Resurrection or Apparition?

Did the disciples (and James) see apparitions, or visions, of the risen Jesus?

The earliest κήρυγμα of the risen Christ, that we have is that preserved in 1 Cor 15:3–8, or if you are of the minority that believe that Mark was pre-Pauline (as I am, based on the work of James Crossley) Mark 16:1–8 (it is also likely hinted at in Q13:34–35, that is, assuming Q did not originally have a passion narrative and resurrection account, which cannot be taken for granted, see here and here). Either way, the claim was that Jesus was ἐγήγερται raised up, or as mark 16:6 says “Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον· ἠγέρθη” Jesus the Nazarene, the one crucified, whom you are searching for, has been raised.

The claim made, was that the disciples had seen Jesus raised, Paul receives this tradition which goes back to almost right after the death of Jesus. However, could the disciples have just seen an apparition? Like a ghost? Like many people who are bereaved experience?

The problem with that explanation, as laid out painstakingly by NT Wright in his The Resurrection of the Son of God, is that there is almost no way they would have interpreted what they saw as a resurrection if it was that kind of visionary experience. Ancient peoples, including first century Jews, understood what apparitions were, and we are quite sure the disciples of Jesus knew the difference given Mark 4:49, where they mistake Jesus for a φάντασμά, a fantasm, an apparition, a ghost, and Acts 12:9 where Peter, when being released from prison by an angel, thought he was seeing a vision (ἐδόκει δὲ ὅραμα βλέπειν).

The Jewish concept of a resurrection was, however, a bodily resurrection, as the third Maccabean martyr in 2 Maccabees 7:10–11 makes clear when he offers his hands and tongue to be cut off by his Greek tormentors claiming that “ταῦτα πάλιν ἐλπίζω κομίζεσθαι” and these again I hope to receive, that is, in the resurrection he will get a new tongue and hands. You see something similar in 14:43–46, where another martyr, being burned alive, tore out his own intestines and flung them at the troops and “ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸν δεσπόζοντα τῆς ζωῆς καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος τὰ αὐτὰ αὐτῷ πάλιν ἀποδοῦναι,” called upon the one ruling over life and spirit, to give it back to him it again to him again.

Of course, the concept of resurrection varied within Judaism, for example Daniel 12:2–3, in which those resurrected will have bodies, but rather transformed into some kind of astral material, shining like the brightness of the stars (N.T. Wright, however, takes this passage to be metaphorical, Wright, N.T., The Resurrection of the Son of God, 109–115). But either way the resurrection was conceived of as bodily, and empirical. Another issue is that the resurrection appearances were conceived of as the beginning of the general resurrection, which is precisely Paul’s point in 1 Cor 15 (and again, he is presenting something that the congregation is taking for granted and arguing from a common ground). Wright after going over the concept of resurrection among Jews in the second-temple period concludes that resurrection had two basic meanings, the restoration of Israel and of human bodies, with these two concepts being closely related, i.e. the resurrection and the restoration were both an eschatological and political hope (Wright, N.T., The Resurrection of the Son of God, 204–205).

In Paul’s recital of the resurrection tradition, after listing the appearances to Cephus, the twelve, 500, James, he then refers to his own appearance (interestingly he leaves out the first appearance to the women, perhaps due to a culturally embedded misogyny). N.T. Wright explains his use of ἐκτρώματι (untimely birth) with regards to his own experience of the risen Christ, in part, as a suggestion that Paul acknowledges that his experience was different than the others, he saw a blinding light (a resurrection experience perhaps more in line with Daniel 12:2–3), whereas the others saw Christ as human person (although with supernatural aspects), perhaps more in line with the Maccabean idea of resurrection (Wright, N.T., The Resurrection of the Son of God, 327–328). Either way, these experiences were not interpreted as visions, but as a resurrection, and the beginning of the general resurrection.

Given this, one should be very cautious about dismissing the resurrection appearances as mere visions. Ancient peoples, including first century Jews knew what an apparition was, they knew what a vision was, and that is not what they experienced in seeing Jesus risen.