The resurrection narratives have come to us in five versions, from as many writers—the four gospel writers and Paul. While intersecting at several vital points, these stories diverge widely from one another with respect to details. How many persons visited the tomb on Easter morning? Who were they? To whom did the risen Lord appear? Where did those appearances take place? Such questions as these lie behind Wenham’s study of the Easter Enigma: given the centrality of Jesus’ resurrection for Christian faith, why do the various witnesses concerning those events at least appear to differ markedly from one another? Against the general tide of critical scholarship, Wenham is convinced that the five versions interlock with one another so as to present one, harmonious portrayal of the period from Maundy Thursday to Jesus’ ascension.
As the assumptions Wenham brings to the study are pivotal, the three most important merit brief review. First, because the evangelists were honest and well-informed we should accept their reports as reliable. Second, the methods and results of biblical criticism are not vital to this exercise. Third, evidence from one gospel can be used to shed light on another. These points constitute the methodological boundaries of this study, written for a non-technical, but informed audience.
Easter Enigma consists of eleven chapters, the first four of which are introductory. These chapters set the scene for a discussion of the events themselves, focusing on matters of geography and topography, the ‘cast of players’, and the purpose of each of the five writers. A single chapter is devoted to Mary Magdalene in an attempt to identify her more precisely as the ‘sinner’ of Luke 7, who is also the sister of Martha and Lazarus. A number of other interesting, if speculative, ideas are presented regarding the relationships of the numerous persons involved in the narratives. The bulk of the book’s content, however, is given over to tracing the events from the last supper to Jesus’ ascension.
One random example of Wenham’s harmonistic method illustrates his over-all approach. In 1 Corinthians 5:6, Paul asserts that the risen Christ appeared to 500 brothers at once. The gospels relate no such event per se, or do they? Since, Wenham argues, the meeting with the 500 must have occurred after the dispersion of the festival crowds from Jerusalem, it must have been a convened meeting. According to Matthew 28:16–20, Jesus called such a meeting in Galilee (at a meeting to which Jesus had directed them). It is true that Matthew does not narrate a large meeting, but only an appearance to the eleven; however in using the words ‘but some doubted’, Matthew refers to additional persons not specifically identified. Thus, Paul’s statement and Matthew’s narrative are two accounts of the same event.
Wenham’s book raises a few questions, both about his method and results. (1) Wenham’s approach leads him into a great deal of speculation as he attempts to fill in gaps in the biblical narratives in order to make them read as one. His ‘reasoned conjectures’ are often ingenious, sometimes inspired, but not always convincing. (2) While Wenham wants to by-pass critical issues, it is apparent that he can not. For example, he must posit a ‘Joanna’ source for Luke’s narrative of Jesus’ burial (though source criticism demonstrates that here Luke is only following Mark). Similarly, he appeals to the purposes of the evangelists (i.e. redaction criticism) to get around some incongruities. (3) Not all of his points are equally convincing. For example, the discrepancy between Mark’s one angel (16:5) and Luke’s two (24:4) is not overcome by asserting, ‘If there were two, there was one’ (p. 87). More substantially, following John 20:11–18, Wenham reasons that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene apart from the others. However, Matthew 28:1–10 plainly relates that Jesus appeared to Mary and Mary Magdalene at the same time. (4) Wenham’s rhetoric is at times heavy-handed, and he is not always fair with those (on the right and left) whose judgements are not his own. Let it be said openly: one can remain an evangelical without buying into this particular approach.
In summary, Wenham’s study presents an interesting approach to the problems presented by the resurrection narratives, an approach worth reading as an alternative to others put forth in recent years. Those who share Wenham’s presuppositions may find his reconstruction convincing, but its impact on biblical scholarship as a whole will be minimal.
