unlikely to be made up because its chronology gives a significant form of priority to the female disciples over the males). A point not made as often is that the location of the women is similarly unlikely to have been made up (Jerusalem rather than Galilee). Given all of the emphasis on Jesus appearing to his disciples in Galilee (26:32, 28:7, 28:10, 28:16), an appearance in Jerusalem first is disruptive and unnecessarily raises a problem (why an appearance in Galilee would be mentioned and emphasized so much if he was to appear in Jerusalem first).
There are other reasons to believe that this resurrection appearance is historical. These are just a few points among others that could be made. But these three are easy to remember together, since this appearance to the women involves a difficult gender (women rather than men), difficult timing (before any appearance to men), and a difficult location (Jerusalem amid so much emphasis on Galilee).
Usually the claim is that he appeared to the women in the Jerusalem area but appeared first to the male disciples in Galilee. Hence, John & Luke must have gotten it wrong, be inventing or changing, etc. The idea is that the women were just supposed to carry a message to the men to meet him in Galilee. It's supposedly only disruptive or confusing if Jesus sends a message to the men, even emphasizing Peter (in Mark), but then actually meets the men later that day. Why bother to send that message from the women if he was going to see the men himself that very day?
ReplyDeleteI answer first that the women were supposed to tell a larger number of people than just the eleven and those who were with them who saw him later that day. Second, the women were not there at the Last Supper when Jesus mentioned meeting him in Galilee after his resurrection (Matt. 26). Hence, the mention of meeting him in Galilee could function as a kind of "password" indicating that the women really had seen him on Easter.
One more point is that in Luke the angel says to the women, "Remember what he told you when he was in Galilee--that he would die and rise again." We have several other references to these women as having been with Jesus in Galilee. So that fits together to confirm that message in Luke. Contra those who claim that Luke changed the words of the angel because he (for some reason) wanted to include the word "Galilee" but wanted to change the first meeting with the disciples to Jerusalem.
Also, of course, a first meeting with the male disciples in Jerusalem is found in both Luke & John (and a second one a week later in John), but the stories have some variation, indicating multiple attestation. (The real kind, not the fake kind.)