Reflection on Revelation

Of the twenty-seven canonical books in the New Testament, the book of Revelation (the Apocalypse of St. John) is perhaps one of the most debated and controversial due to its apocalyptic content. The end of time has been a matter of debate since the dawn of man itself, it seems. Since at least the late 2000s BC, men and women have declared the end of the world time after time, perhaps the most recent attempts have been by Harold Camping last year, with the forthcoming date of 12-21-12 frightening many individuals. Comparing different perspectives over the course of history can give us a clearer perspective on how major events can shape our perception of the end of the world. This is not to say that the world will not end, nor is it a negation of the idea that it will end as described in Scripture, but Scripture itself and our understanding and application of it are two radically different things. For example, we consider a 2nd century Palestinian Christian, a Christian under the Nazi regime in World War II during the 1940s, and finally a 21st century Christian contemplating the apocalypse.

By the 2nd century in Palestine, the destruction of Jerusalem has already occurred, the Jewish nation has dispersed more so than before, the Christian community is facing ever-increasing persecution, and bewilderment grows concerning the time of Christ’s return. Persecution directly prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 evidently led some Christians to go underground, as exemplified in the Cappadocian Christians who created underground settlements to hide from the Roman persecution. With heightened persecution during the reign of Nero, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem in the 1st century and the Bar Kocchba rebellion in the first half of the 2nd century, the Christian community was not immune to such events. These would evidently have influenced their understanding of the end times, so much so that early Christians believed they were enduring the actual Tribulation. In the aftermath of the 1st century, Christians began to reconsider whether or not Jesus was actually returning “very soon” (Revelation 22:20) on our time or on His time.

A very real threat was still dominant at the time: Rome. Christians and Jews began to refer to Rome as “Babylon,” more often after AD 70, though the “name-calling” occurred prior to AD 70 as well. In the 2nd century, the Jews and Christians would have been well aware of the parallels to the Babylonian captivity and burning of Jerusalem in 586 BC, hence why Rome was called “Babylon.” In fact, it seems apparent that some early Christian interpreted the Babylon in John’s Revelation as Rome itself. Given the power and influence of Roman rule in Palestine, of course, this is not unexpected. Other Christian sects came to be formulated, such as Gnostics, Ebionites, and others, which brought in further interpretations of the end times. As the perception of 2nd century Christians does not determine the veracity of Scripture, it is not undermining for the Christian, so to note that 2nd century Christians living in Palestine may have taken the 666 (or 616) reference to refer to Nero is not uncalled for. In fact, there was a rumor (called the Nero redivivus myth) that Nero had not actually died in AD 68, and would one day return to lead the Parthian armies from the east. Evidently, coming out of the persecution under Domitian, 2nd century Christians would have still considered Nero to be a possible Antichrist.

In Revelation 16:12 we read, “The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East.” In 2nd century Palestine, the Euphrates river was considered the border that separated the civilized world from the barbarians beyond it, so the Christian would likely have taken this to refer to Barbarian rulers. We then come to Armageddon (16:16), the hill of Megiddo. The site itself has been the location of many major battles in history, and likely would have been understood in this context. It is from the 2nd century that we find many Martyrologies. As such, this increase in Christian persecution very likely would have influenced the apocalyptic view of many believers, and led many to believe that they were living in the end times.

During the 1940s, a Christian under the Nazi regime would have viewed his era as the end of days, and writings survive that indicate that this is so. The apocalyptic imagery vividly portrayed in John’s Revelation came alive before the eyes of the men and women in the 1940s. The death camps like Auschwitz, the inhuman treatment of the Jewish Diaspora, the usage of the atomic bomb, the increase in mechanized warfare and other deadly technological developments also led to a rise in the belief that the final days had come. With the buildup of daily headlines produced during the war, the radio broadcasts and the reports from the front, the apocalypse had apparently arrived. One cannot blame this generation for such a view; never before in human history had such a war occurred and so much been at stake. Surely there had been great wars and battles of antiquity, from the Peloponnesian Wars to the Trojan War, but none quite like World War II. It seemed as though the end had surely come, and many held that Hitler was the Antichrist. 

The 1940s had come and gone, and the end never showed up. In the 21st century, the apocalyptic view is perhaps more widely thought about due to the mass media propagation of ideas such as the 2012 doomsday or the Nostradamus prophecies (which coincidently appear to say that the world would end in the late 1990s). Programs dedicated to the end of the world are constantly seen on channels such as the History Channel, which leads not only to further panic but also further spread of doomsday prophecies and stories. With each passing generation the end of the world is thought to be imminent. To the Christian living in the 21st century, deciding what to believe in light of Scripture is not always easy. For example, for those who believe in a "rapture," such as Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye's wildly popular Left Behind series posits, they find "evidence" for their worldview.

An example of this is the death of the Two Witnesses (possibly Elijah and Enoch or Elijah and Moses), “For three and a half days many from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial” (11:9). Logically, they ask how could so many people view these bodies unless so many are already in Jerusalem? This worldview would argue that this is better understood if the bodies are displayed on television (a public display of the victory of the “Messiah”). Now, due to historical research, some Christians hold that the events detailed in Revelation have already come to pass and have little to no relevance for us today. But for other believers, the board is set, the pieces are moving, and Christ’s return is at any moment though he tarries for more souls. The book of Revelation and its interpretationding has taken on a new meaning as the centuries pass by, but if Scripture is to be taken seriously (as one would contend), the end will (eventually) be nigh, Jesus will return and usher in the New Kingdom. Regardless of the viewpoint, John’s final words echo down through the ages on the mouths and minds of many a believer, “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus…”.

Reflection on Paul

Saul of Tarsus, later known as the apostle Paul, wrote the majority of what we now call the Christian New Testament. The life and writings of St. Paul has been the subject of many discussions over the centuries, particularly among scholarly circles in recent decades. One of the major questions revolves around Paul and Jesus. What did Paul know about his miracles, parentage, and life in general? Certainly there are letters written by (or dictated by) Paul that we do not have in the canonical Scriptures (see 1st Corinthians 6:9, etc.), and we are not always privy to what Paul told those whom he converted prior to writing his letters, along with several other variables. But perhaps the question is not necessarily about what Paul did not know, but what he actually did know. Clearly, he knew of Jesus as he is the subject of the Pauline letters. Whether he had ever seen Jesus prior to his crucifixion is a matter of debate, but it is possible that St. Paul glimpsed Jesus briefly in Jerusalem. If he had seen Jesus in person – even if it was briefly – he does not mention it in any of his letters. However, he did have a sort of conversion experience in which he likely saw the resurrected Jesus, and saw him more than once afterward (Acts 18:9; 23:11).

It would therefore be relevant to give a brief background on Paul before determining what he actually knew about Jesus. St. Paul was born to Jewish parents, trained under Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) and was “circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee” (Philippians 3:5). With this in mind, what did Paul actually know about Jesus, aside from a theological standpoint? He is aware of Jesus was born of a woman and born a Jew (Galatians 4:4; some take this to refer to the virgin birth), descended from the Davidic line (Romans 1:3), that Jesus had brothers, naming James as one (1st Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19), that Jesus had twelve disciples (1st Corinthians 15:5) and ministered to Jews (Romans 15:8). Paul is also aware of the last supper that Jesus had with his disciples the night he was betrayed (1st Corinthians 11:23; although the Greek word for “betrayed” can but does not have to mean “handed over”), as well as what Jesus said that fateful evening (11:23-25), and that Jesus died on a cross by crucifixion (1st Corinthians 2:2; Galatians 6:14, etc.).

St. Paul also seemingly betrays knowledge of some of the sayings of Jesus. For example, that Christians should not get divorced (1st Corinthians 7:11; cf. Mark 10:11-12) and that preachers should be paid (1st Corinthians 9:14; cf. Luke 10:7). He also notes that Christians should pay taxes (Romans 13:7; cf. Mark 12:17) and that the Law is fulfilled by loving their neighbors as themselves (Galatians 5:14; cf. Matthew 22:39-40). Also, some of Paul’s vocabulary is similar to that used by Jesus. In one of (if not the) earliest writings in the New Testament, Paul says that “the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” (emphasis mine, 1st Thessalonians 5:2; cf. Matthew 24:42-44) and notes that “destruction will come on them suddenly, “as labor pains on a pregnant woman” (5:3; cf. Matthew 24:8). He also uses the phrase “love one another” (Romans 13:8; cf. John 13:34). We cannot be sure of what Paul did not know, but it is quite possible that he knew more than what is recorded in the canonical New Testament.

Consequently, this leads us to another question – that of St. Paul and Tradition. Along with the aforementioned items, in several places scholars believe that Paul uses early Christian creeds and hymns. He may have learned of these creeds and hymns in a variety of ways, but the prevalent theory is that he heard and learned the majority of these during his trips to Jerusalem as mentioned in Galatians. These creeds and hymns are very important to the study of early Christianity because they are able to give us a window into the earliest beliefs and notions held by the 1st century church prior to the involvement of Paul. Our first example comes from the first Pauline letter listed – Romans. According to Romans 1:3-4, “regarding his Son, who as to his early life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.” Some believe that this is an early creed, possibly used during baptism. Romans 10:9, “Jesus is Lord,” is also thought to be an early – if not the earliest – creed. 1st Corinthians 11:23-26 and 15:3-8 record two early church creeds. Paul actually uses the rabbinical technical terms of “received” and “passed on” in these two instances. The form is also creedal, and the second contains the Aramaic name of Peter which some take as a sign of early origin.

According to some scholars, Galatians 3:28 is also an early creed and it is thought to be spoke by converts during baptism (cf. 3:27). Also, Ephesians 5:14 is thought to be an early hymn, “Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.” Another very important hymn can be found in Philippians 2:6-11, where Christ is revered as God. Colossians 1:15-20, though of uncertain Pauline origin, also contains a possible hymn to Christ. 1st Timothy 3:16 is also thought to be another early creed, which declares that “God appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.” Lastly, 2nd Timothy 2:8 refers to “Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David,” which appears to be the opening and closing of the Romans 1 creed. Another creed is found in verses 11-13, and begins with “Here is a trustworthy saying.” While debate continues as to whether or not these are actual creeds and/or hymns, if we presuppose an early origin, it demonstrates several things about early Christianity.

First of all, it demonstrates a seemingly early belief in Jesus as God. It implies that the followers may have used a short list of witnesses to the resurrected Jesus (but excluded the women) in creedal formulas, recited creeds during baptism, was thought to be descended from the Davidic line and that the belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ has been present from the very start of Christianity. Both the question of Paul’s knowledge of Jesus and the question of Paul and tradition are truly fascinating and have been discussed by scholars and historians alike, but the implications for each topic will vary depending on the individual’s presuppositions. Certainly, Paul likely knew more than is recorded in his letters, and the creedal statements as well as the hymns were probably spread throughout the early Christian church – or some form of them. It offers a fascinating glimpse into the world of the early believers and allows us to re-examine what we know about early Christianity, pre-Pauline and post-Pauline. 

Variations and Differences in the Gospels

It is safe to say that Jesus of Nazareth has been the most influential individual to ever live. This is a result of many things, one of which is the four canonical gospels in the New Testament, attributed to Matthew, John Mark, Dr. Luke and John. Most scholars posit that Mark’s gospel was written first, around AD 40-65, Matthew second (AD 45-70), Luke third (AD 45-62) and John last (AD 95-100). While these dates are hotly debated among scholarly circles, this response is based upon the premise that the Synoptic gospels were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70), and that John was written late in the 1st century. Each gospel focuses on a different aspect of Jesus and His ministry. The Synoptic gospels are similar in much of their content, and both Christian and non-Christians generally contend that Mark’s gospel was used as a source for Matthew and Dr. Luke’s gospel. 

There are various differences in these gospels, some of which take a bit of effort to reconcile, but are not beyond reconciliation. These are often flaunted as “contradictions,” however; they are rather multiple accounts which provide differing supplementary (and complementary) materials. The four portrayals, taken together, give us a more complete picture of Christ. Deuteronomy 19:15 conveys, “One witness is not enough [to establish a matter]… A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses,” which is good to bear in mind when we consider that we have four canonical gospels. It is also important to note, though, that not every Christian community had access to the four gospels, indeed, some had one, two or three of these gospels, and some chose to use only one. Marcion of Sinope (AD 85-160), for example, accepted only parts of Dr. Luke’s gospel, and took certain liberties with the text itself, adding passages (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 4.6.2), a view held by the majority of scholars.

It is, therefore, relevant to examine some of these differences, along with the historical-political context, starting with the prologues. Matthew begins his gospel with the “genealogy,” “historical record,” or “account of the origin” of “Jesus the Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.” For Matthew, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the promised seed to Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:15), Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 17) and King David (2nd Samuel 7:12-16; 1st Chronicles 17:11-14; Isaiah 9:7, 11:1-10, etc). He focuses on prophecies throughout his gospel, and as such, it is important to establish the Jewishness of Jesus and the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and David. Mark begins his gospel with a simple, matter-of-fact statement, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” or “Jesus the Messiah.” The phrase “Son of God” does not appear in all ancient Greek manuscripts, but it was most likely in the original (cf. 1:11, 9:7, 15:39). For Mark, Jesus is also the Messiah, the Son of God (cf. 2nd Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; Proverbs 30:4, etc). Mark tends emphasize the authority of Jesus, as well as portraying him as the suffering servant.

Dr. Luke, on the other hand, has a very different prologue than Matthew and Mark. His prologue is typical of Greco-Roman literary works. He notes that other narratives have been written before his, and that these were from eyewitnesses. Much like an investigative journalist and careful historian, he writes that “I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (1:3), addressing the first of his works (the other being Acts) to “most excellent Theophilus.” There are various theories concerning the identity of this Theophilus, but as explained in the blog on Luke, I hold the position that this was Theophilus ben Annas, the Jewish high priest who reigned from AD 37-41, and that Dr. Luke was writing to Theophilus later (note that this high priest was also a Sadducee). As such, it is interesting to note that the third gospel places emphasis on angels, the physical nature of the resurrection (Luke 24), among other things. Evidently, the intention of Luke was to establish the credibility of his narrative.

Next, we come to John’s gospel. Likely written toward the end of the 1st century, the fourth gospel begins with a kind of hymnic narrative about “the Word,” which is identified as Jesus. John begins his gospel by establishing the pre-existence (and divine) nature of Jesus. This is also seen in other Johannine works, such as 1st John 1:1-4 and Revelation 19:13. In summation, Matthew begins with Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, John Mark as Jesus the suffering servant, Dr. Luke with a typical Greco-Roman prologue establishing the orderly nature of his narrative, and John with Jesus as the pre-existent Word, God himself. Each gospel also has an introduction of John the Baptist (whom Luke shows to be Jesus’ cousin) and his declaration of Jesus’ status as Messiah. Matthew introduces John the Baptist as a kind of Elijah in the desert, and one who baptizes. Matthew 3:11 records his declaration, “after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” In Mark’s account, John’s words are similar, where he speaks of Jesus as “one more powerful than I” (1:7). Here, John is introduced in much the same way.

In Dr. Luke’s gospel, however, a different kind of introduction is shown. In fact, Luke begins his narrative not with the introduction of Jesus, but of Zechariah and the angel Gabriel, where Gabriel details how the birth of John the Baptist will come about, and that he would be born to Zechariah and Elizabeth in their old age (reminiscent of the birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah). The angel Gabriel tells Zechariah that John “will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous -  to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (cf. Malachi 4:6). John himself comes into play in Luke 3, where “the Word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (3:2-3). As with Matthew and Mark, John makes a similar statement about the one who is more powerful than he.

Subsequently, John 1:6-8 introduces John as, “There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning the light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.” When the Jewish leaders ask him, John denies being the Messiah, Elijah, the Prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15-19), and declares himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. A statement concerning the Messiah’s sandals is also made, as in the Synoptic gospels, though without the statement “one who is more powerful.” John later gives a testimony concerning Jesus, seemingly describing Jesus’ baptism (1:32-34), and John declares Jesus as “God’s chosen one” (some manuscripts have “the Son of God”) and “the Lamb of God,” names used in the common Jewish expectation of a kingly, militaristic ruler. Matthew, Mark and Luke also contain the baptism of Jesus, but not the passage where John describes the event. In all four accounts, the “Spirit of God” descends from heaven like a dove. The Father then declares the sonship of Jesus, although the exact wording is different in the gospels. 

The cleansing of the Temple in Jerusalem is a point of contention for some. Mark 11:15-17 has Jesus cleaning the temple during the last week of his life (cf. Matthew 21:12-17; Luke 19:45-46). Matthew’s account is a tad longer, but Luke’s is short. In John 2, however, there is another cleansing. Some have explained this as two cleansings – it is certainly feasible for there to have been two separate cleansings, one at the start and one at the end of Jesus’ ministry. In fact, the context of the cleansings appears to lend itself to the notion that there was two cleansings. Among the gospels, Jesus also mentions his “true family.” Matthew, Mark and Luke record similar statements, where Jesus mentions that those who do God’s will are His true family. Yet in John 15:14 we read, “You are my friends if you do what I command.” Contextually, the statements recorded in the Synoptic gospels are spoken in public, whereas when Jesus speaks in John, it is in private, the evening before His crucifixion. Could this be an indirect claim to deity?

Another interesting account found in all four gospels is the feeding of the 5000+. This account is where J.J. Blunt derives one of his infamous “undesigned coincidences.” Luke provides the detail that this miracle took place in Bethsaida (Luke 9:10) and that the people sat in groups of about 50 (9:14), Mark provides the detail that people were coming and going (Mark 6:31) and that the grass was green (6:39, the color of the grass, botanically speaking, is generally green in this region during a small window around Passover). Matthew provides the detail that there were not merely 5000 men, but men and women to (Matthew 14:21, placing estimates at 10,000-20,000 people), and John provides the detail that “The Jewish Passover Festival was near (John 6:4), along with Jesus asking Philip where bread could be bought for the people. Interestingly, John’s gospel does not provide the reason why Jesus asks Philip, but John 1:44 does reveal that Philip was from Bethsaida – and Luke 9:10 reveals that this miracle occurred in Bethsaida. Philip was asked because he was a local.

The declaration of Peter concerning the identity of Jesus is also an important point in the gospels. According to Matthew 16:16, when Jesus had asked the disciples who He was, Peter replied, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Matthew includes the words “Son of the living God,” but Mark excludes them. Evidently, Peter made the confession recorded in Matthew’s gospel, and each gospel recorded what was necessary for narrative purposes. As Matthew emphasized Jesus’ divine sonship throughout his gospel, it made sense for him to retain that statement. Mark reserved the confession of the divine sonship of Jesus for the close of his gospel (15:39) so that it was tied more explicitly to the cross. Luke 9:20 records Peter’s words as “God’s Messiah,” and seemingly on a different occasion but similar in nature, Peter declares in John’s gospel that “We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God” (6:69). Again, this is similar in nature, but given its context, is evidently a different instance.

The triumphal entry of Jesus is another matter of interest. Matthew’s account mentions a donkey and a colt, and the prophecy found in Zechariah 9:9. The beast was a donkey (onos), which is a beast of burden (hupozugion). However, this particular donkey, since it was a colt (polos) or a foal (hulos) had not yet carried a burden, as mentioned in Mark 11:2. Often, some point out Matthew 21:7, “They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.” However, only Matthew’s account mentions a donkey and a colt. Interestingly, the Greek word used here for “and” does not always mean “and,” and in Judaism, a donkey and colt were inseparable. The mother probably accompanied the colt on its first ride to keep it calm. Matthew doubtless understood that only one animal was ridden, though, and Mark as well as Dr. Luke only mentions the colt, whereas John mentions the donkey. Mark and Luke also do not mention the prophecy, whereas it is partially quoted in John. In Luke’s account, as Jesus approaches Jerusalem, he wept over it, and predicted the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44), “because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” Both Luke and John’s account also records the Pharisees as present in the crowd, and John mentions the crowd which was present at the raising of Lazarus was present here as well.

The crucifixion of Jesus is yet another matter. Matthew’s account (27:45-54) has Jesus cry out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (see also Mark 15:34), harkening back to Psalm 22:1. With Jesus citing this passage, the context of the passage, it is worth noting, seemingly refers to details concerning His crucifixion. This was also likely the moment (theologically) where the Father placed all of the past, present and future sins on Christ and had to turn away, the first time in all of eternity where Jesus was separate from the Father. Also, while Jesus calls the Father “God,” the Father later calls the Son, “God” (Hebrews 1:8-9). Matthew’s account also mentions tombs breaking open and “the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.” 

Tradition connects this event with the Harrowing of Hell, when Christ descended into the underworld for three days (cf. Matthew 12:40; Ephesians 4:8-10; 1st Peter 3:19). Luke’s account mentions that the sun stopped shining (as does Matthew and Mark), and Jesus statement, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (cf. Psalm 31:5). John’s account records Jesus as saying “I am thirsty” and “It is finished.” The most plausible explanation is that Jesus said all of these things during that day. It would have been difficult to speak at all, so the few statements recorded are historically and medically plausible. John mentions that the two rebel’s legs were broken, but when they came to Jesus, He was already dead. Hence, a soldier pierced Jesus’ side, “bringing a sudden flow of blood and water” (John 19:34), probably the result of His heart bursting or rupturing, or perhaps the lungs and heart were pierced. 

It is interesting to note that this darkness mentioned in the Synoptic gospels is attested to by other works of antiquity. Thallus, in AD 52, wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. It was quoted by Julius Africanus in AD 221. In the quote, Thallus references the darkness that day. It was also visible in Rome, Athens, as well as other Mediterranean cities. Tertullian said that it was a “cosmic” or “world event,” and Phlegon, a Greek author, wrote that it occurred in the 202nd Olympiad (AD 33), and mentioned the hour it began, even that the stars appeared in the heavens. Finally, the women who appeared at the tomb are our last point of interest. In the four gospels, the order of events (and individuals noted as being present) at the tomb is slightly different, yet this is a testimony to their independent nature, demonstrating that there was no collusion among the writers. The order of events was likely as follows: a group of women, including Mary Magdalene (whom the New Testament never actually calls a prostitute), discover that the tomb is empty early on Sunday morning (Matthew 28:1-7; Mark 16:1-7; Luke 24:1-9; John 20:1).

 

Consequently, the women reported the discovery to the other followers, in particular Peter and John (Luke 24:10-11; John 20:2). Sometime after the report to the disciples, Jesus appears to the women (Matthew 28:8-10; John 20:11-18), and Peter and John then investigate the empty tomb for themselves (Luke 24:12; John 20:3-10). There are slight variations when attempting to order these events chronologically, but it is important to note that a non-mention of an individual does not negate their presence at an event. Also, Jesus evidently appeared to Mary Magdalene alone after Peter and John left (John 20:11-18). The four gospels deliver fascinating treasures when compared.