Encyclopaedia Biblica/Resurrection and Ascension narratives-Reu

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search




  • GENERAL (1).
  • I. Narratives examined (2-16).
    • Canonical Gospels (2-3).
    • Gospel of the Hebrews (4).
    • Gospel of Peter (5).
    • Coptic account (6).
    • Extra-canonical details (7).
    • Conclusion of Mk. (8-9).
    • 1 Cor. 15:1-11 (10-15).
    • Accounts of ascension (16).
  • II. Determination of outward facts (17-29).
    • Nature of the appearances (17).
    • No words of the risen Jesus (18).
    • Galilee the place (19).
    • The sepulchre (20-21).
    • The third day (22).
    • Number of appearances (23).
    • Unhistorical elements due to tendency (24-29).
  • III. Explanation of facts (30-38).
    • Nature of resurrection body of Jesus (30).
    • Resurrection only of the Spirit of Jesus (31).
    • Objective visions (32).
    • Apparent death, and false rumours of the resurrection of Jesus (33).
    • Subjective visions (34-38).
  • Literature (39).

1. General.[edit]

The resurrection of Jesus is held to be the central fact upon which the Christian church rests. Even at a date so early as that of 1 Cor. Paul treats it as such in an elaborate discussion (1 Cor. 15:1-26). In particular he rests upon it three fundamental thoughts of the Christian faith :

  • (1) the belief that the death of Jesus was not what - in accordance with Dt. 21:23 (Gal. 3:13) it must have seemed to be - the death of a malefactor, but a divine appointment for the forgiveness of sins and for the salvation of men (1 Cor. 15:17, Rom. 4:25, 6:4-7, etc. ) ;
  • (2) a vindication of the supremacy of the exalted Christ over the Church ( 1 Cor. 15:25-26, Rom. 14:2, Cor. 13:4, etc.) ; and
  • (3) a pledge of the certainty of an ultimate resurrection of all believers to a life of everlasting blessedness (1 Cor. 15:18-20, 6:14, Rom. 6:8, 8:11, etc.).

Whilst the second and the third of these points were so held at all times, that was not quite the case with the first. At a date as early as that of the speeches of Peter in Acts (see ACTS, 14) the resurrection of Jesus was not the divine confirmation of the truth that the death of Jesus laid the foundations of the salvation of mankind ; the death is there represented rather as a calamity (3:13-15, 5:30) even if it was (according to 2:23, 4:28) foreordained of God. But the significance of the resurrect ion of Jesus does not become on that account the less; on the contrary it figures as being itself the act with which the forgiveness of sins is connected (5:31, cp 3:25). Most modern schools of theology in like manner refrain from regarding the resurrection as an event without which the theologian wbuld not be able to regard Jesus death as a divine arrangement for the salvation of men.

Such theologians also, however, do not on that account attach to it any the less importance ; rather do they see in it the divine guarantee for the truth that the person of Jesus and the cause which he represented could not remain under the power of death, but must of necessity at last gain the victory over all enemies in spite of every apparent momentary triumph.

It seems accordingly in logic inevitable that if at any time it should come to be recognised that the resurrection of Jesus never happened, the Christian faith with respect to all the points just mentioned would necessarily come to an end.

The shock to which the Christian religion and the Christian church would be exposed by any such discovery would appear to be all the heavier when it is reflected that only two other propositions can be named which would place it in equal or greater danger ; the one, that the death of Jesus did not procure the salvation of mankind, the other that Jesus never existed at all. The first of these two theses would leave many schools of thought within the limits of Christianity comparatively unaffected, for they find the redeeming work of Jesus in his life, not, as Paul and orthodox theologians generally, in his death ; on the other hand their faith would be most seriously affected if they found themselves constrained to recognise that Jesus remained under the power of death.

The reason for dreading all these dangers is that upon the assumption of the resurrection of Jesus (as also upon that of his atoning death and upon that of his existence at all) are based propositions which are fundamental to the Christian faith, propositions concerning God and his relation to men, upon the truth of which no less an issue depends than the salvation of mankind. The question concerns things of priceless value, and the judgments upon which all interest concentrates are (to use the language of modern German theologians) Werthurtheile - i.e., judgments which declare that to be able to believe such and such is for the religious man a thing of absolute value ; unless such things can be accepted he can only despair. Thus the believing man can cherish no more urgent desire than that the basis upon which these beliefs, which are for him so priceless, rest should be raised securely above the reach of doubt.

Yet what is this basis ? It consists in an affirmation regarding a fact in history which is known to us only through tradition and accordingly is open to historical criticism just as any other fact is. Indeed, whilst the very existence of Jesus and the fact of his death on the cross have been questioned by only a very few, 1 and on the other hand the meaning of his death, as soon as the fact has been admitted, is left an open question to every one, we find that the resurrection of Jesus - as is not surprising in view of its supernatural character is in very many quarters and with growing distinctness characterised as unhistorical, and that not merely when it is conceived of as having been a revivification of the dead body of Jesus, but also when it is defended in some spiritualistic form.

The present examination of the subject will not start from the proposition that 'miracles are impossible'.

Such a proposition rests upon a theory of the universe (Weltanschauung), not upon exhaustive examination of all the events which may be spoken of as miracles. Even should we by any chance find ourselves in a position to say that every alleged miraculous occurrence from the beginning of time down to the present hour had been duly examined and found non-miraculous, we should not thereby be secured against the possibility of something occurring to-morrow which we should be compelled to recognise as a miracle. Empirically, only so much as this stands fast and no more that as regards present-day occur rences the persons who reckon with the possibility of a miracle (by miracle we here throughout understand an occurrence that unquestionably is against natural law) are very few, and that present-day occurrences which are represented as miraculous are on closer examination invariably found to possess no such character.

The normal procedure of the historian accordingly in dealing with the events of the past will be in the first instance to try whether a non-miraculous explanation will serve, and to come to the other conclusion only on the strength of quite unexceptionable testimony. Needless to say, in doing so, he must be free from all prepossession. He must accordingly, where biblical authors are concerned, in the first instance, look at their statements in the light of their own presuppositions, even though in the end he may find himself shut up to the conclusion that not only the statements but also the presuppositions are erroneous.

1 Loman, who in 1881 altogether denied the existence of Jesus, affirmed it in 1884 and still more distinctly in 1887. Amongst those who have most recently maintained the negative may be named Edwin Tohnson, the author of Antiqua Mater (anonymous; 1887) and The Rise of Christendom (1890), and John M. Robertson, Christianity and Mythology (1900) and A Short History of Christianity (1902).


2. Gospel narratives of resurrection compared.[edit]

For our most authentic information on the subject of the resurrection of Jesus we naturally look to the Gospels ; these, however, exhibit contradictions of the most glaring kind. Reimarus, whose work was published by Lessing as Wolenbutteler Fragmente, enumerated ten contradictions ; but in reality their number is much greater. (Mk. 16:9-20 is not taken account of in this place ; see below, 8.)

(a) Of the watch and seal set upon the sepulchre, and of the bribing of the soldiers of the watch, we read only in Mt. (27:62-66, 28:4, 28:11-15). In Mk. and Lk. these features are not only not mentioned ; they are excluded by the representation of the women as intending to anoint the body and (in Mk. at least) as foreseeing difficulty only in the weight of the stone, not in the presence of a military guard. In Mt. the women's object is simply to see the sepulchre (28:1) ; they have therefore heard of its being guarded, as in fact they very easily could.

(b) According to Lk. (23:54, 23:56) the women got ready the spices before sunset on Friday ; according to Mk. (16:1) they did not buy them till after sunset on Satur day. In Jn. the incident does not occur at all, for according to 19:38-40 Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus have already embalmed the body before laying it in the grave, whilst according to Mk. 15:46 = Mt. 27:59-60 = Lk. 23:53 Joseph alone (without Nicodemus) simply wrapped it in a fine linen cloth.

(c) The persons who come to the sepulchre on the morning of the resurrection are : according to Mk. (16:1), Mary Magdalene, Mary of James (cp MARY, 26, 23), and Salome; according to Mt. (28:1) only the two Marys (the designation 'the other Mary' is explained by 27:56) ; according to Lk. (24:10), in addition to the two Marys, Joanna (cp 83) 'and the other women with them' ; according to Jn. (20:1) only Mary Magdalene, 1 to whom, however, are added Peter and the beloved disciple. In agreement with this last we have only the notice in Lk. (24:24) that after the women 'some of those with us' (TLVS TUIV ffvv ijfuv) had gone to the sepulchre and had found the report of the women to be true ; also the notice in 24:12 (a verse not found in the 'western' MSS) according to which Peter ran, after the visit of the women, to the sepulchre, and stooping down beheld the linen clothes alone, and wondering departed. This verse, though we can hardly suppose it to have come from Jn. 20:3-8, is still open to the suspicion of being a later interpolation, - all the more because the mention of Peter alone does not harmonise with the 'some' (nvts [tines]) of v. 24, and 'them' (CLVTUV [autoon]) of v. 13 connects with v. 11, not with v. 12.

(d) The time of the visit of the women to the sepulchre is : in Mk. (16:2) 'when the sun was risen', in Lk. (24:1, 'at early dawn' ) and Jn. (20:1, 'early, when it was yet dark' ) before sunrise, but in Mt. (28:1) about half a day earlier.

'Late on the Sabbath' (oi^e <ra/3j3aToj ) means unquestionably, according to the Jewish division of the day, the time about sunset, and the words immediately following - TTJ eTuiicucrKOucrrj is fj.iav <raf}fidT<av, 'as the light shone forth towards the first day of the week' (see WEEK, 7) - are elucidated by Lk. 23:54, where the transition from the Jewish Friday to Saturday (Sabbath) - in other words the time of sunset - is indicated by the expression <ra/3j3o.TOi> J7re <iocr<cei>, 'the Sabbath shone forth'. This expression is usually explained by reference to the custom of kindling the lights somewhat before the beginning of the Sabbath because on the Sabbath it was unlawful to do so. Keim, however (Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, 3:552-553; ET 6:303), produces evidence of the same usus loqucndi for the other days of the week ; and this will cover the case of its employment in Mt. The word 'by night', VVKTOS [nyktos], in 28:13 also goes to show that Mt. pictured to himself the journey of the women to the sepulchre and the opening of the sepulchre of the earthquake (or the angel) as having happened by night. Furthermore it is conceivable that Mt. should have been brought to this divergence to the extent of half a day from the account by the other evangelists precisely if he had followed Mk. with strict precision. For in point of fact Mk. indicates, first (16:1), sunset by the phrase 'when the Sabbath was past' (Siayevonevov TOV tTafipdrov) and, next (16:2) mentions sunrise ; his reference to sunset is in connection with the purchase of the spices, a circumstance which Mt. had no occasion to notice. Thus Mt. might come to look upon the second time-determination as synonymous with the first, inasmuch as the actual words 'very early on the first day of the week' (AiW npia i T/J fiio TUV <raj3/3dT<oi ), if the Jewish division of the day is assumed, does not absolutely exclude such a view. Cp, further, 26a.

1 It must not be inferred from the plural, 'we do not know' (OVK oi&afj.t v : 20:2), that Jn. thought of other women as also present. The inference is excluded by the sing. 'comes' (epxrai) of v. i. The pl. 'we know' (oi&aijicv) therefore can only be intended to express Mary Magdalene's thought that other Christians in whom perhaps some knowledge of the facts might be presumed did not actually possess it any more than herself - if it is not an unconscious reminiscence of the 'women' of the Synoptics. In 20:13 we find correctly the singular : 'I know not'.

(e) According to Mk. (16:4), Lk. (24:2), and Jn. (20:1) those who came to the sepulchre found that the stone at the door had already been rolled away ; according to Mt. (28:2) it was rolled back in the presence of the women by an angel who in a great earthquake came down from heaven.

(f) In Mk. (16:5-7), as in Mt. (28:2-7), there is only one angel; in Lk. (24:4-7) and Jn (20:12-13) there are two (in Lk. called 'men', &v5pes [anopes], but in dazzling apparel, ev IffOrfTi a.<rrpa.Trrovffri, somewhat as in Mt. 28:3, Mk. 16:5).

(g) According to Mk. this one angel, according to Jn. the two, sat in the sepulchre ; according to Mt. the one angel sits without the sepulchre upon the stone ; according to Lk. the two come up to the women, to all appearance not until these have already left the sepulchre.

(h) As for what was seen in the sepulchre, according to Mk. (16:5) it was only the angel, and according to Lk. (24:3), at least when the women entered, there was nothing. According to Mt. (28:2-5) the women do not inform themselves as to the condition of the grave. Similarly Mary Magdalene, according to Jn. 20:1, at her first visit. Thereafter the beloved disciple is the first to look in, when he sees the linen clothes (20:5) ; next Peter enters and sees besides the linen clothes the napkin wrapped up in a place by itself (20:6-7). Finally, Mary looks in and sees the two angels.

(i) The explanations given by the angels to the women contain the one point in the whole narrative in which there is, at least in the synoptics, complete agreement (v. 6) : 'he rose, he is not here' (r/yepBt), ouK taTiv wSe). To this in Mk. and Mt. there is the preface : 'fear ye not' ; the same two also have the words 'ye seek the crucified one' (similarly in Lk. ). In Jn. the angels say merely (20:13) : 'Woman, why weepest thou ?'

(k) The discrepancies in the instructions given to the women are among the most violent in the whole account : in Mk. and Mt. there is the injunction to say to his disciples (Mk. adds: 'and to Peter') that Jesus goes before them to Galilee and that there they will see him as he had said to them (in Mt. 28:7 also perhaps ^we ought to read, 'behold, he said to you', i8ov flirtv vp.lv}; in Lk. on the other hand what we read is 'remember how he spake before of his death and resurrection while he was yet in Galilee'. Here, that is to say, still the word Galilee, but the sense quite opposite. In Lk. strictly there is no injunction at all (cp under r) and in Jn. we find no words which could even seem to answer to the command in Mk. and Mt.

(l) No less marked are the differences as to the announcements made by the women to the disciples. According to Lk. (24:9) they report their discovery ; according to Mt. (28:8) they intend to do so, and v. 16 leaves it to be inferred that they carried out their intention ; according to Jn. (20:2, 20:18) Mary Magdalene reports, in the first instance to the two disciples, and in the second to the disciples at large, what she has seen. On the other hand, according to Mk. 16:8 the women out of fear say nothing to any one.

(m) As regards results of" the message, in the last case of course, that in Mk., where the women say nothing, there can be no immediate consequence. According to Mt. (28:16) the message issues in immediate compliance with the command to go to Galilee ; according to Jn. (20:3-10) Mary's first communication leads to the running of the two disciples to the sepulchre, whilst her second (20:18) is not said to have produced any effect. In Lk. (24:11) the women's statement produces merely the unbelief of the disciples, unless we are to regard as genuine v. 12, according to which Peter alone of the whole number hastens to the grave (see above, c).

(n) An appearance of the risen Jesus at the sepulchre itself is reported only in Jn. (20:14-17), where it is made to Mary Magdalene ; an appearance on the way back from the sepulchre to the city only in Mt. (28:9-10), where it is made to the two Marys. Whilst in this last case, however, the women embrace Jesus feet, in Jn. he does not permit Mary Magdalene to touch him.

(o) The injunction received from Jesus himself is according to Sit. the same as that given by the angels. The women are to direct the disciples, here called 'brethren' (ddf\(f>oi [adelphoi]) by Jesus, to go to Galilee; according to Jn. Mary Magdalene is simply bidden tell his 'brethren' (ddf\(f>oi) that he is ascending to heaven (cp above, k).

(p) An appearance of Jesus on the day of the resurrection on the road to Emmaus is known only to Lk. (24:13-35).

(q) An appearance to Simon Peter before the evening of the same day is known only to Lk. (24:34).

The view of Origen (for the passages see in Resch, TU 5:4:423 and 10:3:770-782), that the third evangelist says, and rightly, that Simon was the companion of Cleopas on the walk to Emmaus, is quite inadmissible. As in Origen the name is con stantly used without any addition, it is evident that only Peter can be intended. It has to be observed on the other hand, however, that the announcement of an appearance of the risen Jesus to Simon is made, and made by the eleven (and their companions), to the two disciples on their return from Emmaus. For this reason, therefore, Resch prefers to read 'saying' in the nominative (Aeyorrts for Aeycwras) with cod. D, according to which it is the Emmaus disciples who make the announcement. To this it has to be remarked that neither Lk. nor Origen, in view of 24:31, 24:35, can have intended to say that Jesus had appeared in Emmaus to Peter only and not to Cleopas also. If, again, by the Simon in Origen s MSS of Lk. we ought to understand some disciple other than Peter, such a conjecture would be quite as baseless as that other guess of Church fathers and Scholiasts (see Tisch. on 24:18) that the companion of Cleopas was Nathanael, or the evangelist Luke, or a certain Am(m)aon, whose name perhaps comes from the place-name 'Emmaus'. 1

(r) An appearance on the same evening to the eleven and their companions (roi/s evdfKO. Kal TOI)J crvv avTols), at which Jesus asks the disciples to touch his hands and feet, and eats a piece of a broiled fish, is recorded by Lk. (24:33, 24:36-51). The disciples are at this interview enjoined by Jesus to remain in Jerusalem till Pentecost (cp above, A). Jn. also (20:19-24) assigns an appearance before the 'disciples' to the same evening, and we must presume, therefore, that here the same interview is intended as that related by Lk. The circumstances, however, are very different. In Jn. Thomas is expressly stated not to have been with the eleven ; and that the number of the 'disciples' included others than the ten apostles as we read in Lk. (oi avi/ cu rots) is not to be supposed, since Jesus solemnly sends them forth (TTf/jLTTu upas) and imparts to them not only the gift of the Holy Spirit (which in Lk. v. 49 he holds forth as a promise for Pentecost) but also the authority to bestow or withhold forgiveness of sins (cp MINISTRY, 4, 34c). Lk. makes no reference to the circumstance that the doors were shut when Jesus entered, any more than he does to the conferring of the authority just mentioned ; Jn. on the other hand knows nothing of Jesus having eaten. Besides his hands, Jesus shows not his feet but his side - the piercing of which, indeed, is mentioned only in Jn. 19:34 ; but he does not suffer himself to be touched, yet without expressly forbidding this as he had done in the case of Mary Magdalene.

1 The Itala codd. b, e, ff 2 , Ambrosiaster, Ambrosius (on both see Souter, Exp. T, 1901-1902, p. 429-430) in v. 13 looking forward to v. 18, add Cleopas to Ammaus [ = P^mmaus] presumably because, reading ovo/ian [onomati] (so D, it., vg.) for jj ovofia [e onoma], they saw in 'Emmaus' the name not of the village but of one of the two disciples (so Nestle, Einfuhrung in das griech. N7 ( 2 ) 96, ET 121-122).

(s) Jesus first suffers his hands and his side to be touched eight days afterwards, by Thomas in presence of 'his disciples' ; but this is mentioned only in Jn. (20:26-29) and after he has again entered the same house (TrdXtv fyaa.v &ru>) through closed doors.

(t) 'After these things' (nerd TO.VTO.), but only according to Jn. 21, Jesus appears once more by the lake of Galilee to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples who are not named.

(u) Galilee also, but certainly at an earlier date, was the scene of the appearance, recorded only in Mt. (28:16-20), to the eleven on the mountain to which Jesus had directed them to go (when and where he made the appointment is nowhere stated, but seems to have been recorded in a source that was used at this point). Jesus here enjoins upon them the mission to the Gentiles and baptism in the name of the Trinity. The missionary precept is in substantial agreement with Lk. 24:49 and also with Jn. 20:21 (see above, r). 1

1 The harmonistic attempt to dispose of this appearance in Galilee by maintaining that Galilee here means one of the summits of the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem - whether the summit on the N. or that called in 2 K. 23:13 the 'mount of corruption' (see DESTRUCTION, MOUNT OF ; OLIVES, MOUNT OF, 5), by which supposition Mt. 28:16 is brought into agreement with Lk. 24:50, Acts 1:12, has its basis only on assertions of mediaeval pilgrims. The matter is not improved by the purely conjectural assumption of Resch (TU 10:2:381-389, 10:3:765-766) that in Mt. 28:16 and already in 26:32, 28:7, 28:10 = Mk. 14:28, 16:7, 'Galilee' (roAiAaia) is a wrong rendering of the gelila (il? ?;!) in the original Hebrew gospel postulated by him, the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (n-ept x>pos Mt. 3:5, Mk. 1:28, etc.) being what was really intended. In Tertullian's (Apol. 21) 'cum discipulis quibusdam apud Galiteam Judaeae regionem ad quadraginta dies egit' Resch even finds Galilaea used as the name of this district (see, against this, Schurer, TLZ, 1897, p. 187-188). That, further, the Mount of Olives belonged to this district Resch accepts from the mediaeval pilgrims ; and that it constituted the central point of the district, so that the disciples could at once under stand by the 'district' to which (according to Mk. 16:7 = Mt. 28:7, 28:10) they were directed the Mount of Olives, as being the mountain where Jesus had appointed them (TO opos o{ eraf aro avrois 6 I7)<rovs : 28:16), he derives from his own authority. The Acta Pilati and the Gesta Pilati, finally, which place the ascension of Jesus at once in Galilee and on the Mount of Olives, embody no true geographical recollection but only a quite crude harmonistic attempt (cp the passages in Zahn, Gesch. d. Kanons, 2:937 ; also Thilo, Cod. Apocr. NT 1:617-622). See also MATTHIAS.

3 Extent of discrepancies.[edit]

That one and the same event should be to some extent differently described even by eye-witnesses is intelligible enough, as also that some particular incident connected with it should in later reminiscence be erroneously dissociated from it and attached to some other similar event.

(a) Thus no serious importance ought, for example, to be given to the circumstance that the words in which the disciples are bidden by the angel to betake themselves to Galilee, do not exactly agree in the different accounts, and that one narrator assigns the missionary precept to one appearance, another to another. To this, however, there are limits.

Whether the sepulchre was guarded or not guarded, how many women went to the sepulchre, whether or not the disciples were bidden go to Galilee, whether or not when Jesus appeared Mary Magdalene was alone, whether or not Thomas was present, whether or not Jesus asked for food and then actually partook of it, whether or not he allowed himself to be touched ; above all, whether the appearances occurred in Jerusalem or in Galilee, and whether the women reported what they had seen at the sepulchre or were silent about it - these and many other points are matters with regard to which the eye-witnesses or those who had their information directly from eye-witnesses, could not possibly have been in the least uncertainty. Yet, what differences ! Differences, too, of which it is impossible to say that they are partly explicable by the fact that one narrator gives one occurrence and another another without wishing thereby to exclude all the rest. Lk. enumerates a consecutive series of appearances and brings it to a close (24:51) with the express statement that Jesus parted from them ; and all these occurrences are represented as having happened on one and the same day. In Jn., on the other hand, the events of the twentieth chapter alone require eight days. Mt. and Mk. know of appearances to disciples only in Galilee, Lk. and Jn. 20 only of appearances in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood (Emmaus), neither of the last-named evangelists taking any account whatever of any appearances in Galilee - not till Jn.21 do we come upon one of this description ; but this chapter is by another hand (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 40).

(b) Refuge is often sought in the reflection that sometimes an event may, after all, have actually happened, even if the accounts of it are quite discrepant. A famous illustration often quoted in this connection is the case of Hannibal, who quite certainly did cross the Alps, although Livy s account of the route taken by him is entirely different from that of Polybius. Most as suredly. The fact, however, that, whatever be the contradictions of chroniclers, he actually did cross the Alps is a certainty for us, only because we know for certain that at one date he was to be found on the Gallic side, and at a subsequent date on the Italian. If it were just as clearly made out that Jesus, after his death, came back again to this life, we could, indeed, in that case, with an easy mind, leave the differences between the narratives to settle themselves. Here, however, the position of matters is that the actuality of the resurrection of Jesus depends for its establishment upon these very narratives ; and in such a case unimpeachable witnesses are naturally demanded.

Livy and Polybius lived centuries after the occurrence which they relate, and they were dependent for their facts upon written sources which perhaps were wanting in accuracy, and, moreover, were themselves in turn derived from inadequate sources. If any deficiency, even of only an approximately similar character, has to be admitted in the acquaintance of the writers of the gospels with the circumstances of the resurrection of Jesus, there is little prospect of anyone being induced to accept it as a fact, on the strength of such testimony, unless he has from the beginning been predisposed to do so without any testimony. And as a matter of fact we cannot avoid the con clusion from the contradictions between the gospels that the writers of them were far removed from the event they describe. If we possessed only one gospel, we might perhaps be inclined to accept it ; but how far astray should we be according to the view of Lk. if we relied, let us say, on Mt. alone, or, according to the view of Jn., if we pinned our faith to Lk. In point of fact, not only do the evangelists each follow different narratives ; they also each have distinct theories of their own as to Galilee or Jerusalem being the scene of the appearances, as to whether Jesus ate and was touched, and so forth (cp 19a, 27 c, d).

1 On the simple statement, 'he appeared to James', 1 Cor. 157, see 11c.


AT SEPULCHRE Watch soldiers soldiers (and servant of priest ?) soldiers and presbyter
Jesus comes forth in the night ; with 2 angels ; stone removes itself
Time when women come after sunrise evening before before sunrise before sunrise (in the morning) in the morning night before
Stone when women come already removed is removed by angel : earthquake already removed already removed already removed (already removed)
Angels when women come 1 1 2 2 1
Women 3 : Mary Magd.; M. (m.) of james (the less and Joses); Salome 2 : Mary Magd. M. mother of James and Joses M. Magd.; Joanna; M. of James; and others M. Magd.; she tells Peter and the beloved disciple M. Magd. and her companions Mary, Martha, M. Magd.
Men the watchers (Peter ?) the watchers
In sepulchre the angel nothing a the cloths, b the angels the angel nothing
See Jesus at sepulchre the 2 women ; touch Jesus feet M. Magd.; does not touch J. the watchers the 3 women
See Jesus (at sepulchre ?) M. Magd. the servant ; receives Jesus' garment M.Magd.; Mary daughter of James
Angel's charge to send disciples to Galilee to send disciples to Galilee
Jesus' charge to send disciples to Galilee to announce ascension
WOMEN'S REPORT: not made (not made)
to whom (the disciples) the 11 and others a see above, b the (11) disciples the disciples the disciples twice
result journey to Galilee unbelief unbelief unbelief
OTHER APPEARANCES OF JESUS TO ... Peter Peter? Peter James ; bread for him Levi
2 at Emmaus; supper 2 (at Emmaus)
the twelve the (11) disciples? the 11 disciples; the 11, with others; the (10) disciples; the 11; Peter with others; Peter, Andrew, Levi (& others?) the (11) disciples; the (11) disciples
closed doors;
some doubt; they doubt;
Jesus touched; J. shows his wounds; Jesus touched Jesus touched
eats [var. : with discc.];
missionary command; missionary command; (missionary command); missionary command;
I am with you alway Holy Spirit promised Holy Spirit given
over 500
James (James, see above)
all the apostles the 11 discipies;
closed doors : J. touched
7 disciples ; bread and fish for them
PLACE OF APPEARANCES (Galilee) Galilee Jerusalem a Jerusalem lastly; b Sea of Gal. (Jerusalem?) (Jerusalem?) Sea of Gal. (Jerusalem?)
ASCENSION (at the resurrection) first evening, ACTS : after 40 days first morning at a meal (on the 1st evening?) a at death, b at the resurrection

4. Gospel of the Hebrews.[edit]

Shall we then betake ourselves to extra-canonical sources ? Of these, several are often regarded as superior to the canonical in antiquity ; so, for example, the Gospel of the Hebrews. This view, however, so far as the extant fragments at least are concerned, is distinctly not warranted (see GOSPELS, 155).

(a) For our present discussion the following citation by Jerome ( Vir. ill. 2) from this gospel comes into consideration :-

'The Lord after he had given the cloth to the slave of the priest, went to James and appeared to him ; for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from them that sleep ; and again after a little: Bring, says the Lord, food and bread, and immediately there is added : he brought bread and blessed and break and gave to James the Just and said to him : My brother, eat thy bread, because the son of man has risen again from them that sleep'.
( 'Dominus autem cum dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis, ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei ; juraverat enim Jacobus se non comesurum panem ab ilia hora qua biberat calicem domini donee videret eum resurgentemadormientibus ; rursusquepost paululum : afferte, ait dominus, mensam et panem, statimque additur : tulit panem et benedixit ac fregit et dedit Jacobo Justp et dixit ei : frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus').

This story is, to begin with, untrustworthy, because, according to the canonical gospels, James was not present at all at the last supper of Jesus. 1

Lightfoot's conjecture (Gal. (4) 265 = Dissert, on Apost. Age, p. 26) that 'dominus' ought to be read for 'domini' seems, indeed, to be supported by some ecclesiastical writers (see in Handmann, TU 5:3:79-62) who reproduce the passage in this sense ; but it is by no means certain. 'The Lord had drunk the cup' (biberat calicem dominus) would then have reference to the death of Jesus ; such a figurative expression, however, is little in keeping with the simple narrative style of the fragment. Moreover, the bread which Jesus 'blesses and breaks' clearly answers to the bread of the eucharist, and this is to the point if James had eaten nothing since being present at the last supper. Earlier students may have perceived the contradiction between the reading 'of the Lord' (domini) and the canonical narratives just as easily as Lightfoot, and on this account have substituted 'the Lord' (dominus : in the nom.).

(b} Nor is the Gospel of the Hebrews wanting at other points in equally bold contradictions to the canonical gospels. Jesus is represented as having given his linen garment to the servant of the high priest. This (apart from what we read in the Gospel of Peter ; see below, 5b) is the only appearance, anywhere recorded, of Jesus to a non-believer. What enormous importance would it not possess, were it only historical ! How could the evangelists, and Paul, possibly have suffered it to escape them ? It is, however, only too easily conceivable that they knew nothing at all about it.

In order to reach James it was first necessary for Jesus, according to our fragment, to walk ; but it was not so in the case of the servant of the high priest, who must, accordingly, be thought of as having been in the immediate neighbourhood of the sepulchre. What was he doing there? The most likely conjecture will be that he was taking part in the watching of the sepulchre. This, however, means yet another step beyond the already unhistorical canonical account (below, 20), in so far as according to Mt. 27:62, 27:66 the chief priests and Pharisees took part only in the sealing of the stone at the door of the sepulchre, and has its parallel in the part taken by the presbyters in the watching of the sepulchre according to the Gospel of Peter (38), which, as regards this part of the narrative, goes still another step farther than the canonical account (see below, 5a). It has further to be remarked that the linen cloth was the only clothing the body had when it was laid in the tomb (2b) ; Jn. 19:40, 20:5-7, which speaks of several cloths, is plainly not taken into account in the gospel of the Hebrews. This being so it would have been too great an offence against decorum that Jesus should have given this garment to the servant of the high priest. It will therefore be necessary to suppose that he had already assumed another form. In that case also, however, the handing over of the garment to the servant makes an advance upon the canonical account. The synoptists, in reporting the resurrection, make no mention of the cloth at all, and in Jn. the clothes are all found lying in the sepulchre, which at all events better accords with the reserve with which the mystery of the resurrection is treated than would be the case if we were asked to believe that Jesus had brought the cloth with him from the sepulchre as a trophy and deposited it as an ultimate proof of his resurrection. Lastly, it has to be remembered how violently the gospel of the Hebrews, although in agreement with Paul (1 Cor. 15:7) as regards an appearance to James, also conflicts with that apostle in so far as it makes out this appearance to have been the first ; also how natural it was that precisely in a gospel for Hebrews James, the head of the church at Jerusalem, should be glorified by means of some such narrative as this.

(c) In Ignatius (ad Smyrn. 32) we meet with the following passage :-

'and when he came to those about Peter he said to them, Take, handle me and see that I am not a demon without a body. And straightway they touched him and believed'
(KCU $re Trpos rovs irepl Herpov ?f\6ev, <pTj O.VTOIS \dj3erf i^T/Xa^ijtraT^ /ue /ecu tdere Sri OVK flf^l dat/j.6vtov dtrw/uaroy. /cat tvffvs avrov rf^avTo Kal ^TriffTfVffav).

Eusebius (HE 3:36:11) confesses that he does not know where Ignatius can have taken this from. Jerome (Vir. ill. 16), on the other hand, informs us that it comes from the Gospel of the Hebrews (only he wrongly names the Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, not that to the Smyrnaeans).

Brandt (390-395 ; see below, 39) plausibly conjectures that the quotation belongs to the passage, quoted above under a, marked by Jerome by the words again after a little ( 'rursus post paululum' ) : Jesus appeared to James, then went with him to Peter and his companions, permitted himself to be touched there, and ordered food to be brought, and so forth. We hear of the invitation to touch him in Lk. 24, 39, and that passage, not Jn. 20:27, must be the one in view since nothing is said about Thomas, and on the other hand 'bodiless daemon' (Saifioviov a<r<apa.TOi [daimonion asoomaton]) agrees with the 'spirit' (trvevna [pneuma]) of Lk. or with the 'appearance' (^ai/rao-jita [phantasma], v. 37) which is the reading of D and of Marcion, - of Marcion because in point of fact he really regarded the risen Jesus as a spirit (irvev^a [pneuma]). This second fragment, accordingly, conveys nothing new. Lk. may unhesitatingly be regarded as its source. See, further, below, 9a.

5. Gospel of Peter.[edit]

In the fragment of the Gospel of Peter discovered in 1892 various scholars, and particularly Harnack, have discerned a maximum of really ancient matter ( 'a first-class source' ). 1 It is to be observed, however, that,

(a) as regards the watch set on the sepulchre, the Peter fragment goes still further beyond the canonical account than the Gospel to the Hebrews does (see 4 b}.

Not only do the elders of the Jews keep watch along with the Roman soldiers ; the writer also is able to give the name of the officer in command of the guard (Petronius) and to inform his readers that the stone at the door of the sepulchre was sealed with seven seals, and that a booth was erected for the use of the guard. What is still more surprising, the soldiers report the occurrence of the resurrection not to the chief priests but to Pilate, - precisely the person from whom, according to Mt. 28:14, all knowledge of the fact ought if possible to have been withheld, - and it is Pilate who, at the request of the Jews, enjoins silence on the soldiers (28-49).

(b} The actual resurrection of Jesus, which in the canonical accounts is, with noticeable reserve, always only indicated as having occurred already, never described, is here represented as having occurred before the very eyes of the Roman and Jewish watchers, and, indeed, in a way which can only be described as grotesque (35-44).

During the night the heavens open, two men (youths) come down in dazzling splendour, the stone rolls away of its own accord, the two youths enter the sepulchre, three men re-emerge, two of them supporting the third, the heads of the two reach to the sky, that of the third goes beyond it (cp Wisd. 18:16) ; a cross follows them, and to the question heard from heaven 'Hast thou preached to the dead?' it answers 'Yea' ; the heavens open once more, a man comes down and enters the sepulchre (this is the angel whom the women see there next morning). This, however, is not all ; in v. 19 after the cry of Jesus 'My Strength, my Strength, thou hast abandoned me' (17 Sih ajiis jiou, T/ 6iW|u.i s jiiov, KaTe Aeii//as ^e - thus, in all probability, by way of toning down the expression of God-forsakenness) we find the words 'and when he had spoken he was taken up' (icai fl-Truiis ai/eAij^Srj), which can hardly be understood otherwise than as meaning a taking up into heaven. 2 This last, therefore, is twice related in our fragment ; for that Jesus goes into heaven along with the two angels is made clear by the word of the angel to the women (v. 56) : 'he is risen and has gone thither whence he was sent' (oWon} icai aTnijAOei/ i*el o9ev aJ7-f<rraA>7).

(c) The account of what Mary Magdalene and her friends found at the sepulchre (50-57) is essentially in agreement with what we read in Mk. So, also, the statement that they flee filled with fear, without our being told that they related to any one what had occurred. On the closing day of the paschal festival the twelve disciples are still weeping and mourning in Jerusalem (58-59).

(d) On this closing day the disciples betake themselves each to his home, that is to say, to Galilee. For in v. 60 the narrative proceeds : 'but I, Simon Peter, and Andrew . . . went (to fish) to the sea, and with us were Levi the son of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...' (here the fragment breaks off). Plainly the continuation related an appearance of Jesus by the sea of Galilee, such as we meet with in Jn. 21. Yet in Jn. it is precisely Andrew and Levi who are not mentioned. 3

(e) The element here that admits of being regarded as especially old is that the first appearance of Jesus occurs in Galilee and to Peter. Hardly, however, to Peter alone as is stated by Paul (1 Cor. 15:5) and Lk. (24:34). Furthermore, it might seem to be original here that the first appearance does not occur until more than eight days after the denth of Jesus. Such, however, cannot be regarded with certainty as the meaning of the fragment.

Unquestionably the writer is in error if he thinks that on the last day of the paschal festival many pilgrims, and also the apostles, set out for their homes ; for this day fell in that year on a Sabbath, and even if that had not been so, it had the validity of a Sabbath and thus precluded the possibility of travelling. Another evidence of ignorance or carelessness in matters of chronology is seen in v. 27, where, after describing the burial of Jesus, Peter goes on to say : 'we fasted and sat mourning and weeping day and night (fuicrbs <cai iffjitpa^) until tha Sabbath', although the writer, according to v. 30, rightly dates the death of Jesus on the evening of triday. If this be so, it is not impossible that he may have regarded the paschal festival as one not of eight days duration, but of only two. The Sabbath is rightly regarded by him as 'the first day of the feast' ; in v. 50 he mentions the Sunday (xupiaioj) as the day on which the women visited the sepulchre ; and immediately after the words 'the women fled full of fear', he proceeds in v. 58 to add : 'and it was the last of the days of unleavened bread' (ty o TeAeuTcu a ri/j.fpa riav av(i.u>v). Although the possibility is not excluded that these words transplant us to a later date, it still remains the most natural interpretation of the form of expression to suppose the meaning to be : 'but at that time (when the women fled) it was the last of the days', etc. Thus it is impossible at least to be quite certain that an interval of more than eight days between the resurrection and the first appearance of Jesus is intended. Besides, as we shall afterwards discover (see below, 22d), it has not the smallest inherent probability.

(f) On the whole, then, what we have to say with regard to the gospel of Peter must be that, inasmuch as the greater part of its contents is of a legendary character, we cannot rely upon anything we find in it merely because it is found in the gospel of Peter. If the reader by any chance finds any statements contained in it to be credible, he does so on grounds of inherent probability alone, and must ask, almost in astonishment, how by any possibility a statement of such a kind could have found its way hither. Moreover, the data which come most nearly under this category are already known to us from canonical sources : such as that the resurrection and the ascension were but one and the same act (16e), that the disciples received from the women no word as to the state of the sepulchre, and that the first appearance of the risen Jesus was in Galilee (Mk. 16:7-8, Mt. 28:7, 28:16-17). The sole statement worthy of credence met with in the gospel of Peter and nowhere else is that found in v. 27 that the disciples fasted (cp 36a). In Peter, however, we can have no certainty that the author is drawing upon authentic tradition ; he may very easily have drawn upon his own imagination for this realistic touch.

1 Bruchstucke des Evang. u. der Apokalypse des Petrus (2), 1893; ACL ii. ( = Chronol.) 1:624.

2 Cp Acts 1:11, Mk. 16:19. Ss also, which in Mk. 15:37, Lk. 23:46 rightly says '(Jesus) expired (or, ended)', has in Mt. 27:50 'his spirit went up' ; and Origen (Comm. in. Mt. series [Lat.], ed. de la Rue, 3:928b, 140) 'statim ut clamavit ad patrem receptus est'.

3 As regards Levi, Resch ( TU 10:8:829-832, 10:4:196) tries to controvert this, maintaining Levi's identity with Matthew (Mk. 2:14 || Mt. 9:9), whom in turn, on account of the like meaning of the two names, he identifies with Nathanael who appears in Jn. 21:2. Of these two identifications, however, even that of Levi with Matthew is questioned, and complete identity in the meanings of two names can never be held to prove the identity of the bearers. Cp PHILIP; NATHANAEL. The attempt may be made, without such identifications of different names, to maintain the identity of the fact recorded in the Gospel of Peter with that recorded in Jn.; this may be done by pointing to the possibility that Andrew and Levi may be in tended by the two unnamed disciples in Jn. 21:2. It is an attempt which would to a certain extent be plausible but only if a fact might really be assumed which both writers wish to describe. But Jn. 21:1-14 is open to the suspicion of being, not a description of a fact, but rather the clothing of an idea ; and we may suspect, in particular, that the two unnamed disciples were added only in order to gain the complete number 'seven' (below, 29c; SIMON PETER, 22c). Therefore, to identify with the account in the Gospel of Peter (to which Gospel the idea intended in Jn. was presumably quite foreign), the identification being based on so slender a foundation, would be very imprudent.

6. Coptic resurrection narrative.[edit]

There remains yet one other extant account of the resurrection by a writer who in like manner did not feel himself bound to follow the canonical accounts ; it occurs in a Coptic book of anti-Gnostic tendency, found at Akhmim in Egypt, and described by Carl Schmidt (SBA W, 1895, pp. 705-711) ; the conversation of the risen Jesus with his disciples contained in it has been reproduced and discussed by Harnack ( Theol. Studien fur B. Weiss, 1897, pp. 1-8), who dates it somewhere between 150 and 180 A. D.

The contents are as follows : Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene wish to anoint the body of Jesus, but find the sepulchre empty. Jesus appears to them and says : 'I am he whom ye seek, and bids that one of them go to their brethren and say Come, the Master is risen'. Martha does so, but meets with no credence, and Mary, whom Jesus sends after Martha has reported her failure, has no better success. Finally Jesus himself goes along with the women, calls the disciples out, and, as they still continue to be in doubt, bids Peter, Thomas, and Andrew touch his hands, his side, and his feet respectively, citing also Wisd. 18:17. Then they confess their sins, especially their unbelief.

This narrative contains much that is new, but nothing that could claim greater credibility than the canonical gospels. An appearance of Jesus occurs at the sepulchre, not, however, to one woman or two, as in Jn. and Mt. respectively, but to three ; so also the unbelief of the disciples dwelt on in Lk. 24:11, 24:37 (24:41) reappears in intensified form, and in addition to Thomas two other disciples are bidden touch the wounds of Jesus.

7. Isolated extra-canonical details.[edit]

Other isolated details also, differing from those commonly current, have come down to us from a time, presumably, in which older traditions still continued to produce after-effects.

(a) Cod. Bobbiensis (k) has this interpolation before Mk. 16:4 (see Old Latin Biblical Texts, 2 22) :

'Suddenly, however, at the third hour, darkness came on by day throughout the whole world and angels came down from heaven and will rise (read : and rising) in the brightness of the living God went up with him, and forthwith it was light'
( subito autem ad horam tertiam tenebrse diei factae sunt per totum orbem terras et descenderunt de ccelis angeli et surgent (read: surgentes) in claritate vivi dei simul ascenderunt cum eo et continuo lux facta est ).

This about the angels agrees with the Gospel of Peter (see above, 5b), except that there the event occurs during the night, whilst in cod. k we are bidden think of it as preceded by an eclipse and therefore as happening by day - at the third hour, in other words at 9 A. M.

It is, however, hard to believe that the interpolator actually supposed that the women took some three hours (from sunrise) to consider who should roll away the stone (16:2). Perhaps the time datum is the result of a confusion. This would be all the easier because a darkness is elsewhere reported as having occurred at the crucifixion 0 although, to be sure, in the afternoon from twelve till three (so also in Gospel of Peter, 15, 22).

If we leave the darkness out of account and understand the third hour according to Roman and modern reckoning as three o clock in the morning, then the final clause 'continuo lux facta est' agrees with both texts of the Anaphora. Pilati (A, 9 = B, 8, in Tischendorfs Evang. Apocr. (2) 440, 447), according to which at this hour the sun rose, manifestly to mark the time of the resurrection. 1 So also agrees Lagarde's reconstruction of the Didaskalia, 5:14, which Resch (TU 10:3:756) quotes from Bunsen's Analecta Antenicaena, 2:313 : that Jesus slept throughout the Sabbath and for three hours over and above. One has only to reckon the day in Roman fashion from midnight to midnight.

(b) In the Didaskalia (extant in Syriac), which came into existence in the third century, based upon older sources, we read (ed. Lagarde, 88-89, according to Resch, TU 10:3:761) that 'during the night before the dawn of the first day of the week Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and Mary the daughter of James, and in the morning of the first day of the week he entered the house of Levi, and then he appeared also to us; moreover he said to us while he was instructing us : Wherefore do ye fast on my account in these days ?' and so on. Mention is made of Levi in the Gospel of Peter also (above, 5d), but in a wholly different connection. The fasting is also mentioned there ( 5 [f]). The second Mary is called the daughter (not the mother) of James in Ss also.

(c) According to K, Syr. {cur} Syr. {hieros} , Vg. etc., in Lk. 21:43 Jesus gives what is left from what he ate (i.e. , according to TR and AV, fish and an honeycomb) to the disciples.

(d) In Tatian's Diatessaron Capernaum is named in Mt. 28:16 instead of the mountain in Galilee. In the scene by the open sepulchre which Tatian gives after Jn. Mary is named without any addition, and Ephrem in his commentary understands this of Mary the mother of Jesus. This is indicated also by the fact that previously she has been entrusted by the crucified Jesus in the words of Jn. 19:26-27. to the beloved disciple. Nevertheless there may be a confusion here, as the Diatessaron elsewhere undoubtedly makes use of the canonical gospels.

(e) A Christian section of the Ascensio Jesaiae (3:13- 4:18 ; see SIMON PETER, 27) presents a variation on the Gospel of Peter. Upon [the watch of] those who watched the sepulchre follows 'the descent of the angel of the church which is in heaven' (3:15 : T\ Kardpacris TOV ayytXov TT?S eKK\r/crias TT?S ev otpavtf), and 'the angel of the Holy Spirit [Gabriel?], and Michael the chief of the holy angels on the third day will open the sepulchre and the Beloved sitting on their shoulders will come forth' (3:16-17 : 6 &yye\os TOV Trv(i i/j.a.TOS TOV ayiov Kal Mixa?jX dpxwv TUV dyyeXuv T&V ayiu>i> TTJ Tpiry i]/j.^pq. avTov dvoi^ovcnv TO nvrnj.oveiov Kal 6 dyawijTos Katfiffas lirl roi)s &fj.ovs O.VT.I> e^eAeiWrat).

(f) From a still later date we have a recent notice of an apocryphal work, in a Georgian translation, belonging according to Harnack to the fifth or the sixth century ; it relates to Joseph of Arimatha;a, and we are told that its hero is expressly spoken of as the first to whom Jesus appeared. He had been thrown into prison by the Jews for having begged the body of Jesus (SBAW, 1901, pp. 920-931, and, more fully, von Dobschiitz in Z. f. Kirchengesch. 23:1-27 [1902]).

1 Apart from this reference we leave the Anaph. Pil. out of consideration as being a late and highly legendary work.

In any event all these notices serve to show how busily and in how reckless a manner the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus continued to be handed on.

8. Mk. 16:9-20.[edit]

The shorter conclusion of Mk. (that headed "AXAws [*dlloos] by WH) contents itself with simply saying the opposite of the statement (that the women said nothing to anyone of what they had seen and heard at the grave) in 16:8; but the longer conclusion gives a variety of details.

(a) A brief summary of its most important points has been given already (see GOSPELS, 138g) ; but it will be necessary to examine more closely some of the current views respecting it.

Rohrbach (see below, 39), in his hypothesis based upon certain indications of Harnack, gives his adhesion to the opinion of Conybeare {Expos. 18936, pp. 241-254), that Mk. 16:9-20 is the work of the presbyter Aristion. We shall discuss this thesis in the form in which it has been adopted by Harnack (ACL ii. [ = Chron.] 1:695-700). In order to displace the genuine conclusion of Mk. (see below, 9) in favour of another which should be more in agreement with the other three gospels, and at the same time be the work of an authoritative person, the presbyters of the Johannine circle in Asia Minor who brought together the four gospels into a unity took a memorandum by the presbyter Aristion who, according to Papias, had been a personal disciple of Jesus (JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 4).

(b) Harnack and Rohrbach, in order to maintain the literary independence of Aristion, find it necessary to deny that Mk. 16:9-20 is a mere excerpt from the canonical gospels and other writings. In this, however, they cannot but fail. The borrowing, indeed, is not made word for word ; in point of fact, however, even the smallest departure from the sources admits of explanation on grounds that are obvious. Verse 9 is compounded from Jn. 20:1, 20:11-17 and Lk. 8:2 ; vv. 10-11 from Jn. 20:18 and Lk. 24:10-11; v. 12 reproduces Lk. 24:13-32 and v. 13a Lk. 24:33, 24:35. That the eleven did not believe the disciples from Emmaus (v. 13b) directly contradicts Lk. 24:34 it is true ; but this is easily explicable from the view of the author that unbelief was the invariable effect of the accounts as to appearances of the risen Jesus - a view which (v. 14) he expressly puts into the mouth of Jesus himself. Thus it is by no means necessary to postulate an independent source ; all that is needed is unity in the fundamental conception of the matter.

(c) Zahn (Einl. 52 = 2:227-240) derives vv. 14-18 from Aristion, but declines to do so alike in the case of vv. 9-13 and in that of 19-20. In 14-18 he finds not mere compilation but actual narrative, and that without dependence on the canonical gospels. In reality, however, v. 14 simply carries further what is found in Lk. 24:25, 24:38, Jn. 20:27; v. 15 is an adaptation of Mt. 28:19 to Pauline and Catholic phraseology ( 'world' [/cocrjuos [kosmos]], 'preach the gospel' [KTjpva-ffeiv TO evayye\i.ov], 'creature' [/cTiVts [ktisis]]), and if baptism in the name of the Trinity is not mentioned that becomes very intelligible after Conybeare's demonstration (ZNTW, 1901, pp. 275-288 ; cp Hibb. Journ. i , p. 96+) that even Eusebius down to 325 A.D. read nothing as to this in Mt. (cp MINISTRY, 5^). Verse 16 is the most elaborated dogmatic of the apostolic and post-apostolic time (Acts 16:31 ; MINISTRY, 26). The casting-out of devils in v. 17 rests on Mk. 6:7, 6:13, Mt. 10:1, Lk. 9:1, 10:17, the speaking with new tongues (i.e., languages of foreign peoples) on Acts 2:1-13 (cp SPIRITUAL GIFTS, 10) ; 'they shall take up serpents' (v. 18) is borrowed partly from Acts 28:3-6 and partly from the express promise of Jesus in Lk. 10:19 ; the gift of healing of diseases by laying-on of hands from Acts 28:8. Without limitation to the method by imposition of hands such a gift is already bestowed upon the apostles in Mt. 10:1, Lk. 9:1, and is exercised by them in Mk. 6:13, Lk. 9:6.

The drinking of deadly poison with impunity is the only thing for which we have to look outside of the NT canon ; but here it is not Aristion that we encounter but the daughters of Philip, from whom Papias claims to have heard of such a thing in the case of Justus Barsabas (cp PHILIP, 4a). To say the least, then vv. 17-18 are quite as much a mere cataloguing abstract as vv. 9-13 are. Nor is the situation changed by the addition after v. 14 which Jerome quotes in one place from the Greek MSS: 'And they apologised saying: this age of iniquity and unbelief is under Satan, who by [his] impure spirits does not suffer the true virtue to be apprehended; wherefore now reveal thy justice' (et illi satisfacibant [made amends, here meaning : apologised] dicentes : saeculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis sub Satana es, qui non sinit per immundos spiritus veram dei apprehendi virtutem; ideirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam). 1 It is very easily explained as being a gloss. 2

(d) The conclusion of Mk. betrays no acquaintance with Jn. 21 or the Gospel of Peter ; on the other hand we cannot say with confidence that the author had occasion to use them even had he known them. In the Gospel of Peter (27) the disciples are spoken of as in Mk. 16:10 as 'mourning and weeping' (Trevdovvres /ecu K\a.iovTfs). But this collocation of words is quite current (Lk. 6:25, Jas. 4:9, Rev. 18:11, 18:15, 18:19), and the idea conveyed was an obvious one both from the situation itself and also as fulfilment of the prophecy in Jn. 16:20, and thus is no proof of literary dependence.

(e) There is thus no particular reason why we should assign to a personal disciple of Jesus such as Aristion the authorship of so meagre an excerpt as Mk. 16:9-20 from which absolutely nothing new is to be learned.

A marginal gloss comparatively late it may be in an Oxford MS. of Rufinus speaks of the story about Justus Barsabas in Eus. HE 3:39;9 (see above, c) as a communication from Aristion (Expos. 1893, b, p. 246). Should this happen to rest upon older tradition, it conceivably may have been what furnished the occasion for attributing to Aristion first the allusion to the same thing in Mk. 10:18 and afterwards erroneously the whole passage vv. 9-20.

(f) Neither is there much greater probability in the conjecture of Resch (TU 10:2:450-456) that in Conybeare's Armenian Manuscript by the presbyter Ariston is meant the Jewish Christian Ariston of Pella in Peraja, to whom the Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus is attributed. There is absolutely nothing specifically Jewish-Christian in the conclusion of Mk. (see above, b, c). The other part of Resch's hypothesis - that it was this Ariston who at the same time gathered together the four gospels into one whole - is quite inadmissible. Resch is able to make out a Jewish-Christian character for this grouping only insomuch as Mt. is assigned the first place.

Even apart, however, from the question about Ariston and Aristion the attempt to bring into close connection the composition of Mk. 16:9-20 and the grouping of the four gospels as sole canonical sources for the life of Jesus must be given up.

1 Jer. contr. Pelag. 2:15 ; ed. Vallarsi, 2:758-259. Zahn (Gesch. d. NTlicken Kanons, 2:935-938; EM. 52, n. 7) defends the reading 'sub Satana . . . qui' given above ; the usual reading is 'substantia . . . qua'.

2 Van Kasteren (Rev. bibl. internal., 1902, pp. 240-255) seeks to defend the authenticity of this appendix. He maintains, besides, that the whole passage (16:9-20) has been used in Hermas, Sim. 9:252, and even in Heb. 1:1-4, 2:3-5. These arguments are missing in Burgon, Last Twelve Verses of Mk. (1871), and rightly. They rest only on vague resemblances which would be quite as capable of supporting the posteriority as the priority of Mk. 16:9-20, if they necessarily implied literary acquaintance.

9. Lost conclusion of Mk.[edit]

If, however, there be even merely an element of truth in the theory that the genuine conclusion of Mk. was removed on account of its inconsistency with the other gospels, we are led to the conjecture that what it stated must have been all the more original in proportion as the others are recent.

(a) Harnack and Rohrbach suppose that the lost conclusion was what lay at the foundation of the Gospel of Peter and Jn. 21.

What is said, they think, was to the effect that as the women said nothing about what had occurred at the sepulchre (16:8) the disciples went to Galilee - not at the command of Jesus but (as in the Gospel of Peter) of their own motion and in deep depression. Here Jesus appeared to a group of them by the lake as they were fishing (so far the Gospel of Peter) and rehabilitated Peter who had been overwhelmed with a sense of his guilt in denying Jesus (cp Jn. 21:15-17). The saying of Jesus, on the other hand, about the beloved disciple (20-24) is an addition of the author of Jn. 21. Apart from that saying Jn. 21 describes the first appearance of the risen Jesus, which is given as the third appearance (21:14) only in order to bring Lk. and Jn. into agreement. Rohrbach seeks to discover in the genuine conclusion of Mk. also an appearance of Jesus to the eleven, and brings into connection with this the fragment in Ignatius spoken of above (4c) which Rohrbach would fain detach from the Gospel of the Hebrews and claim for the genuine conclusion of Mk.

(b} Of such hypotheses we may admit everything that can be based upon Mk. 16:7. Even if the women, as we read in v. 8, kept silence as to the injunction of the angel, it still remains the fact that, according to the view of the author, it was the divine will that 'the disciples and Peter' should go to Galilee and there see the risen Jesus. That the disciples should have fulfilled this injunction without being acquainted with it is explained in the Gospel of Peter by the fact that the festival had come to an end ; according to GOSPELS, 138a, there is a quite different explanation. In any case it is clear that it cannot have been Mk.'s intention to close his gospel at 16:8 ; he must have treated also the Galilaean events for which he had prepared his readers. From the remarkable order his disciples and Peter we must not conclude that an appearance to the disciples was first related and then one to Peter ; for it is not said that his disciples and Peter will see him, but Tell his disciples and Peter. All we can conjecture with any confidence is that Peter in some way or other played a special part in the lost narrative.

(c) What we find in Harnack and Rohrbach going beyond this is quite untenable. That the Gospel of Peter and Jn. 21 have no common source, results at the outset from the fact that the names of the apostles on the shore of the lake are not the same (cp 5d, n. ) That Jn. 21 originally was a description of the first appearance of the risen Jesus, is in itself not impossible ; but there is nothing that directly indicates it.

The reserve of the disciples, in particular (21:12), in virtue of which none of them durst ask the Lord who he was, would be appropriate, not only at the first, but at any appearance. In the consummately delicate manner in which it is referred to in vv. 15-17, Peter's denial could have been alluded to at any other appearance besides the first, if the situation presented occasion for it ; and a rehabilitation of Peter which one cannot help expecting at the first appearance, need not have carried with it, in the first instance, more than his restoration to grace, not his investiture with the office of leader of the church (cp 37c). This installation of Peter, however, is explained much more readily by reference to a later ecclesiastical situation. The Fourth Gospel at its first publication had met with opposition, and in the circles in which it had arisen it was perceived that it would fail to meet with ecclesiastical recognition if the great prominence given to the beloved disciple and the comparative depreciation of Peter, which run through the entire book (see SIMON PETER, 22), were to be continued. It was determined, therefore, to recognise in an appendix the authority of Peter to some extent (MINISTRY, 36a). If this be so, however, the words about the abiding importance of the beloved disciple (21:20-24), as also about the death of Peter (21:18-19), which would certainly be inappropriate at a first appearance, will be integral parts, not merely inorganically attached additions. Vet once more, the thought that Jesus instituted a substitute for the Last Supper (in 21:13 the reminiscence of this is quite manifest) is not appropriate to a first appearance of Jesus, but must be regarded as the result of after reflection (see 29c).

(d} Harnack and Rohrbach become very specially involved in obscurities when they maintain that the genuine conclusion of Mk. with its first appearance of Jesus was at the same time in agreement with the account in 1 Cor. 15:5, and with that in Lk. 24:34, according to which Jesus appeared to Peter. The expression of Paul, and in like manner that of Lk. , unquestionably mean : to Peter alone. That, however, is exactly what Jn. 21 does not say, nor yet in all probability did the Gospel of Peter.

In Jn. 21:7 not only is Peter not the only one to recognise Jesus ; he is not even the first ; the first is the beloved disciple. Kohrbach has recourse to the conjecture that, in the genuine conclusion of Mk., at the decisive scene, the recognition of Jesus and the word of resurrection, the other disciples apart from Peter were either, like the disciples at Emmaeus whose 'eyes were holden' (Lk. 24:16), prevented by divine arrangement from recognising Jesus, or were not present at all, and that this scene was followed by another separate appearance to the eleven (above, a). Harnack, to judge by his silence, does not accept this, but in doing so leaves it all the more unclear how far the appear ance to several disciples is to be held the same as an appearance to Peter (alone).

(e) If such an appearance cannot be assumed to have been contained in the lost conclusion of Mk. with cer tainty, the attempt must also be abandoned to invest the passage with the nimbus which would attach to it if it had really contained the full narrative of what Paul and Lk. (24:34) dismiss with a single word as the earliest of the occurrences after the resurrection of Jesus. The lost conclusion in question may have been relatively more original than the canonical and extra-canonical accounts which have come down to us ; but we cannot safely venture to regard it as having been absolutely the first.

1 Cor. 15:1-11.[edit]

10. In itself considered.[edit]

If now it has been made out that the extra-canonical accounts contain nothing of any consequence which goes beyond the canonical - except (ultimately) the existence of an interval of more than eight days between the resurrection of Jesus and his first appearance (5e) - and that the canonical gospels are at irreconcilable variance with each other, we have finally to turn to the narrative of Paul. It has fared badly. Reimarus and Lessing completely ignored it. The entire body of conservative theology denies it any decisive importance, and the most advanced critical theology in rejecting all the Pauline epistles of course rejects this also. It is very striking to observe, however, how slight are the objections that can be brought against it. Let us take, in the first place, those which are urged against the account in itself considered.

(a) Steck (Galater-br., 1888, pp. 180-191) finds at the very outset that the word 'make known' (yrwpuju : 1 Cor. 15:1) shows the writer to have been aware that he was making a statement which, at the time of his making it (according to Steck, in the 2nd cent.), was new. The answer is simple; a writer can surely quite easily say of a thing already known 'I make known unto you', if he wishes to call attention to it as something very weighty, or desires gently to reproach or rebuke his readers for not having kept it in mind. The remark holds good here as well as in 12:3, Gal. 1:11.

(b) According to 15:11 what precedes is given out alike by Paul and by the original apostles. Steck holds it to be artificially composed to suit such a purpose ; the twelve would represent the narrower circle of disciples destined for the mission to the Jews ; the 500 that wider circle, hinted at in Lk. 10:11, for the mission to the Gentiles. In this case, however, we are constrained to ask why the author, who according to Steck had full scope for his fancy, should have chosen the number 500, not 70? And why does he cite James (surely a Jewish Christian !) after, not before, the alleged representatives of the Gentile mission, and afterwards, over and above, all the apostles, whom no one can assert to have belonged distinctly to the Jewish-Christian or to the Gentile-Christian circle?

(c) Whether the original apostles included in their preaching also this, that Jesus had appeared to Paul, may be regarded as questionable in view of their strained relations with Paul. At an earlier date, however, when the churches of Judaea glorified God in Paul (Gal. 1:23-24) they certainly proclaimed it, since the conversion of this most zealous opponent of Christianity cannot but have seemed to them to be the greatest triumph of the new religion. Accordingly, Paul might very well assume that they were still doing so. Yet it must not by any means be positively affirmed that he says so; for from 1 Cor. 15:6 onwards the verbs no longer depend, as in vv. 3-5, on 'how that' (on) ; the sentences are all independent propositions. Otherwise we should be compelled to go so far as to say that Paul describes the contents of v. 8 also - that is, the appearance of Jesus to himself - as something which according to v. 3 he has received (jrapeAa/Soi/). Steck does not shrink from drawing this inference. In doing so, however, he does the writer an injustice. For when the writer wrote v. 3, his intention was to set forth what he had received ; but he was surely not thereby precluded from adding something of the same kind with regard to himself, of which the readers would be able to see for themselves that he had not received it. In like manner also he must not be debarred from saying in v. 11 , by way of resume [french accents], that he and the original apostles preach in the manner stated in the preceding context, although certainly v. 9-10, perhaps also v. 8, do not form part of the preaching of the original apostles.

(d) Van Manen (Paulus, 8, 1896, pp. 67-71) finds 15:1-11 out of agreement with vv. 12-58 ; for in the former passage the hope of a future resurrection of the Ixidy is made to depend upon the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, whilst in the latter it is held upon quite different grounds into which this fact does not enter. It must be noted, however, that if a thing rests upon more grounds than one, it u quite fitting that these should be set forth separately. Besides, in point of fact, the resurrection of Jesus is returned to in v. 20 as having a bearing upon the argument.

(e) Another point made by Van Manen is that 'was seen' (i^)6hr)) is repeated in v. 6, but not in v. 56. That, however, really proves nothing against either the genuineness or the unity of the section. The addition in v. 6 of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep is found by Van Manen too copious in style after the curt expressions in vv. 3-5 ; and, moreover, he considers it to be brought in too late, since, if such an observation were to be made with reference to the 500, it ought also to have been mentioned with regard to the 12, whether they were still alive or not. But here again it may be replied that the Corinthians either knew or could have informed themselves as to the twelve, whilst the case was different with the 500. As for 'all the apostles' (TOIJ an-ocrroAois Tracru ) in v. 7, to which Van Manen takes particular exception on the ground that they are identical with the 'Peter and the twelve' in 7v. 5, our reply must simply be that this is not the case ; see MINISTRY, 17.

(f) Paul's designation of himself (15:9) as the least of the apostles, is regarded by Van Manen as not in agreement with his claim to apostolic rank and authority (1:1, 4:169 if., 11:16). Yet a solution of the apparent contradiction can be found in 15:10 : 'not I, but the grace of God'. Besides, the slight against Paul would be unintelligible on the part of an admirer of his in the second century ; it is intelligible only in the mouth of Paul himself, who elsewhere also shows himself as ready to humble himself in the sight of God as he is disinclined to do so before men.

(g) A further argument of Van Manen (p. 126) is that in 15:8-10 the life of the apostle is looked back upon as already completed. yet Paul might also look back upon his life so far as completed and say quite fairly, as he does say : 'I laboured more abundantly than they all'.

(h) In particular, no difficulty ought to be caused by the words : 'last of all he appeared to me also'. Paul could quite well have been aware that since the appearance of Jesus made to himself, no other had been reported. But of those which he himself, according to 2 Cor. 12:1-4, 12:46, afterwards lived to experience, none approached to that of Damascus in fundamental import ance ; thus he had all the more occasion to close his series with it, because his first vision of the risen Jesus may itself have occurred a considerable time after the other appearances ( 36 [f]), and importance attached to the number of distinct persons who had seen visions, rather than to the number of visions such persons had had.

For the rest, Brandt (414-415) gives up as un-Pauline only one expression : 'as unto the one born out of due season' (w<r;rpti TU> eicrpuijicaTi), which he considers to have been borrowed by a glossator from the Valentinian gnosis (cp Straatman, Krit. Stud, over 1 Cor., vol. 2, Groningen, 1865, pp. 196-204). Yet no stringent necessity for this is apparent. It is true that the expression (fKTp(afj.a [ektrooma]) does not literally fit Paul, for it denotes an early birth, whereas he could more appropriately have been called a late birth. There is some difficulty, therefore, in supposing that Paul himself can have actually chosen this expression. To meet this difficulty we may perhaps suppose that Paul is taking up a phrase which had been used against him by way of repronch, because after all it has some applicability to his case. This theory would also best explain the definite article (before eKTpu>na.Tt [ektroomati]), which is reproduced neither in AV nor in RV ( 'one born' ).

11. Older than the Gospels.[edit]

That 1 Cor. 15:1-11 is dependent on the Gospels has been pronounced impossible even by Steck, since it contains appearances of Jesus which are not found there. It is only the earlier date of 1 Cor. that Steck disputes.

(a) Steck regards it as certainly historical that the first news of the resurrection of Jesus was brought by the women. In the omission of this point from 1 Cor. he finds an artificial touch ; the more naive representation is that of the Gospels.

Even if it be granted for the moment that the narrative about the women at the sepulchre is historical, the attitude of con servative theology itself shows that the priority of the gospels by no means follows, for that theology attributes to the historical Paul, who wrote his epistles before the gospels were composed, a deliberate silence about the women. If, however, the genuineness of the Pauline epistles cannot be effectively disputed from this point of view, the question whether Paul did not wish to say anything about the women, or whether he did not know about them, remains quite open (cp 15).

(b) Steck conjectures further that matters in which 1 Cor. partially agrees with the Gospels, had been drawn by both from a common source. Thus the appearance to the 500 is perhaps a modification of the original account of what happened at Pentecost. The two accounts are, however, totally different. Steck resorts to his conjecture, only because he finds the application of the vision-hypothesis to the case of 500 men at once too difficult. As to this see, however, 36e.

(c) The appearance to James in 1 Cor. is considered by Steck to be derived from the source of the Gospel to the Hebrews, or from that Gospel itself. Here, however, the question arises : Which is the more original? The bare statement 'he appeared to James', or the incredible fable discussed above ( 4a, b)? In fact the question conies up in a still more general form : Which is the more original - the bare narrative of Paul as a whole, or that of the Gospels ? In itself considered, a narrative so brief as that given in 1 Cor. 15 could, doubtless, be regarded as a later excerpt, as we have shown to be the case with Mk. 16:9-20 ( 86, c}. But the distinction in the Mk. appendix is just this, that the excerpt is characterised, not by its bareness, but by its embodying the most legendary features. Its freedom from such features will always speak in favour of the priority of 1 Cor. 15, so long as the spuriousness of the entire epistle remains unproven. As to this last cp GALATIANS, 1-9. Indeed, were one compelled to give up the genuineness of the epistle as a whole, it would still be necessary to affirm with Brandt (415) that the high antiquity of 15:1-11 (before the Gospels had arisen) stands fast quite apart from the question of its belonging to 1 Cor. Nor is the question why the Gospels, if they are later, have passed over so much that is given in 1 Cor. 15 unanswerable (see 23e).

12. Completeness.[edit]

If we may venture to assume the priority of the Pauline account to that of the Gospels, the main question will be whether or not Paul omitted any accounts of the resurrection of Jesus which where known to him. Did we not possess the Gospels, the idea that he has done so would never have occurred to any one. For Paul nothing less than the truth of Christianity rested upon the actuality of the resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:14-15, 15:17-19). Paul himself had once found it impossible to believe ; he knew, therefore, how strong was the inclination to disbelief. All the more carefully, therefore, must he have sought to inform himself of everything that could be said in its support. During his fifteen clays visit to Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19), he had the best opportunity to perfect his knowledge on the subject in the most authentic manner. In Corinth the future resurrection and, along with it, as a logical consequence according to the argument of Paul ( 1 Cor. 15:12, 15:16), also the resurrection of Jesus was disputed, and the entire basis of the Christian church called in question. In 15:12-58 Paul presents every possible argument wherewith to confute the deniers of the resurrection ; is it in these circumstances conceivable that he could have passed over any proofs of the resurrection of Jesus, whilst yet holding that resurrection to be the first and most important fact wherewith to silence his opponents ? But indeed his very manner of expressing himself excludes this in the most decisive manner. By his careful enumeration with 'then . . . next . . . next . . . then . . . lastly' (etra . . . ^Treira . . . ^Tretra . . . elra . . . laxarov ; 15:5-8) he guarantees not only chronological order but also completeness.

13. Number of apperances.[edit]

The only point which one can venture along with Brandt (415) to leave open, is whether Paul here is only representing a fixed number of appearances, which according to 15:11 he was in the habit of bringing forward everywhere, in agreement with the original apostles, in his preaching of the resurrection of Jesus.

Now it is not inconceivable that from such an enumeration this or that appearance to inconspicuous persons, which seemed not to be attested with absolute certainty, or not to be of sufficient importance, may have been excluded, just as we find that of those received by Paul himself, only the first is related (10h). This concession, however, in no way alters the significance for Gospel criticism of the Pauline account ; for to this category of accounts which Paul might conceivably in certain circumstances very well have omitted, that to the two disciples at Emmaus a singularly characteristic narrative assuredly does not belong ; and still less do the other gospel narratives which all of them speak of appearances of Jesus to the most prominent persons known to ancient Christianity, and in circumstances of the most significant kind.

14. Jesus eating and being touched?.[edit]

It is not to be denied that Paul only enumerates the appearances of Jesus ; he does not describe them. It will therefore be illegitimate to argue from his silence that he rejects or knows nothing of any special circumstances which may have been connected with this or that appeararice. Still, it does not by any means follow that we are at liberty to regard such important facts as that Jesus ate, or permitted himself to be touched, as matters which Paul knew but passed over. They are of such fundamental importance, and go so far beyond the mere fact of his having been seen, that Paul, had he known them, could not but have mentioned them, unless he deliljerately chose to let slip the most important proofs for his contention.

It is a great mistake to reply that Paul knew that Jesus had eaten and been touched, but passed over both as being inconsistent with his doctrine that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). When this is said, it is rightly presupposed indeed that Paul regarded the risen Christ as being already exalted to heaven (cp 16e). This doctrine, however, is one which Paul first elaborated for himself as a Christian ; as a Jew he knew no other conception of the resur rection than that which thought of all forms of life in the future world as exactly reproducing those of the present (cp 17c). If, accordingly, he had heard from eyewitnesses that Jesus had eaten and been touched, this would have fitted in most excellently with the idea of the resurrection which he entertained at the time of his conversion, and he would have had no occasion to construct another in an opposite sense, 1 Cor. 15:50 accordingly does not prove that Paul knew that Jesus had eaten and been touched, but was silent because he did not like to think this true : it shows, on the contrary, that he had never heard anything of the kind.

1 It is quite illegitimate to find a testimony to the empty sepulchre in Paul's 'that he hath been raised' (OTL e-jyyepTot : 1 Cor. 15:4) on the special ground that he connects the 'that he was seen' (on ia^&rf) by means of 'and' (Kai) and thereby seems to indicate that he knows of an independent evidence of the resurrection of Jesus apart from the fact of his having been seen. If he really knew of any such evidence it was his interest to mention it. If, however, the only evidence he had was the fact that Jesus had been seen he still was under necessity, from his own point of view, to regard the being raised up as a separate fact. He would have said less than he believed himself entitled to say had he omitted this.

15. The empty sepulchre.[edit]

That Paul knew of the empty sepulchre, also, can be maintained only in conjunction with the assumption that for particular reasons he 'kept silence regarding it'.

(a) Most perverse of all would it be to seek for such reasons in 1 Cor. 14:34. Even on the assumption that vv. 33b-35 are genuine (which, in view of the inconsistency with 11:5, 11:13 and the introduction of 14:34-35 after 14:40 in DEFG, etc. , is very questionable) the words are directed only against the intervention of women in the meeting of the congregation and merely on grounds of decorum ; by no means against the testimony of women as to a matter of fact, least of all a fact of such importance and one with regard to which they alone were in a position to give evidence.

(b) Not less wide of the mark is the other explanation of Paul's silence upon the empty sepulchre, that the idea of a reanimation of the dead body did not fit in with his theology. If it were indeed the fact that his theology was opposed to this, it is nevertheless true that this theology of his came into being only after his conversion to Christianity. When he first came to know of Jesus as risen he was still a Jew and therefore conceived of resurrection at all in no other way than as reanimation of the body (17e). Since, as soon as he had become a believer, he certainly held what had been imparted to him about Jesus to be a divine arrangement, he had no occasion whatever to alter his conception. Thus nothing then prevented him from believing that the grave was found empty on the supposition that this was reported to him. And even in the wording of 1 Cor. there was no hindrance to his so believing.

'That Jesus was buried and that he has been raised' (1 Cor. 10:4) cannot be affirmed by any one who has not the reanimation of the body in mind. It is correct to say that Paul has abandoned the Jewish conception in so far as he figures to himself the body of Jesus as being like the dead at the Last Day, who 'shall be raised incorruptible', and like the bodies of those who shall then be alive and who 'shall be changed' (1 Cor. 15:42-52). The risen Jesus therefore was incapable of eating or of being touched (see 14, 17e) ; on the other hand, if he was to rise from the dead his body must needs come forth from the grave, otherwise the idea of resurrection would be abandoned. This is the case in 2 Cor. 5:1-8, according to which every individual immediately on his death passes into a state of glory with Christ ; but it is not yet so in i Cor.

(c) Relatively the most reasonable suggestion is that Paul is silent regarding the empty sepulchre (though acquainted with the fact) because he fears that an appeal to the testimony of women will produce an unfavourable impression. This, however, is to mis judge Paul. If he knew and believed what was reported about the empty grave he must of course have regarded the participation of the women as a divine appointment ; and just as he refused to be ashamed of the gospel although aware that in so many quarters it was regarded as mere foolishness (Rom. 1:16, 1 Cor. 123) so also he would have refused to be ashamed of an appointment of God whereby women were made the chief witnesses to the truth of the resurrection.

1 According to the Valentinians and Ophites (ap. Iren. 1:1:5 [1:3:2] 1:28:7 [1:30:14]) Jesus remained on earth for eighteen months after his resurrection ; so also Asc. Isa. 9:16 in the Ethiopia text (545 days) ; according to Pistis Sophia, I, eleven years.

16. Ascension.[edit]

Before proceeding to draw our final conclusions, however, from 1 Cor. 15, it will be convenient that we should examine the accounts of the ascension.

(a) The view which is found in all books of doctrine and which underlies the observance of the ecclesiastical feast of the ascension, that Jesus was taken up into heaven forty days after his resurrection, rests solely upon Acts 1:39 (13:31 is not so exact), and thus on a datum which did not become known to the compiler of Acts till late in life.

We conjecture it to have been first made plain to the writer of Acts by the consideration that the disciples seemed still to be in need of much instruction at the hands of Jesus. The suggestion that the number forty is not to be taken literally becomes all the more natural in proportion to the lateness of its appearing. Moses passes forty days on Mount Sinai with God when receiving the law (Ex. 34:28) ; according to 4 Esd. 14:23, 36:42-49 Ezra spends forty days in dictating afresh the OT (which had been lost in the destruction of Jerusalem in 586) and seventy books of prophecy, and is thereafter taken up into heaven. 1

(b) In his gospel the author of Acts has assigned the ascension to a time late in the evening of the day of the resurrection (Lk. 24:13, 24:29, 24:33, 24:36, 24:50-51).

Brandt (375-377) thinks Lk. cannot really have intended to represent Jesus as having ascended at night and therefore supposes the scene with the disciples at Emmaus not to have been introduced by the author until after 24:36-53 (appearance to the disciples, and ascension) had been written. If Brandt is right we may suppose Lk. thought of the ascension as having occurred some hours earlier. The words and was carried up into heaven (icai aveiftepeTO eii TOV avpavov . v. 51) are wanting, it is true, in x*D and some Old Latin MSS. But even if the shorter form should be the more original, the words 'he parted from them' (Siea-rri air avriuv), which all authorities have (D ajreVrr)), would convey the same sense. Without some definite departure of Jesus it would be incomprehensible how the disciples should have been limited, as we read in v. 52-53, to praising God in the temple without having further intercourse with Jesus. It is highly probable that the words 'and was carried up into heaven' (<eai avf<f>epfTO eis TOV ovpavov) were struck out at a very early period by a reader who wished to remove the discrepancy with Acts 1:3-9. {1}

(c) In any case the dating of the ascension as having happened late on the day of the resurrection is confirmed by Barn. 15:9 : 'We keep holy the eighth day (i.e., Sunday) ... in which also Jesus rose from the dead and, after appearing, went up to heaven' (&yojj.fv TT]v rifj^pav TT]v dydoijv . . . 4v 7; nai 6 Itjaovs avtcrTij IK vcKputv Kal <j>avfp<jjt)fi$ dv^/St) els ovpavovs), as also by Mk. 16:9-20, where the order of the events in Lk. clearly lies at the foundation ; in all probability also by Jn. 20:17, 20:22, according to which on the morning of the resurrection Jesus is not yet ascended and in the evening already imparts the Holy Spirit to the disciples.

According to 7:39 the Holy Spirit first comes into being after Jesus has been glorified, in other words after his exaltation to heaven where he is encompassed by glory (Sofa [doxa]). That Jesus does not suffer himself to be touched in 20:17 is not formally contradicted by what is said of the evening of the same day (in 20:20 he only shows the disciples his wounds) ; the contradiction does not emerge till eight days afterwards (20:27). On the other hand it perfectly fits in with the theory of 7:39 that the Holy Spirit is called (EV) another comforter (aAAos 7rapa<cA>)Tos [allos parakletos] : 14:16) who cannot come until after Jesus has gone away (Jesus must thus be thought of as the first jrapoicArjTOS [parakletos] and in point of fact is called TrapaxAijTOs in 1 Jn. 2:1, although there he is thought of as exalted) and that Jesus will send him forth from the father, that is, from heaven (15:26); cp further 10:7.

(d) The Fourth Gospel is distinguished from Lk., Barn. , and Mk. 16:9-20 by this, that it represents Jesus as still continuing to appear on earth after he has ascended.

When Jesus foretells his coming again in Jn. 14:18 it is clear from the connection with vv. 16-17 that he means the coming of the Holy Spirit, with whom, in fact, according to 7:39, 2 Cor. 3:17 he is identical. On the other hand, the manner in which the same thought is expressed in 16:16, 16:19 ( 'a little while . . . and ye shall see me' ) speaks strongly for the view that the appearances of the risen Jesus are intended ; so also perhaps in 14:19, 14:21, whilst 14:28, 16:22 admit both interpretations and perhaps ought to receive both.

(e) The original conception of the ascension has been preserved in this, that the appearances of the risen Jesus occur after he has been received up into heaven ; resurrection and ascension are a single act, Jesus is taken up directly from the grave, or from the under world, into heaven. 2 Any direct proof for this, it is true, can hardly be adduced apart from the Gospel of Peter (above, 5 b) ; the proof lies in the silence of the NT writers as to a special act of ascension. In particular, it ought (if known) to have been definitely mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:4-8, since, in point of fact, according to Lk. , the appearances to Peter and the apostles, etc. were made before the ascension, whilst those to Paul on the other hand undoubtedly occurred after that event ; and yet Paul uses with reference to them all the same word 'was seen' (&&lt;t>6r], on which see below, 17 a).

So, also, Rom. 8:34, Eph. 1:20 (and with reference to the followers of Jesus Eph. 2:5-6) place the sitting at the right hand of God immediately after the resurrection, Heb. 1:3, 10:12, 12:2 immediately after the death of Jesus ; Eph. 4:9-10 places over against the descent (icaTa^rji at) into Hades only the ascent (ava^r\vai) that raises Jesus above all heavens. So also the 'who brought up' (ava.ya.yiav) of Heb. 13:20 means direct translation from Hades to Heaven if at least by ev ai/aem [en haimati] we are to understand 'with blood', which according to 4:14, 6:20, 8:2, 9:12 Jesus must offer in the heavenly sanctuary, 1 Pet. 3:19, 3:22 too, and indeed also Acts 2:32-35, Rev. 1:18, admit this sense without violence, and equally little is the reader compelled by the expression 'goes before you into Galilee' (irpodya vfias ei? ri\v TaAiAaiW), Mk. 16:7 = Mt. 28:7, to assume that Jesus made the journey from the sepulchre to Galilee by way of earth ; the purpose of the expression is simply to convey that Jesus expects his disciples in Galilee in order that he may appear to them there, and this he can very well have done from heaven. For Mt. this interpretation is directly indicated by the writer s closing his book without any ascension ; he must have thought of it as inseparably connected with the resurrection. Another consideration pointing in the same direction rests on the fact that in 28:18 Jesus is already able to say that all authority has been given him in heaven and on earth. As regards Mk. we can say nothing positive with reference to this point ; there is, however, not the least probability that his lost conclusion differed from Mt. in this respect. In Clem. Rom., Hermas, Polycarp, Ignatius we still find no mention of an ascension, nor yet is it spoken of in the Didache (this last, it ought to be added, indeed, does not even mention the resurrection). Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian continue to regard both events as two parts of one act (see Von Schubert, Camp, tics pseudopetrin. Evangelien- Jragments, 1893, 136-138); the Apology of Aristides (Syriac in Robinson, Texts and Studies, 1:1:4 l. 7-8 ; Greek, ibid. 1:1:10 l. 20-21. [chap. 15], German in Raabe, TU 9:1:3, 2, end) says similarly that after three days he rose again and was taken up into heaven. 1

1 On the apologetic side there is often an inclination to make use of the well-known fact that the ancients were in the habit of employing for their literary work ready-made papyrus rolls of a fixed length, within the limits of which they were wont to confine themselves. It is suggested that Lk., through failure of his space, may have found himself compelled to report the ascension so very briefly and inexactly, that it was possible for the impression to arise that he meant to assign it to the resurrection day, whereas in reality he meant to place it forty days later, and already had the intention of setting this forth more precisely in his later work. It may suffice, in answer to this, to say that Lk. must have perceived that the paper was coming to an end long before the last moment, and cannot have been forced, by any such discovery, into giving an account of the events which was not in accordance with his knowledge.

2 The descent into the underworld is originally merely another expression for his death and burial. Whether a preaching of Jesus in the underworld is connected with this (so MINISTRY, 26) is for our present purpose indifferent.


17. Real nature of the appearances.[edit]

The original conception of the ascension as set forth in the preceding section will supply us directly with some guidance when we proceed to the task of disentangling the real historical facts regarding the resurrection from the multitude of the accounts which have come down to us.

(a) As we do so we must in the first instance take Paul s account as our guide. That account is fitted to throw light upon the nature of the appearances made not only to Paul himself but also to others, for he would not have employed the same word 'was seen' (&(pdr] [oophthe]) if anything had been known to him by which the appearance made to himself was distinguished from those which others had received.

(b) Appearances of the risen Jesus did actually occur ; that is to say, the followers of Jesus really had the impression of having seen him. The historian who will have it that the alleged appearances are due merely to legend or to invention must deny not only the genuineness of the Pauline Epistles but also the historicity of Jesus altogether. The great difference between the attestation of the nativity narratives and that of those of the resurrection lies in the fact that the earliest accounts of the resurrection arose simultaneously with the occurrences to which they relate.

(c) The idea held regarding the occurrences was that Jesus made his appearances from heaven (16e). He thus had the nature of a heavenly being. Broadly speaking, the angels were the most familiar type of this order of being - the angels who can show themselves anywhere and again disappear.

(d) It was thought, as matter of course, that after each appearance Jesus returned into heaven. So regarded, each appearance ended with an ascension. Precisely for this reason, however, it is not permissible to suppose that any single ascension once and for all was ever observed ; on such a supposition Jesus would still have remained a denizen of earth after the appearances preceding the final one.

1 The order in 1 Tim. 3:16 where 'was received up in glory' (ayeArj^Or) ei> Sofrj) comes after 'was preached to the nations, was believed on in the world' (eicripvxOr) tv Sfvtmv, eiriarevOi] fv Kotr/no)), accords with no known or conceivable position of the ascension. May we hazard the conjecture that the author perhaps placed it at the close of his enumeration simply in order to close with a concrete fact rather than a somewhat vague and indeterminate proposition, and so make a better ending for his poetical piece, and that in doing so he followed perhaps some such train of ideas as that in Mk. 16:15-16, 16:19, only giving it a somewhat different turn : the command of Jesus that his disciples should preach him and believe in him was fulfilled and he was raised up to heaven?

(e) That the risen Jesus ate or was touched was never observed. Not only does Paul say nothing of any such occurrence ; the thing would also be contrary to the nature of a being appearing from heaven. Flesh and bones, which are attributed to Jesus in Lk. 24:39, assuredly he had not ; he really made his appearances, although it is expressly denied in the verse just cited, as spirit (irveO/xa [pneuma]) in the sense in which the angels are spirits (irveviMTa. [pneumata]: Heb. 1:14). On this point the Jewish Christians most certainly agreed with Paul (15b) so far as the person of Jesus was concerned.

It is indeed the case that in Jewish-Christian circles there was current a conception of a resurrection with a new earthly body, in accordance with which Jesus was taken to be the risen Baptist, or Elijah (Mk. 14-16). This, however, was not the only con ception by which Christians were influenced. On the contrary, from Jesus himself they had received the idea that in the resurrection men shall be as the angels of God (Mk. 1225 and ||). And if there was any case in which more than in another they had occasion to apply this exalted conception, it would be in that of the body of their risen Lord. They knew indeed his prediction that one day he would come again on the clouds of heaven (GOSPELS, 145-146). For them also, as for Paul (1 Cor. 15:20), esus was the first-fruits of them that sleep ; with his resurrection, accordingly, a new era began. Not only so ; it is extremely probable that the 'similitudes' of the Book of Enoch (chaps. 37-71 ; cp APOCALYPTIC, 30) are pre-Christian : and there an existence in heaven is attributed to the Messiah and Dan. 7:13 explained as referring to him. 1 The original apostles may very well have had knowledge of this, even without having ever read the book. There is, therefore, not the slightest difficulty in attributing to them the conception of the resurrection body of Jesus which Paul himself had and imputed to them. It is only with regard to the future resurrection of all mankind that Paul parts company with them, in so far as he thinks of the resurrection body of believers as being as heavenly and free from flesh and blood as was the resurrection body of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:44-53), a consequence drawn neither by the Jewish Christians nor yet by the later Gentile Christians who taught the resurrection of the flesh (symbolum Romanum, see MINISTRY, 27, n., and, later, symbolum apostolicum ; Hermas, Sim. 5:7:2 ; Justin, Dial. 80, end ; 2 Clem. Rom. 9:1, 14:5, etc., and already 1 Clem. 26:3). That the Pharisaic, and accordingly also the primitive Christian, expectation looked for a rennimation of the bod} appears in such passages as 2 Macc. 7:10-11, 14:46, Mt. 27:52, Acts 2:31, Rev. 20:13. Josephus also states this correctly in Ant. 18:1:3, 14, BJ 3:8:5, 374; it is only in BJ 2:8:14, 163, that by the expression 'remove into another body' (/uera/SaiVei! ei erepov <ru)|U.a) he has Hellenised the conception and thereby misled his readers.

(f) On the other hand, it is fully to be believed that men had the impression that they saw in full reality (below, 34 b, c, d] the wounds which Jesus had received on the cross, or perhaps even perceived that he showed them. The form which men beheld must of course show the most complete resemblance to that which Jesus bore upon earth, and to this, after the crucifixion, the wounds (not, however, the wound in the side, the spear-thrust being unhistorical, see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 23 d) necessarily belonged. As the form of the risen Jesus at the same time appeared in heavenly splendour and created the certainty that Jesus had vanquished death and laid aside everything that was earthly, there remains a possibility that in the case of many to whom he appeared attention was not fixed upon his wounds. It is particularly easy to suppose this in the case of Paul.

(g) From the nature of the appearances as described, it is further quite possible that they occurred even when the witnesses found themselves, as in Jn. 20:19, 20:26, shut in with closed doors, or that, as we read in Mk. 16:14, 16:19, Jesus was taken up into heaven direct from the apartment. Even if one entertains doubts as to whether the authors cited had enough certain information to enable them to say that this actually was so in the cases which they give, it still has to be acknowledged that the statement is not inconsistent with the nature of the appearances.

1 Muirhead, Times of Christ (1898), pp. 140-150; Schmiedel, Prot. Monatshefte, 1898, pp. 255-257 ; 1901, p. 339-340.

18. No words heard.[edit]

On the other hand, there is to be drawn from the various accounts one deduction which goes very deep : no words were heard from the risen Jesus.

(a) At first sight the hearing of words might appear not to be excluded by the simple 'was seen' (w</>#7?) of Paul. It is to be noted, however, that where Paul speaks of having received messages from heaven, he expressly specifies 'revelations' (droxoXtty etf [apokalypseis]) as well as 'visions' (dirraffiai [optasiai] : 2 Cor. 12:1-4), and where the distinction is employed it is clear that spoken words come under the former not the latter category.

(b) As against this, appeal will doubtless be made to the reports in Acts as to the appearances of Jesus to Paul on the journey to Damascus. Not successfully, however ; they contradict one another so violently (see ACTS, 2) that it is difficult to imagine how it could ever have been possible for an author to take them up into his book in their present forms, not to speak of the impossibility of accepting them in points where they are unsupported by the epistles of Paul. In these epistles, there is not the slightest countenance for the belief that Paul heard words, although he had the strongest motives for referring to them had he been in a position to do so. It is on the appearance on the journey to Damascus that he bases his claim to have been called to the apostolate by Jesus himself. The claim was hotly denied by his opponents : it was to his interest, therefore, to bring forward everything that could validly be adduced in its support. In pressing it (1 Cor. 9:1, 'Am I not an apostle?' ) he assuredly would not have stopped short at the question, 'Have I not seen Jesus our Lord ?' had he been in a position to go on and ask, 'Has he not himself named me his apostle?' with such words engraven on his memory as those we read in Acts 9:6, 22:10 or (above all) 26:16-18. The analogy of the angelic appearances cited above ( 17c) thus no longer holds good. Words are heard from angels ; no words were heard from Jesus.

(c) What holds good of the appearance to Paul is true also (see 17a) of the others of which we read. If, too, we apply a searching examination to the words which have been reported, it is precisely the most characteristic of them that we shall find ourselves most irresistibly con strained to abandon. The request for food and the invitation to touch the wounds of the crucified Jesus (Lk. 24:39, 24:41, Jn. 20:27) are, as we have seen in 17f, inadmissible. So also, as has been seen in 16e, the saying, 'I am not yet ascended unto the Father' (20:17). The power to forgive sins or to declare them unforgiven (20:23) belongs to God alone, and cannot be handed over by Jesus to his disciples (see MINISTRY, 4). The doctrine that the passion of Jesus was necessary in virtue of a divine appointment is invariably brought forward by Paul as the gospel that had been made manifest to himself alone and must be laboriously maintained in the face of its gainsayers ; how triumphantly would he not have been able to meet them had he only heard the least suggestion that the men of the primitive church had heard the same doctrine from the mouth of Jesus himself in the manner recorded in Lk. 24:25-27, 24:44-46. Once more, how could the original apostles have been able to call themselves disciples of Jesus if, after having been sent out by him as missionaries to the Gentiles (Lk. 22:47-48, Mk. 16:16 and the canonical text of Mt. 28:19), they actually made it a stipulation at the council of Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9) that their activity was to be confined within the limits of Israel ? As for the text of Mt. 28:19 on baptism and the trinitarian formula, see MINISTRY, 5e, cp Hibb. Journ., Oct. 1902, pp. 102-108 ; and on Jn. 21:15-22 see above, 9c.

19. Galilee the scene of the first appearances.[edit]

An equally important point is that the first appearances happened in Galilee. The most convincing reasons for this conclusion have already been summarised under GOSPELS (138a).

(a) In addition to what is said there special emphasis may be laid on the fact that there is no gospel in which appearances to men (not women) are reported as having been made both in Galilee and in Jerusalem ; for Jn. 21 is an appendix by another hand.

It is only Mt. that, besides the appearance to the disciples in Galilee, knows of that made to the women on the return from the sepulchre (28:9-10), this, however, will be regarded by very many as unhistorical, being absent from Mk. (which nevertheless is in this section so closely followed by Mt.) and containing nothing more than a repetition of the injunction already given by the angel to the women, to bid the disciples repair to Galilee. Jn any case the appearance comes from a separate source. If we leave Mt. 28:9-10 out of account it becomes perfectly clear that no one gospel from the first reported appearances of the risen Jesus in Galilee as well as in Jerusalem. The gospels in fact fall exactly into two classes : Mk., Mt. and the Gospel of Peter are for Galilee ; Lk., Jn., and Mk. 16:9-20 for Jerusalem, and the Gospel of the Hebrews also does not indicate in any way that it looks for James and Peter and Peter s companions elsewhere than in the place where it finds the servant of the high priest (see above, 4a, 6), viz., in Jerusalem. It is only afterwards that the writer of Jn. 21 sees fit to change this 'either, or' into a 'both, and' ; so also Mt., but without admitting an appearance to any male disciples in Jerusalem.

If, however, Galilee and Jerusalem were at first mutually exclusive, both cannot rest upon equally valid tradition ; there must have been some reason why the one locality was changed for the other.

(b) Such a reason for transferring the appearances from Galilee to Jerusalem has been indicated in GOSPELS (138a). Its force becomes all the greater when it is realised how small has been the success of even the most distinguished critics in attempting to make out the opposite.

All that Loofs (see below, 39) has to say is (p. 25), 'Those narrators who represent the whole life of Jesus, with the exception of the last eight days, as having been passed in Galilee, may have transferred to Galilee also the appearances of the risen Jesus, with regard to which they were very defectively informed ; they may have done so all the more easily because the first persons of whom they had occasion to speak in connection with the resurrection were women from Galilee.' The question at once presents itself: What has the circumstance that they belonged to Galilee to do with the present matter? They were in point of fact in Jerusalem. What is the relevancy of the observation that the activity of Jesus, apart from the last eight days, had been wholly in Galilee? His grave at any rate was in Jerusalem, and his disciples were also there, according to the testimony of Mk., Mt., and the Gospel of Peter, at least. That the present writer holds the statement as to the presence of the disciples at Jerusalem to be unhistorical does not affect the argument ; for the point is that Loofs regards precisely that statement as historical. It is all the more necessary to ask: How does Loofs know that Mk. and Mt. were very defectively informed with regard to the appearances of the risen Jesus?

If this was indeed so, if Mk. and Mt. had to fall back on their own powers of conjecture, where else were they to look for appearances if not in Jerusalem where the grave, the women, and the disciples were? Thus the tradition which induced them to place the appearances in Galilee must have been one of very great stability.

B. Weiss (to pass over other names), in the interests of the Jerusalem tradition, doubts the historicity of the statement that the women received from the angel the injunction to bid the disciples proceed to Galilee, especially as this injunction is merely a reminiscence of Jesus words in Gethsemane, that after he rose from the dead he would go before the disciples to Galilee (Mk. 14:28). So Leben Jesu (2) 2:590 (ET 3:393}. On p. 596 (ET 399-400), however, Weiss says that that command of the angel to the women (to direct the disciples to go to Galilee) is only a reminiscence of the command of the same character which the risen Jesus himself lays upon Mary Magdalene, according to Mt. 25:9-10 (where, according to Weiss, only the second Mary is erroneously conjoined with Mary Magdalene rightly mentioned by the eye-witness John [20:1-2, 20:11-18]). Thus what Weiss holds to be an error (the command to bid the disciples go to Galilee) must be held (if the Jerusalem tradition is to be maintained) to have got itself clothed in a very remarkable form : not only as an angelic word (Mt. 28:7, Mk. 16:7) but also as a word of the risen Lord himself (Mt. 28:10), in the account of an appearance that is guaranteed by an eye-witness,

(c ) In reality the error lies in quite another direction : in making Jesus appear at the sepulchre to the women, or Mary Magdalene, as the case may be. On the account in Mt. see above (a). That of Jn., however, is open to just as serious objections, for its chief saying, 'I am not yet ascended unto the Father', rests on a theory of the nature of the Holy Ghost that is peculiar to the Fourth Gospel (16, c). If, however, Jn.'s account can lay no claim to authenticity we may be all the surer that it is a transformation of the account of Mt. Of its being so there are, moreover, several indications. In Jn. , as in Mt. , one of Jesus sayings is only a repetition of a word of the angels: 'Woman, why weepest thou ?' A reminiscence of the fact that when the women met Jesus they had in Mt. already retired from the sepulchre may perhaps be recognised in she turned herself back (f<TTpd<f>i) eis ra diricru) in Jn. 20:14. Only one woman appearing at the grave in Jn. is perhaps to be explained by the observation that the recognition-scene becomes more dramatic when Jesus has no need to utter more than a single word : 'Mary'. Cp, further, 25, c.

(d) In 1 Cor. 15 Paul mentions no place. The enumeration he gives would not preclude the reader from supposing that the various appearances had occurred in quite different places for example, most of them in Galilee, even if that to James were to be thought of as having been made in Jerusalem. It is, however, quite improbable that James was in Jerusalem again so soon (see MINISTRY, aid), or that he should have ex perienced the appearance of the risen Jesus at so late a time that it might nevertheless be supposed that James had already removed to Jerusalem (see below, 36-37).

20. Watch at sepulchre unhistorical.[edit]

The sealing and watching of the sepulchre (Mt. 27:62-66, 28:4, 28:11-15) is now very generally given up even by those scholars who still hold by the resurrection narratives as a whole.

  • (a) As already pointed out above (2a) in Mk. it is not only, as in Lk. and Jn. , absent ; it is absolutely excluded by the women's question : they have no apprehensions about the watch, only about the stone.
  • (b) Again, it is exceedingly improbable that the Jews remembered any prophecy of Jesus that he was to rise again in three days (Mt. 27:63). According to the Gospels Jesus made prophecies of the kind only to the innermost circle of his disciples (Mk. 8:27, 8:31, 9:30-31, 10:32-34 and ||). Indeed in Mk. and Lk. not even the women remember the prophecy, otherwise they would not have set out to anoint the body,
  • (c) Again, the explanation which the

high priests and elders suggest, according to Mt. 28:13, is untenable ; for if the soldiers were asleep at the time they could not testify that the disciples stole the body.

  • (d) Not less unlikely is the supposition that the Jewish authorities actually believed the account of the soldiers regarding the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Surely the consequence must have been, as with Paul at a later date, their conversion to the faith of Jesus. If, on the other hand, they remained unmoved, they must also have believed that, however perplexing it might at first sight appear, the affair was capable of explanation other wise than by the resurrection of Jesus, and must have moved Pilate to institute a strict inquiry into the conduct of the soldiers, rather than have sought to bribe the soldiers,
  • (e) Above all, the soldiers could not have accepted a bribe, least of all if they had nothing better to say by way of ostensible defence than that they had fallen asleep. For this the penalty was death. According to Acts 12:19 we actually find Agrippa I putting to death the soldiers who had allowed Peter to escape from prison, and this is conclusive as to the nature of military responsibilities, even if in point of fact the liberation of Peter was brought about through no fault of his keepers (cp SIMON PETER, 3, e). Roman soldiers knew only too well the strictness with which discipline was administered, and the promise of the Jewish authorities to obtain immunity for them from Pilate, if needful (Mt. 28:14), would have made no impression on them.
  • (f) The best criticism on this whole feature of the narrative is the simple fact that the Gospel of Peter, which unquestionably is later than Mt. , avoids it altogether and concludes quite differently (above, 5a).

21. Empty sepulchre unhistorical.[edit]

That Jesus was buried in a usual way, not as is conjectured by Volkmar (Religion Jesu, 77-78, 257-259 [1857], Die Evangeli (11 [1870] = Marcus u. apocalypse [l876], 603), on the basis of Is. 58:9, 22:16-18 Rev. 11:8-9, left unburied, or at most cast into a hole and covered with some earth, is established by 1 Cor. 15:4 (cp Reim, Gesck. Jesu von Natara, 3:525-527, ET 6:271-274). But the accounts of the empty sepulchre are none of them admissible. As to this the leading points have already been summarised in GOSPELS (138e-f). Some further considerations may be added.

(a) The three points from which we have to start are the silence of Paul (as of the entire NT apart from the Gospels; see, especially, Acts 2:29-32) - a silence which would be wholly inexplicable were the story true (15) ; next, the statement in Mk. 16:8 that the women said nothing of their experiences at the sepulchre - a statement which has to be understood in the sense that Mk. was the first to be in a position to publish the facts ; in other words, that the whole story is a very late production ; lastly, if (as we have seen) the first appearances of Jesus were in Galilee, the tidings of them must have arrived at Jerusalem much too late to allow of examination of the sepulchre with any satisfactory results. If a body had been found it would have been too far advanced in decay to allow of identification ; if there were none, this could be accounted for very easily without postulating a resurrection.

(b} The attempt to explain the evangelical reports without assuming a resurrection is, however, the line taken by very many theologians also who hold by what is said as to the empty sepulchre and yet assume no miracle. In the first place they postulate a removal of the body by persons whose action had no connection with the question of a resurrection.

On account of the approach of the Sabbath (they hold) the body had in any case to be laid in some grave or other, even perhaps without leave asked of the owner. It was, therefore, necessary that it should be removed afterwards to a more suitable place ; or the owner himself may have removed it. A reminiscence of this is even discovered in Jn. 20:15. Or, if the sepulchre belonged to Joseph of Arimathaea, even he may not have desired to have the body of a stranger permanently occupying a place in the sepulchre of his family. On all these assumptions what strikes one is the promptitude with which the transference must have been made. To do so on the Sabbath before sundown was unlawful ; yet very early next morning the transference had already been effected (according to Mt. even immediately after the sundown which marked the close of the Sabbath ; see, however, 2d).

(c} Others suggest that the enemies of the Christians had removed the body of Jesus in order that it might not receive the veneration of his followers. The sur prising thing in this would be, not so much that such a policy would have given the greatest possible, though unintentional, impetus to such veneration, as rather this, that such action would presuppose a disposition to worship the dead body for which it would be difficult to find a precedent among the Jews, for whom any contact with a corpse meant defilement.

(d) For a long time the favourite view was that the disciples themselves actually had clone what, according to Mt. 27:64, the Jewish authorities were apprehensive they might do, and, according to 28:13, 28:15, imputed to them falsely, namely, that they had stolen the body in order that they might afterwards proclaim that Jesus had risen.

Renan (Apotres, 42-43, ET 6:9-10), without expressly stating this purpose of the disciples, is inclined to attribute a share in the removal of the body to Mary Magdalene (whose predisposition to mental malady [Lk. 8:2] he accentuates), because only a woman's hand would have left the clothes in such order as is described in Jn. 20:7. That a theft of this kind would have had the effect of convincing gainsayers of the resurrection of Jesus is not very easy to believe. On the other hand, it could in certain circumstances have made some impression on followers of Jesus.

The question forces itself, however : Who was there to set the plan on foot ? The disciples were utterly cast down ; to all probable seeming, in fact, they were not even in Jerusalem at all (GOSPELS, 138 a). The theory thus breaks down at the outset, and it seems superfluous to ask whether the disciples would have ventured to act in a sense contrary to the ordinance of God who had suffered their master to die.

(e) We mention, lastly, yet another theory, which is most clearly a mere refuge of despair - the theory, namely, that the earthquake (mentioned only in Mt. 28:2) opened a chasm immediately under the sepulchre, into which the body of Jesus disappeared.

Not only this, however, but also all the other hypotheses mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, become superfluous on the adoption of the view that the statements about the empty sepulchre are unhistorical.

22. The third day.[edit]

As soon as his approaching death came to be foreseen by Jesus, he must have looked forward also to its annulment, unless, indeed, he at the same had abandoned the belief that he was the Messiah ordained by God to establish the divine kingdom upon earth.

(a) As is said elsewhere (GOSPELS, 145-146), it is not probable that Jesus foretold simply his resurrection ; that took him into heaven, whereas the work of the Messiah lay upon earth. The most important prediction accordingly was that of his coming again from heaven. The time fixed by him is variously stated in the Gospels as being at the end of the then living generation (Mt. 16:27-28), after a probably shorter interval (10:23), and in the immediate future (air dprt [ap arti], Mt. 26:64). The most certain conclusion that can be deduced from this variation clearly is that Jesus never gave any precise date, and this for the reason that he himself (see Mk. 13:32 = Mt. 24:36) did not know it; yet it is also very possible that he used the expression 'in' or 'after' 'three days' as a conventional designation for a very short interval (Lk. 13:32, Mk. 14:58, 15:29 and parallels, on which cp MINISTRY, 2a).

(b) As soon as the question came to be one not of his coming again from heaven, but of his rising again from the dead, the expression 'after three days', in itself a very indefinite one, came to have a more exact meaning. The Jewish belief was that the soul lingered for three days only, near the body it had left, in the hope of returning to it ; after that the body became so changed that a reanimation was no longer possible (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 20a; and Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, 2:324-325). It was only natural that in thinking of the resurrection of Jesus this limit should be kept in mind (Mk. 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and || ; Lk. 24:7, 24:21, 24:46). If it is somewhat difficult to believe that Jesus uttered these prophecies so early (especially in connection with Peter's confession at Csesarea Philippi ; see GOSPELS, 145e), and with such exactitude of detail, it must nevertheless be recognised that he may very well, at one time or another, have expressed himself in some such sense.

(c) The OT texts that have special relevance in this connection are 2 K. 20:5 and Hos. 6:2 (in both of which the interval of three days is brought into connection with a revivification, if not after death, at least after a sickness or time of weakness) ; and Jonah 2:1 [1:17] also - the three days sojourn of the prophet in the belly of the whale - is in Mt. 12:40, albeit in a very inappropriate and interrupting way (see GOSPELS, 140a), interpreted with reference to the period during which Jesus was to remain in the grave. Paul expressly refers to the Scriptures in 1 Cor. 10:4. A forsaking 'for a small moment' is spoken of also in Is. 54:7.

(d) In this way it became possible for the resurrection of Jesus, if expected at all, to be expected exactly after three days. The expectation, however, would hardly have had any result if those who had expected had not also had the consciousness of having seen him. In itself considered it was not absolutely imperative that the first appearances should coincide with the precise time of the expected resurrection. But if they had occurred much later the belief that the resurrection actually had happened precisely three days after death could hardly have been held very firmly. As, however, we find it in point of fact held with equal firmness by Paul (1 Cor. 15:4) and by the evangelists, the balance of probabilities favours the view that the first appearances happened on the same day or only a little later.

With this it fits in very well if we suppose that the disciples shortly after the arrest of Jesus, and Peter shortly after his denial, had already set out for Galilee, so that they might arrive there on the third day (cp Jos. Vit. 52, 269). This is, moreover, the reason why the Gospel of Peter, in spite of all appearance, has no prob ability in its favour if it really means to convey that the disciples did not set out on their return journey to Galilee until the eighth or rather the ninth day after the death of Jesus, and that thus at least eleven days elapsed before the first appearance of the risen Jesus was experienced (see above, 5e).

(e) According to the Gospels Jesus remained under the power of death not for about seventy-two hours but only for somewhere between twenty-six and thirty-six hours. These, however, in fact, according to Jewish reckoning, are distributed between Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. In two of the OT passages referred to above - 2 K. 20:5 and Hos 6:2 - we read not 'after three days', but 'on the third day'. Thus the Gospel tradition literally satisfies the expression.

It must have appeared fitting that the rising of Jesus should occur at as early a moment as possible after the third day had begun. From the same sense of fitness the visit of the women, once it was accepted as a fact, was naturally assigned to the early morning hours. Where Mk. has 'after three days' (jiera rpets T)jiepa? ; 8:31, 9:31, 10:34), the parallel passages consistently have 'on the third day' (777 Tpirr) Tj/xe pa : Mt. 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, Lk. 9:22, 18:33 as also 24:7, 24:46, cp also 24:21, Acts 10:40). The latter expression in Mt. and Lk. may possibly be dependent on the account of the course of events as given by themselves, and thus Mk. s phrase might seem to have been the original one. Vet we must not imagine that the two phrases were for the evangelists really incompatible. Matthew himself says in one place (27:63-64) that Jesus foretold his resurrection 'after three days' (/otera rpeis ^e pas) and represents the Jews as basing upon this their petition to Pilate that the sepulchre may be guarded 'till the third day' (s<o? rijs rpuT)s i^/aepas). Were this to be taken literally it would have no sense, for in that case no watch would have been asked for precisely the fourth day, which was the critical one. From this it follows also that we are not compelled to regard Mt. 12:40 (see above, c) as genuine for the reason that, according to the report in the Gospels, the time of the fulfilment was shorter than that appointed in Jesus' prophecy. Jn. 219-21 Says : iv rpiaiv rjjue pais.

23. Number of appearances.[edit]

As for the number of the appearances, Paul knows of more than we find in any one Gospel - viz. , five, over and above that made to himself.

(a) It is not possible, however, to identify each of even the few Gospel accounts with one of Paul's.

Let one example suffice in illustration of the kind of violence in dealing with texts required in order to effect identifications.

Resch (TU 5:4:421-426, 10:2:381-389, 10:3:768-782, 10:3:790-814, 10:3:824-827) identifies the appearance to Peter with that to the unnamed disciple at Emmaus (see above, 2q), that to the Twelve with Lk. 24:36-49 and Jn. 20:19-24 (above, 2r), that to the Five Hundred with Lk. 24:50-51, where, nevertheless, 'them' (avrovs [autous]) denotes precisely the same persons as we find in 24:33, 24:36. That to James he identities with that to Thomas and the other disciples in Jn. 20:26-29. This James he holds to be identical with James the son of Alphaeus, who may (Resch says) have been named Thomas - i.e., twin - because his brother Judas of James is called Twin in Syriac tradition (Lips. Apokr. Ap.-Gesch. 1:20:227, 2:2:154, 2:2:173-174). Finally, the appearance to 'all the apostles' is, according to Resch, that mentioned in Mt. 28:16-20, and Acts 1:4-12.

(b) If one addresses oneself to the problems with out harmonistic prepossessions, the safest criteria for identifying an event of which there are two accounts will be the presence of characteristic details and (next in importance) exact time-data. Unfortunately Paul supplies us with no details, and dates are gained only indirectly, so far as they can be deduced from the order in which he mentions the events. The number of persons said to have been involved in a historical event is a secure criterion of its identity only if the number is small. As soon as it becomes considerable, an error within moderate limits is not wholly inconceivable.

(c) On these principles the only identification that admits of being made without question is that of the appearance to Peter in 1 Cor. 15:5 with the appearance mentioned in Lk. 24:34. Next in Paul s account comes an appearance to the Twelve. A similar appearance is recorded by Mt. as the only one he knows. In Lk. the only appearance to the Eleven (with others) is in 24:33 24:36-51; Jn. 20:19-24 contains the first appearance to ten apostles ; but we must identify the two on account of their exactly similar date (2r). Cp also the almost identical words in Lk. 24:36, 'stood in the midst of them' (fffTt) iv fJL^ffq) O.VT&V} and Jn. 20:19, 'stood in the midst' (for?; et j TO ^aov}. The diversity of the special features mentioned by Lk. and Jn. may be ignored all the more readily if we find ourselves able to regard them merely as unhistorical embellishments. Both date (evening of the resurrection day), however, and place (Jerusalem) are quite irreconcilable with those in Mt. Nevertheless it will remain open to us to recognise as kernel common to all three accounts that after the appearance to Peter there was another to the Eleven. Here also belongs the second fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews (above, 4c). This, however, is the only one of Resch s identifications that can stand scrutiny, and even so Mt. must be left out.

(d) The appearance to the 500 has no parallels (the proposed parallel referred to in 11b cannot be accepted), that to James only in the Gospel of the Hebrews (above, 4 a, b}. As parallel to that to 'all the apostles' on the other hand we must not adduce Acts 1:4-12. The event related there is, in the intention of the author, not the sequel to the only appearance in the Third Gospel (24:33, 24:36-51) to about the same number of persons ; it aims at correcting that part (24:44-51) of the earlier narrative which ends with the Ascension. Jn. 20:26-29 admits of being cited in this connection merely as being the only repetition to be met with in any gospel, of an appearance to a company of disciples approximating this number. Since, however, this company is in Jn. supplemented only by Thomas and in Paul by quite different persons, we have no assurance that even so much as a reminiscence of one and the same occurrence underlies the two accounts. On the other hand, in Paul the appearance of the risen Jesus at the sepulchre to the two Marys (Mt. ), or to Mary Magdalene alone (Jn. ), is unmentioned, as also that to the two disciples at Emmaus and that reported in Jn. 21 , which has some resemblance to what we find in the Gospel of Peter (above, 5d)

(e) It has already been shown at some length ( 15, i8f) that Paul would certainly not have omitted to mention at least the appearances at the sepulchre and at Emmaus had he been aware of them. To meet this difficulty, and establish the priority of the Gospel narratives to Paul, the counter question has been asked : How could the evangelists possibly have allowed so much that is found in Paul to escape them, if they had been acquainted with his narrative or even with the tradition which underlies it? This question, however, is easily answered. For a writer who could report an instance in which Jesus had partaken of food (Lk. ), or in which his wounds had been touched (Lk. , Jn. ), or who could speak of the empty sepulchre as all four evangelists do, or of appearances of the risen Jesus close to the sepulchre (Mt. , Jn. ) - for such a writer and for his readers an accumulation of instances in which Jesus had merely been seen no longer possessed any very great interest ; and a case even in which he had appeared to five hundred brethren at once would, at the time when the Gospels were written, hardly have been considered so important as an appearance to the apostles, whose place in the reverence of the faithful had already come to be very exalted (see MINISTRY, 34). Even the instance in which Jesus had been merely seen (though) by Peter is only touched on by Lk. (24:34), not described, plainly because the narrative alongside of the others would be too devoid of colour.

24. Influence of tendency on Gospels.[edit]

To this want of interest in mere visual appearances of the risen Jesus we can add, however, in the case of the evangelists a positive interest, that of serving definite purposes by their narratives.

(a) It makes for confirmation of what has been laid down in preceding sections (17-22) as to the elements in the accounts of the resurrection which alone can be recognised as historical, if we are in a position to show that everything in the accounts which goes beyond such indubitably historical elements is a product of tendencies which by an inherent necessity could not fail to lead to a shaping of the accounts in the form in which they now lie before us, even where there is no substratum of actual fact. In so far as these tendencies give us the right to pronounce unhistorical everything that can be explained by their means, in the absence of sufficient testimony to historical fact, they may be appropriately considered now in the course of the investigation as to objective facts in the resurrection-narratives on which we are at present engaged. It will appear that at all points the reference to tendencies supplies an adequate explanation of all the statements which we have been unable to accept as historical.

(b) As regards the nature of these tendencies :- some are directly apologetical, having for their object to preclude the possibility of certain definite objections against the actuality of the resurrection. Others are apologetical indirectly, their aim being to round off the picture by supplying gaps so that no questions may remain open. Lastly, some have in view the needs of the church itself, tracing back, as they do, to the risen Jesus certain instructions which were not found in the reports of the period of his earthly ministry (28), or seeking to compensate for the want of that direct assurance of the continued life of Jesus which later generations were no longer able to command (29).

(c) That the evangelical narratives as a whole are in many ways influenced by tendency has been shown in GOSPELS, 108-114 and JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 17, 20c, 23, 35h, and elsewhere. How close at hand apologetic interests were where the story of the resurrection was concerned is seen even in the fact that the entire statement of Paul is made with an apologetic view - only, in his case there is no justification for the conjecture that the contents of his statement were altered by this consideration (10-11). In the Gospels, on the other hand, we have at least one point in which this is particularly clear, and recognised even by very conservative theologians.

In Mt. 28:15 it is expressly said that the report of the theft of the body by the disciples was current among the Jews in the writer s time. The writer traces it back to the false testimony of the guard at the sepulchre procured by bribery on the part of the Jewish authorities. If we find ourselves unable to regard this bribery, or indeed any part of the story as to the watch set over the sepulchre, as historical, we are shut up to supposing that the allegations arose from the desire (or tendency) to make the story of the theft of the body by the disciples seem untenable.

(d) It must at the same time be expressly emphasised that we are by no means compelled to think of this tendency as operative in such a manner that an author would produce from his own brain a quite new narrative in the apologetic direction. Precisely the same result - namely, the complete unhistoricity and the 'tendency' character of a narrative - emerges if we assume that the narrative has grown up only bit by bit, by the co operation of several, and has reached its present form under the influence of naive and artless presuppositions and pardonable misunderstandings, in some such manner as we have sought to render probable elsewhere for a series of narratives found in the Fourth Gospel (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 35a-f). A special reason for making the same attempt in the case of the resurrection is found in the character of the accounts themselves. If they were pure inventions it would be very difficult to understand why, for example, of the disciples at Emmaus one is nameless, and of those in Jn. 21 two are unnamed, or why the appearances to Peter as being the first, or that to the 500 as being the most imposing, should not have received detailed adornment. Cp, further, 19c, 25c.

(e) To help us to realise how such a narrative could come into existence by successive steps, let us take the example referred to above - that of the watch set on the sepulchre.

A Christian who found himself confronted for the first time with the assertion that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus naturally opposed it to the utmost. As, however, at the same time (as we must suppose, if we believe the narrative of Mt. to be unhistorical) he found himself unable to adduce any counter-evidence, he would be constrained to have recourse to conjectures, and to say something like this : 'The Jews, we may be quite certain, saw to the watching of the sepulchre ; they could very well have known that Jesus had predicted his rising again for the third day'. A somewhat cnreless Christian bystander received the impression that in these suggestions what he was listening to was not mere conjecture but statement of fact, and circulated it among his friends as such ; that it was unhesitatingly believed by Christians is not astonishing. Next, let us suppose, another propounded the question : Did then the men of the guard actually see what happened at the resurrection of Jesus? Again the answer could only be a conjecture; but just as certainly it must have run as follows : 'Unquestionably ; for they were continuously at the sepulchre, and Roman soldiers never sleep on guard'. As, further, at the time we are at present supposing, the statement that the women had found the stone rolled away had long been current, conjecture as to what the guards had observed before the arrival of the women could hardly have been other than to the effect that there had been an earthquake and that an angel had come down from heaven and rolled away the stone. That this conjecture also should have been taken up as a statement of fact is easy to suppose. Lastly, a listener perhaps would ask : 'Why then did not the soldiers tell what had happened, and why have we been left in ignorance of this until now ?' Once more the answer - a conjecture merely, yet ready to be accepted as a fact - was at hand : The Jewish authorities will doubtless have bribed them to suppress the truth and to spread instead of it the rumour that the disciples had stolen the body.

Effect of tendency.[edit]

25. (a) on accounts of sepulchre.[edit]

Without pursuing this line of explanation further in details, let us now endeavour to see what were the conscious or unconscious apologetic tendencies at work which could have given rise to the unhistorical elements in the gospel narratives.

(a) If Jesus was risen, his grave must have been empty. If this was disputed, the Christians asserted it as a fact, and that with the very best intention of affirming what was true. Therefore, no hesitation was felt iu further declaring that (according to all reasonable conjectured the women who had witnessed Jesus death had wished to anoint his body and thus had come to know of the emptiness of the grave. In the fact that according to Mk. and Mt. this was not alleged regard ing the male disciples we can see still a true recollection that those disciples were by that time no longer in Jerusalem (see GOSPELS, 138a) ; this feature was not first added by our canonical evangelists Mk. and Mt. , for they already presuppose the presence of the disciples in Jerusalem.

(b) Why then should not these disciples themselves have gone to the sepulchre ? In an earlier phase of the narratives it was, no doubt, borne in mind that these disciples, if in Jerusalem at all, had to remain in con cealment, and even a writing so late as the Gospel of Peter (26) knew that very well. Lk. , however (24:24), ignores it. His statement that 'certain' (TLI>S [tines]) disciples went to the sepulchre is still very vague. But Jn. forthwith lays hold of it and definitely names Peter and the beloved disciple, and reports upon their rivalry in a manner that betrays a conscious tendency much more strongly than most of the other narratives (cp SIMON PKTER, 22b).

(c) The most obvious conjecture must necessarily have been that Jesus was seen immediately at the sepulchre itself. Here also may be distinguished two stages. The earlier is the account of Mt. ; Jn. recasts it (19c). If Jn. had been a free inventor it would be hard to say why he does not assign the appearance of Jesus at the sepulchre to Peter and the beloved disciple, both of whom nevertheless he represents as examining the sepulchre. Since he names only a woman as re ceiving the appearance he shows himself bound by the representation which we now find in Mt. , in spite of all the comparative freedom with which he departs from it. So also the Coptic account, and the Didaskalia (above, 6, 7b}.

(d) In all the reports hitherto mentioned, however, Jesus was seen only after, not during, his resurrection. The possibility of filling up this blank was offered by the story of the guard at the sepulchre, which on its own merits has already been discussed (above, 24e ). It could in point of fact fill the blank in an (apologetically) extremely effective way, inasmuch as it was by unbelievers that the actual fact of the resurrection was observed.

The timidity which restrained the other writers from touching upon this incident continued to be still operative with Mt. in so far that he does not say that the person of Jesus was actually seen, and adds that the watchers became as dead men (28:4). The Gospel of Peter has completely overcome this timidity ; the watchers observe accurately each of the successive phases of the resurrection and see Jesus himself as he emerges from the tomb. The codex Bobbiensis (above, 7a) relates this simply as a fact without mention of the witnesses. The statement of the Gospel of the Hebrews - that Jesus gave the linen shroud to the servant of the high-priest - stands upon the same plane.

26. (b) On question : Galilee or Jerusalem.[edit]

As long as there was still current knowledge that the first appearances of the risen Jesus were in Galilee, the fact could be reconciled with the presence of the disciples in Jerusalem on the morning of the resurrection only

(a) on the assumption that they were then directed to go to Galilee. The natural media for conveying such a communication must have seemed to be the angels at the sepulchre in the first instance, and after them the women. So Mk. and Mt. So far as Mt. is concerned this direction to be given to the disciples was perhaps the reason, or a reason in addition to that suggested in 2d, why the women should be made to go to the grave so early as on the evening ending the Sabbath, so that the disciples might still in the course of the night have time to set out and if possible obtain a sight of Jesus within three days after his crucifixion.

(b) Yet such a combination as this was altogether too strange. Why should Jesus not have appeared forthwith in Jerusalem to the disciples ? Accordingly Lk. and Jn. simply suppressed the direction to go to Galilee, finding themselves unable to accept it, and transferred the appearances to Jerusalem. Or, it was not our canonical evangelists who did both things at one and the same time, but there had sprung up, irrespective of Mk. and Mt. , the feeling that Jesus must in any case have already appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem ; it presented itself to Lk. and Jn. with a certain degree of authority, and these writers had not now any occasion to invent but simply to choose what seemed to them the more probable representation, and then, when in the preparation of their respective books they reached the order to go to Galilee, merely to pass over it or get round it (2k), as no longer compatible with the new view.

1 Should Brandt (355-357) be right in his conjecture that these three words are a gloss, because, in the words immediately following, Jesus passes over the doubt of these disciples without remark, the insertion would still show that a reader of the oldest period found it fitting to presuppose doubts on the part of some of the disciples.

27. (c) On sensible reality of appearances.[edit]

As against all assurances that the risen Jesus had been seen, it was always possible to raise the objectection that what was seen had been merely 'a vision' (<t> dvTaff V- a [phantasma]). One good way of meeting this objection was

(a) the assurance that the eye-witnesses had assured themselves of the contrary with all the more care and circumspection because they themselves had at first shared this doubt. It is thus that we are to explain the care with which the disbelief of the disciples is accentuated.

So in Mt. 28:17 ( 'but some doubted'. oi 8 t6i <TTa<rar)1 Lk. 24:11, 24:37, 24:41 - in vv. 37, 41 we have a doubt that is hardly intelligible in the present connection, since all those present have already in v. 34 confessed their faith in the resurrection of Jesus (an unevenness that would be removed by the hypothesis of Brandt spoken of in 16b) - also with special emphasis in Jn. 20:25, Mk. 16:11, 16:13-14 and in the Coptic account. The counterpart, a specially strong faith, is shown by James, in the Gospel of the Hebrews, in his oath that he would fast until Jesus had risen again.

(b) If then it was held important to be able to overcome doubts, it was always possible to produce some impression if assurance could be given that Jesus had been not only seen but also heard. As to the substance of what he said something will be found in the next section ( 28) ; for the present, all that comes into consideration is the simple fact of speech. For narrators who had never themselves witnessed an appearance of Jesus it was an exceedingly natural thing to assume that Jesus had been not only seen but also heard, and it was equally easy for their hearers to take their conjecture for fact. At the same time, since it was not impossible also to hear words, as Paul reports himself to have done (2 Cor. 12:4), without the experience being more than an ecstasy, some yet stronger proof of objectivity still remained necessary.

(e) In [section] 17-18 stress has already been laid on the fact that in the bodily figure of Jesus which was seen the marks of the wounds were also included ; nay more, that spectators even perhaps believed themselves to see that he was showing them. Still, a real guarantee of the actuality of his return to this earth had not been received until the wounds had been touched.

Whilst, however, there is between such an 'actual' seeing and actual touching a distinction so great that it can hardly be exaggerated, it is one which is capable of being almost entirely overlooked by people who neither themselves had witnessed an appearance of Jesus nor were familiar with the principles of psychology; and thus it would not be impossible for them, without any consciousness of inaccuracy, still less of deliberate perversion of the truth, to change the statement which eye-witnesses had actually made as to having seen the wounds into the different statement that Jesus had invited the disciples to touch them. So Lk. 24:39, Jn. 20:27 ; also the Coptic account and the second fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews (4c), in the last-cited case with the express addition that the disciples availed themselves of the invitation. In a naive way a touching of Jesus by the women is mentioned in Mt. 28:9.

(d) Lk. goes yet another step further in his statement (24:42-43) that Jesus asked for food, and partook of it in the presence of the disciples. This is in v. 41 expressly characterised as a still stronger proof of the reality of his resurrection than the fact that he had been touched. Here, accordingly, the popular conceptions as to the nature of the resurrection body underlying Mk. 6:14-16, which in the earliest period were not applied to Jesus (17e), gain influence. Jn. does not follow Lk. in this ; he declines to represent the risen Jesus in so strongly and frankly sensuous a manner. 1 Yet even Lk.'s representation is surpassed by the extra-canonical addition to Lk. 21:43 (7c) that Jesus gave to his disciples the remainder of the food of which he had been partaking. An eating in their presence here becomes an eating with them, which according to Acts 10:41 was, in fact, continually happening. 2

(e) It becomes now quite easy to understand how, once narrators had ceased to shrink from such repre sentations, the reporter passed over that particular touch in the accounts actually proceeding from eye-witnesses according to which Jesus had vanished after each appearance, and how instead of this it was unsuspectingly

1 The question in Jn. 21:5, quite on a level with Lk. 24:41 ('aught to eat?'), has a quite different significance; in Jn. Jesus does not intend to eat, but to give them to eat. Neither also does Lk. 24:30-31 (the scene at Emmaus) imply a representation of Jesus as eating. See 29b.

2 The rendering of wvc&ifAfWQl [synalizomenos] in EVmg of Acts 1:4 'eating with them' is, however, very doubtful (EV 'being assembled together with them' ).

taken for granted that Jesus had still remained upon earth and had dealings with his disciples in every respect as a man. In the earliest stage of this way of represent ing matters, such a condition of things was held to have lasted for only one day ; but afterwards the time was extended to forty days ( 16 a, b).

That this second view was not met with in tradition from the beginning, but owes its existence to a transformation of the earlier view, is absolutely certain unless we assign Acts to another than the author of the Third Gospel. The cause of the transformation is very apparent ; the disciples were, during all the lifetime of Jesus, very weakly, and at the end still needed much instruction 'concerning the kingdom of God' (irept TTJS /SacriAei as roO 0eoO : Acts 1:3).

(f) The idea of a continuous presence of Jesus upon earth, if only for a single day, necessarily carried with it the consequence that this condition terminated in an ascension.

No one needed to invent the idea ; every account of eye-witnesses had closed with the more or less definite statement that Jesus had again disappeared, and disappeared into heaven (17d). At the same time the tendency to adorn a plain story shows itself at work with sufficient clearness if we compare the simple he parted from them and was carried up into heaven (Sie oTT) air O.VTWV Koi ai SiftepfTO eis T OI> ovpavov) of Lk. 24:51, or even Mk. 16:19, with the circumstantial account given in Acts 1:9-11. The original limitation of the period during which appearances of (esus occurred to a single day will have co operated along with the other causes mentioned in 23e to bring about the exclusion by Lk. of the appearance to the 500, that to James, and that to all the apostles.

28. (d) On words reported.[edit]

The belief once created that Jesus in his various appearances had also spoken, the door lay wide open for all kinds of conjecture as to what he had said,

(a) In this region the most obvious conjecture was that Jesus uttered words leading up to, or explaining, the alleged facts which we have already considered.

Thus it fits the situation equally that in Mt. 28:10 Jesus repeats to the women the injunction of the angels to bid the disciples repair to Galilee, and that in Lk. 24:49 and Acts 1:4, on the other hand, he bids them remain in Jerusalem, whilst in Jn. 20:17 he merely sends them word that he is ascending to heaven, and for this reason does not suffer Mary Magdalene to touch him. It is still in accordance with the same principle that he is represented as at a later date making the request that his disciples should touch him, and asking the disciples whether they have anything to eat (27c, d).

(b) Other words of Jesus apply to situations which we have not yet discussed. Thus, in Lk. 24:38 and in the Didaskalia (7b), as well as in the speech to James in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the purpose is to prepare the way for a joyful frame of heart and mind. The words in Jn. 20:19, 20:26, 'Peace be unto you', as also those to Saul, 'Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?' (Acts 9:4, etc.), are singularly well chosen.

(c) What must have presented itself as the main object must have been that of instructing the disciples, before the final departure of Jesus, in everything which was still necessary for their future tasks.

To this category of instruction belongs the repeated insistence upon the uncertainty of the time of the end of the world (Acts 1:7 ; cp Mk. 13:32), but very specially, as new matter, the proof that the passion of Jesus had been appointed by God and fore told by the prophets (Lk. 24:25-27, 24:44-46). If Jesus in this manner established a correct understanding of events that were past, it was natural, indeed inevitable, to think that, over and above this, he had given all the new directions for the future which were in point of fact followed in the church and therefore could not but have proceeded from its founder. Thus (it was held) it must necessarily have been Jesus who told the disciples that 'all authority had been given unto him in heaven and on earth', and that he was with them alway, even unto the end of the world (Mt. 28:18, 28:20); he it was who must have instituted the mission to the Gentiles (Mt. 28:19-20, Lk. 24:47, Mk. 16:15), as also baptism (Mk. 16:16, and the canonical text of Mt. 28:19 ; but cp 8c), and he too it must have been who promised the power of performing miracles (Mk. 16:17-18), yet also demanded a faith that believed without having seen (Jn. 20:29), - this in view of the fact that he knew of, and was able to foretell, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Lk. 24:49, Acts 1:4-5, 1:8), if he did not himself impart the Spirit as in Jn. 20:22.

(d) This leads us to the significance which the words of the risen Jesus have, especially for the apostles ; for it is only to them that in Jn. the Spirit is imparted, as also the power to forgive or to retain sins (20:23) or, indeed, a formal mission of any kind (20:21). We find, further, that in the missionary precept the disciples come first into account, just as in Acts (especially 26:16-18) it is Paul who does so. Jn. 21:15-23 has to do entirely with fixing the relative rank in the regard of the church between Peter on the one hand and the beloved disciple on the other (9c) ; similarly 20:3-10 (cp SIMON PETER, 22b). The gospel tradition has therefore made use of its accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in a very decided manner for the purpose of carrying back to Jesus the high esteem in which the apostles were held at a later time.

With other reasons (23e, 27-28]) the purpose just referred to may have co-operated to bring it about that the evangelists recorded almost exclusively only appearances to apostles and pass over in silence those to the 500 and to James, - indeed, that Mt. contents himself with recording no more than one appearance altogether, an appearance in which B. Weiss even discerns a free fusion of all that Mt. knew by tradition regarding the appearances of Jesus.

29. (e) On the substitute for vision of risen Jesus.[edit]

At last, however, the emphasis that had been laid on the literal historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus gave place to something different.

(a) However firmly established the resurrection might seem to be historically, however little open to any shadow of doubt in the minds of the faithful, its value for them was nevertheless small : it was nothing more than an event of past time. What faith demands is something present, something now and always capable of being experienced afresh. The demand for a faith that could believe without having seen (Jn. 20:27, 20:29, 1 Pet. 1:8) was hard to satisfy. Thus there came to be felt a need for such a turn being given to the resurrection-narrative as should make the continued life of Jesus capable of being experienced anew at all times ( Mt. 28:20 : 'I am with you alway' ), and thus the historical statements as to his long-past appearances - accounts which had been elaborated with such care - in great measure lost their importance.

(b) Towards this result Paul had already contributed. The risen Christ is for him identical with the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17, Rom. 8:9-11, and often). The fourth evangelist followed him in this ( 16c ; JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 26c). Therefore in the Fourth Gospel the risen Jesus having ascended to heaven bestows the Holy Spirit already on the very day of the resurrection. Only to the disciples, indeed, in 20:22, but according to 7:38-39 expressly to all believers ; and therefore it is not open to doubt that 16:7, 16:13-15, 14:18, 14:28, 15:26, etc., are also to be interpreted in the latter sense. As Holy Spirit Jesus is always present.

(c) A somewhat more sensible substitute for vision of the risen Jesus is the observance of the ordinance of the Supper. This is the true meaning of the deeply significant narrative of the disciples at Emmaus (cp CLEOPAS).

The wish of Christianity - 'abide with us' - did not admit of being fulfilled in a literal sense ; hut in every act of communion 'he went in to abide with them' (Lk. 24:29). Not with flesh and bones as in the case of the primitive disciples (24:39), but 'in another form' (ev erepct fj-optftfi : Mk. 16:12) ; and whilst the result of all that could be told about the empty grave was 'him they saw not', he is now presently recognised 'in the breaking of the bread' (Lk. 24:24, 24:30-31, 24:34). It is plain that the knowledge ascribed to the two disciples, so skilfully embodied in this nar rative, could not have been drawn by them from the events de scribed by Lk. even if they had literally happened to them on the resurrection day ; it is naturally the product of a long growth, and that too in Gentile-Christian circles in which the corporeal element in Jesus was neither so familiar nor so important as in the primitive-apostolical. It is clearly a reminiscence of a celebration of the Lord's Supper that we have also in Jn. 21:13 and in the giving of the bread to James in the Gospel of the Hebrews ; only, in Jn. it has its prototype in the feeding of the five thousand with loaves and fishes (6:9, 6:11 = 21:9), which, how ever, in turn bears the most express marks of being but a clothing of the Supper (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 20c, 23e). The number 'seven' as applied to the disciples corresponds to the number of baskets which in the second 'feeding' in the Synoptists (Mk. 8:8 = Mt. 15:37) were filled with the fragments that remained over; whilst in Jn. 6:13, in agreement with the first 'feeding' in the Synoptists (Mk. 6:43 = Mt. 14:20 = Lk. 9:17), twelve baskets are filled, corresponding to the number 'twelve' as applied to the disciples. The mysterious character of the presence of the risen Jesus at the Supper appears at Emmaus in his disappearance when the two disciples recognised him (Lk. 24:31), at the Sea of Galilee in no one's asking him who he was (Jn. 21:12).


30. Nature of Jesus' resurrection-body.[edit]

The last problem still demanding solution, is how to explain the only fact that has emerged in the course of our examination - the fact that Jesus was seen, as we read in 1 Cor. 15:5-8. Any attempted explanation presupposes an insight into subjective experience that perhaps can never be completely attained. It demands, therefore, the greatest caution. It cannot, however, be left unattempted.

(a) The investigator who holds himself bound to accept and make intelligible as literal fact everything recorded in the resurrection narratives, even of the canonical gospels merely, cannot fulfil his task on any other condition than that he assumes a revivification of the buried body of Jesus to a new period of earthly life, hardly less earthly than when Jesus was taken for Elijah or the Baptist risen from the dead (Mk. 6:14-16, 8:28 and ||, cp 9:11-13, Mt. 11:14). It only remains to be stipulated that he who does so shall fully realise that what he is assuming is a miracle in the fullest sense of the word. Many theologians are strangely wanting in clearness as to this. Even, however, after one has clearly under stood what he is accepting, it is impossible to stop here ; for such a view does justice only to one side - the physical and sensuous - of the resurrection-narratives ; not to the other, according to which Jesus was neverthe less exalted to heaven, a thing impossible for flesh and blood (1 Cor. 15:50).

(b) In order to do justice to this second side also, recourse is often had to the theory of a gradual sublimation or spiritualisation of the resurrection-body of Jesus - at first wholly material - whereby it was gradually made fit for its ascension. Again, what has to be insisted on is that the miracle is not hereby diminished ; on the contrary, to the original miracle of the revivification of the material body is added a second - that of the spiritualisation of the material body. The thing, however, is also quite inconceivable ; how is one to represent to oneself the stages of the transition ?

A body which is already capable of making its way through closed doors must surely have ceased to be tangible (Jn. 20:26-27). Moreover, such a view is in direct contradiction to what we find in NT, not only in 1 Cor. 15:50-53 but also in the gospels ; for the touching there referred to and (in Lk. 24:39-43) the eating happen precisely at the last appearance of Jesus which is immediately followed by the ascension ; and the precept not to touch is placed in Jn. (20:17) at an earlier point. So, also, we read that Jesus is immediately recognised in his later appearances, but precisely in the earlier ones not (Lk. 24:16, Jn. 20:14).

(c) If we decide to confine ourselves to the task of explaining what we take to be the simple fact according to 1 Cor. 15, we must not suffer ourselves to forget that Paul thinks of the future resurrection-body of man - which he regards as heavenly and pneumatic - as conformed to the pattern of the resurrection-body of Jesus (so 1 Cor. 15:45-49). l Jesus body also, then, in his view must have been heavenly and pneumatic ; and as Paul in 1 Cor. has not yet given up the revivification of the buried body (15b), he must have thought of the pneumatic attributes possessed by it as having arisen through metamorphosis, such as, according to 1 Cor. 15:51-53. is to happen also to the bodies of those men and women who shall still be alive at the last day. According to what we have seen in 17e the original apostles also agree in this. Thus the explanation of the facts which proceeds on the belief of the apostles that a body of Jesus was really seen must think of that body as heavenly and pneumatic ; not, however, in such a sense that it was given to Jesus at his resurrection as a new body whilst the old body remained in the grave, but in the sense that it came into existence through a change wrought on the buried body. On this explanation the resurrection has as much an entirely miraculous char acter as it has on either of the other two theories already considered.

1 In v. 49 the future - 'we shall bear' (ifropeVofiev [phoresomen]) - is to be read. An exhortation, 'let us bear' (<f>ope o-co/ufi [phoresoomen] / ; so Ti. WH), is meaningless, for the resurrection-body is obtained without our co-operation. The confusion of o [o - omicron ] and w [oo - omega] with copyists is very common ; see Gal. 6:10, 6:12, 1 Jn. 5:20, Rom. 5:1, 14:9, etc.

31 . Resurrection of the Spirit only.[edit]

In order to escape so far as may be from miracle of the character described in the preceding section, and, generally, to be rid of the question of the corporeity of the risen Jesus, recourse is often had to tne view that it was only the spirit of Jesus that rose and appeared to his followers. Here opinion is divided as to whether such a thing is possible without a miracle or not. Any one who holds appearances of the spirits of the departed to be possible in the natural order will be able to dispense with assuming a miracle here. The majority, however, maintain the negative. Moreover, such persons declare that the appearances of Jesus to his disciples differ considerably from the manner in which the spiritualism of the present day holds appearances of spirits to occur. They find themselves compelled accordingly, if it was merely the spirit of Jesus that was alive and manifested itself, to postulate a miracle whereby it was made visible.

It is to be observed, moreover, that this view - that only the spirit lives on - is in no respect different from the doctrine of the immortality of the soul except in this, that in the particular case in question the continuance of the life of the spirit begins only on the third day after death. This, however, is a collocation of quite heterogeneous ideas. The essence of the doctrine of immortality lies in this, that the life of the soul is never interrupted, and thus there can be no thought at all of revivification after remaining for a time in a state of death. Revivification can occur only in the case of a subject that is capable of dying - in other words, in a body. This is a Jewish idea, that of immortality is Greek. The latter is adopted in the Book of Wisdom, and Paul comes near it in 2 Cor. 5:1-8 (15b) ; for the original apostles it is from the outset excluded (17e).

32. Objective visions.[edit]

It is discovered to be necessary, accordingly, to go a step farther. The belief that the risen Jesus actually did appear is frankly given up.

(a) The disciples, we are told, saw nothing real : neither the body of Jesus, clothed with earthly or heavenly attributes, nor the spirit of Jesus whether in true spirit form or in some kind of acquired visibility. What they believed they saw was in reality only a visionary image, without any real appearance of Jesus ; but this visionary image was produced in their souls immediately by God in order that they might be assured that Jesus was risen. For this reason the vision is called objective.

(b) The belief is entertained that by this method of regarding the matter the assumption of a miracle is made superfluous ; all that is postulated is merely a Divine act of revelation. Keim has invented for this view, which he also supports, the phrase : telegram from heaven. This act of revelation itself, however, is nothing less than a miracle. Were it not miraculous the visionary image of the risen Jesus in the minds of the disciples could only have its origin in their own subjective condition. This is exactly what is denied and must be denied ; otherwise the disciples must be taken to have had their faith in the resurrection within themselves and needed no divine revelation of it. The subjective condition of the disciples must on this view be represented as one of the greatest prostration, which could be changed into its opposite only by a revelation really coming from God.

(c) It has to be remarked, further, that according to this view Jesus continued existence must be regarded as miraculous in the full sense. If the presupposition were that his soul was immortal like the soul of any other man, his continued life would be a matter of course and did not require to be made known by a special revelation. But what is aimed at in putting forward this view is much rather to establish the complete difference between Jesus and all other men which has been from the first claimed for him by the assertion of his resurrection, but yet to be able to dispense with miracle. This can never succeed.

33. Non-miraculous explanations (excluding visions).[edit]

If a really non-miraculous explanation is desired, then apart from subjective visions (of which more hereafter) two possibilities present themselves.

(a) The hypothesis that Jesus was only apparently dead found many supporters in the days of rationalism, and it has also been espoused by a writer so modern as Hase (Gesch. Jesu, 1876, 112).

That crucified persons taken down from the cross while still in life have been able to recover is testified by Herodotus (7:194) and Josephus (Vit. 75 end, 420-421). In a case of seeming death indeed it is hardly credible, and to call to one's aid the wonderful power of healing which Jesus exercised on behalf of other persons is in this connection quite fantastic. More than this : had Jesus presented himself merely as one who had all but died on the cross his appearance would have produced the impression of weakness and helplessness, not that of a conqueror of death and the grave, which nevertheless was the character he required to present if he was to inspire his followers to a world-conquering faith. Finally, what could they say, if he nevertheless in the end died after all? To escape the force of this question the assumption was that he had withdrawn himself into solitude, perhaps into some cave in order that his death might not become known. It is obvious that the theory of a seeming death is not enough ; it is necessary to assume also various machinations, whether on the part of Jesus himself or on the part of his disciples, whether at the time of his leaving the sepulchre or with a view to covering the worst signs of weak ness before he presented himself to larger circles of his followers. In this aspect the present hypothesis approximates -

(b) The hypothesis that, althongh Jesus did not recover, the disciples spread abroad, and found credence for, the rumour that he was alive. Apart from all other difficulties, such a hypothesis is from the outset untenable for two reasons : not only would the disciples immediately after the death have been unable to summon courage for so gigantic a task as the theory implies, but also at a later date they would not have had courage in persecution to surrender their lives for such a faith.

1 On this point Beyschlag (Leben Jesu 1:422-440) is particularly instructive.

Subjective vision.[edit]

34. Its nature.[edit]

Thus subjective visions are all that remain now to be dealt with. Let us endeavour first of all to determine their nature in general so far as this is practicable, without a too minute discussion of the conditions implied in the NT narratives and statements.

(a) In contradistinction from the so-called objective vision (see 32a), the image that is seen in the subjective vision is a product of the mental condition of the seer. The presupposition is, accordingly, that he is not only in a high degree of psychical excitement which is capable of producing in him the belief that he is seeing something which in point of fact has no objective existence, but also that all the elements which are requisite for the formation of a visionary image, whether it be views or ideas, are previously present in his mind and have engaged its activities. That in these circumstances the seer should behold an image for which there is no corresponding reality, can be spoken of as something abnormal only in so far as the occurrence is on the whole a rare one ; as soon as a high degree of mental excitement is given, the existence of visions is by the laws of psychology just as intelligible and natural as, in a lower degree of mental excitement, is the occurrence of minor disturbances of sense perceptions, such as the hearing of noises and the like.

(b) The view that a subjective vision could never have led the disciples to the belief that Jesus was alive because they were able to distinguish a vision from a real experience is quite a mistake. 1 It is not in the least necessary that we should raise the question whether they were always able to do so ; let it be at once assumed that they could. The distinction is not unknown in the NT; see, for example, Acts 12:9 ; indeed we may lay it down that 'was seen' (&tf>6r)) with the single exception of Acts 7:26 always stands for another kind of seeing than that of ordinary sense-perception (e.g., Lk. 1:11, 9:31, 22:43, Acts 2:3, 7:2, 7:30, 7:35, 9:17, 13:31, 16:9, 26:16, [1 Tim. 3:16?], Rev. 11:19, 12:13). Nay, this is our warrant for calling in visions to our aid in explaining the appearances of Jesus. All that we have gained by this concession, however, is merely that the seers distinguished once and again the condition in which they were : whether ecstatic or normal ; it by no means follows as matter of course that they held the thing seen in vision to be unreal, and only what they saw when in their ordinary condition to be real. How otherwise could the very conception of such a thing as an objective vision be possible ?

(c) On the contrary, it pertains precisely to the subjective vision that the seer, if he is not a person thoroughly instructed in psychology and the natural sciences, is compelled to hold what he sees in his vision for real as long as it does not bring before him something which to his conception is impossible. Wherein otherwise would consist the delusion, which nevertheless every one knows to be connected with subjective vision, if not in this, that the visionary seeks for the cause of what he has seen in the external world, not in his own mental condition? And indeed the visionaries of the Bible had more extended powers than modern visionaries have for taking a visionary image as an objective reality ; for, if they were unable to attribute to the image they saw any ordinary mundane reality because it was contrary to their ideas of mundane things, they could always attribute to it a heavenly reality, and it was only if it was contrary to their conception of things heavenly that they came to recognise it as a product of their own fantasy.

(d) We have therefore to distinguish between three experiences which were regarded as possible by the disciples and their contemporaries :

  • (1) the seeing of an earthly person by the use of the ordinary organs of sight :
  • (2) the seeing of a person in a real yet heavenly corporeity, not by the bodily eyes but in a vision (oirraffia [optasia] : Lk. 1:22, 24:23, Acts 26:19, 2 Cor. 12:1; or Spattis [orasis] : Acts 2:17, Rev. 9:17; or 8pafj.o. [orama] : Acts 9:10, 9:12, 10:3, 10:17, 10:19, 11:5, 16:9-10, 18:9), in a state of ecstasy (?Ktrra<m [ekstasis]: Acts 10:10, 11:5, 22:17), or, it may be, outside of the seer's own body (2 Cor. 12:2-3) ;
  • (3) the production of a false image on the mind without any corresponding outward reality.

The first of these possibilities (ordinary seeing) is contemplated only by those evangelists who speak of Jesus as eating and as being touched, and who never themselves had been present at appearances of the risen Jesus. The second possibility (visionary seeing of a heavenly corporeity) is what the witnesses of such appearances intended and what Paul indicates by the word 'was seen' (ux^djf [oophthe]). With the third possibility (false image) it has this in common that in both the condition of the participants is visionary ; with the first (ordinary seeing), that the participants hold what they see to be absolutely real and to have an existence external to themselves (but not with a mundane reality).

(e) It was the mistake of many critics to assume that by the use of 'was seen' ((ZfiOrj) the purely subjective origin of what had been seen was conceded by Paul himself. The same error, however, is almost entirely shared also by apologists such as Beyschlag when they suppose that the participants, if they had held their condition to be that of visionaries, would at the same time have perceived the unreality of what they saw. This hypothetically enunciated statement of the apologists is distinguished from the categorical assertion of the critics in only one point : the apologists will have it that the participant need not necessarily attribute the origin of what he sees to the state of his own mind, but can attribute it to God - yet without the result that, in the latter case, in his view the thing seen becomes invested with reality.

Thus Beyschlag (as above, 432-435) is of opinion that Acts 16:9 does not make Paul believe that in. reality a man of Macedonia stood before him, nor 10:10-16 make Peter think that in reality a sheet containing real animals was let down from heaven - not only not in mundane actuality but also not even in heavenly actuality ; on the contrary, in each case neither had taken in more than this, that God was seeking to give them to understand something by means of sensible images. This way of looking at matters is utterly inconsistent with the beliefs of that time. If it is God who sends the Macedonian or the sheet containing the beasts, as a matter of course it is believed that these things are sent really (possessing of course not mundane but heavenly actuality) ; for where it is presupposed that God can if he chooses send them really, it would be quite unaccount able to believe that he has nevertheless not done so. That the sending is not done for its own sake merely, but has for its purpose to incite Paul or Peter to a particular course of action, is indeed true ; but this does not by any means divest the thing which God has sent of its reality. Beyschlag makes it seem as if this were so merely by a reference to Acts 12:9: 'he knew not that it was true which was done by the angel, but thought he saw a vision'. It is correct to say that the same word (opafj.a [orama]) is employed here as is used in 16:9-10, 10:17, 10:19, 11:5, and that Peter regards this vision (opa/uo [orama]) as something unreal. Here however the distinction drawn in a preceding paragraph (above, c) falls to be applied : that a Macedonian or a sheet containing beasts endowed with a heavenly corporeality could be sent by God was regarded by Paul and by Peter respectively as thoroughly possible; on the other hand, in 12:9 it is presupposed that the liberation of Peter when it was 'not true but a vision' would have been regarded by him as impossible. In like manner, if 'vision' (opacrts [orasis]) in Tobit 12:19 means something opposed to reality, a mere appearance (<j>a.vTa.<rfi.a [phantasma]), that meaning is secured only by the antithesis in the sentence. The angel Raphael, who has accompanied Tobias, says here by way of after-explanation of what his real nature was : 'I have neither eaten nor drunken, but ye saw only an appearance'. The identity of the word (opo/ma [orama] or opacris [orasis]) thus by no means proves identity of judgment upon the matter here in question, namely the reality or unreality of what has been seen.

(f) Equally mistaken would it be to maintain that visions are throughout the whole OT and NT regarded as an inferior form of divine revelation. Beyschlag deduces this from a single text (Nu. 12:6-8): 'to a prophet I reveal myself by visions or dreams, but with Moses I speak face to face'. Not only is the dream placed upon a level with the vision, an equality of which there can be no thought in connection with the appearances of the risen Jesus, but also in antithesis to both is placed God s direct speaking, which undoubtedly makes known the will of God more plainly than a visual image can, the interpretation of which rests with the seer. In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, however, the situation is exactly reversed. If God had announced to the disciples by spoken words that Jesus was alive, even if they fully believed these words to have been received immediately from God, the announcement would not have been for them so clear and impressive as when they were themselves permitted to look upon the form of Jesus as of one who was alive.

(g) After what has been said in three preceding paragraphs (c, d, e) the decisive question comes to be : what sort of appearances of a person risen from the dead were regarded by the disciples as possible ?

To this the answer must at once be : Not incorporeal appear ances ; for the idea of the immortality of the soul alone was utterly strange to them (17e). Next, we must say: they looked for a general resurrection of the terrestrial body to a terrestrial life on the last day ; but in exceptional cases they regarded it as happening even in the present (Mk. 6:14-16 ; cp 17e). And as they would have felt no difficulty in regarding Jesus as an exceptional instance of this last description, they would have regarded an appearance of Jesus in this form (with a terrestrial body) as a real one. This case, however, does not come into consideration ; for such an appearance of Jesus does not come within the range of what is historically authenticated.

What is alone authenticated is the appearance of Jesus in heavenly corporeality ; but of that it has been shown in 17e that it corresponded with the conceptions of Paul and likewise with those of the original apostles.

(h) The resultant conclusion then must be that when the disciples experienced an appearance of Jesus in heavenly corporeality they were under compulsion to regard it as objectively real, and therefore to believe that Jesus was risen because they had actually seen him. Consequently, this belief of theirs does not prove that what they saw was objectively real : it can equally well have been merely an image begotten of their own mental condition.

35. Situation of Paul.[edit]

Having now, we believe, shown in a general way the possibility that the things related concerning the risen Jesus may rest upon subjective visions, what next remains for us to inquire is whether such visions have any probability in view of the known situation of the disciples. This question admits of an affirmative answer, very particularly in the case of Paul.

It will ever remain the lasting merit of Holsten that he has carried out this research on all sides with the most penetrating analysis. The view he arrived at holds its ground alike in presence of conservative theology and in presence of the deniers of the genuineness of all the Pauline epistles, who find the change from Pharisee to apostle of Jesus freed from the law too sudden. An energetic nature could only pass from the one extreme to the other, and could not possibly hold a mediating position. 1

(a) Paul persecuted the Christians as blasphemers, because they proclaimed as the Messiah one who by the judgment of God (Dt. 21;23, cp Gal. 8:13) had been plainly marked as a criminal,

(b) If, in defending their position, they quoted passages of the OT which in their view treated of the Messiah, Paul could not gainsay this application in a general way ; all that he denied was the applicability of the passages to one who had been crucified,

(c) From their appeals to the appearances of Jesus, Paul certainly had come to know quite well the form in which they would have it that they had seen him.

(d) Apart from this blasphemy of theirs Paul cannot but have recognised their honesty, seriousness, and blamelessness of moral character. What if they should be in the right ? We may be certain that, when he entered their houses and haled them before the judgment-seat, there were not wanting heart-rending scenes, which in the case of a man not wholly hardened could not fail to raise ever anew the recurring question whether it was really at the behest of God that he had to show all this cruelty. He repressed his scruples ; yet the goad had entered his soul.

(e) In his own inner life he had no satisfaction. Whatever may have been the zeal with which he followed the precepts of the fathers (Gal. 1:14), unlike the great mass of morally laxer Pharisees his contemporaries, he perceived the impossibility of fulfilling the whole of the law's requirements. And, not being able to fulfil them, he was accursed (Gal. 3:10), and all men were in the same condemnation with himself. In Rom. 7:7-25 he has impressively described this condition.

(f) And yet God in the OT had promised a time of salvation, and it was inconceivable that he should not hold to his word. But how could he, if the universal fulfilment of the law - which was so clearly impossible - were held to be the indispensable condition?

(g) Here of necessity must have come about in the mind of Paul a combination of these two lines of thought which had hitherto remained apart. What if the Christians were right in their assertion that the Crucified One really was the Messiah, through whom it was God s will to bring salvation to the world without insisting on the fulfilment of the entire law? In that case the persecution of the Christians was indeed a crime ; but Paul, and with him all mankind, was nevertheless delivered from the anguish of soul caused by daily transgression of the law ; mercy, no longer wrath, was what he might expect from God.

(h) And indeed, this being so, it could only have been through the death of Jesus that God had willed to procure salvation for men. For Saul, the Pharisee, could never get away from the thought that some kind of propitia tion had to be made for the sins of men, trefore God could bring in his grace. Perhaps the Christians had even already begun to quote in support of their view Is. 53, which Paul in all probability has in his mind when, in 1 Cor. 15:3, he says that he has received by tradition the doctrine that Christ, according to the Scriptures, had been delivered as a propitiation for our sins.

(i) Whether, however, all this, which in one- respect promised blessedness, but in another threatened him with divine punishment as a persecutor of the Christians, was really true or not, turned for Paul upon the answer to the question, whether in actuality Jesus was risen. For, in addition to the doctrine of propitiation, Saul the Pharisee was indissolubly wedded to the thought that 'every one that hangeth on a tree' is accursed, unless God himself has unmistakably pronounced otherwise - viz. that this proposition has no application to Jesus, who did not die the death of a criminal, but the death of a divine offering for sin. Such a divine declaration was involved, according to the Christians, in the resurrection of Jesus.

(k) It will not be necessary to dwell upon the deeply agitating effect which such doubts must have produced in Paul's inmost soul ; the vividness with which the living figure so often described to him by Christians must, time and again, have stood before him, only to be banished as often by the opposition of his intellect ; until finally, only too easily, there came a time when the image of fancy refused any longer to yield to the effort of thought. All that need be pointed out further is that on his own testimony, as well as on that of Acts, Paul was very prone to visions and other ecstatic conditions (2 Cor. 12:1-4, 1 Cor. 14:18 Acts 9:12, 16:9, 18:9, 22:17, 27:23). That he does not place what he had experienced at Damascus on a level with those visions of his, but speaks of it as the last appearance of the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:8), is intelligible enough if he was not aware of any further appearances having been made to other persons (see 10h); but it in no way shows that in the journey to Damascus what befell was not a vision, but an actual meeting with the risen Jesus. The possibility, indeed the probability, of a vision here has been pointed out ; it is for each reader to choose between this and a miracle.

(l) Let it be clearly understood, however, that we do not here employ the word 'was seen' (<o$0j) as evidence that Paul himself concedes the subjective origin of the image which he saw. (To the contrary, see 34b, c.) Neither do we make use of the expression in Gal. 1:16, where Paul speaks of God as having revealed his son 'in me' (ei> e/u.oi [en emoi]), to prove that Paul regarded the occurrence at Damascus as one that had taken place solely within himself. The words 'I have seen' (eopaKo. [eoraka]) and 'was seen' (u><j>0n [oophthe]) in 1 Cor. 9:1, 15:8 are decisive against this, for by them the apostle means to say that he has really seen (although not in earthly but in heavenly corporeality) the risen Jesus as appearing to him ab extra. Yet so far as Gal. 1:15-16 is concerned, neither is it probable that 'to reveal' (a7ro:aAvi//ai [apokalypsai]) denotes a subsequent inward illumination of Paul, since 'but when' (ore fie [ote de]) and 'straightway' (eiifle ws [entheoos]) mark the time which followed immediately upon that of 'the Jews' religion' ( Iovai<r]uid? [Joudaismos]) (1:13-14). 'In me' (iv e/not), in spite of the reference of 'to reveal' (a7ro/caAt5i//ai) to the event on the road to Damascus, may mean 'within me', in so far as the appearance produced effects upon the spiritual life of the apostle ; but it can easily mean also 'upon me' - i.e., by changing the persecutor into a believer (not, however, through the success of my missionary labours, which did not occur till later).

1 Holsten, ZWT, 1861, pp. 223-284 ; Zum Evang. des Paulus u. des Petrus, 1-237 (1868); Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, 1873, (2) i8qo, Einl. On the other side: Beyschlag, St. Kr., 1864, pp. 197-264; 1870, pp. 7-50, 189-263. Specially interesting is Scholz (Deutsch-Evangel. Blatter, 1881, pp. 816-841), who recognises the whole psychological preparation for the conversion, and then brings in the supernatural fact of the risen Jesus, which his previous representation has enabled him to dispense with.

36. Of earliest disciples.[edit]

The situation of the earliest disciples very readily suggests the same explanation of the facts,

(a) The mental struggle between despair and hope - the disaster involved in the death of Jesus, and the hope they still somehow clung to, that the kingdom of God might still be established by Jesus - can hardly have been less than had been the struggle in the mind of Paul. Perhaps there was in their case the additional circumstance that they were fasting, a condition highly favour able to the seeing of visions. Yet such a conjecture is by no means indispensable, and we need not lay stress on the indication as to this given in the Gospel of Peter and in the Didaskalia (above, 5-6, 7b). All these psychological elements, however, will be more fully considered later (37).

(b) On the other hand, we are unable to attach weight to the view that the disciples were gradually led by a study of the OT to a conviction that Jesus was alive, and that thus in the end they came to have visions in which they beheld his form.

Visions do not arise by processes so gradual or so placid. It is certainly correct to suppose that certain passages of the OT must have had an influence on the thoughts of the disciples in those critical days ; but not that they were then discovered for the first time as a result of study. Rather must they have been long familiar, when suddenly, under the impression made by the death of Jesus, they acquire a new and decisive significance as convincing the 'bereaved' ones that the continued life of Jesus was made assured by the word of God.

(c) From our list of such passages must be excluded many which are frequently quoted as belonging to it ; for example, Is. 25:8, Ps. 133:1, 133:3, Ezek. 18:5-9, Ps. 2:7 (although it appears to be cited in Acts 13:33 in this sense), and, in particular, Ps. 16:10, although this is cited in Acts 2:27, 2:31, 13:35. What is said in the Hebrew text is that God will not suffer his pious worshipper to die (cp v. 9). When LXX by a false etymology (nnt9 = l 'to destroy', instead of n B f = 'to sink' ) renders shahath, which, as the parallelism conclusively shows, means 'grave', by 'destruction' (Sia.<j>9opii [diaphthora]), the mistranslation is innocuous as long as this word is taken to mean 'death', as the translators certainly took it ; it becomes misleading only on the Christian interpretation which understands the bodily corruption that follows death. Passages of the OT from which the disciples could really have drawn their conviction as to the resurrection of Jesus are Ex. 36 (see its employment by Jesus himself in Mk. 12:26-27) Is. 53:9-10, Hos. 6:2, 2 K. 20:5, perhaps also Ps. 118:17, Job 19:25-27, but very specially Ps. 86:13, 110:1 (cp Brandt, 498-504). It must always be borne in mind, it is hardly necessary to say, that they did not interpret such passages in a critical manner and with reference to the context, but simply as they seemed to present to them a consoling thought.

(d) no weight can be given to the objection that the image of the risen Jesus which presented itself to the disciples cannot have been subjective because at first they did not recognise it. That they failed to do so is stated only in passages which must be regarded as unhistorical (Lk. 24:16, Jn. 20:14); in Lk. 24:37, 24:41 it is not even said that he was not recognised.

(e) Another objection, that though perhaps the subjective explanation might be admissible in the case of a single individual, it wholly fails in the case of appearances to several, not to speak of the case of 500 at once, appears at first sight to have great weight. As against this it is worth mentioning that one of the most recent upholders of an objective resurrection of Jesus, Steude (St. Kr. 1887, pp. 273-275), quite gives up this argument. In point of fact there is ample evidence to prove that visions have been seen by many, in the cases of Thomas of Canterbury, Savonarola, the Spanish general Pacchi, several crusaders - days and even months after their death - and similar occurrences also in the cases of 800 French soldiers, the Camisards in 1686-1707, the followers of the Roman Catholic priest Poschl in Upper Austria in 1812-1818, the 'Preaching-sickness' and 'Reading-sickness' in Sweden in 1841-1854, and so forth. 1 That in circumstances of general excitement and highly strung expectation visions are contagious, and that others easily perceive that which at first had been seen by only one, is, in view of the accumulated evidence, a fact not to be denied.

(f) The attempt has been made to argue from this, on the contrary, that subjective visions cannot be thought of as explaining the recorded facts of the resurrection, inasmuch as in that case we should be entitled to expect very many more recorded visions than are enumerated by Paul. That, however, would depend on the amount of predisposition to visions. It is very easily conceivable that this may very rapidly have diminished when, by means of a moderate number of reported appearances, the conviction had become established that Jesus had risen. On this account it is also best to presume that the first five appearances followed one another very quickly. All the more confidently in that case could Paul speak of that which he had himself received as being the last of all (10h).

1 E. A. Abbott, St. Thomas of Canterbury, 1898 ; Hase, Gesc. t.Jesu, 1876, pp. 595-596, and Neue Propheten, 333 = ( 2 ) 2 ggf. ; Renter, Alexander der Dritte, 8110-112, 772-774 (1864); Scholten, Evang. nach Joh. (Germ.), 329-330 (1867); Kenan, Apdtres, i6f. 22 (ET 517^ 55); Keim, Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, 8539-592 (1872), ET 6, 348^); Perty, Mystische Erschti- nungenC2\ 1 130- 133 (1872); E. Stein, Psychische Contagion, 21 f. (Erlangen, 1877); Hohnbaum, Psychischt Gesundtieit, 38-41 (1845); Leubuscher, \\~ahnsinn in. den 4 letzten Jakrkun- dertcn, 222-249(1848); Ideler, Tkeorie des religiosen U ahn- sinns (1848-1850); Emminghaus, Allgem, Psychopathologie, S 33/- Ylf- 96, 113, 186 (1878), with the literature there referred to; Allgent. Ztschr.fftr Psychiatric, 1849, pp. 253-261; 1854, pp. 115-125; 1856, pp. 546-604; 1860, pp. 565-719; Wiedemann, Die relig. Beiuegung in Oberoesterreich u. Salzburg beim Reginn des 19 Jakrh. (1890); Die Secte der PSschlianer in OberSstreich in demjahre 1817 (no place on title-page, 1819); Misson, Theatre Sacre des Cevennes, London, 1707 ; Blanc, Inspiration ties Cainisards, Paris, 1859.

37. Situation of Peter.[edit]

The consideration which above all others causes the most serious misgivings, is the state of deep depression in which the disciples were left by the death of Jesus. Is it conceivable that in such circumstances subjective visions should have come to them ?

(a) This question, however, is essentially simplified by what has been pointed out above (36e), if we suppose in addition that it was Peter alone who received the first vision. Could he but once find himself able to say that he had seen Jesus, the others no longer needed to be able to raise themselves out of their state of prostration by their own strength ; what had happened to Peter supplied what was wanting in this respect. The question thus narrows itself to this : Is the possibility of a subjective vision excluded in the case even of Peter ?

(b) Undoubtedly an unusually strong faith was needed, if in Peter the thought that Jesus, notwithstanding his death, was still alive, was to become so powerful that at last it could take the form of a vision. All the requisite conditions, however, were present. We do not at all lay weight upon the consideration, that with the return to Galilee the reminiscences of Jesus associated with those localities would again take the upper hand over the impression which his death had made ; for indeed this impression was indelible. But alongside of this impression there would also be recollections of the predictions of Jesus. We do not refer here primarily to the predictions of his resurrection (see 22a) ; those referring to his coming again from heaven to set up the kingdom of God upon earth - predictions which are certainly quite historical (see GOSPELS, 145-146) - are much more important. They also, it is true, might seem to have been decisively falsified by the death of Jesus ; for with Peter also it was an infallible word of God, that every one that hangs on a tree is cursed (Dt. 21:23; cp Gal. 3:13). Precisely here, however, there is a difference between the cases of the two apostles : Paul could apply this thesis to Jesus in cold blood, because he had never personally known him ( 2 Cor. 5:16, when rightly interpreted) ; Peter could not - he owed too much to him. To speak more exactly, the reason why Peter, even after the crucifixion, did not cease wholly to have faith in the prediction of Jesus, lay partly in the deep impression of his utter trustworthiness which he had left upon his disciple, and partly also in the religious inheritance which Peter felt he owed him, in the ineradicable conviction of the truth of his cause. From this conviction of the truth of Jesus' cause the conviction of his continued personal life was inseparable in the thought of that age. In this sense Renan's saying (Apotres, 44, ET 70) is true : 'ce qui a resuscit Jesus, c'est l'amour.

(c) There is yet another point, which for the most part is utterly overlooked in this connection. We do not mean the lively temperament of Peter ; for whether that made him specially susceptible to visions cannot be said. We refer to the fact that Peter had denied his Lord. Even if the circumstance, mentioned only in Lk. (22:61), that after his denial his eye met that of his master, be hardly historical (cp SIMON PETER, 19d), there still remains a delicate suggestion of what must most infallibly have happened ; the form of him whom Peter had denied must have come up before him with ever renewed vividness, however he may have struggled to escape it. Though at first he may have said to him self that this was a mere creation of his fancy, it is certainly not too bold a conjecture that a moment came when he believed he saw his Lord bodily present before him, whether it was that the eye was turned upon him with reproach and rebuke, or whether it was that it already assured him of that forgiveness, for which beyond all doubt he had been praying with all the energy of his soul.

(d) If this be sound, we shall find in the denial of Peter an occasion for the occurrence of a vision as direct as we have found the persecution of the Christians by Paul to have been. If we will, we shall be able to discern in these acts of hostility against Jesus or his followers an arrangement in the providence of God, whereby chosen vessels were prepared for the further ance of Christianity. In any case this deed of Peter, that he held fast his faith in the imperishability of the cause of Jesus and therefore also of the person of Jesus, will remain the greatest of his life, greater still than his confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mk. 8:29 and ||), and would make to be true those two words even though in the mouth of Jesus they be not historical : 'thou art Peter (i.e. , a rock) and upon this rock will I build my church' (Mt. 16:18, cp MINISTRY, 4-5), and 'Do thou, when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren' (Lk. 22:32, cp SIMON PETER, 15b).

38. Conclusion on vision-hypothesis.[edit]

For all that has been said in the foregoing paragraphs the most that can be claimed is that it proves the possibility - the probability if you will - of the explanation from subjective visions, trom the very nature of the case it would not be possible to prove more, for the visionary character of the appearances could not be established for us by the visionaries themselves - on the contrary, everything constrained them to regard what they had seen as objective and real - nor yet by the reporters, who simply repeated what the visionaries had related to them. Only scientifically trained reporters could have assured us on the point, and such reporters did not then exist. Let it be expressly observed, however, that in the vision-hypothesis it is only the judgment of the visionaries as to the objective reality of what they had seen that is set aside ; every other biblical statement of fact, unless we have been compelled to set it aside as inconsistent with some other biblical statement, remains unaffected. The hypothesis, furthermore, attributes no want of upright ness either to the visionary or to the reporter. The error which it points out affects merely the husk - namely that the risen Jesus was seen in objective reality, but not the kernel of the matter, that Jesus lives in the spiritual sense ; thus it is an error, only in the same relative sense as is the dogma that the Bible is inspired in every letter (a dogma without the temporary ascendancy of which the church of to-day would hardly have existed), or in the same sense in which the anthropomorphic view of God's being and his relation to nature which possesses ever} child is an error - an error but for which the number of grown-up persons of unshaken religious conviction would indeed be small.

Reverting now once more to [section] 1 and the ideas on account of which it is held that the belief in a literal resurrection cannot be given up, we remark that the doctrine of the government of the church by Christ is one that can give place without any religious loss to that of the leading of the church by the spirit of Christ, or, if it is desired to put it in a more personal form, that of the government of the church by God. That the cause of Jesus did not die with him on the cross we are assured by history, even if his resurrection did not occur as a literal fact. It is undeniable that the church was founded, not directly upon the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, but upon the belief in his resurrection ; and this faith worked with equal power whether the resurrection was an actual fact or not. The view of Paul that, apart from the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus, there is no forgiveness of sins, has as its necessary presupposition the dogma, not of Paul the Christian but of Paul the Pharisee, that every crucified person without exception is accursed of God ; as soon as the possibility of a miscarriage of justice either in the synedrium or at Pilate's judgment seat is conceded, this view eo ipso falls to the ground. Finally, the view that unless Jesus actually rose again the hope of the final resurrection of the dead is vain would be a sound one if this hope had consisted in the expectation that all men were to rise three days after their respective deaths. In its actual form, as hope of the resurrection at the last day, it would come to be denied, in so far as an event happening in the case of Jesus is concerned, only if Jesus himself were to continue in the state of death at the last day. In so far, however, as the idea of the immortality of the soul takes the place of the hope of a final resurrection - as in modern times is very extensively the case - it ceases to be a matter of fundamental importance whether Jesus rose again on the third day, or not ; for immortality consists only in a continued existence of the soul, and that from the moment of the death of the body onwards, and is just as incapable of being confirmed or made known by a resurrection of the body as of being called in question by the absence of a resurrection. If immortality could thus be confirmed or made known, that must have been possible on the first and the second day after death, for immortality was then present. For that time, however, resurrection is excluded by presupposition.

39. Literature.[edit]

Prins, De realiteit van's Heeren upstanding, 1861, and (against Prins) Straatman, De realiteit van's Heeren opstanding . . . en hare verdedigers, 1862 ; Paul, ZWT, 1863, 182-209, 279-311; 1864, 82-95, 396-408 and (against Paul) Strauss, ibid. 1863, 386- 400 ; Gebhardt, Die Aufersteliung Christi und Hire iietiesten Gtgner, 1864; Steude, Die Auferstehung Jesu, 1888, and with more scientific thoroughness in St. Kr., 1887, 203-295 (see above, 36 e) ; Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Marcusevangeliums, 1894, and Die Berichte liter die Auferstehung Jesu, 1898; Eck, Bedeutung der Auferstehung Jesu fiir die Urgemeinde u. fur uns in Hcfte ziir Christlichen ll elt, No. 32, 1898; Loofs, Die Auferstehungsberichte u. ihr \Verth, ibid. No. 33, 1898; Bruckner, Die Berichte tiber die Auferstehung Jesu in Prot. Monatshefte, 1899, 41-47, 96-110, 153-160. Amongst the writings on the life of Jesus see Strauss, Keim, Weiss, Beyschlag (vol. i.) and, quite specially, Brandt, Evang. Gesch., 1893, 305-446, 490-517.

[The bulk of English work upon this subject (of which the more useful or significant portions are indicated in the subjoined paragraphs by an asterisk) falls into one or other of two classes : (a) one dealing primarily with historical and theological appreciations of the fact or truth in question ; (b) the other sensitive, in the first instance, to the features of the record and the historical evidence. Owing to the backwardness and inefficiency of English criticism upon the synoptic question, and the consequent paucity of scientific work upon Mt. and Lk. especially (upon Lk. 24 note the strangely parallel story in Plutarch : Vit. Rom. 28), the latter class of writings is as yet in adequately represented, being conspicuous for open-mindedness (in its better representatives) rather than for thoroughness, and more successful in criticising the weak points of opposing theories than in constructing a satisfactory and tenable hypothesis which might do justice to the complex of facts under review. Cp Fronde's Short Studies, 1:229-130.

(a) The conservative side is represented by a long series of writings, whose weakness consists mainly in the preponderance of the dogmatic over the historical element or in literalism. Of these the following are the more salient : F. D. Maurice's Theol. Essays (8); Westcott's Introd. to Study of Gospels ((8) 1881), 333-341; The Gosp. of the Resurr., The Historic Faith (chap. 6), and The Revelation of the Risen Lord;

  • Milligan s exhaustive and theological The Resurr. of our

Lord ((*) 1894), and The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord, 1892; *M Cheyne Edgar s vigorous Gosp. of the Risen Saviour, 1892, pp. 21-135 > C. A. Row s The Jesus of the Evangelists, 1868, pp. 262 f. (critique of mythical theories); J. Kennedy s survey in The Resurr. of our Lord an historical fact, "with examination of naturalistic hypotheses, 1881 ; Latham's curious volume The Risen Master, 1900 ; and Orr s Christian \ iew of God and the World, 1893, Lect. 0, n. C. Similarly, but with special bearing upon the narratives as part of the biography of Jesus : * ! airbairn s Studies in the Life of Christ, 1881, chap. IS ; G. H. Gilbert s Students Life of Jesut, 1898, pp. 38^-405 ; besides the Lives of Christ by Farrar, Eder- sheim, and b. J. Andrews (ed. 1892, pp. 589^). The subject is competently handled also, though from a more strictly philo sophical and doctrinal standpoint, by *Newman Smyth (Old Faiths in New Light, chap. 8); *D. W. Forrest (The Christ of Hist, and Experience, 1897, Lect. 4 critique of vision- hypothesis); R. H. Mutton (Theol. Essays,^ 1888, pp. 131 /); K. Griffith-Jones (The Ascent through Chrilt,W 1900, pp. 337-359); H. G. Weston (ttiblioth. Sacra, 1900, pp. 356-362) and L. S. Potwin (ibid. 1890, pp. 177-190) ; also by *Denney (The Death of Christ, 1902, pp. 66 f. 76 f. 121- 123).

At the opposite pole of radical criticism, the most noteworthy works along this line are *R. W. Macau's The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the contributions of Dr. E. A. Abbott (cp Philo- christus, Onesimus, and Through Nature to Christ. 1877, chap. 21), and Martineau's Seat of Authority in Religion (( *>, 1890), 363-364, 481-482, 632-633, besides the writings to be cited below.

(b) Examinations of early Christian evidence, and particularly of the gospel narratives (with that of the ascension, Acts 1 i-n), from a f.iirly free but reverent standpoint may be found in A. B. liruce s Expos. Gk. Test. vol. i. ((-), 1901), 330 f., d^f. , G. L. Cary s scholarly Synoptic Gasp. (Intermit. Handbks. to NT, vol. i., 1900), 198-202; J. Estlin Carpenter s First Three Gasp. ((81, 1890), 3i9/, 268./C ; A. C. Mc< iiffert s Apost. Age, 1897, pp. 36-44, 55./, and J. V. Harriet s Apost. Age, 1900, pp. i-io; see, further, Blair s Apost. Gosp. (372-385) on the conclusion of Mk., with the editions by S \vete and Allan Menzies, Mofifatt s Hist. New Testament (("-), 1901), pp. 550-553 (on Mk. 16 0-20), 647-649(00 Mt. and Lk.), 694-696 (on Jn. 20-21), and A. Reville s article in New \l~orld, 1894, pp. 498-527. The distinctive aim of such contributions is to investigate not simply the verbal contents of the narratives in question, but also their mental and religious presuppositions; to get behind the stories into the world of their first hearers, with their beliefs and hopes. Extreme forms of this critical hypothesis are variously repre sented in such works as *W. Mackintosh s Nat. Hist, of the Christian Religion, 1894, pp. 257-328 (mythical theory), *Super- natural Religion, 3, 1877, p. 398/1 (in which, as in the follow ing book, the problem is handled drastically, but uncritically isolated), The Four Gosp. as Historical Records, 1895, pp. 451, and O. Cone, The Gosp. ami its Earliest Interpretations, 1893, pp. 12 \f., 2oo_/C, none of which, however, can be pronounced entirely satisfactory, either in method or in results. See further S. Davidson s NT tntrod.C^ (1894)2 367 f. The opposite side is pleasantly but ineffectively advocated by writers like Purves (Christianity in Apostolic Afe, 1900, 9-15) and Sanday (Hastings 7)5-638-643), while it is defended with a really critical grasp of the problem and its bearings by *Swete (Apostles Creed, 1394, p. 64_/7), *A. B. Bruce (Apologetics, 18^2, pp. 383-397), SchafT( //*.$/. of Church, 1 172-186). *Denney (art. Ascension in Hastings DB 1 161-162), and *Prof. S. McComb (Expos. ^ 4350-363, a critique of ET of Harnack s ly^esen); see also *Knowlmg : The Witness of the Epistles, 1892, pp. 365-396, 397-4 14 (ascension) ; A. Hovey (Auto: Journ. Theol., 1900, pp. 536-554, a critique of Stapfer) ; \V. F. Adeney (Expos.(^} 8137-146, a critique of Weizsacker) ; N. J. D. White ( Appearances of Risen Lord to Individuals, Expos.(^ 1066-74), and E. R. Bernard ( The Value of the Ascension, Exp. T, 1900-1901, pp. 152-155, and in Hastings Z>.Z> 4 234). Despite exaggerated statements upon both sides, recent English discus sions display a growing sense that there is a serious problem to be faced in the condition of the historical records, and that exegesis has a vivid if subsidiary part to play in its solution. This is a sign of health, if only that the demands of the public are becoming more exigent ; but no advance can be looked for until English students are furnished with a scientific equipment in the shape of thoroughly critical editions of the gospels, as well as with monographs combining historical judgment and sound scholarship with some philosophic and religious appreci ation of the subject. J. Mo.J p. VV. S.


(-lin ; p&r-&Y) b. Peleg, a name occurring in the genealogical table connecting Shem and Abraham (Gen. 11:18-21 [P], 1 Ch. 1:25 ; cp Lk. 3:35, AV Ragau). An Aramaean tribe bearing the name Ru'ua appear in S. Babylonia in the time of Tiglath-pileser III. (Schr. KGF 105+; KATW 117; Del. Par. 238+); but their identification with Reu is denied by Schr. (loc. cit. ). The name, in common with the others in the same list, is probably Mesopotamian, and we may possibly find a trace of it in C^in-^, one of the kings of Edessa, which is doubtless for 'man of Re'u', a formation parallel to the Heb. 7Vhfiaa (cp Duval, Hist, d'Edesse, Journ. Asiat., 1891, 18126). Re'u may have been an old Mesopotamian god (Mez, Gesch. der Stadt Harnln, 23). Cp REUBEN, 9 iii., 10.

F. B.