The Reality of the Resurrection: The New Testament Witness

8. Semiotic Interpretation of the Phenomena of Resurrection Discourse in the Writings of the New Testament

209 Chapter 8 Semiotic Interpretation of the Phenomena of Resurrection Discourse in the Writings of the New Testament Keeping in mind the results of the investigating the narrative and rhetorical strategies of texts that were examined in the first part of the present inquiry within the framework of their universe of discourse, the textual data under examination will now be interpreted and classified within the framework of the encyclopedia of our present knowledge, by means of the semiotic categories of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness. It should once more be recalled that the concept of phenomenon here simply means that which appears to perception. One can only make interpretive decisions about the category and ontological status of a particular phenomenon in consideration of the universes of discourse and encyclopedias involved. The famous dictum of Charles Sanders Peirce— “All thought is in signs”1 —means precisely this: only Signs, which are themselves the genuine phenomena of Thirdness, make possible the representation of the phenomena of Firstness and Secondness as the phenomena of Firstness and Secondness. The same holds for the phenomena of the category of Thirdness. It also can be represented only by means of signs because there can be no phenomena of Fourthness. That does not in any way mean, however, that access to the phenomena of Firstness and Secondness let alone to Thirdness as such is barred to us. Rather, they are disclosed [erschlossen] through their interpretive representation by means of signs. The results of the investigation conducted in the first part will now be interpreted by placing them in the categories of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness. It will thus be shown that the high level of plausibility of New Testament resurrection discourse comes about through the interplay 210—The Reality of the Resurrection of all three categories and therefore the understanding of reality that New Testament resurrection discourse puts forth comes into view. The results of the first part are not completely classified and interpreted here, however. That would go beyond the bounds of the scope and intention of the present study. Here the New Testament understanding of reality in view of its resurrection discourse will simply be disclosed [erschlossen]. Appearances: Doubt, Fear, Tears, Joy, and Burning Hearts (Phenomena of Firstness) Recalling the New Testament depiction of the transformation of Paul from a persecutor of the Christian communities to an apostle of Jesus Christ, we observe that the depictions in Galatians 1 agree with those in Acts 9:22 in that Paul was in no way prepared for this event. The experience arose spontaneously, without any warning, and Paul reacted just as spontaneously, as is especially clear in his own presentation in Galatians. Neither in the depiction in Acts nor in his autobiographical narrative in Galatians 1 does Paul check in an empirical manner whether the tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem is empty. Moreover, he engages in no scriptural argumentation to help him evaluate his perception. Rather, the perception of the appearance, and his reaction to it as the perception of his commission, collapse into each other co-originally [gleichursprünglich] and precritically. This spontaneous act of perception with Paul’s spontaneous reaction is to be evaluated as a phenomenon of Firstness. This event—however we may interpret and categorize it today, be it as an objective vision of the resurrected and exalted Kyrios, be it as a psychological projection of a disturbed Paul—forms the basis of the Pauline conviction of the resurrection of the crucified Jesus Christ. No tradition, no argumentation, no empirically repeatable proofs, but rather the contingent evidence of his own experience forms the emotional foundation of Pauline theology. In placing his own experience in the memory of such experiences of others in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul shows that he would not wish to understand his vision as a singular individual experience but rather precisely as the foundation for those convinced of the resurrection of Jesus before him. Whether the witnesses named in 1 Corinthians 15 understood their own experiences in the same way as Paul we cannot say,2 for we are familiar only with Paul’s autobiographical depiction. Being depictions of such experiences at a certain remove, the gospels and Acts cannot be investigated as authentic witnesses of the appearances. It is even possible that in the Acts of the Apostles Luke has written out in narrative Semiotic Interpretation of the Phenomena of Resurrection Discourse—211 fashion what...