Did John the Evangelist make a mistake in counting the post-resurrection apparitions of Jesus?

score:3

Accepted answer

I am unaware of any specific statement by the Catholic Church on this question.

It's possible that this could be interpreted as a mistake, but I think there's a simpler solution:

What is the inner circle of Jesus' closest disciples called?

  • In the Synoptics they are usually "the twelve"
  • Luke 6:13 is likely the earliest reference indicating that the twelve were also called "apostles"
  • John calls them "disciples"

So applying John's terminology consistently, I see John 21:14 calling out that this was the third appearance to the apostles as a group.

John himself acknowledges this wasn't the third appearance in the absolute sense--he records the appearance to Mary Magdalene, who certainly was a disciple in the general sense of the word; just not an apostle.

Putting the Gospels together, we have appearances to:

  1. Mary Magdalene
  2. Mary the mother of James & Joses, Joanna, Salome (and possibly others)
  3. Peter
  4. Cleopas and his companion (could be before #3)
  5. 10 of the original apostles (Thomas absent, Judas absent and possibly dead), plus possibly others
  6. 11 of the original apostles (Thomas now present, Judas absent and probably dead)
  7. The appearance at the Sea of Tiberius

(The timing of the appearance to James (aka James the Just) is unknown; this theory would suggest that the appearance to 500+ (as recorded by Paul in 1 Cor 15) probably happened after the appearance at the Sea of Tiberius)

I've bolded the appearances to the apostles as a group, and the Sea of Tiberius is indeed #3 on the list.

Upvote:3

My recommendation to you is not to overthink this. Perhaps John was simply not aware of Jesus's appearance to Cleopas and the other unnamed disciple on their way to Emmaus. Luke was aware, however, and he included the appearance (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, of course) when he wrote his Gospel.

Remember, a basic rule of hermeneutics regarding the interpretation of the four Gospels (particularly Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the "synoptic" Gospels) is that four authors have different perspectives, based on such things as a) their purpose in writing; b) their sometimes unique experiences vis a vis the life of Jesus; and, of course, c) their being led by the Holy Spirit in what they write, whether, for example, to include or not to include a story or a detail.

By the way, your use of the word apparition is unfortunate in my opinion. A better word is appearance, since an apparition is a ghostly figure or spectre. Jesus's appearance to Thomas, for example, was definitely not an apparition, given that Jesus encouraged Thomas to touch his wounds from having been crucified. Thomas could not touch the wounds of an apparition!

More post

Search Posts

Related post