(ttmntll WLmvmxty pftmg 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 .Pj!UB^ahMn...^.e.B.aM&a. 
 
 A-S^ifk SJll.iL 
 
 2041 
 
Cornell University Library 
 BT871 .B78 
 
 Resurrection in the New Testament an ex 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 319 724 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029319724 
 
Crown Theological Library 
 
 This series has been instituted to present 
 a religious literature dealing with modern 
 difficulties ; the thinking man needs books 
 on a subject so vital as that of religious 
 thought, which take into account all that is 
 most valuable and trustworthy in modern re- 
 search. The volumes comprising the " Crown 
 Theological Library " have been selected with 
 a view of meeting the religious questionings 
 of the present age, and each contribution has 
 been prepared by an acknowledged author- 
 ity on the subject with which it deals. The 
 standpoint of the series is at once reverent 
 and liberal. Its object is to combine respect 
 for religion with respect for historic and scien- 
 tific truth, and to present a series of studies 
 on the great problems of human life which are 
 free from all dogmatic prepossessions. 
 
The 
 
 Resurrection in the 
 
 New Testament 
 
 An Examination of the Earliest References to the 
 
 Rising of Jesus and of Christians 
 
 from the Dead 
 
 By 
 
 Clayton R. Bowen, A.B., B.D. 
 
 Professor of New Testament Interpretation in the MeadviUe Theological School 
 
 G. P. Putnam's Sons 
 
 New York and London 
 
 Zbe ImlcfcerbocKer press 
 
 1911 
 
Copyright, 1911 
 
 CLAYTON RAYMOND BOWEN 
 
 TTbe ttnlcfcerbocfcer press, Wew tfotk 
 
Zo 
 MY COLLEAGUES 
 
 IN THE FACULTY 
 OF THE 
 
 Meadville Theological School 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 THE present work, the first-fruits of the author's 
 New Testament studies, is offered to other stu- 
 dents in the hope that it may contribute something 
 to an understanding of the New Testament references 
 to the event which looms largest in the minds of the 
 writers of both Gospels and Epistles. It is thus essen- 
 tially a work of exegesis. 
 
 The foot-notes, added for the most part as the result 
 of collateral reading done after the substance of the 
 volume was complete, may serve as a guide in the fur- 
 ther study of particular points, and as in some degree 
 a control on the author's exegesis. He regrets that he 
 was unable to use several important recent works. 
 
 The author would express his gratitude for helpful 
 counsel and suggestions to his colleagues Francis A. 
 Christie, D.D. and Henry Preserved Smith, D.D., 
 and to Professor Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel of Zurich. 
 Especially would he acknowledge the unfailing assist- 
 ance of his wife, without whose encouragement the 
 book would not have progressed to publication. 
 
 Any corrections or criticisms which other students 
 of the material may be good enough to offer will be 
 gratefully received. 
 
 C. R. B. 
 
 Warren, New Hampshire, 
 September 12, 1911. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction ..... i 
 BOOK ONE.— THE WITNESS OF PAUL 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. — He Died, was Buried, was Raised 5 
 
 II. — He Appeared ..... 41 
 
 III. — How are the Dead Raised ? . • 70 
 
 IV. — Paul's Further Witness . .116 
 
 BOOK TWO.— THE WITNESS OP MARK 
 V. — The Attestation . . . .150 
 VI. — Who shall Roll away the Stone? 183 
 VII. — The Empty Grave .... 206 
 
 BOOK THREE.— THE WITNESS OF MATTHEW 
 
 VIII. — Jerusalem 238 
 
 IX. — Galilee 275 
 
 BOOK FOUR.— THE WITNESS OF LUKE 
 X. — Outside the City .... 290 
 
viii Contents 
 
 CHAPTER PA GB 
 
 XI.— Then to the Twelve . . .333 
 
 XII. — The Forty Days . . . -374 
 
 BOOK FIVE.— THE WITNESS OP JOHN AND OTHERS 
 
 XIII. — The Fourth Gospel . . . 389 
 
 XIV. — The Final Witness . . . 399 
 
 BOOK SIX.— RESULTS 
 
 XV. — Time and Place .... 428 
 
 XVI. — Jesus the Messiah .... 441 
 
 Appendix ...... 459 
 
 List of Works most frequently 
 
 Cited 481 
 
 Index 487 
 
The 
 Resurrection in the New Testament 
 
The Resurrection in the 
 New Testament 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 IT is impossible to overestimate the importance of 
 the resurrection-faith, either in itself or in its 
 relation to that movement of religion we call Christ- 
 ianity. The words of Paul of Tarsus have a truth 
 that is often mistaken by traditionalists and liberals 
 alike. "If there is no resurrection of the dead, 
 neither hath Christ been raised, and if Christ hath 
 not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith 
 also is vain ... ye are yet in your sins. Then they 
 also which are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 
 If in this life only we have hoped in Christ we are of 
 all men most pitiable." The apostle has not over- 
 stated the case ; if it be true that Jesus is at this moment 
 a dead man, if no resurrection came to him — yes, if 
 it be true that any departed soul is at this moment 
 a dead man, if for but a single one there has been no 
 resurrection — then is the Christian preaching and the 
 Christian faith vain. The Christian religion, what- 
 ever be true of others, conceives man as an eternal 
 child of an eternal Father, and death as but an incident 
 in the development of an enduring spirit. The 
 Christian church must affirm the resurrection-faith. 
 
2 The Resurrection 
 
 For obvious reasons the church has from the begin- 
 ning affirmed this high faith by affirming the resur- 
 rection as realised in the after-death experience of 
 the founder of the church. This procedure is most 
 natural and proper, and the affirmation has thus been 
 given infinitely more power than it would have had as 
 a universal statement of what is true for men in gen- 
 eral. It is true, to use Martineau's fine words, that 
 the dependence of the disciples' "faith in immortality 
 on the irresistible suasion of a single supreme and 
 winning personality explains the order of their infer- 
 ence, from the one to the many, 'because he lives, we 
 shall live also'; whereas we should more naturally 
 say, 'because man is immortal, he is in heaven, a 
 chief among souls, ' seeming to reason from the many 
 to the one. Yet I know not whether, so far as there 
 is difference, theirs be not deeper truth. For surely 
 with all of us it holds good, that only through the pre- 
 sence of spirits akin to his, does any diviner world 
 of human possibility, any inward demand on life 
 eternal, open upon us and plead in our prayers. All 
 our higher faith enters as we stand before those 
 saintly and commanding natures to which perishable 
 attributes refuse to cleave, and fall off, like the moss 
 and mould from the finest marble, leaving the form 
 clear against the stainless sky. As their silent appeal 
 finds the spiritual deeps within us, it is from them that 
 we draw the faith in immortality, and learn to deem 
 nothing too august for a soul of such high vocation. " x 
 
 These words may serve as a justification of the 
 present inquiry into the primitive records of the 
 
 1 Martineau, pp. 364 f. 
 
Introduction 3 
 
 conviction among Jesus' earliest followers that, having 
 died, he was yet not dead. This conviction, vigor- 
 ously and fearlessly asserted, was, it can scarcely 
 be denied, incomparably the greatest contribution ever 
 made to the faith in the soul's immortality. Never in 
 all history, before or since, has there been such abso- 
 lute assurance of the persistence of a human life 
 beyond the gates of death. These disciples were so 
 sure, that their surety has largely sufficed for the world 
 these many centuries. That is a great and notable 
 fact; therein is the ancient word true, "he brought 
 life and immortality to light." 
 
 Confronted by the phenomenon, the student of 
 religion asks : what was the stimulating cause of that 
 sure conviction in that group of men and women in 
 Palestine nineteen hundred years ago? The student 
 of history asks : what is the truth concerning the sen- 
 sible phenomena recorded in the gospels and by the 
 common usage of the church made the substance of 
 the resurrection? The following discussion would be 
 a contribution to the answering of these two questions. 
 Its purpose is not to argue the fundamental propo- 
 sition as to the possibility or probability of the in- 
 trusion into the history of the first century of the 
 literal supernatural phenomena described by the 
 evangelists. The time is past for such discussion, 
 even if it were ever waged with profit. A believer, 
 the God of whose worship uses such methods in his 
 dealings with the souls of men, who lives in a world 
 where such phenomena are historically conceivable 
 and religiously valuable, is not to be given another 
 mind by argumentation. The world and the indi- 
 vidual adjust themselves by the sure processes of 
 
4 The Resurrection 
 
 slow growth to the new heavens and the new earth. 
 These processes seem to work in the main by in- 
 direction, and not to be greatly helped or hindered 
 by all our ardent disputation. 
 
 In any case, the man of the twentieth century 
 must be dissuaded from arguing against the miracles 
 associated with the physical resurrection by the 
 remembrance that the critical first four centuries of 
 the church's life exhausted all such argument. No- 
 thing can be said to-day that was not said then, by 
 Trypho or Celsus or Porphyry or some other of the 
 critics of the Christian preaching. Nothing is more 
 sobering for the modern critic than a study of the 
 fathers. 1 An impressive and instructive example 
 of what is meant may be found in the twenty-second 
 book of Augustine's Civitas Dei, notably the fifth 
 chapter, and chapters eleven to twenty-one. If 
 modern apologetic must often go another way than 
 Augustine's, modern criticism must still more defi- 
 nitely part company with his opponents. 
 
 Finally, for the sake of clearness, the following 
 elements, usually implied in the term, "the resurrec- 
 tion, " may be distinguished. 
 
 i. The present and eternal life of Jesus. 
 
 2. The transition from his earthly life through 
 the experience of death into his present eternal life. 
 This is "the resurrection," in' its original sense. 
 
 3. The reviving of Jesus' dead body, and its 
 emergence from the tomb. This is "the resurrec- 
 tion, " as understood by the popular theology. 
 
 4. The physical phenomena, extending over forty 
 days, associated with this revived body 
 
 1 For this primitive criticism, cf. Bauer, pp. 479-484. 
 
BOOK ONE 
 THE WITNESS OF PAUL 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 HE DIED, WAS BURIED, WAS RAISED 
 
 THE data concerning the primitive Christian 
 faith as to the resurrection of Jesus are to be 
 found: first, in the letters of Paul; second, in the 
 Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles ; third, 
 in the Gospel of John and the later New Testament 
 literature; fourth, in certain extra-canonical gospel 
 material. T 
 
 Of these groups of documents, the first two are in 
 every way most important; the other two can at best 
 do little more than confirm the witness of these. As 
 first in rank, from every point of view, stand the 
 letters of Paul. It is from him alone that we get any 
 first-hand testimony; he tells us what he himself had 
 experienced, as well as of the experience of men with 
 whom he had personal acquaintance. His testimony 
 is by many years the earliest left for us, and is the 
 
 1 For a list of the sources, cf. A. Harnack: " Ein jungst entdeck- 
 ter Auferstehungsbericht," p. i, in Theologische StudienB. Weiss 
 Dargebracht, 1897. 
 
 5 
 
6 The Resurrection 
 
 spontaneous utterance of an active preacher and 
 missionary who had a larger part than any other 
 one man in fixing the faith of the earliest churches. 
 For many of these churches he was almost the sole 
 source of belief in these matters. 
 
 In all the apostle's letters, from I. Thessalonians 
 {ca. 54) to Philippians (ca. 63), there is abundant 
 testimony to his faith. It glows on every page; 
 open Paul anywhere and he gives glad utterance 
 to his sense of the nearness of Jesus and of his 
 present power and influence as a constant friend 
 and companion. And yet he is talking of a dead 
 man, a man who has been dead for a quarter of 
 a century, a man he never knew, or even saw, 
 so far as we know, in the flesh. Yet of no living 
 man does he speak with such absolute assurance 
 of close and sweet communion. We believe in im- 
 mortality, we believe our dead are living, but we 
 never speak of the dearest departed with such 
 radiant certainty and sense of nearness as does Paul 
 of Jesus. 
 
 At this day it surely need not be pointed out that 
 Paul is here giving utterance, not to theological 
 formulations, but to an intensely real and vital 
 personal experience, as real as his friendship with 
 Timothy or Titus, nay, more real than this. " Christ 
 lives in me" — this is not said of a dead man or of 
 a theological figure. "I am he that liveth, and was 
 dead, and behold I am alive forever more," — this is 
 vital truth for Paul and he has made it vital truth 
 for thousands more. 
 
 Of the great apostle's references to what he 
 calls the resurrection of Jesus the fullest is that in 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 7 
 
 I. Corinthians xv. 1 It is noteworthy that in this 
 classic passage Paul does not in any way describe, 
 or even define, the resurrection; he rather takes it 
 for granted, deals with it as a matter accepted by his 
 readers as fully as by himself. The very existence of 
 the church was its guarantee; to be a Christian was, 
 by hypothesis, to have the faith that Jesus rose from 
 the dead. Nowhere does the New Testament hint 
 that any Christian doubted this fact; least of all the 
 passage in question. It is only the fact that the 
 Corinthian skeptics held to the resurrection of Jesus 
 while doubtful of the resurrection for all Christians, 
 that makes Paul's argument so powerful as a reductio 
 ad absurdum. 2 
 
 The passage gives no description of the resurrection, 
 
 1 Certain scholars, among them: — J. W. Straatman: Kritische 
 Studien over I. Cor., vol. ii., 1865, pp. 196 ff.; Rudolf Steck, 
 Der Galaterbrief, 1888, pp. 180-191; the author of The Four 
 Gospels as Historical Records, 1895, pp. 475-480; W. C. Van 
 Manen, Patdus, 3d ed., 1896, pp. 67 ff.; N. Schmidt, The Prophet 
 of Nazareth, 1905, pp. 200, 395-397, on different premises, and 
 Paul Le Breton, La Resurrection du Christ, 1908, p. 51, on no 
 premises at all, have argued that the account in I. Cor. xv: 1-11 
 is wholly or in part not from Paul's pen. Their very insufficient 
 arguments are abundantly answered by Schmiedel, cols. 4055-6, 
 and by Brandt, pp. 422-427. But Brandt himself, on wholly 
 insufficient grounds, thinks (p. 14) "then to the Twelve" an 
 interpolation. Wilhelm Seufert, Ursprung und Bedeutung des 
 Apostolates, 1887, also calls elra rots di&Seica. "vielleicht eine 
 uralte Glosse, " as occurring "an dieser einzigen, im Text viel- 
 leicht verdorbenen, Stelle" (pp. 46, 20). In reply, cf. also A. 
 Hausrath, Jesus und die N. T. Schriftsteller, 1908, vol. i., pp. 
 100 f.; Volter, pp. 32 f., regards vs. 7 as interpolated. 
 
 2 A. C. McGiffert, History of Christianity in the Apostolic 
 Age, Revised ed., 1900, p. 309, erroneously supposes the Corin- 
 thians to deny the resurrection of Jesus. 
 
8 The Resurrection 
 
 then, and no definition of it. This is a fact too often 
 overlooked. The most careful and sincere students 
 often carry over into the word "resurrection," as 
 used by Paul, the definition which the gospel narratives 
 have given them. Warnings against this error of 
 method have been frequent, but all too often fruitless. 
 Let us again, then, make the attempt to read what 
 Paul says, in entire forgetfulness of the evangelists' 
 record, as if we had never seen nor heard of that. 
 It may not be easy, but it can be done. 
 
 Of course this will not be quite synonymous with 
 reading Paul's letter as its first recipients read it, 
 for they had heard Paul's preaching on the subject; 
 yet certainly Paul's preaching was one in substance 
 with what he here writes, however more elaborated. 
 He expressly says (vss. i f.) that he is here giving his 
 message "with what word" he had earlier preached 
 it to these same Corinthians, and later (vs. n) even 
 more definitely, "so we preached and so ye believed, " 
 where the "we" asserts that the Twelve were at one 
 with Paul in their teaching on this point. 
 
 We get here, therefore, an express statement, not 
 only concerning Paul's own thought of the resurrec- 
 tion, but also concerning the conception and the tra- 
 dition of the earliest church, and of those very disciples 
 to whom were granted the "appearances" which 
 comprised all that was directly known concerning the 
 resurrection. Whatever we can demonstrate to have 
 been Paul's belief, we can unhesitatingly attribute to 
 Peter, James, and John, to "all the apostles." 1 
 
 Since I. Corinthians was in all probability written 
 
 1 Cf. Schmiedel, col. 4o62e. "There is not the slightest diffi- 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 9 
 
 about the year 57, we have thus explicit statement as 
 to what the primitive church believed and taught, 
 from a date only twenty-seven years after the events, 
 fifteen years before Mark wrote, forty years before 
 Matthew and Luke wrote, and a whole half-century 
 earlier than the drawing of those pictures of the 
 primitive church which the Book of Acts presents. 
 The importance of determining Paul's faith is clear. 
 He was preaching with his whole soul a gospel of the 
 resurrection; that was the gospel in which the converts 
 stood, by which they were being saved. And what 
 was that gospel's content? We shall see by setting 
 the passage before us, in a translation as true as pos- 
 sible to the purport of the original. 
 
 "I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which 
 we proclaimed (lit. gospelled) to you, which also you 
 accepted, in which also you have taken your stand, 
 through which also you are being saved, with the very 
 language with which we proclaimed it to you, if you 
 hold it firmly, [as you must] unless you believed 
 carelessly. For I handed on to you among my first 
 instructions that which I also received: that Messiah 
 died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that 
 he was buried, and that he was raised on the third 
 
 culty in attributing to them the conception of the resurrection 
 body of Jesus which Paul himself had and attributed to them. " 
 Riggenbach, pp. 9 f . , has well expressed the agreement here between 
 Paul and the Twelve. Paul has opportunity, during his fort- 
 night's visit to Jerusalem in the year 38 (Gal. i: 18 f.), to hear 
 from Peter and James the story of their own experiences, and of 
 those of the others. So Korff, pp. 12 f., though "Wirt" (p. 13) 
 says perhaps too much. Cf. also Weizsacker, p. 4: "Es ist die 
 Urgemeinde selbst, welcher eine solche Uberlieferung [of the 
 empty grave and the bodily manifestations] fremd war. " 
 
io The Resurrection 
 
 day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared 
 to Cephas, then to the Twelve ; thereupon he appeared 
 to over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the 
 majority survive until now, but some have been laid 
 to sleep. Thereupon he appeared to James, then to 
 the apostles all. And last of all, as to an untimely 
 birth, he appeared also to me. " 
 
 The language is explicit and clear, despite the 
 length of the sentence. Paul had delivered first of 
 all, among the earliest and most elementary features 
 of his message, the thing which also had been handed 
 down to him as the centre and certification of the 
 Christian faith, the proclamation of the Messiah's 
 death and resurrection. How terse the statement: 
 that he hath been raised on the third day according 
 to the Scriptures. In what fashion? Amid what 
 circumstances? Paul does not indicate by so much as 
 a word, but passes at once to occurrences subsequent 
 to the resurrection. 
 
 One phrase, however, arrests our attention, the 
 phrase ' ' according to the Scriptures. ' ' It occurs twice 
 in the context. He "died for our sins according to 
 the Scriptures," and he "was raised on the third 
 day according to the Scriptures. " These two clauses, 
 parallel as they are in form, are parallel also in thought. 
 In each case, though grammatically the phrase "ac- 
 cording to the Scriptures" modifies the verb and the 
 full clause, yet the thought in Paul's mind makes it 
 modify the adverbial phrases "for our sins" and "on 
 the third day." 1 That Jesus died is a well-known 
 
 1 Beyschlag, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1899, p. 510, would 
 regard it as " wahrscheinlicher " that Kara rds ypa<j>6.s refers only 
 to the verbs "buried" and "raised," not to ry -qii^pq. tJ rplr-Q. 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised n 
 
 fact of recent history ; that he died for our sins is a 
 statement of faith, based on Scripture. That he was 
 raised from the dead Paul knows on the evidence of 
 his own senses ; that he was raised on the third day he 
 is assured by Scripture. J Neither he nor any one else 
 witnessed the resurrection; it was a transaction 
 within what we may call, for lack of a more conven- 
 ient term, the spirit-world, and there could be no 
 possible external attestation of its date, save as it 
 must have been prior to the first "appearance" of the 
 risen Master. 2 
 
 Granting that the tomb was found empty at day- 
 break on Sunday, who was to say, unless the time 
 was antecedently fixed by prophecy, that its occupant 
 departed during the last twelve hours, rather than 
 during Friday night or Saturday, especially since the 
 grave can hardly have been visited, or at least closely 
 observed, on Sabbath? That no one ever suggested 
 even the possibility that the resurrection took place 
 before six o'clock of Saturday evening shows clearly 
 how the point of time stood antecedently fixed, quite 
 independent of the finding of the empty grave. 
 That no human eye saw Jesus rise never caused any 
 Christian to be of doubtful mind as to when that 
 rising took place. The date needed not anxiously 
 to be inquired after ; it was fixed long ago in the divine 
 
 1 So William Mackintosh, Natural History of the Christian 
 Religion, 1894, p. 271, and (uncertainly) Lake, p. 29. 
 
 2 Cf. D. F. Strauss, in Zeitschrift fur Wiss. Theol., 1863, p. 389, 
 and Arnold Meyer, p. 216. "The day of the resurrection itself 
 could not be an object of knowledge. The third day is there- 
 fore only a deduction from prophecy or the popular habit of 
 speech or thought." 
 
 Similarly, Supernatural Religion, Popular Ed., 1902, p. 890. 
 
12 The Resurrection 
 
 counsels and foretold in the prophetic word. Without 
 definite historical attestation, it was a part of the 
 dogma of the resurrection. 
 
 In all Paul's reading of the Old Testament before 
 his conversion he had of course never found what he 
 now claimed to be written there. But when he became 
 a Christian, thereby making his own the faith that 
 Jesus rose, he at once believed also that he rose on the 
 third day, as the Scriptures declared. The rising, 
 its date, and the prophecy of the date were inseparable 
 in his mind, parts of one object of faith. This new 
 light on Scripture he had of course "received, " as he 
 received all he knew of Jesus, from the Christian 
 group whose nucleus was formed by the disciples. 
 
 But the disciples, in turn, had not themselves made 
 the sudden discovery that the Old Testament fixed 
 the third day for the resurrection of their Master. 
 It was not that they ascertained from some external 
 happening, such as the finding the grave empty, that 
 he had risen between Friday evening and Sunday 
 morning, and then, turning to the Scriptural oracles 
 to fix the time more exactly between these limits, 
 lighted on passages which pointed conclusively to 
 the hours after six of Saturday evening. 1 No, the 
 disciples knew definitely, weeks before Jesus' death, 
 that the time for his rising was fixed by the Scripture 
 as the third day from his decease. The Master him- 
 self had so declared. 
 
 1 This would seem to be the view of Lake (c/. p. 254), though 
 he is so judicial as not always to decide with definiteness between 
 several possible constructions. Clemen, p. 202, points out that 
 the third day cannot possibly be a vaticinium ex eventu. So 
 Korff, pp. 112 f. 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 13 
 
 That is, the mind that first found this date prophe- 
 sied was not that of Paul, not that of any one of the 
 Twelve, but that of Jesus. The original discovery, 
 so to speak, is his. He communicated it to his disci- 
 ples, who, as soon as they were assured that Jesus had 
 risen, adopted the date as a part of their faith, and 
 made it an integral part of the "tradition" they 
 handed on to Paul and to every member of the grow- 
 ing Christian church. In no Christian mind was Jesus' 
 resurrection ever conceived apart from this date, 
 and the date's Scriptural fixing. But it is clear that 
 the date is entirely independent of any external 
 happenings or experiences, such as the discovery that 
 the grave no longer held the body, or the appearances 
 of the risen Jesus himself . Conceivably the discovery 
 of the grave as empty might have been delayed for 
 days or weeks; a hundred chances of circumstance 
 might have caused that, such as the early flight of the 
 women, with the disciples, from the city, or the 
 departure of Joseph of Arimathea to his home. Ac- 
 cording to our (synoptic) sources it is the fortuitous 
 circumstance that haste prevented the anointing of 
 the body before burial, that caused the women to 
 make the morning excursion that led to the great 
 discovery. Altogether too much weight is put by 
 most writers on the fact that this discovery is made 
 on the third day, rather than later. Its significance 
 would have been precisely the same, so far as concerns 
 the date of the resurrection, had it been made by other 
 persons on another errand, a week or a fortnight 
 later. So the first appearances of the risen Jesus 
 might have come seven days or ten days or forty 
 days after the fatal Friday; Paul and the disciples 
 
14 The Resurrection 
 
 would still have proclaimed: he rose the third day 
 according to the Scriptures. Had no experience at 
 the grave or no sight of the risen form of the Master 
 given them outward assurance of his resurrection, 
 they would still have said: "He was to rise the third 
 day according to the Scriptures — only we know not 
 if he did. " Not the date of the event would be for a 
 moment in question, but the event itself, and the first 
 appearance, however late it came, would assure them: 
 on the third day he did rise, as he said. No day 
 nearer the manifestations would for an instant come 
 into consideration. The date, in short, depends 
 originally on Jesus' word alone. * 
 
 With Jesus it had been a religious certainty that 
 God would not leave him among the dead, but would 
 raise him to new life, new embodiment, in order that 
 he might return to accomplish his Messianic mission. 
 And he assigned a date to that resurrection; not now 
 as a religious conviction, not from a revelation, but 
 rather on the basis of Old Testament passages which 
 he interpreted Messianically. For him all his fate 
 was foreshadowed in his people's sacred books. " How 
 is it written of the Son of Man? That he should 
 suffer many things and be set at naught" (Mk. ix: 
 12). It was written that his disciples should at the 
 last forsake him and flee (Mk. xiv: 27). To almost 
 every declaration of the fate he saw awaiting him 
 he added the triumphant assurance of the speedy 
 escape from death. 2 The bright side of the picture 
 
 1 Despite the questionings of certain critics, the predictions of 
 his resurrection by Jesus are in substance genuine. For the 
 argument, cf. infra, pp. 444-452. 
 
 "E.g., Mark viii: 31; ix: 9, 31; x: 33 f. 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 15 
 
 he assuredly found in the Scriptures, as he did the 
 darker side; for him, not only for Luke (xxiv: 46), 
 "it stood written, that the Messiah should suffer 
 and rise again from the dead the third day." 1 
 
 But what and where are the Scriptural prophecies 
 of the resurrection and its date? Paul, we must 
 suppose, had in mind such passages as Jesus had 
 indicated, and his own close study of the sacred text 
 may very well have added other confirmatory allu- 
 sions, which had not occurred to Jesus. The proba- 
 bility is that for Jesus one or two fairly definite 
 passages would suffice to give all the assurance he 
 needed, for he was already convinced of the fact. The 
 faith was prior; the Scripture confirmation sought 
 and found later, necessary perhaps, but secondary. 
 
 It is thus an inaccuracy to say that Jesus believed 
 that he would rise on the third day because the Scrip- 
 tures so foretold. Rather the Scripture contained 
 for him this prediction because he already believed. 
 Indeed, it is inaccurate to say that the disciples or 
 Paul or the earliest Christians dated the resurrection 
 on the third day because the Scriptures so fore- 
 told. Their belief rested on the fact that Jesus so 
 foretold, though without his word it is possible that 
 their study of the Scripture would have led them to 
 the same result, if the first "appearances" or other 
 experiences that attested his rising came soon after 
 the third day. It is therefore quite beside the point 
 when critics urge that the Old Testament does not 
 contain passages sufficient in number or definiteness 
 to induce, in the mind of Paul or of any primitive 
 
 1 Cf. H. H. Wendt, System der Christlichen Lehre, 19071 
 vol. ii., p. 394. 
 
1 6 The Resurrection 
 
 Christian, the belief that the third day saw Jesus 
 risen. x Urging this, they insist that Paul, despite his 
 own statement, must rest his conviction of the resur- 
 rection date on some external fact known to him, such 
 as the experience of the women at the grave. 
 
 To this it must be replied that it is hardly allowable 
 to reject the reason Paul does give for his faith, and 
 substitute one he does not give. Further, modern 
 critics sometimes forget with how utterly different 
 eyes from our own Jews of Paul's generation read the 
 Old Testament. Because there is not for us suf- 
 ficiently clear allusion there to one or another point 
 of faith, it by no means follows that such indication 
 was lacking to the apostle and his contemporaries. 2 
 We Should never, unaided, have found in Genesis xiii : 
 15, the allusion to Messiah which Paul finds there in 
 Galatians iii: 16, nor in the numeral of Genesis xiv: 14 
 the prediction of Jesus' crucifixion which is so clear 
 to Pseudo-Barnabas (ix: 8). Compared with these 
 "prophecies," the Scriptural announcement of Jesus' 
 
 1 Urged, e.g., by R. J. Knowling, Witness of the Epistles, 1892, 
 p. 365; W. Beyschlag, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1899, P- 5 10 ; von 
 Dobschutz, pp. 12 f . ; Maurenbrecher, pp. 61 f. ; and (less strongly) 
 Lake, p. 32. 
 
 So, too, the above considerations will explain why Paul does 
 not explicitly quote the O. T. texts which point to the third day, 
 why no N. T. writer or early father, not even Justin, quotes, 
 e.g., Hos. vi: 2. This latter objection is strongly urged by Loofs, 
 P- 13- 
 
 ' Cf. Lake, pp. 31 f. This critic does not make sufficient use 
 of his very telling suggestion, "if we try to discover what evi- 
 dence from the Old Testament St. Paul used to prove that the 
 death of Christ was 'for our sins,' we do not find it very easy to 
 show that he relied on evidence which strikes us as particularly 
 convincing." 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 17 
 
 resurrection on the third day is plainness itself. For 
 in each case the belief is antecedent to the confirmation 
 of the belief through the interpretation of a sacred 
 text. 
 
 We may grant the possibility (which is far from a 
 certainty) that the Scripture could not have induced 
 in Paul, without some further suggestion, the belief in 
 question. It does not matter whether or no it could 
 have done so; in any case it did not do so. Jesus, 
 believing himself God's chosen Messiah, sees death 
 a growing certainty before him. He accepts death, 
 then, as a part of God's plan, serenely confident that 
 it cannot hold him or obstruct his appointed destiny. 
 Speedily he shall escape from death and rise into 
 heaven, whence he shall come in glory to set up the 
 kingdom. Times and seasons, days and hours, he 
 knows not ; only he is sure he shall not so long be held 
 of death as to give the power of the enemy any tri- 
 umph over him and his Father's cause. An inap- 
 preciable interval, then; and now the Scripture and 
 the thought of his people shape for him the phrase in 
 which he describes that interval. The thought once 
 fixed in his mind, every Scriptural allusion to a speedy 
 triumph, or a renewal, on the third day, takes on a 
 new and specific significance for him. To his disciples 
 he communicates this conviction that on the third 
 day he shall rise again from the dead according to 
 the Scriptures, and the date is thus fixed on the basis 
 of the prophetic text. The third day is thus not a 
 product of the Old Testament oracles, but, once 
 believed in by Jesus, is quickly found among them. 1 
 
 1 Not infrequently, in the case of gospel events which came to 
 pass that one or another Scripture might be fulfilled, the Scripture 
 
 a 
 
1 8 The Resurrection 
 
 The thought of his people is above indicated as 
 one of the influences which gave Jesus the precise 
 limitation of the third day after death for his resur- 
 rection. We may probably go farther, and say that 
 this precise limitation was in the first instance actually 
 the suggestion of his people's thought. 1 The interval 
 he naturally thinks as brief as possible ; only let death 
 actually ensue, and then, at once, escape. Now, "the 
 third day" seems to have been a sort of colloquial or 
 proverbial expression for "immediately," "after the 
 briefest interval." Jesus obviously uses it thus in 
 Luke xiii: 32, "Behold, I cast out devils and perform 
 cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I am 
 perfected," and in the genuine saying which lies 
 behind the declaration of the temple's destruction 
 and its rebuilding "in three days" (Mark xiv: 58, 
 xv:2Q;Mat. xxvi: 61, xxvii:4o; Johnii: 19 f.). Hosea 
 vi: 2 also clearly means the words in this general sense. 
 The phrase, therefore, is natural for Jesus in this 
 connection. He might use it simply as an equivalent 
 for "soon, " after the fashion of Hosea vi: 2, and in this 
 sense declare that he would rise on the third day. 
 
 But it appears almost certain that he used the 
 
 proof was similarly the consequent of the belief, not its antecedent, 
 as, since Strauss, has been commonly urged. The virgin birth 
 is a case in point. To be sure, the relation is frequently the 
 reverse one. Cf. Wellhausen, Ev. Joh., p. 95, note 2. 
 
 1 So S. A. Fries, " Jesu Vorstellung von der Auferstehung der 
 Toten," in Zeitschrift filr N. T. Wiss., vol. i., p. 301. A similar 
 suggestion already in H. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 
 vol. vi., 3d ed., 1868, p. 80 (Eng. tr., vol. vii., 1885, p. 60). 
 Cf. also Bousset, p. 342, note: "Von hier vielleicht der Ursprung 
 des Glaubens an die Auferstehung des Herrn am dritten Tage 
 oder nach 3 Tagen deutlich wird." 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 19 
 
 phrase, as did the disciples and all the early Christians, 
 in its literal sense. For it seems to have been a popu- 
 lar belief among the Jews of Jesus' time that the soul 
 lingers about the dead body until the third day after 
 death, unwilling to depart while there is any possibility 
 of reanimation. On the third day, in that climate, 
 decay sets in, and the soul no longer waits. » That is, 
 actual death is not present until the third day, for 
 death means the soul's entire abandonment of the 
 body, a point marked by the beginning of decompo- 
 sition. A resurrection before the third day, therefore, 
 would not be, in the complete sense, a resurrection 
 from death, or from the dead — that is, from the under- 
 world, for the soul has not yet quitted this world. 
 This idea seems to be alluded to several times in the 
 Talmudic and later Rabbinical literature. Perhaps 
 its clearest expression is in the tractate Moed Katon, 
 iii. "According to Rabbi Abba bar Rabbi Papa, and 
 Rabbi Joshua of Sichnin in the name of Rabbi Levi, 
 the soul hovers during the three days above the body; 
 she thinks to return into it again, but when she sees 
 that its face is changed, she leaves it, and departs." 2 
 This conception, like others, seems to have come 
 into Jewish thought from Persian sources. It is to 
 
 1 Cf. John xi: 39. 
 
 1 The two first-named rabbis belong to the fourth century 
 A.D., Rabbi Levi to the third. I have translated from the 
 German as given by Ernst Boklen: Die Verwandtschaft derjtidisch- 
 christlichen mit der Parsischen Eschatologie, 1902, p. 27. Bok- 
 len's section, "Die drei Tage nach dem Tode" (pp. 27-31), is 
 of the greatest value in this connection. Cf. also Bousset, p. 341 ; 
 Arnold Meyer, p. 182, note; Schmidt, pp. 320 f., note; S. A. 
 Fries, Zeitschrift N. T. Wiss., vol. i., p. 298; Edersheim, pp. 
 324 f., 631, with the rabbinical references there given. 
 
20 The Resurrection 
 
 be found several times, in one expression or another, 
 in the Avestan literature. In the Vendidad we read 
 of the dead man, "when the man is dead, when his 
 time is over, then the hellish, evil-doing Daevas assail 
 him; and when the third night is gone, when the dawn 
 appears and brightens up, and makes Mithra, the god 
 with beautiful weapons, reach the all-happy moun- 
 tains, and the sun is rising, then the fiend, named 
 Vlzaresha, carries off in bonds the souls of the wicked 
 Daeva- worshippers who live in sin. " 1 
 
 This has an interesting parallel among Jewish sources 
 in an anonymous apocalyptic fragment published by 
 Professor Steindorff , and dated by him in the first cen- 
 tury B.C. There we read of countless frightful demons, 
 who are described as "the servants of the whole crea- 
 tion, who come to the souls of the godless, carry them 
 away and put them down here ; for three days they hover 
 around in the air with them, before they take them and 
 throw them into their everlasting punishment." 2 
 
 There is another passage of the Zend-Avesta in 
 which the idea of the three-day interval between death 
 and the definitive departing of the soul from earth to 
 its place of punishment or reward comes to interesting 
 expression. According to the arrangement in Wester- 
 gaard's edition, it is a part of Yasht 22, and reads as 
 follows: "Zarathustra asked Ahura Mazda: O Ahura 
 Mazda, most beneficent Spirit, Maker of the Material 
 
 1 Fargard xix : 28. The translation is that by James Darme- 
 steter in Sacred Books of the East, vol. iv., p. 212. 
 
 2 Georg Steindorff, Die Apokalypse des Elias, etc. Texte 
 und Untersuchungen, Neue Folge, Band II., 1899. The transla- 
 tion is a literal rendering of Steindorff s German translation of 
 the Coptic text, p. 150. 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 21 
 
 World, thou Holy One ! When one of the faithful de- 
 parts this life, where does his soul abide on that night? 
 Ahura Mazda answered: It takes its seat near the 
 head, singing the Ustavaiti Gatha and proclaiming 
 happiness : Happy is he, happy the man whoever he be, 
 to whom Ahura Mazda gives the full accomplishment 
 of his wishes ! On that night his soul tastes as much of 
 pleasure as the whole of the living world can taste. 
 
 On the second night where does his soul abide? 
 Ahura Mazda answered ... [as before]. On the 
 third night where does his soul abide? Ahura Mazda 
 answered ... [as before]. At the end of the third 
 night, when the dawn appears, it seems to the soul 
 of the faithful one as if it were brought amid plants and 
 scents ..." [and so it goes to judgment]. 1 
 
 This passage in its context, which ought to be read 
 for its great beauty, has been borrowed by other 
 Parsi texts. It occurs, with slight change, in the 
 so-called Vishtashp Yasht (Westergaard's Yasht 24), 
 and, with greater changes, in the Arda VJraf Namak, 
 and in the Dina-i Mam6g-i Khiradh (or Mmdkhirad). 2 
 
 1 The fragment printed by Westergaard as Yasht 22 is really 
 not a Yasht, or prayer of praise, at all. According to ancient 
 Parsi tradition (not, however, supported by the Dinkard), it 
 is a part of the Hadh6kht Nask, one of the twenty-one ancient 
 divisions of the entire sacred literature of the Parsis. A French 
 translation, with excellent notes, is given in the very valuable 
 work of Nathan Sdderblom, La Vie Future d'apres le Maztteisme, 
 Paris, 1901, p. 82. The translation above is that of Darmesteter, 
 S. B. E., vol. xxiii., pp. 311 f. 
 
 "For the passage in the Vishtashp Yasht, cf. S. B. E., xxiii., 
 p. 342; for that in the Mlndkhirad, S. B. E., xxiv., pp. 16-26 
 (translation by E. W. West). Also the Book of Arda Vlraf, ed. 
 H6shangji and Haug, iv: 9-1 1 and xvii: 6 f. 
 
22 The Resurrection 
 
 In the latter text occurs a passage analogous to those 
 quoted from the Vendidad and the Coptic apocalypse. 
 "When he who is wicked dies, his soul then rushes 
 about for three days and nights in the vicinity of 
 the head of that wicked one, and sobs thus : Whither 
 do I go, and now what do I make as a refuge? And the 
 sin and crime of every kind, that were committed by 
 him in the worldly existence, he sees with his eyes in 
 those three days and nights. The fourth day Vizareh 
 the demon comes and binds the soul of the wicked 
 
 The same conception is found in the curious gnostic 
 work Pistis Sophia, dating perhaps from the second 
 century. In that part which bears the title "Books 
 of the Saviour" we read that the souls of the departed 
 are led around in the world for three days of instruc- 
 tion before they leave earth for their place of punish- 
 ment or reward. 2 
 
 This whole subject of the three-day lingering of 
 the soul after death needs more complete and critical 
 investigation than it has yet received. It is clear that 
 the notion prevailed among the Jews as among the 
 Persians, and there is no reason for questioning the 
 familiarity of Jesus and his disciples with it. The 
 third day is therefore the natural point at which to 
 set a resurrection thought of as following close upon 
 death, and the confirmation of Scripture would make 
 this date inevitable. 3 
 
 1 5. B. E., xxiv., p. 22. 
 
 ' Cf. G. R. S. Mead, Pistis Sophia, 1896, pp. 383-391. 
 
 3 Cf. Bousset, p. 342, note. The student should consult 
 (critically) the rabbinical, Avestan and apocryphal sources cited 
 there and in the other references given in the note supra, p. 19. 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 23 
 
 There is another somewhat related theory as to the 
 origin of the third day as the date of the resurrection. 
 It is that offered by the scholars who are apply- 
 ing to Christian origins the "religionsgeschichtliche 
 Methode, " the method which seeks to understand 
 religious phenomena in their origin and significance 
 by a comparative study of similar phenomena in 
 other, preferably older, religious movements. This 
 method of study assumes in general a series of primi- 
 tive fundamental religious conceptions, arising for 
 the most part out of interpretations of natural phe- 
 nomena. These conceptions appear and reappear, over 
 and over, in endless combinations, with endless changes 
 and developments, in the various religions, handed on 
 from one to the other, borrowed and lent both con- 
 sciously and unconsciously, ever invested with new 
 meanings and associations, their ultimate origin lost 
 
 It seems doubtful whether the familiar apocalyptic 3^ days, 
 adduced by Bousset and Boklen, have immediate bearing here 
 (but cf. infra), or the "punishment of the 3 nights," of the 
 Bundahish (S. B. E., vol. v., p. 125), adduced by Boklen. So the 
 "day or two" of mourning for the dead, in Ecclus. xxxviii: 17, 
 has no significance here. In apocryphal Christian sources the 
 3-day period between death and burial or the final departure 
 of the soul to its long home is not infrequently found. The 
 measure of dependence on the gospel story is not in each case 
 easily determinable. For the close parallel in "The Rest of 
 the Words of Baruch, " cf. infra, p. 31. It is cited in this 
 connection by Boklen (p. 28), who calls attention also to the 
 (second century? so James, p. 29) Testament of Abraham (ed. 
 by M. R. James in Texts and Studies, vol. ii.), Recension A, 
 ch. 20, where we read (James, p. 103) that after Abraham's 
 death (x^devaap t& <r&/m rou SiKatov 'Aflpaci,n las rptriis i)/Upas ttjs 
 Te\eia<reas airrov Kal ida\j/av airbv. "This," says James (pp. I26f.), 
 "agrees strikingly with a spurious Homily or Apocalypse of S. 
 
24 The Resurrection 
 
 and forgotten. To understand any one of the religious 
 conceptions that go to make up the structure of our 
 common Christianity, for example, we must trace, so 
 far as we can, its devious way through the ethnic 
 faiths that have transmitted it to us, until we run it 
 to earth in the naive speculations of primitive man. 
 There can be no question as to the correctness 
 and the value of this method. It has scored brilliant 
 successes in clearing up the origins of sacrifice and of 
 the Christian sacraments, and it has shed the first 
 real light that has ever fallen on the obscure magni- 
 ficence of the apocalypses. No one can now believe, 
 in an age whose thought is dominated by the concept 
 of evolution, that any religious notion was, on a 
 certain day, born ready-made in the mind of one or 
 another prophet, like Melchizedek, without father 
 or mother, or that the "revelation" of any truth from 
 
 Macarius (Galland, Bibl. Patr., iii., 237)," in which after the 
 saint's death t4s ykp Sio ijpjpas (rvyxapeiTcu Trj tyvxb . . . iropeieaBcu 
 ivda f3o6\er<u iwl rijs yijs. Then, on the third day, the soul goes 
 with the angels up to heaven. James compares further (p. 34) 
 the statement in the Pseudo-Johannine "Assumption of the 
 Virgin" (Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocrypha, 1866, pp. 95 ff.), 
 ch. 48, that hymns were sung at Mary's tomb for three days, 
 till her body was transferred to Paradise. Boklen further cites 
 the (Jewish-Christian? 2d or 3d century? James, xciii. f.) Testa- 
 ment of Job (ed. by M. R. James, Texts and Studies, vol. v., 1897), 
 ch. 53, peri, rpets rj/Upas lv4Bevro abrbv els T&v T&<pov. Finally Boklen 
 notes Lactantius, Div. Inst., vii.: 17, 3, where a prophet, who is 
 slain and unburied, comes to life on the third day and is caught 
 up to heaven, a plain imitation of Rev. xi: 3-12, and Commodian, 
 Carmen Apologeticum, 861 f.: 
 
 " Illos autem Dominus quarto die tollit in auras 
 Quos illi vetuerant sepultra jacentes. " 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 25 
 
 God came on a sudden to a world previously without 
 any of its constituent elements. The religio-historical 
 method is scientific and illuminating; if in these 
 earlier years of its wider use it sometimes goes too 
 far and assumes to explain phenomena whose origins 
 really lie outside its field, we cannot wonder. Time 
 will correct such errors. x 
 
 Exponents of this method, notably Hermann 
 Gunkel, have found by its use an explanation of 
 the third day as the date of Jesus' resurrection. The 
 divinity who dies and rises again is a figure familiar 
 in the mythologies of most ancient nations, Egypt, 
 Babylon, Phoenicia, Syria, Greece, Rome, and the 
 roots of the conception seem to he in a sun-myth. The 
 sun is the great god of the primitive man; darkness 
 and the cold and death of winter are the chief demons 
 or anti-divine powers. Each evening darkness con- 
 quers and slays the sun, but each dawn the god breaks 
 victoriously alive again from his tomb. Each autumn 
 the winter-monster prevails; three months the sun 
 is faint and spent, shorn of his power. With the 
 fourth month he regains his strength and begins 
 anew a glorious career. In all lands and times the 
 solstices and the equinoxes have been the centres 
 of celebration; Christmas and Easter are ancient 
 festivals baptised into the Christian church and 
 given a new name. 
 
 The time of the sun's exile, three or three and a 
 half months, is a perpetually recurring number in 
 
 1 The true use of this method must not be confused with the 
 vagaries offered by Arthur Drews {Die Christus-Mythe, 1909; 
 Die Petrus Legende, 1910) or Peter Jensen (Das Gilgamesh-Epos 
 in der Welt-Literatur, 1906, vol. i.; Moses Jesus Paulus, 1910). 
 
26 The Resurrection 
 
 the mythologies and apocalypses of the ages. 1 Very 
 frequently it becomes three days in which some god 
 lies dead, to be greeted alive by his joyful worshippers 
 on the fourth day. Is not all this so like the account 
 of the rising of Jesus with the sunrise of the third day 
 as to be actually the source of that conception? Is 
 not the resurrection, with its date, simply a bit of 
 
 1 So also is the moon, especially in spring, said to be three days 
 invisible before the new moon begins. Cf. H. Zimmern in 
 Schrader's Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 3d ed., 1903, 
 pp. 362, 366, 388 f. 
 
 It is not yet quite dear what relation exists between this as- 
 tronomical 3-day or 3-month period and the period of woe accord- 
 ing to the apocalypses, which is expressed by some form of 3}^. 
 So Dan. vii: 25, xii: 7; Rev. xii: 14, "a time, times and half a 
 time"; Dan. ix: 27, "half a week"; Rev. vi: 2, xiii: 5, "forty-two 
 months"; Rev. xi: 3, xii: 6, "a thousand two hundred and sixty 
 days" (Dan. viii: 14, xii: II f., seem to give three approximate 
 reckonings of this same period, cf. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, 
 1895, p. 269, note); Rev. xi: 9-11, "three and a half days." 
 Josephus (Bel. Jud., i., I, 1; v., 9, 4) agrees with Daniel in fixing 
 the interruption of the sacrifices under Antiochus Epiphanes at 
 three years six months. "According to the Midrash on La. i: 
 5, the siege by Vespasian continued the same period" (Diet. 
 Christ and the Gospels, vol. ii., 1908, p. 249, col. I. On this cf. 
 Clem. Alex., Stromata, i., 21, and Wetstein ad Rev. xi: 2). 
 
 So the great drought in the time of Elijah lasts three years and 
 six months (Luke iv: 25; Jas. v: 17), and this, according to Rev. 
 xi: 6, is "during the days of the prophecy" of the two witnesses 
 Elijah and Moses (or Enoch?), which lasts (xi: 3) a thousand 
 two hundred and sixty days. I. Kings xviii : 1 makes the drought 
 end "in the third year." This three and a half seems, pace 
 Gunkel (p. 266 f.), the broken half of the sacred seven, the symbol 
 of perfection. Yet the sacredness of seven has astral origins. 
 Cf. Gunkel: loc. cit., pp. 266-270. Paul Cams, in The Monist, 
 vol. xvi. (1906), pp. 415-421, urges, without proofs, that the 
 " third day" of the resurrection is equivalent to the apocalyptic 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 27 
 
 this universal mythology transplanted into the soil 
 of primitive Christian tradition? 1 
 
 The inference seems clear, yet if examined more 
 closely, it will be seen not to be quite what Professor 
 Gunkel takes it to be. The comparative study of 
 mythologies does not at all explain why the first 
 Christians believed that Jesus rose from the dead on 
 the third day; that they believed on the assurance of 
 Jesus himself and of the Scriptures. It does explain, 
 very probably, the origin of the Old Testament 
 passages from which Jesus, quite unconscious of their 
 primitive significance, drew his assurance. 
 
 Let the Jonah-story, for example, be explained 
 by all means as the descendant of a sun-myth; 2 its 
 conception and its phraseology are suggestive for 
 Jesus quite independently of any such associations. 
 
 three and a half, which in turn is only the geometrical t 
 (3-H59 +)> tne ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference. 
 In a system using mathematical formulas at all, we can hardly 
 expect the equation 3.5 = 3.1459+. More plausible is Mauren- 
 brecher, pp. 102-104. 
 
 1 For the argument cf. H. Gunkel: Zum religionsgeschicht- 
 lichen Verstdndniss des N. T., 1903, pp. 76-83, and the references 
 in his notes, especially those to Zimmern. The material is well 
 presented in M. Bruckner, " Der sterbende und auferstehende 
 Gottheiland in den Orientalischen Religionen und ihr Verhaltniss 
 zum Christen turn, " 1908, a very valuable addition to the 
 Rdigionsgeschichtliche Volksbiicher, and in Maurenbrecher, pp. 
 61-115. T. K. Cheyne, Bible Problems and the New Material 
 for their Solution, 1904, pp. 1 10-128, presents some of the paral- 
 lels in ethnic mythologies and argues the derivation from them 
 of the beliefs concerning Jesus' resurrection. His position is well 
 criticised by G. Margoliouth, in the Contemporary Review, vol. 
 lxxxviii. (Nov. 1905), pp. 717 ft. 
 
 3 Gunkel: loc. cit., p. 80; Hans Schmidt, Jona, 1907. 
 
28 The Resurrection 
 
 The religious certainty which they confirm for him is 
 the original act of his inner life, and wholly unrelated 
 to any mythology. Smite the whole ramification 
 of sun-myths from human history, and this certainty 
 would for Jesus have been the same, though his 
 people's sacred books might not have furnished him 
 just the same phraseology in which to clothe it. 
 
 Any or all of the passages suggested below as those 
 in which Jesus and Paul found confirmation of their 
 faith may have their roots in mythologic concepts. 
 Their history before they became a part of the Hebrew 
 sacred text is a matter for investigation elsewhere, 
 but not in our immediate connection. The only 
 point in which popular mythology is directly concerned 
 with the date of the resurrection is in the influence 
 upon Jesus' thought of the Persian-Jewish idea of 
 the three-day lingering of the soul after death. This 
 idea we may well consider a part of that mythologic 
 complex, and its roots may possibly be found to be 
 intertwined with those of the dead sun-god conception. 
 But here too this conception is not the origin of the 
 thought in Jesus' mind, so that without it he might 
 have expected his resurrection a week, a month, or a 
 year after death. Of the immediacy of the event, of 
 the real point to be proved, he was already ante- 
 cedently certain, with a certainty that could have 
 dispensed with all external attestation. In short, 
 all that the religionsgeschichtliche 1 material could do 
 for him was to insure the presence in the Old Testa- 
 ment of certain passages which lent themselves to his 
 
 1 1 regret that we have not an exact English equivalent for this 
 useful word. 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 29 
 
 faith, and to suggest the interpretation of such 
 passages as references to resurrection from death. 
 
 All that is here contended is that to no element of 
 popular mythology is due the origin of the belief that 
 Jesus rose on the third day. The belief once held, 
 the fact that it fitted in with certain popular concepts 
 was of course of immense significance, and had large 
 influence in the spreading and domestication of the 
 belief among the peoples. 1 The connection with 
 current mythological conceptions was also largely 
 influential in the development and modification of 
 the belief concerning the third day, in the symbol- 
 isms and meanings which clustered about it, and 
 especially in the institutions to which it gave rise, 
 notably the celebration of Sunday (significant name) 
 and of Easter. The date of Jesus' death chanced to 
 be such as to afford the widest scope for these myth- 
 making influences. The very day of the week, Friday, 
 which is historically certain, causes the feast of 
 resurrection to coincide with the day when the sun 
 is celebrated and the new week begins. 2 Scarcely 
 less suggestive is the approximate synchronism of 
 the Easter-feast with the vernal equinox. But these 
 are coincidences. 
 
 It is worthy of observation in this connection that 
 modern scholars are not the first to see the analogies 
 between the resurrection and certain astral phenomena. 
 
 1 On this whole point cf. Lake, pp. 260-264, Arnold Meyer, 
 p. 184, with the notes. Meyer's whole discussion of the three 
 days (pp. 178-185, with the notes) is very valuable. 
 
 1 Bacon, Founding of the Church, 1909, p. 76, denies the con- 
 nection of the Sunday-observance with the third day, and finds 
 its origin in the Pentecost-episode. This is clearly erroneous. 
 
30 The Resurrection 
 
 The church fathers very frequently note them. 
 Theophilus of Antioch, for example, in the last quarter 
 of the second century, writes, "Consider, if you 
 please, the dying of seasons and days and nights, 
 how all these die and rise again. . . . Consider the 
 resurrection of the moon, which occurs monthly ; how 
 it wanes, dies, and rises again." 1 
 
 In the illustrative passages cited from ethnic 
 sources the period of death is for the most part three 
 days (or months), so that the revival comes really 
 on the fourth day; whereas Jesus' resurrection is on 
 the third day, not after three days. There is possibly 
 a trace of the influence of the mythological conception 
 in the phrase used by Mark in Jesus' predictions 
 (viii: 31, ix: 31, x: 34), "afterthree days," yet Mark 
 puts the resurrection itself on the third day, Sunday. 
 In fact the two phrases seem to be used indifferently 
 by the gospel writers, as equivalent in meaning. 2 
 Luke (ix: 22, xviii: 33, xxiv: 7, 46; Acts x: 40) has 
 everywhere "on the third day." So has Matthew 
 (xvi:2i, xvii:23, xx: 19) except in xxvii: 63, yet in xii: 
 40 he declares that "the Son of Man shall be three days 
 and three nights in the heart of the earth," a literal 
 contradiction of the date in xxviii: 1. Significant for 
 Matthew's usage is further xxvii: 64 compared with 
 the preceding verse. The Sanhedrists remember that 
 Jesus said: "After three days I rise again," and there- 
 fore wish "the sepulchre to be made sure until the 
 third day." 
 
 The allusions to the destruction of the temple and 
 
 1 Ad Autolychum, i: 13. Trans, by Marcus Dods in Ante- 
 Nicene Fathers, American Ed., vol. ii., 1885, p. 93. 
 
 2 Cf. Schwartzkopff, p. 69; Bauer, p. 254. 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 31 
 
 its speedy rebuilding (Mark xiv: 58, xv: 29; Mat. 
 xxvi:6i,xxvii:4o; Johnii: I9f.), which John (and pos- 
 sibly the other evangelists?) thought of as an allusion 
 to Jesus' resurrection, have uniformly "in three days, " 
 which therefore is again equivalent to "on the third 
 day." Mark's phrase "after three days" is more 
 religionsgeschichtlich; "on the third day" is probably 
 more true to Jesus' own wording, as evidenced by 
 Hosea vi : 2 . It is clear that to the minds of the earliest 
 Christians "on the third day" and "after three days" 
 could be used as referring to the same point of time 
 and fitted in equally well with their mythological 
 traditions and folklore. 
 
 Significant here is a passage in the ninth chapter 
 of the second-century apocalyptic "Rest of the Words 
 of Baruch," 1 which pictures the death and resur- 
 rection of Jeremiah, the author (at least of this pas- 
 sage) being a Christian who is imitating the gospel 
 story. "And after this they made themselves ready 
 that they should bury him. And behold there came 
 a voice saying : Bury not him that is yet alive, because 
 his soul enters into his body again. And hearing the 
 voice, they buried him not, but remained about his 
 tabernacle [i.e., body, ax^v<o(»,a as in II. Pet. i: 13 f.] 
 three days speaking and unknowing in what hour 
 he is to rise. And after three days his soul entered 
 into his body." This date is meant by the author 
 as perfectly equivalent to the third day of Jesus' 
 resurrection. 
 
 So much for the origins of the third day as an 
 element of the primitive tradition. We may now 
 
 1 Ed. by J. Rendel Harris, 1 889, pp. 62 f. The book is probably 
 a Christian recension of a document originally Jewish. 
 
32 The Resurrection 
 
 at length put the question: What passages of Scrip- 
 ture were relied upon, first by Jesus, then in turn by 
 Paul, as confirmation of their faith? In no authentic 
 words of either have we any definite quotation as to 
 "the third day," but the Scriptures they and their 
 followers read are open to us, and the passages in 
 question ought not to be difficult to find. We know 
 that for Jesus the passage in Dan. vii: 13 ff. gave the 
 form for his Messianic appearing, consequent on his 
 resurrection. We know from Acts ii : 25 ff . that early 
 Christians quoted Psalm xvi: 8 ff. as showing that the 
 resurrection of Jesus was to follow closely upon his 
 death; his soul was not to be left in Hades, but to 
 rise before corruption set in upon the body. 1 Of 
 course the author of Acts thought of this with refer- 
 ence to a rising of Jesus' body before decay began, but 
 Jesus may have relied upon it without any such con- 
 notation, reading the passage so: My soul shall not 
 be left in Sheol; before it can see the beginning of 
 decay in its old tenement, it shall be brought to a 
 new one. We do not know that he relied upon this 
 passage, or that Paul did, but both may well have done 
 so. 
 
 More definite is the second chapter of Jonah. To 
 be sure, Jesus nowhere quotes this of his resurrection, 
 
 1 It is no doubt true (so, e.g., Robertson Smith, in the Expositor, 
 1st series, vol. iv. [1878], pp. 353 f. and Schmiedel, col. 4083c) 
 that the LXX. and other versions are inaccurate, that the original 
 should be rendered, "For thou wilt not give up my soul to Sheol, 
 neither wilt thou suffer thy beloved to see the pit." I.e., the 
 Psalmist is confident, not that he will escape from the underworld, 
 but that he will not die. But this has no bearing here, since 
 Actsii: 25 ff. shows how the verse was understood by the early 
 Christians. Why not also so by Jesus? 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 33 
 
 but Luke xi : 29-32 shows him familiar with the book 
 of Jonah, and thinking of the experiences of Jonah 
 as having analogies to his own. The first evangelist, 
 however (Mat. xii: 40), thinks of Jonah ii: 1 f. as one 
 of the Scripture prophecies of the third-day resurrec- 
 tion, and mistakenly (as Luke and the whole context 
 make clear) , puts it into the mouth of Jesus. Though 
 Jesus does not here mean what Matthew means by 
 "the sign of Jonah," he may yet have thought of 
 the passage, as Matthew does, as prophetic of his 
 resurrection, and, on another occasion, so used it. 1 
 
 But a more certain word is not wanting, clear and 
 confident. It is Hosea vi: 2, "After two days will he 
 revive us ; on the third day he will raise us up and we 
 shall live before him." Surely if Jesus found the 
 third day anywhere in the Old Testament, he found 
 it here. It is probable that this passage was already 
 interpreted by the rabbis of his time as a reference to 
 the resurrection of the righteous dead in the Mes- 
 sianic age. The first two verses of the chapter are 
 rendered by the Targum Jonathan (accessible in 
 Brian Walton's Polyglott, vol. iii.) as follows : "They 
 shall say: come and let us return to the worship of 
 the Lord, for he who smote us will also heal us, and he 
 who brought upon us destruction, will revive us. 
 He will give us life in the days of consolation which 
 are to come, in the day of the resurrection of the dead 
 he will resuscitate us, and we shall live before him." 2 
 
 1 Such suggestion would help to account for Matthew's use 
 of the quotation here. He would be following his not infrequent 
 practice of combining two originally separate logia. This is, of 
 course, only a possibility, and no stress is to be laid on it. 
 
 3 Cf. Brandt, p. 429, note. 
 
34 The Resurrection 
 
 This targum, though it took its present shape perhaps 
 not earlier than the fifth century a.d., embodies old 
 interpretations, many of which were doubtless current 
 in Jesus' time. The reference of the text to the resur- 
 rection is a natural one; it need not have first been 
 made by Jesus. 
 
 Scarcely less striking and definite, when read with 
 an eye open to every possible Messianic application, 
 are the words of II. Kings xx: 5. "I have heard thy 
 prayer, I have seen thy tears; behold, I will heal 
 thee; on the third day thou shalt go up unto the 
 house of the Lord." 
 
 These two or three passages are more than ample 
 to give Jesus Scriptural certification of the third day. 
 Perhaps he, quite certainly his followers, found sug- 
 gestions to the same intent in many other passages, 
 such as Isaiah liv: 7 f.; Psalms lxxi: 20, lxxxvi: 13, 
 cxviii: 17 f. and Psalm ex: 1 f., quoted by Jesus as 
 Messianic in Mark xii: 36. J 
 
 When all is said and done, the third day, though 
 a fixed element in the earliest tradition, is a point 
 of secondary import. Paul alludes to it only the 
 once, as Scripturally attested; it is, in short, only the 
 date of an event, to which event, not to its date, 
 attaches real significance. And it is the date merely 
 of the resurrection, not of anything else. Beyschlag is 
 
 1 Of other O. T. passages used as prophetic of the resurrection, 
 though without bearing upon the date, Job xix: 25-27 and Ps. 
 ii: 7 should be noted. It is interesting to see how in Acts xiii: 
 33 the latter passage is referred to the resurrection, as the point 
 at which Jesus was exalted to Messianic rank, whereas in Luke 
 iii: 22 (according to the probable reading) it is referred to the 
 baptism — a clear indication of the way in which the Messiahship 
 was pushed back to cover the earthly life. 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 35 
 
 wholly without reason when he claims 1 that Paul 
 intends to date the appearance of Jesus to Cephas 
 and the Twelve on the third day, because Jesus could 
 not be thought of as risen without at once seeking his 
 disciples; in short, that Paul "places the resurrection 
 and therewith at the same time the first appearances 
 of the risen one, on the 'third day.' " 2 
 
 As a matter of fact, absolutely nothing can be 
 deduced, from Paul's statement, as to the date of the 
 first phenomena which attested to Jesus' followers 
 that he was risen. "He appeared to Cephas" — 
 but when? and where? For anything in Paul's words 
 it might have been weeks, months, or years after the 
 "third day," and the place any place open to Peter's 
 wandering feet. So far as Paul's testimony goes, 
 then, the date of the resurrection is not known 
 empirically, but is a matter of faith ; but still further, 
 the act of resurrection itself, the rising, is not known 
 empirically. Paul knows Jesus is risen simply because 
 he has appeared, and all Paul's testimony here is to 
 these appearances, not at all to the act of resurrection. 
 That he passes over with a word, as lying outside the 
 sensible world, known only as a necessary deduction 
 from the "appearances. " There is no real testimony 
 to the actual rising of Jesus in any letter of Paul; 
 there is only testimony to the experiences of those to 
 whom his rising was thus certified. 
 
 And this marks a profound difference between the 
 apostolic testimony in the epistles and the later 
 statements of the gospels. The great central fact of 
 Paul's consciousness is that Jesus is now alive. Not: 
 
 1 Beyschlag, p. 438. * Loc. tit., p. 447. 
 
36 The Resurrection 
 
 he rose, but: he lives. The rising, as such, is entirely 
 secondary, a corollary merely to the one great, kind- 
 ling , all-embracing fact of the present life of Jesus. The 
 whole thing is apprehended subjectively, from the point 
 of view of the experience of the disciple and the believer. 
 The gospels, on the other hand, present it all objec- 
 tively, from the point of view of what Jesus did, how 
 he rose and what were his subsequent movements. 
 
 So when a prisoner of war has broken his bonds 
 and escaped; the first overmastering thought and 
 feeling of the wife and children who clasp him again 
 to their hearts is, he is free, he is with us, in warm, 
 tender, actual presence! The detailed consideration 
 that he laboriously tunnelled the wall, and wrested 
 away the bars of iron, and let himself down with a 
 rope, and outran the pursuing guards, comes only 
 later. This may serve to illustrate the difference 
 between the consciousness of the Christians in the 
 first decades after Jesus' death and that of the calmer, 
 more reflective church of the last years of the century. 
 
 At the cost of repetition, let it be said again that 
 the earliest Christians, with Paul, had their minds 
 and hearts filled with the ecstatic conviction: Jesus 
 lives, our present friend and inspirer, and had no 
 testimony whatever to bear to the activity of Jesus 
 in rising from the dead, witnessing only to their own 
 experiences of communion with him in vision or 
 revelation. The later church lost this earliest spirit- 
 ual ecstatic enthusiasm; the glow died away, the "ap- 
 pearances" ceased, the "spirit" was withdrawn, and 
 the Christian writers could testify only to the external 
 facts as to Jesus' body leaving the tomb and its sub- 
 sequent movements. The difference is wide as heaven. 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 37 
 
 It cannot be sufficiently emphasised that Paul 
 and the gospels witness to two entirely different 
 things; the former to experiences and convictions of 
 the disciples, the latter to post-mortem acts of Jesus. 
 Nowhere is this fact more clearly in evidence than in 
 the circumstance that the grave, which is so prominent 
 a feature in the gospel narrative, never appears in the 
 apostolic witness. Indeed, it can scarcely be main- 
 tained that the burial of Jesus had any special interest 
 or significance for Paul. 1 Aside from I. Cor. xv: 4, 
 there is only the faintest further allusion to it, namely, 
 in Rom. vi: 4 (repeated in Col. ii: 12). But the 
 latter reference is due solely to the symbolic value of 
 the burial for the figure Paul was developing; other- 
 wise it would not have been mentioned. 
 
 And here, too, precisely as in I. Cor. xv: 4, the state- 
 ment of Jesus' burial is only an emphatic statement 
 of his death. It is very noticeable that the two 
 experiences of Jesus which have analogues in the 
 Christian's religious experience are his death and 
 resurrection, not his burial and resurrection. "We 
 
 1 Keim, p. 526 (Eng. tr., p. 272), curiously asserts that Paul 
 "repeatedly speaks of the burial of Jesus," yet in a note on p. 
 533 (Eng. tr., p. 281) gives the only passages as I. Cor. xv: 4 and 
 Rom. vi : 4. The latter reference is a trifle strained, but may pass. 
 Similarly Riggenbach, p. 19, remarks that Paul "wiederholt" 
 speaks of baptism as being buried and raised with Christ, but 
 can cite only Rom. vi: 3 f. and Col. ii: 12. The latter passage is 
 in very literalness a "Wiederholung" of the former. 
 
 There is in Paul all but an entire lack of words referring to sepul- 
 ture. Odirrw only I. Cor. xv: 4; <rvvddirTw~Rom. vi: 4 and its quo- 
 tation in Col. ii : 12 ; rdtpos only in Rom. iii : 13 in a quotation from 
 the 5th Psalm; iwriiuSov and cognates not at all; Ttipf}os not at 
 all. 
 
38 The Resurrection 
 
 who died" (vs. 2), "we were baptised into his death" 
 (vs. 3 , where we might have expected ' ' into his burial "), 
 "we were buried into death" (vs. 4), "united with the 
 likeness of his death " (vs. 5) . In vs. 4 the comparison 
 is "like as Christ was raised from the dead," not "from 
 the grave." And so throughout the whole passage 
 (Rom.vi: 2-11) every verse contains the term "death, ' 
 or its equivalent in noun or verb form ("crucified" 
 in vs. 6), the contrast being clearly and exclusively 
 between death and the new life. Even in vs. 13 it is 
 "as alive from the dead," as living out from among 
 those who are dead (^uvra? kx vexpuv). In short, 
 the burial as such can scarcely be said to appear 
 here; it forms absolutely no moment in the apostle's 
 argument. The term "buried into death" is used 
 instead of the equivalent "died" simply because 
 among the processes or elements connected with the 
 "death " of a human being, burial rather than the sim- 
 ple expiration forms the suitable analogue to baptism. 
 The exclusive subject of the apostle's thought is 
 Jesus' death and his resurrection "from the dead." 
 This is true not only of this passage in Romans, 
 but everywhere in Paul; for him, Jesus is always 
 risen "from the dead." The Greek phrase is Ix vs- 
 xpwv, literally "out from among the company of those 
 who are dead." 1 That "the dead" in this familiar 
 phrase is invariably a masculine plural is somewhat 
 
 * 4k veKpSiv is not only Paul's usual phrase, but the common 
 phrase of the N. T. writers. It is worth while in this connection to 
 run through racpis in Moulton and Geden's Concordance to 
 the Greek Testament (2d ed., 1900), as well as through the verbs 
 ^yeipw and iMottj/u, with their cognates. A concordance is 
 often the most illuminating of commentaries. 
 
He Died, was Buried, was Raised 39 
 
 obscured to the average reader by our English trans- 
 lation; at least if we rendered "risen from among de- 
 parted spirits" we should have in the popular mind 
 an impression at once somewhat different from that 
 which at present prevails and more true to the apostle's 
 meaning. For him, the resurrection is always from 
 among the souls of the dead, never from the grave; 
 that which rises is, consequently, that which goes to 
 the place of departed souls, namely, the soul of Jesus, 
 not his body. The place out of which there was 
 resurrection gives the definition at once of that which 
 rose and of the place into which it rose. Paul's 
 wording places the whole transaction in the super- 
 sensible world; a spirit rises from a place of spirits 
 into a place of spirits. 
 
 Professor Stevens thus clearly puts the necessary 
 implication of the phrase k% vestpwv l-jfifrspTac. "Re- 
 surrection is neither resurrection of the body, nor 
 resurrection from the ground in which the body is 
 buried, but is a rising of the personality from the realm 
 of death into the realm of light and life, whereupon 
 the spirit is clothed with its heavenly habitation." 1 
 There is absolutely no hint anywhere in Paul that the 
 spirit, coming from among the dead, entered again 
 into the cast-off body and re-animated it; rather is 
 this idea strictly excluded by all that Paul urges. 
 The thing that I. Cor. xv says most plainly and in- 
 sistently is that the resurrection of which Paul preaches 
 has no relation whatever to the dead body and the 
 grave. In fact, the whole discussion of the chapter 
 is directed against certain in Corinth who have made 
 
 1 George B. Stevens, Theology of the New Testament, 1899, 
 P- 477- 
 
40 The Resurrection 
 
 just this mistake — which the Christian world has made 
 ever since— of understanding resurrection to mean a 
 rising in some way of the body that was put into the 
 grave. The thing which Paul is here combating is 
 the beginning of the conception which the gospel stones 
 present.* When Paul is read with the gospel stories 
 entirely ignored, it becomes absolutely certain that 
 in his thought there was no empty grave, no revived 
 body, and that I. Cor. xv is the most forcible argument 
 ever brought against the narrative of the gospels. 
 
 Paul knows a present Jesus, living the heavenly 
 life in the spiritual body above; to him and to others 
 have come appearances of this glorified Friend, 
 moments of sweet and beautiful revelation of his 
 presence, and these revelations necessitate that Jesus 
 had not been held of death, but had risen from among 
 the dead, to be alive forevermore; the time of this 
 rising from death into life the prophets' word had 
 fixed as the third day. This, in brief, is the thought 
 of Paul and the earliest Christians concerning the 
 resurrection. 
 
 1 W. R. Greg, The Creed of Christendom, 5th ed., 1877, In- 
 troduction, p. xxviii., keenly remarks that if we had only the testi- 
 mony of Paul, "our grounds for accepting the resurrection as a 
 historical fact in its naked simplicity would be far stronger than 
 they actually are. " It is the gospel stories which introduce 
 the doubts. Paul's statement is consistent and intelligible, but 
 "we cannot frame any theory whatever as to the resurrection 
 which is not distinctly negatived by one or other of the evangeli- 
 cal accounts. " {Ibid., p. xxix.) 
 
 So Brandt, p. 440, concludes that any understanding of the 
 origin of the disciples' faith in Jesus' resurrection must be based 
 on Paul's witness, not on the stories given by Matthew, Luke, 
 or John. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 HE APPEARED 
 
 " 00 we preached and so ye believed." Prominent 
 
 in this kerygma was the declaration: he ap- 
 peared to Cephas. ' ' He appeared ' ' (u?^) — surely that 
 is not the word which either a Greek or an Englishman 
 would normally use of one man in the body meeting 
 another man in the body. We never read that Jesus 
 "appeared" to any one before his death. Keim says, 
 "It is the same expression which Paul and the New 
 Testament generally use for visions which have nothing 
 else in common with the resurrection appearances 
 of Jesus," 1 to which Dr. Milligan strongly objects. 2 
 But though the form of Keim's statement is perhaps 
 not wholly accurate, yet the thing he means to say 
 is true, that dS<p0-»] is used in the New Testament for 
 "appearances" of super-earthly beings, either of God 
 or of the glorified Christ, and that these "appear- 
 ances," whether or not the word is used, are what we 
 usually call "visions. " 3 The only exception seems to 
 be Acts vii: 26, where the word is used of the sudden 
 and unexpected appearance of Moses before two 
 
 1 Keim, p. 540 (Eng. tr., p. 289). 
 1 Milligan, p. 265, note 38. 
 
 3 Cf. Karl G. Bretschneider, Lexicon in Libros N. T., 2d ed., 
 1829, vol. ii., p. 165. 
 
 41 
 
42 The Resurrection 
 
 quarrelling Israelites. Here the author plainly means 
 to suggest something unusual and mysterious, divinely 
 appointed, in this appearance of Moses. The pre- 
 ceding verse indicates that he is here the medium of 
 a divine power, and so bears something of the super- 
 natural about him, which his brethren ought to recog- 
 nise, though they fail to do so. A little later (vs. 30) 
 an angel "appears" to Moses, precisely as he "ap- 
 peared" to his quarrelling brethren. His slaying of 
 the Egyptian is justified by his divine commission, 
 and the impulse to visit his brethren that "came into 
 his heart" came there by the interposition of God. 
 Only this explains the sudden transformation of Moses 
 the wise and mighty prince at the Egyptian court 
 into Moses the defender and leader of the Hebrew 
 slaves. Further, the phraseology of the whole chap- 
 ter is influenced by the conception of Moses as the 
 prototype of Jesus the Messiah. wip0T] has therefore 
 here too something of its usual significance. At 
 any rate, aside from this single case, the word, as 
 Schmiedel points out, "always stands for another 
 kind of seeing than that of ordinary sense-perception." 1 
 The men of the first century were of course as 
 capable as we are of distinguishing between normal 
 seeing with the eye and this seeing in vision, this 
 beholding of supernatural objects in ecstasy, trance, 
 or dream. But of course they attributed reality to 
 what they "saw" in the one case as in the other. 
 So that nothing is gained by Beyschlag's insistence 
 that the faith of Paul and the disciples that Jesus 
 
 •Schmiedel, col. 4079. Cf. Thayer's Lexicon ad ipiw and 
 Holsten, pp. 36 f., 68 f. The LXX. uses &4>9i)<rav in the more 
 general sense I. Kings iii: 16, but cf. Is. xl: 5. 
 
He Appeared 43 
 
 was really risen could not have been based on "vi- 
 sions" of his glorified form. 1 This author really 
 argues that these men, when speaking of visions, were 
 convinced of the " Nichtrealitat " of what they seemed 
 to see, that they regarded the vision as a sort of 
 divinely- worked optical illusion, "a telegram from 
 heaven," in Keim's oft-quoted phrase, a "picture" 
 through which God wished to say something to them. 
 They did not think that there was really anything 
 there when the angel-form hovered before their 
 dreaming eyes, but only that God in this wise was 
 impressing his message on their minds. 
 
 So Beyschlag, but surely quite contrariwise Paul, 
 Mark, Matthew, or Luke. They were perfectly sure 
 that something was there, a reality, only of a some- 
 what different sort from those realities apprehended 
 by normal waking sight, a reality of the super-earthly 
 world. Such realities were conceived as material, 
 no doubt, in some exceedingly attenuated and refined 
 fashion 2 — the concept of pure spirit, without any 
 substantial embodiment, was probably impossible 
 then, as it is for most people to-day 3 — but they were 
 consciously apprehended with no necessary use of 
 the outer eye and ear. The case made most use of 
 by Beyschlag, that of Peter's release by the angel 
 (Acts xii) , clearly does not at all support his contention. 
 
 1 Beyschlag, pp. 461-470. 
 
 ' This reservation must be kept in mind throughout the fol- 
 lowing discussion. 
 
 ^ F. D. Maurice, Theological Essays, American Ed. (from the 
 2d English), 1854, p. 136, well says, "People talk of their friends 
 as disembodied. When they think of them, they are obliged to 
 suppose them clothed with bodies. " 
 
44 The Resurrection 
 
 Peter "wist not that it was true which was done by 
 the angel, but thought he saw a vision." Beyschlag 
 fails to say what this means, on the basis of his view 
 of what Peter (or "Luke") meant by vision. Did 
 Peter suppose that "what was done by the angel" 
 was but a " Nichtrealitat, " a picture? Then where 
 is his freeing? No, he is convinced that the process 
 is a reality; that he stands at liberty in the open is 
 sufficient proof of that. He only doubts whether 
 it took place in normal material fashion, — as it would, 
 for example, had the jailer come with his keys and 
 released him,- — he being awake, seeing with his eyes 
 the angel's doings, hearing with his ears the angel's 
 words, or whether he was still asleep (vs. 6) and all 
 had happened to him in an ecstasy, his bodily senses 
 inactive until he suddenly "comes to himself" (vs. 11) 
 in the dark and silent street. 
 
 And so nowhere does "vision" mean for the writers 
 or characters of the New Testament unreality or 
 pictorial appearance. Nor does it properly have 
 this meaning in our modern speech. Dr. Milligan 
 writes as if "vision" connoted "hallucination," an 
 error shared by many writers on the resurrection. 
 Most of the polemic against the "vision-hypothesis" 
 is due to this mistaken connotation. Even Keim's 
 suggestion of a vision wrought by direct divine inter- 
 vention, the "telegram from heaven" 1 very justly 
 does not escape this polemic, for this vision too is 
 but a providential hallucination. Jesus was not 
 really there at all, but far off in heaven, as the sender 
 of the telegram is not in the office where the message 
 
 1 Keim, pp. 602-606 (Eng. tr., pp. 360-365). 
 
He Appeared 45 
 
 is received and written down, but in the distant city, 
 so that we do not even get his handwriting or come 
 into any direct touch with him at all. We get the 
 message that he wished to send, but we do not get 
 himself. 
 
 Now this connotation of the word "vision" is 
 unjust. A vision is simply a phenomenon of sight, 
 and does not in the least imply necessary unreality 
 or illusion. Material corporeality is usually excluded 
 by the word, but a vision may be as real as a reflection 
 in a mirror or, indeed, as a corporeal figure. Let us 
 say a figure holding a basket of fruit appears before 
 us. At first it meets but the sight; hearing, smell, 
 taste, touch, do not apprehend it. Then it moves, it 
 shapes words with its lips. If these phenomena still 
 continue to be phenomena of sight merely, if no sound 
 comes, if the figure is not tangible to our grasp, if no 
 fragrance is borne to our nostrils from the fruit, and 
 our attempt to taste it is like biting empty air — then 
 the appearance is properly a "vision," a phenomenon 
 of sight only. But this decides nothing as to the 
 figure's reality; only further and different tests can do 
 that. A clever arrangement of mirrors, for example, 
 might project such an image into any given space, 
 which would be as truly there, as little a subjective 
 hallucination of the spectator, as the near-by table. 
 Other things being equal, of course, a phenomenon 
 apprehensible by only one sense is more likely to be 
 proven by further tests to be a hallucination than one 
 responding to three, four, or five. One responding to 
 five senses rarely demands a test, but is assumed in 
 general to be actual. Yet even here derangement 
 can produce hallucination, and actuality needs to be 
 
46 The Resurrection 
 
 tested by the consenting senses of others. In cases 
 where but one sense attests a phenomenon, there is 
 always need of further testing; but each case must be 
 tested on its own merits, and no phenomenon ought 
 hastily to be denied actuality because it is a "vision. « 
 
 Beyschlag begs the whole question when he sub- 
 stitutes for "actuality" in this connection the word 
 "Leibhaftigkeit," i.e., the actuality of a material 
 body. He would urge that there is hallucination 
 unless what is actually present is what the seer believes 
 to be present, namely, in the present instance, the 
 physical body of Jesus. But this is precisely the 
 point at issue; the assertion that the disciples believed 
 a material body to be before them cannot be offered 
 as a proof that they so believed, which is what we 
 are questioning. 
 
 As a matter of fact, what the disciples believed 
 themselves to see was Jesus himself, in actual presence; 
 it is quite arbitrary to say that this for them neces- 
 sarily meant his physical form, i.e., himself as respond- 
 ing to all their senses. Indeed, taking at their face 
 value the synoptic accounts, the constant element 
 is the real Jesus, who renders himself at one time 
 visible, at another audible, at another tangible, at 
 another all three, or any two, or becomes none of the 
 three. He puts on and off at will the medium which 
 makes him apprehensible by one or another sense; 
 he is not permanently apprehensible by any, yet he, 
 
 1 Dr. Milligan ought not to forget Acts xxvi: 19, where Paul 
 calls his conversion-appearance a "heavenly vision," or Luke 
 xxiv: 23, "a vision of angels which said that he was alive." On 
 this whole matter of "visions" and their conditions, cf. the excel- 
 lent treatment by Holsten, pp. 79-84. 
 
He Appeared 47 
 
 in his actual risen self, is permanently present. This 
 actual presence makes itself visible, assumes a con- 
 dition by which it may be apprehended by Peter or 
 Paul through one sense. It has nothing which can 
 respond to any other sense. Then it may proceed 
 to speak, i.e., it assumes the medium of response to 
 another sense. The vision does not speak, Jesus 
 speaks; i.e., he reveals himself through two channels 
 to his disciple. If he wills, he may in the same 
 fashion assume a third medium of response, and 
 become tangible. One does not touch the vision, 
 one touches him. Then he lays aside the tangibility; 
 one still sees him and hears his voice. Then he is 
 silent; the vision alone remains. Then that fades, 
 but he persists, as real as before. Nothing whatever 
 has happened to his actuality; he has only ceased to 
 make himself apprehensible by the normal senses. 
 That is the general conception which lies behind 
 the primitive accounts of the appearances of Jesus. 
 Of course it was not thought out in any such connected 
 fashion; we may not attribute psychological analysis 
 to these first-century Hebrews, but it is the concep- 
 tion which governed their thought. They could 
 perceive a phenomenon of sight, or a phenomenon 
 of hearing, or a phenomenon of both, without denying 
 actuality to that phenomenon because it failed to 
 include a response to the third sense, that of touch. 1 
 The denial of this fact has vitiated Beyschlag's whole 
 
 1 Of course in Mat. and Luke this conception is imperfectly 
 adjusted to (or confused with) another, namely that the buried 
 body was present. I speak here of Paul's testimony, and that 
 of the earliest witnesses, who must have agreed with him; "so 
 we preached. " 
 
48 The Resurrection 
 
 discussion here; clear recognition of it is absolutely 
 fundamental to our understanding of the earliest 
 record. * 
 
 In that earliest record we have testimony to "vi- 
 sions," phenomena of sight, "appearances" of Jesus, 
 alive and glorious, after he had died. That Paul 
 clearly says, and represents the Twelve as saying. 
 He nowhere indicates that there were any phenomena 
 of tangibility, or that such were claimed by other 
 recipients. It is a question whether there were in 
 some cases phenomena of hearing as well, i.e., spoken 
 and understood words. In some of Paul's ecstatic 
 experiences, there seem to have been appeals to hearing 
 as well as to sight (II. Cor. xii: 4, perhaps also xii: 9), 
 but this is not said to have been coincident with any 
 appearance of the risen Jesus, and indeed Paul is 
 uncertain whether on such an occasion impressions 
 were conveyed to him through the bodily senses at 
 all. His "revelations" (e.g., Gal. ii: 2; II. Cor. xii: 7) 
 perhaps imply audible phenomena, but there is no 
 indication in his own words that justifies the report 
 given in three- fold version by Acts (ix : 4-6, xxii : 7-10, 
 xxvi: 14-18) of the conversation between Paul and 
 Jesus "when it pleased God to reveal his son" to the 
 persecutor before the gates of Damascus. Such a 
 "revelation," as Schmiedel rightly points out, 2 could 
 
 1 Schwartzkopff, in The Monist, vol. xi. (Oct. 1900), pp. 
 18 f., strongly urges the above point of view. Cf. Schmiedel's 
 excellent treatment of the point, and his criticism of Beyschlag, 
 cols. 4079 f., section 34, d-e. 
 
 2 Col. 4063. Schmiedel persuasively argues against any audi- 
 ble phenomena in connection with the resurrection appearances. 
 The gospel utterances of the risen Jesus will be discussed later. 
 
He Appeared 49 
 
 hardly be passed over by Paul in his frequent defence 
 of his apostolate (especially in I. Cor. ix: i), and the 
 whole Acts-narrative here is plainly legendary in 
 its external detail. Without pronouncing an abso- 
 lute negative, therefore, we may say that there is no 
 clear indication in the primitive account of appeal 
 to any sense but that of sight. 
 
 The latter appeal, however, is asserted with the 
 greatest distinctness. What Paul does say is, "Have 
 I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (I. Cor. ix: i).* "He was 
 seen of Cephas" and all the rest; absolutely no other 
 verb is used by Paul of Jesus' post-resurrection mani- 
 festation save this repeated w<p8r] or ewpcaa. So 
 Luke (xxiv: 34) reproduces Paul's witness to the first 
 manifestation, in the phrase &<fQi\ Sffuovt. So the 
 earliest gospel tradition in Mark (xvi: 7) points the 
 disciples to Galilee with the promise "there shall 
 ye see him," Ixet atkbv 8(})£a6s. There is no pro- 
 mise that they shall converse with Jesus, or clasp 
 his hand; only a sight of him is assured. It may 
 of course be urged that o^eaOs does not exclude the 
 possibility of more direct intercourse with Jesus; 
 the fact remains that the verb which dominates the 
 primitive tradition as to Jesus' post-resurrection 
 manifestations is the verb see. The sense of sight at 
 any rate received the revelation; it remains to be 
 inquired whether the later witness of the gospels can 
 establish the fact that appeal was made also to hear- 
 ing and touch. If so, there is no indication of it in 
 our earliest witness, which at once establishes a grave 
 
 1 Cf. Holsten, p. 37. "Ebenso ist das perfect l&pam der 
 characteristische ausdruck da, wo von dem schauen eines 8pa/m 
 und einer iirraffta die rede ist. " 
 
50 The Resurrection 
 
 presumption against it, which only well-authenticated 
 testimony can remove. ' 
 
 As a matter of fact, the gospels witness to a develop- 
 ment of thought which was no longer satisfied with 
 the simple statement of those to whom Jesus had 
 manifested himself ; that no longer met the demand for 
 evidential force in the narrative. Luke reproduces 
 in two words the "appearance " to Peter, which on any 
 theory must have been the most important of the 
 earlier appearances, as it was the first, and spends 
 not another word upon it. Yet he describes in great 
 detail, in twenty-three verses, or nearly half his whole 
 resurrection-report, the appearance to the two dis- 
 ciples on the Emmaus-road, which, so far as recorded, 
 had no further result and is wholly unknown to all 
 the other accounts. It was simply that the mere 
 "seeing" of Jesus was no longer of interest, however 
 eminent the seer; one craved a picturesque episode 
 of conversations and activities of the risen Lord, of 
 the resumption of his relations to the physical environ- 
 ment. 2 He was seen, he spoke, he exhibited hands and 
 feet, flesh and bones, he broke bread, ate and drank 
 with the disciples — these are the successive stages, 
 logical and chronological, in the materialisation of the 
 reported manifestations of the Risen One. 
 
 So far, therefore, we have testimony to "visions" 
 
 1 Cf. also Acts xiii: 31, where what is said of the resurrection, 
 (the preacher is Paul), is simply, "God raised him from the dead, 
 and he was seen (&<t>8y) for many days of them that came up with 
 him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto 
 the people." That sentence, save perhaps the phrase, "for 
 many days," is just what the real Paul must often have said. 
 It is a perfect compend of his thought on the matter. 
 
 2 Cf. Schmiedel, col. 4069, sec. 236; Brandt, pp. 416 f. 
 
He Appeared 51 
 
 of Jesus after his death. No explanation of the 
 disciples' experience has received more polemic 
 treatment from apologetic writers than the "vision- 
 hypothesis." 1 The animus of all objections to this 
 hypothesis is of course the fact that, as commonly 
 understood, it removes all actuality from the appear- 
 ances. What actually existed was merely the visual 
 impression on the disciples' sensorium; outside of this, 
 nothing was there. There was no external reality 
 expressing itself in this visual impression, whose 
 origin, on the contrary, is wholly subjective, to be 
 sought in the psychic processes of the seer. A re- 
 action of the mind upon itself, then, not the action of 
 the veritably present Jesus upon the mind, is the sub- 
 stance of the phenomenon according to the "vision- 
 theory, " as commonly urged and understood. 
 
 Advocated by Strauss and Renan, it found its 
 classic expression in Holsten, 2 and is clearly set forth 
 for the present-day reader in Schmiedel's Biblica 
 article. One sentence from the closing passage of 
 that article may make clear why this theory is so 
 ardently opposed. "The error which it points out 
 
 « J. Kreyenbuhl, in Zeitschrift fur N. T. Wiss., 1908, p. 275, 
 says, "Die Visionshypothese ist der Bankerott der sogenannten 
 liberalen Theologie. " 
 
 ' Carl Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Petrus und Paulus, 1868. 
 An excellent presentation of the hypothesis as argued by Renan, 
 Noack, Ewald, Strauss, Lang, Hausrath, and Holsten, with 
 criticism, is given by Steude, pp. 35-96. 
 
 Among more recent scholars, the hypothesis is adopted by 
 Weizsacker, Pfleiderer, H. Holtzmann, Reville, Brandt, Wrede, 
 Arnold Meyer, Volter. Cf. O. Schmiedel, pp. 78 f. Other good 
 expressions of the same view are found in Clemen, pp. 197 ff. 
 and Supernatural Religion, pp. 877-901. 
 
52 The Resurrection 
 
 affects merely the husk — namely, that the risen Jesus 
 was seen in objective reality — not the kernel of the 
 matter, that Jesus lives in the spiritual sense. " It is 
 the almost universal contention of those for whom 
 these experiences have value that the objectively real 
 presence of Jesus with certain of his followers after 
 his death is not at all the husk of the matter, to be 
 lightly shed without real loss to faith. They may be 
 certain, on other more abstract grounds, as many of 
 the pre-Christian Greeks and Hebrews were certain, 
 of the immortality of the soul, that Jesus, in common 
 with every one else who has died, "lives in the spirit- 
 ual sense. " But they contend that the heart of the 
 experiences cited by Paul in I. Cor. xv: 1-8 is some- 
 thing else than this general truth, namely, the parti- 
 cular truth that Jesus, after his death, was objectively 
 present with certain of his followers and manifested 
 himself to one (or more) of their physical senses. 
 They believe that Moses, Elijah, and John Baptist, 
 with millions more, were "alive in the spiritual 
 sense" in the year 30 a.d. just as truly as was Jesus, 
 but that Jesus is here recorded as doing something 
 which none of these others did, namely, as coming 
 and showing himself to still living men. Any "vision- 
 theory" which postulates that, in reality, Jesus' 
 after-death existence differed in no way from that of 
 these others, that he did nothing which they did 
 not also do, naturally meets the vigorous denial of 
 these believers. The unique action on the part of 
 Jesus, which separates him from all the other dead, 
 is therefore for them the very kernel of the matter, 
 not its worthless husk. They cannot resolve the 
 origin of the belief in this unique action into certain 
 
He Appeared 53 
 
 entirely subjective processes which went on in the 
 disordered brains of a number of people in Palestine. 
 They point out that these very people already be- 
 lieved from childhood that Moses, Elijah, their own 
 ancestors, were "alive in the spiritual sense," and 
 would, of course, believe the same about Jesus; but 
 that now, by certain vivid experiences, they were 
 suddenly convinced of something entirely different 
 about him. They needed no "vision" to prove to 
 them the truth of immortality, nor did the "appear- 
 ances" have for them this value. 
 
 It is clear that there is very great measure of 
 justice in this contention. Professor Schmiedel does 
 somewhat miss the point of what Paul was asserting, 
 and what the opponents of the vision- theory assert 
 to-day. They will not, cannot, think of Jesus as 
 seated, with all the other dead, in some far-off heaven, 
 either ignorant of the abnormal processes which are 
 going on in the minds of Peter and Paul convincing 
 them of his presence, or if knowing, taking absolutely 
 no part in the production of these mental experiences 
 (which are, just for that reason, hallucinations), 
 powerless, indeed, to cause them, or to prevent them, 
 or to correct them. 
 
 It was just here that Professor Keim made halt, 
 and refused to go with the vision-hypothesis. It 
 seemed too heartless, too brutal, as well as too far 
 out of accord with what Christian faith must expect 
 of its Master. Keim, with this a priori opposition 
 to the theory of purely subjective visions, was able 
 also to offer certain cogent historical and psychological 
 arguments against it. Then by an act of Christian 
 faith, which was of course quite independent of 
 
54 The Resurrection 
 
 psychology or historical research, he postulated a 
 real participation of Jesus in the production of the 
 mental experiences of the disciples which they called 
 visions of him. Not, indeed, that Jesus actually 
 came down and manifested his objective presence to 
 the disciples, but that from heaven, by a sort of long- 
 distance communication, he brought about the 
 experience, and by it delivered his message. Hence 
 Keim's term for what took place is the graphic one, 
 "a telegram from heaven." 1 
 
 We have already seen the weak point in this sug- 
 gestion of Keim's faith, why it too receives a share of 
 the polemic levelled against the vision-theory. 2 It 
 is, in a word, that Jesus sends a telegram and does 
 not himself come. Incontestably, Paul and Peter 
 believed that Jesus was himself there; the message 
 sent, therefore, was not wholly true. What Jesus 
 ought to have telegraphed, according to Keim's view, 
 is this, "Be of good cheer; I am alive in Heaven." 
 The message actually received, according to the unani- 
 mous testimony of the recipients, was this, "I am 
 myself here with you, in actual presence." "Have I 
 not seen Jesus our Lord?" cries out Paul, passion- 
 ately. "No," replies Keim, "you have received a 
 telegram from him." 3 
 
 In short, with all our desire to penetrate by the 
 
 1 Keim, pp. 601-606 (Eng. tr., pp. 360-365). Substantially 
 the same view in J. Weiss, Die Nachfolge Christi, 1895, p. 59, 
 and Korff, pp. 236-245. 
 
 2 Supra, p. 44. 
 
 » For a similar criticism of Keim cf. A. B. Bruce, Apologetics, 
 ^9 2 < P- 393- An excellent presentation and criticism of Keim's 
 view is given by Steude, pp. 96-1 12. 
 
He Appeared 55 
 
 process of critical investigation into the reality behind 
 the experiences we are discussing, we must be care- 
 ful not to substitute something else for the concrete 
 thing which these experiences attested to their 
 recipients. It was not the fact of immortality, it was 
 not the fact that Jesus was above in the heavenly 
 life ; it was the fact that Jesus came to certain men and 
 showed himself. The other two facts are of course 
 presupposed as the condition of this fact, but they do 
 not form the central significance of the experience. 
 We may, with Holsten and Schmiedel, decide that 
 the reality we seek was a series of subjective visions, 
 psychologically conditioned. We may, with Keim, 
 find it in subjective visions brought about by the 
 direct action of Jesus, or of God, from heaven. Only 
 let us clearly recognise that in either case we are 
 deciding that a hallucination took place, that the 
 men to whom the visions came were deceived as to 
 their real significance. 
 
 Now I do not wish to argue either for or against 
 the vision-hypothesis, or the telegram-hypothesis. 
 The arguments for the former are easily accessible 
 in Holsten's book and Schmiedel's article, are well 
 summed up indeed by Keim, who does full justice to 
 the view he would correct. * The counter-arguments 
 may be read in Beyschlag's Leben Jesu and a host of 
 apologetic works. 2 One thing is clear; if the experi- 
 
 1 The noblest expression of the vision-hypothesis is to be found 
 in Martineau, pp. 358-377. 
 
 ' Beyschlag, pp. 450-470. Further, John Kennedy, The 
 Resurrection of Jesus Christ an Historical Fact, Revised Ed., 
 1895; James Marchant, Theories of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
 1899; Or, chap. viii. 
 
56 The Resurrection 
 
 ences of Peter and the others were really subjective 
 hallucinations, psychological phenomena, pure and 
 simple, then their study and investigation must be 
 the task of a trained psychologist. So far as they are 
 of direct importance, it is to his field. There is no 
 reason why the New Testament scholar, whose field 
 is that of literary and historical investigation, should 
 assume the ability to investigate these psychic phe- 
 nomena, just because they are reported in the Bible, 
 when similar phenomena in modern times demand the 
 keenest processes of the most highly trained psycho- 
 logical expert. Nor is there any reason why the New 
 Testament scholar should feel any further duty in 
 the matter after he has demonstrated, as he believes, 
 that the phenomena belong entirely to the realm of 
 mental processes, normal or abnormal. At that 
 point his task is done, and he hands over the pheno- 
 mena to the expert in the field of mind-action. No 
 one can justly criticise him for going no further. 
 To be sure, many upholders of the vision-theory, 
 notably Holsten and Pfleiderer, 1 have combined the 
 
 1 Holsten, pp. 84-m, and (for the case of Peter) pp. 210-234; 
 pp. 211-216 analyse Peter's mental constitution, pp. 216-234 
 deal with the external influences upon his mind. O. Pfleiderer, 
 Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity, 
 Hibbert Lectures, 1885, pp. 31-44; Urchristentum, pp. 60-67. 
 Further, P. C. Baur, Paulus, 1845, pp. 651 ff.; R. W. Macan, 
 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1877, ch. ii.; Clemen, pp. 
 207-210; Schmiedel, cols. 4081-2 and 4084-5. Brandt's 
 picture, pp. 496-505, is somewhat too complex and artificial. 
 Arnold^ Meyer, pp. 272-315, offers an interesting and valuable 
 discussion of the psychological conditions of the visions, 
 which Korff (pp. 160-184) subjects to a searching criticism, in 
 part very just. Korff 's point (pp. 184-186) that the visions 
 
He Appeared 57 
 
 tasks of the historian and the psychologist, and have 
 attempted to trace, especially in the case of the apostle 
 Paul, the psychological antecedents of the vision. 
 It is not for the non-expert to decide as to the measure 
 of their success, but it must be noted that their 
 psychological construction and the deductions from 
 it have met with the keenest criticism — again from 
 the theologians and New Testament scholars. One 
 would be grateful for a thoroughgoing criticism of 
 Holsten's work, for example, from an expert psycho- 
 logist. Lacking that, the layman is constrained to 
 feel that if the visions of Jesus which Paul lists were 
 subjective creations of the recipients' minds, their 
 genesis is clearly to be sought in the fashion indicated 
 by Holsten and Pfleiderer. 
 
 Certain arguments, at any rate, urged against 
 the vision-theory, are trivial. Thus it is not true 
 that were the appearances subjective visions, they 
 would necessarily have occurred with much greater 
 frequency and have been prolonged over a much 
 longer period. 1 As a matter of fact, we do not know 
 to just how many people Jesus "appeared," nor at 
 just what intervals, and the limit of such appearances 
 has not yet been reached. So soon as our horizon 
 becomes wider than the New Testament, we come 
 
 were not merely ecstatic, but were projected into the setting of 
 real life, deserves especial notice. If Meyer's psychological 
 explanation of the visions is inadequate (Korff, pp. 193-195). it 
 is only because any explanation of psychic experiences of others, 
 between whom and ourselves lie nineteen centuries, bridged by 
 only brief testimony, must of necessity be inadequate. 
 
 1 This is urged, among many others, by Beyschlag, p. 460; 
 Keim, pp. 597 f. (Eng. tr., pp. 355 f.); Orr, p. 223; Korff, pp. 206 f. 
 
58 The Resurrection 
 
 upon a long list of devout men and women who, 
 according to their own testimony — as Peter and Paul, 
 according to theirs — have been granted visions of 
 Jesus. 1 These cases of course need critical investi- 
 gation, but to say a priori that all those outside the 
 New Testament are delusions, or that the appearances 
 after the year 35 a.d. (Paul's conversion) have been 
 of a totally different sort from those before that date 
 is to beg the question in the most unscientific and 
 arbitrary fashion. There is more modesty than 
 absolute chronology in Paul's "last of all to me." 
 But further, there is no psychological authority for 
 the statement of the theologians, that "subjective 
 visions" must necessarily continue to propagate them- 
 selves for an extended period. A series of such 
 experiences might as conceivably close with the fifth 
 or tenth repetition as with the hundredth, after a 
 period of days as after several months or years. As a 
 matter of fact, the history of such phenomena tends 
 to show that they most commonly die out in a brief 
 time, as seems, indeed, antecedently probable. At 
 any rate, there is not yet sufficient evidence to exclude 
 phenomena from the class of "subjective visions" 
 because they recur less than a given number of times. 
 We must also dispute the cogency of the statement 
 commonly heard, that the results of these visions 
 prove their veridical character. 2 This is plainly 
 illegitimate reasoning, or rather, the substitution of 
 sentiment for reasoning. It can have no absolute 
 
 1 Cf. the excellent summary of many such cases in Arnold 
 Meyer, pp. 217-272. 
 
 2 E.g., Orr, p. 206. Cf. C. G. Montefiore: The Synoptic Gospels, 
 
 vol. ;., 1909, p. 385. 
 
He Appeared 59 
 
 validity; it demands the antecedent conviction that 
 the beliefs, customs, and institutions held to be the 
 resultants of these visions are right and beneficent. 
 Clearly for the millions outside the Christian system, 
 or to those who regard its historical doctrines as error 
 and its historical activity as largely pernicious, this 
 argument could have no weight. We may most 
 energetically differ from the judgments of such men, 
 but we have no right to offer to them, as proofs of 
 something they ought to accept, considerations not 
 valid until they have accepted it. I 
 
 But further, the principle of arguing from the 
 beneficence of any institution to the correctness of 
 the ideas held by the founders of that institution 
 needs only to be stated to be condemned. An in- 
 stitution like the Christian church, with all its faiths 
 and forms and activities, is the resultant of an infinite 
 number of influences, exerted during all the years of 
 its history, influences which in turn grew out of an 
 infinitely great and complex series of concepts and 
 ideas. Some of these remain valid for the twentieth 
 century; most of them do not. But the conceptions 
 we now label error have not been the least effective 
 in shaping the moral and intellectual world in which 
 we are glad and proud to live. A correct presentation 
 of the demonology, anthropology and theology of 
 the characters of the New Testament would without 
 doubt be rejected in toto by any orthodox Christian 
 of the present day, yet these conceptions were the 
 
 1 It is imperatively necessary that Christian theologians 
 should learn to write with a larger reading public in mind than the 
 membership of the Christian church. Until they do so, their 
 books cannot even approach absolute validity. 
 
60 The Resurrection 
 
 conditions for the spread of the Christian religion. 
 Out of the religion of these men grew ours, not out of 
 their cult, still less out of the ideas by which they tried 
 to adjust that religion to their environment and daily 
 experience. The Kingdom of God is the eternal 
 ideal of man, though the dualism which gave to the 
 concept its original name and shape be as forgotten 
 as Rahab and Behemoth. 
 
 The Christian church is dependent on the disciples' 
 faith, but not on the accuracy of that faith. In all 
 history, man's faith has been the great shaping force 
 of human institutions, but its effectiveness has never 
 been conditioned on its conformity to some abstract 
 standard of "truth. " Even if we pay no heed to that 
 modern philosophic voice which declares that there 
 is no such abstract standard, that an idea's truth is 
 its effectiveness, and nothing beside, we must yet 
 realise that very few of human conceptions have yet 
 been submitted to a standard so absolute that the 
 judgment of the future may not revise our own. 
 Specifically, the faith of Peter and Paul being what it 
 was, the results would be what they were and are, 
 quite irrespective of the correctness of that faith. 
 
 Finally, it is important also that we make clear 
 to ourselves what is involved in the acceptance of a 
 theory like Keim's — subjective visions generated not 
 by the active presence, but by the distant activity 
 of the risen Jesus. As Keim clearly says, this is 
 purely an act of faith. It is not reached by any 
 process of historic investigation; there can be for it 
 no external proof. The soul believes it, or fails to 
 believe it; the historian can be of no help, nor has 
 he any right of question. So far as concerns what 
 
He Appeared 61 
 
 actually took place, within the physical world, we 
 have still the subjective vision of the other theory, 
 whose further investigation we must leave to the 
 psychologist. 
 
 The common arguments against the vision-hypothe- 
 sis, then, lack cogency. As a matter of fact, argu- 
 mentation here is commonly misdirected. There 
 needs no argument for the vision-hypothesis. Paul 
 and the Twelve admit that they had visions. What 
 the upholder of the hypothesis must do is to show why 
 the view of the recipients that the visions were veri- 
 dical is untenable. All his arguments for the vision 
 may be admitted by Peter, who yet declares, "But 
 the vision had its objective counterpart and cause in 
 the real presence of Jesus." How does Holsten know 
 this is not true? What we need is a valid consideration, 
 not for the vision, but against its veridical interpre- 
 tation. Have the champions of the vision-hypothesis 
 given it to us? So far as I can see, they have not. 
 Nor can they easily do so, on any historical or scienti- 
 fic grounds. The real argument, as it lies in their 
 minds, is that their Weltanschauung does not admit 
 of such phenomena as "veridical appearances of the 
 dead." It is an act of faith which denies the reality 
 behind the visions ; it was an act of faith in Paul and 
 the disciples which affirmed it. What they knew was 
 the vision; what they believed was the very presence 
 of the living Lord. 
 
 The view of Holsten conceives the vision as the 
 final reality of the experience, the view of Keim con- 
 ceives the action of Jesus as that final reality, the 
 view of Paul conceives the reality to be the actual 
 presence of the one who is seen. We have just 
 
62 The Resurrection 
 
 been seeing that in the nature of the case little or 
 nothing can be urged against this view, except its 
 non-agreement with our view of the world. On the 
 other hand, very little argument can be used for this 
 view; its acceptance was originally, perhaps must 
 always be, an act of faith. If little argument can be 
 offered, it is also true that little is needed. The 
 veridical interpretation has the great advantage 
 that it is the natural explanation, which would at once 
 be accepted by every one, unless good grounds could 
 be urged against it. We see a friend ; the immediate, 
 inevitable assumption is that the friend is there. 
 Only if we have strong reason for believing that the 
 friend is elsewhere do we question the reality of our 
 impression. So in the present instance, the absolute 
 conviction of Peter and the other recipients of the 
 "visions" that their departed Master was there, re- 
 vealing his actual presence through the avenue of the 
 sense of sight, needs no defence. They could not avoid 
 it. If it be questioned, the entire burden of proof is 
 on the questioner. It must be that he has some valid 
 reason for believing that Jesus was not there. What 
 is that reason, and who has put it clearly and con- 
 vincingly? Is it enough to say: Jesus was dead, 
 therefore he could not be there? Until this is proved 
 enough, the natural interpretation of Peter has no 
 call to defend itself by any argument. So much we 
 ought to concede. 
 
 At the same time we must recognise that our 
 Weltanschauung must be for all of us a valid ground 
 for disbelief in many things which ancient testimony 
 urges upon our credence. On this ground we reject 
 the phoenix and the conversion of water into wine at 
 
He Appeared 63 
 
 Cana. For most of these things argumentation either 
 for or against is puerile or futile. They are, it need 
 scarcely be said, neither believed nor denied on 
 genuine evidence. It is, to be sure, wholly illegiti- 
 mate to believe statements of historical fact, save on 
 grounds of historical evidence. Yet no one who 
 knows the meaning of words can claim that he has 
 real evidence sufficient to prove that Jesus turned 
 water into wine, while, on the other hand, the man who 
 denies the historicity of this marvel may well be quite 
 helpless when asked: How do you know it did not 
 happen? What evidence have you against it, when 
 the only existing account of the circumstances is 
 for the miracle? 
 
 As to the real presence of Jesus behind the "appear- 
 ances" of him, then, the question at issue is finally 
 this : Are we to have a view of the world which allows 
 of such real presence, capable of self-manifestation 
 to one (or more?) physical senses of living men? 
 Paul's world- view allowed that. Shall ours? 
 
 To Paul's experience we can no longer apply any 
 test. But if it were simply a question of this one iso- 
 lated appearance in all history, if of Jesus alone had 
 men claimed that to them was manifested his real 
 presence after death, we might have little hesitation 
 in adopting a world- view which excludes this apparent 
 exception to otherwise universal experience. We 
 might properly decide that the interpretation of these 
 phenomena by those who experienced them was 
 mistaken, that they were, one and all, victims of a 
 "hallucination." Perhaps it is too early to shape 
 our world- view at this point, but we cannot shut 
 our eyes to the fact that the case of Jesus does not 
 
64 The Resurrection 
 
 stand alone. To the witness of Paul is being added 
 similar testimony, as perfectly authenticated, from 
 all times and lands, of parallel phenomena. We must 
 avoid all dogmatism, but in view of the increasing 
 body of witness accumulated by modern scientific 
 psychic research, we need just now to guard ourselves 
 especially against the dogmatic assertion that Paul's 
 interpretation of his own experience was necessarily 
 mistaken. 
 
 The question is a simple one. It is not : was Jesus 
 still alive, a sentient spirit in a new environment? 
 Of that we are as assured as was Paul, if the Christian 
 faith is ours. It is not: did Paul and others have 
 "appearances" which they identified with the local 
 presence of this living and glorified spirit? Of that 
 we may be as sure as of any statement of ancient 
 history. It is simply: do these two things connect? 
 Was the "appearance" actually a manifestation of 
 the departed spirit? 
 
 It is precisely the same question to whose answering 
 the Society for Psychic Research hopes to make a 
 contribution by its collecting and sifting of data. 
 Granted that we cannot yet with confidence answer 
 it in the affirmative, we must surely be even less con- 
 fident with a negative response. Professor Lake 1 
 makes a tentative but wholly correct statement of 
 the case. "Criticism and philosophy ... do not 
 at all impugn the fact of appearances. And at this 
 point the psychologist comes into the discussion, and 
 says that such appearances are not isolated pheno- 
 mena ; but he is not yet quite ready to say what expla- 
 
 1 P P- 275 f- Cf. also J. O. F. Murray, in Cambridge Theological 
 Essays, 1905, p. 340. 
 
He Appeared 65 
 
 nation he wishes to give of them; perhaps they are 
 proofs that personality survives death in a form which 
 does not exclude the possibility of communications; 
 perhaps they are proofs of as yet unfathomed pos- 
 sibilities of the influence of living personality and of 
 unconscious thought which suddenly reaches the plane 
 of consciousness, and manifests itself there in the form 
 of 'appearances' or 'messages.' So we seem to see 
 the possibility that the discussion of the Resurrection 
 will in the future enter on a new phase; but it is 
 impossible here to attempt to forestall what this new 
 period may bring." 
 
 It is possible to speak more certainly than this. If 
 the future generations are to believe in the veridical 
 reality of the appearances of Jesus at all, they must 
 do so only by considering that these appearances are 
 not unique, exceptions to otherwise universal human 
 experience. They must believe that Jesus appeared 
 just because these alleged appearances are not unique, 
 but fit in with a succession of similar phenomena 
 sufficiently extensive and well-authenticated to 
 compel assent. 
 
 "Our ever-growing recognition of the continuity, 
 the uniformity, of cosmic law has gradually made of 
 the alleged uniqueness of any incident its almost 
 inevitable refutation." 1 These words of Mr. Myers 
 contain the sufficient criticism of most of the apolo- 
 getic treatment of Jesus' resurrection. His further 
 words compel quotation. "Ever more clearly must 
 our age of science realise that any relation between a 
 material and a spiritual world cannot be an ethical or 
 
 1 F. W. H. Myers, Human Personality and its Survival o) 
 Bodily Death, 1903, vol. ii., p. 288. 
 5 
 
66 The Resurrection 
 
 an emotional relation alone; that it must needs be a 
 great structural fact of the Universe, involving laws 
 at least as persistent, as identical from age to age, 
 as our known laws of Energy or of Motion. And 
 especially as to that central claim, of the soul's life 
 manifested after the body's death, it is plain that this 
 can less and less be supported by remote tradition 
 alone ; that it must more and more be tested by modern 
 experience and inquiry. Suppose, for instance, that 
 we collect many such histories, recorded on first- 
 hand evidence in our critical age; and suppose 
 that all these narratives break down on analysis; 
 that they can all be traced to hallucination, mis- 
 description, and other persistent sources of error; 
 — can we then expect reasonable men to believe 
 that this marvellous phenomenon, always vanish- 
 ing into nothingness when closely scrutinised in a 
 modern English scene, must yet compel adoring 
 credence when alleged to have occurred in an 
 Oriental country, and in a remote and superstitious 
 age?" 
 
 Here is a plea that compels our assent. On the 
 one hand, it can no longer be considered a scientific 
 procedure to dismiss the appearances of Jesus as 
 subjective hallucinations, without consideration of 
 the evidence for similar phenomena which is in 
 increasing fulness being put at our disposal. On 
 the other, it is even more clearly folly to accept 
 without question the accuracy of the scanty records 
 of the appearances of Jesus nineteen centuries ago, 
 together with the accuracy of their recipients' inter- 
 pretation of them, while rejecting or ignoring the large 
 body of carefully sifted and authenticated evidence 
 
He Appeared 67 
 
 for the same phenomena in the case of others. * Most 
 unscientific and arbitrary is that complete begging of 
 the question which asserts a priori the entire dis- 
 similarity of these parallels to the case of Jesus, and 
 therefore their entire irrelevance. Those who urge 
 this objection seem to demand an exact duplication 
 of the case of Jesus, including all its dogmatic and 
 historic results, a demand palpably absurd. "No 
 single example can be produced of belief in the resur- 
 rection of an historical personage such as Jesus was: 
 none at least on which anything was ever founded. 
 . . . The Christian resurrection is thus a fact without 
 historical analogy. ... It is not necessary here to 
 investigate the degree of truth which belongs to the 
 class of phenomena with which psychical research 
 deals, . . . what it is necessary to insist upon is that 
 nothing of the kind answers to the proper Scriptural 
 idea of Resurrection, and that it is a mistake, involv- 
 ing a real yielding up of the Christian basis, to rest 
 the proof of Christ's rising from the dead in any 
 degree on data so elusive, precarious and in this 
 connexion, so misleading, as those to which attention 
 is here directed." 2 In these words of Dr. Orr speaks 
 
 1 That evidence is most conveniently presented in Mr. Myers's 
 work, already quoted. The most complete source is probably 
 the Proceedings of the Society for Psychic Research. Very 
 valuable, also, is the list of visions (with sources) given by Arnold 
 Meyer, pp. 217-272. 
 
 ' Orr, pp. 224, 228 f. Cf. Korff, p. 187, and W. D. Mackenzie 
 in American Journal of Theology, Oct., 1908, p. 580. "The pa- 
 thetic hunger of the Society of Psychical Research for some in- 
 dubitable proof that some private individual has appeared to 
 his friends must ever, for the Christian man, seem something like 
 a mockery, in view of the Resurrection of Christ, the Son of Man. ' 
 
68 The Resurrection 
 
 the dogmatist, not the historian. The dissimilarity 
 between the case of Jesus and those of others lies 
 for this writer in the fact that Jesus' appearances 
 were believed to be, and actually were, the appearances 
 of his reanimated physical body, while the others are 
 not commonly understood as having such relation 
 to the buried body. Even if this understanding were 
 wholly true, the physical character of Jesus' resurrec- 
 tion appearances is precisely the matter in dispute. 
 Prove that, and of course all discussion would be at 
 an end. 
 
 So far, at any rate, we have found nothing in the 
 apostolic testimony which hints at such an interpre- 
 tation. Of Jesus Paul declares, "he died ... he 
 was buried ... he appeared." So much has been 
 claimed for hundreds more, on as good evidence as 
 Paul affords us. Where is the difference, save in 
 the dogmatic presuppositions and conclusions drawn 
 by Christians in various generations, from the ap- 
 pearances of Jesus? That precisely similar interpre- 
 tations have not been drawn from other appearances 
 has surely no bearing against the essential identity 
 of the phenomena interpreted. 1 
 
 From the standpoint of the scientific study of 
 history, therefore, there is nothing to forbid our 
 acceptance as a statement of literal accuracy Paul's 
 testimony : he died, was buried ; he was seen by Cephas, 
 by the Twelve, by more than five hundred brethren, 
 by James, by all the apostles, by Paul himself. It 
 
 'An anonymous book, Resurrectio Christi, London, 1909, 
 attempts to make a contribution to the study of Jesus' resur- 
 rection from the standpoint of psychic research. The attempt 
 cannot be regarded as successful. 
 
He Appeared 69 
 
 may be that philosophical or psychological considera- 
 tions will forbid one or another student to posit any 
 objective reality behind the appearances; the pheno- 
 menal reality of the appearances themselves is 
 beyond historical question. 1 
 
 1 Cf. J. Wendland, Der Wunderglaube im Christentum, 1910, 
 pp. 112 f. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 HOW ARE THE DEAD RAISED? 
 
 "TIE appeared to Cephas," then, and in turn to 
 11 the Twelve, to more than five hundred dis- 
 ciples at once, most of whom were still living when 
 Paul wrote, to James (without doubt Jesus' brother 
 is meant) , I to all the apostles, and last of all to Paul 
 himself. That Jesus was risen and had attested his 
 resurrection by these appearances, that is the preach- 
 ing of Paul and the earliest apostles alike. The sense 
 of this declaration seems clear. There is no indication 
 that these things were ever questioned by any 
 Christian. 
 
 But in Corinth there is skepticism as to a further 
 claim of the kerygma. "How say some among you 
 that there is no resurrection of the dead?" or, more 
 literally, "that there is not a rising of dead ones?" 
 Christ has been raised out from among the company 
 of dead persons (kx vexpwv), there is therefore a rising 
 of dead persons (ve*puv without article or preposition). 
 There follows in vss. 12 to 19 a convincing argument 
 against the skeptics, convincing because they admit 
 the resurrection of Jesus. Of one who was dead there 
 has been a resurrection; therefore the possibility is 
 
 ^o most. F. L. Steinmeyer, Die Auferstehungsgeschichte its 
 Herm u. s. w., 1871, p. 167, thinks of James Zebedaei. 
 
 70 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 71 
 
 established for others, the universal negative is 
 broken. 
 
 But Paul goes further; it is not merely a possibility 
 for others, the one case gives the promise and the 
 potency of resurrection for all who are Christ's. But 
 as it is indeed (vuvl Se), Messiah has been raised out 
 from among the dead as a first-fruits of those who 
 have fallen asleep. Messiah is the first-fruits; i.e., what 
 has happened to him is precisely what is to happen 
 to all believers, only it has happened to him first. 
 That is the only point of difference; in his case the 
 resurrection came in three days after death, for others 
 it is a matter of months or years. But the resurrec- 
 tion in each case is exactly the same thing. An 
 interesting contribution to Paul's idea of Jesus' 
 resurrection might therefore be made from a collation 
 of all that he says about the resurrection he expects 
 for others. The phrase in Col. i: 18, "the first-born 
 from the dead," though perhaps not from Paul's 
 pen, is a perfect expression of his thought. 1 Only 
 in his priority has Jesus a pre-eminence over the 
 rest of "those who have fallen asleep." The latter 
 phrase (tuv xexoi^^evwv, vs. 20) takes up the 
 ot xot^T)8svTS^ Iv XP ttn V of vs. 18, and (as in I. Thess. 
 iv: 13 ff. and commonly in the N. T.) has in mind the 
 Christian dead, those who are to rise into the glorified 
 life of the kingdom. Paul would have used a less 
 tender word for the unbelieving dead. 2 
 
 1 Cf. also Acts xxvi: 23, "he first," etc. For discussion of other 
 Pauline utterances concerning the resurrection, cf. infra, Ch. IV. 
 
 2 Teichmann, pp. 26 f., on the basis of I. Cor. xi: 30 and I. 
 Thess. iv: 13, thinks that the period of sleep can be at best "kein 
 angenehmer, " indeed, that it is positively painful. This is 
 
72 The Resurrection 
 
 In fact, the resurrection in mind in the discussion of 
 this whole chapter is the rising of the righteous; the 
 "all" of vs. 22 is explained in vs. 23 as " they that are 
 Christ's," and vs. 22 itself may easily be translated, 
 "For as all (who are) in Adam die, so also all (who 
 are) in Christ shall be made alive." 1 Verse 18 also 
 has no meaning except as those who have "fallen 
 asleep in Christ" have, in contrast to all others, hope 
 of resurrection. Those who rise to the spiritual 
 body, in glory and power, who are to bear the image 
 of the heavenly, are by hypothesis the Christian 
 dead, the "dead who shall rise incorruptible" of vs. 
 52. There is here no explanation of the fate of the 
 evil and unbelieving; Paul is thinking only of the 
 promise for the just. 
 
 Resurrection is a thing to be attained (Phil, iii: 11); 
 it can be attained only by the true Christian, and may 
 be missed if one is unfaithful. Even Paul might 
 miss it, and be rejected; it is a prize, a reward for 
 faithful striving. Compare I. Cor. xv: 24-27 with 
 Phil, iii: 10-14. Indeed, since Paul's definition of 
 resurrection, as here used, is the assumption of the 
 spiritual body, a process mediated only through 
 relationship to Messiah, it is axiomatic that only 
 
 quite foreign to Paul's intention in using the word. Teichmann 
 is more correct in calling the KoifiaaBat, a few sentences farther 
 on, "die moglichst milde Vorstellung." So Thackeray, p. 108, 
 note, is misleading when he draws from I. Cor. xi : 30 that the 
 "sleep" may be "spoken of as a punishment." 
 
 1 So Charles, p. 391. Charles's following pages demonstrate 
 clearly Paul's limitation of resurrection to the righteous. . So also 
 Richard Kabisch, Die Eschatologie des Paulus, 1893, pp. 267 ff., 
 and many others. Acts xxiv: 15 is only one of many passages in 
 which Pseudo-Luke misconceives Paul. 
 
How Are the Dead Raised ? 73 
 
 Christians are raised. "There can be no resurrection 
 but in Christ" (Charles). This is the clear teaching 
 also of Paul's words in I. Thess. iv: 13-18. In this 
 passage there is no allusion whatever to any but 
 Christians, except the reference in vs. 13 to "the 
 rest," who are distinctly declared to have no hope 
 (of resurrection). They "that are fallen asleep in 
 Jesus " are those who shall rise like Jesus ; "the dead in 
 Christ shall rise," and they who are alive in Christ shall 
 join them. For any others there is no resurrection. 
 
 This conception of resurrection as a prize attained 
 only by the righteous is one of many elements which 
 justify Paul's proud boast of being "a Hebrew of 
 Hebrews, as touching the law, a Pharisee" (Phil, 
 iii: 5). 1 For it was the dogma of the Pharisees, in 
 distinction from certain of the apocalyptic represen- 
 tations, that only the righteous were to share in the 
 resurrection. So at least Josephus distinctly tells 
 us. 2 This view is prominent in the Pharisaic "Psalms 
 of Solomon," and is found even in some of the 
 apocalyptists. 3 
 
 Much as Jesus dissented from the Pharisaic spirit, 
 he seems clearly to have shared this view of theirs 
 as to resurrection. They who rise from the dead are 
 like angels in heaven, living unto God (Mk. xii : 24-27). 
 The seven husbands of the one wife in the Sadducees' 
 story are all pious Israelites, strictly obedient to the 
 
 1 So Acts xxiii : 6-9 makes Paul agree with the Pharisees as to 
 the resurrection. 
 
 'Ant., xviii., 14; Bell. Jud., ii., 163. C/. Bousset, pp. 312 f. 
 Volz, p. 242. 
 
 3 Volz, pp. 240-243; Haller, p. 278, and the quotation from 
 Bereschith Rabba on his p. 282. 
 
74 The Resurrection 
 
 law. Luke's phrasing (xx : 35 f .) of Jesus' words only 
 emphasises this aspect. "They that are accounted 
 worthy to attain to . . . the resurrection from 
 the dead ... are equal to the angels, and are sons 
 of God, being sons of the resurrection." This is not 
 a picture of the future of any but the righteous. 1 
 The judgment of the wicked (as in the great picture 
 Mat. xxv: 31 ff.) does not imply, but rather denies, 
 their resurrection. Devils, fallen angels, Satan him- 
 self, are judged, but do not rise. 2 
 
 This limitation of resurrection to the righteous is 
 found elsewhere in the New Testament, as Professor 
 Charles shows. It is always found where resurrection 
 means what Paul means by it. Where it means merely 
 presentation for judgment, it is an idea with which 
 we are not here concerned. 3 For the Christian the 
 judgment is past, and the resurrection itself already 
 
 1 Charles, pp. 340-342. Charles strangely urges that Luke, 
 as shown by the words "all live unto him," in xx: 38, contrary 
 to Jesus, Mat., and Mark, believes in the resurrection of the 
 wicked also. Cf. Lk. xiv: 14, "resurrection of the just." 
 
 1 Charles, p. 343. So such sayings as Mat. xi: 22 and 24, 
 xii: 41 f. do not imply resurrection for any but the just. 
 
 3 This is correctly put by Arthur Titius, Der Paulinismus unter 
 dent Gesichtspunkt der Seligkeit, 1900, pp. 51 f. Cf. further 
 F. Weber, Jiidische Theologie, 2te Auflage, 1897, pp. 390 f. "Die 
 Auferstehung der Todten ist also nach der Judischen Theologie 
 ein Vorrecht derer, die am Reiche Gottes Anteil haben sollen. 
 . . . Wer keinen ktinftigen Lohn hat, wird auch an der Aufer- 
 stehung nicht Teil haben." Alongside this view was taught 
 that the wicked shall be judged at the last day. John v: 29, like 
 so much of the teaching of the Fourth Gospel, is a non- Jewish 
 utterance. The Didache (xvi: 7) distinctly shares the Jewish, 
 Pauline view. "The resurrection of the dead, not, however, of 
 all, but . . . all the saints." Thackeray, pp. 120-122, argues 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 75 
 
 mystically experienced in the baptismal act of entrance 
 into the Christian community. 
 
 It may be noted that in the chapter under discus- 
 sion Paul uses vexpof (dead persons) nine times and 
 oi vsxpof {the dead) only four times. This proportion 
 is due to the fact that his mind is thus occupied with 
 certain ones, namely, "the saints," who are dead, 
 rather than with "the dead" as a whole. As death 
 came upon men in the person of Adam, so their 
 making alive comes in the person of the Messiah, 
 each of these two being the prototype in whom the 
 common experience is first realised, as well as the one 
 through whose act the common experience comes to 
 humanity. Adam is the first-fruits of sinning man, 
 the Messiah of man raised to life in the spiritual 
 body. That Christians are baptised in behalf of 
 departed friends, a practice familiar to the Corin- 
 thians, if not to us moderns; nay, that Paul himself 
 risks his life daily in his work as a proclaimer of the 
 gospel, posit the resurrection, and find their only 
 
 that Paul believes in resurrection of evil as well as of good, on 
 the basis of the ir&vres of I. Cor. xv: 22 and the phrase "each in 
 his own order. " The rising of Jesus cannot be styled a rdy/ia, 
 therefore the "each" must be justified by a second r&yim (the 
 righteous being the first), which must be the wicked. Their 
 resurrection Thackeray places in the interval between "his 
 parousia" and "the end," for iera ri tAos means, he urges, 
 "then after an interval." This seems like eisegesis rather than 
 exegesis. Thackeray further discovers allusion to the resur- 
 rection of the wicked in I. Cor. vi: 2, xi: 32; Rom. ii: 5 fi., all 
 passages which allude merely to the judgment of the wicked, 
 which, as we have seen, does not imply their resurrection. He 
 admits that Phil, iii: n teaches the resurrection only of the 
 righteous, without trying to make Paul consistent with himself. 
 
76 The Resurrection 
 
 justification in its sure hope. Else let us eat and 
 drink, for to-morrow we die. 
 
 But the skeptics' question at this point becomes 
 more precise, and emphasises the real difficulty. What 
 is it they are doubting? Not at all the soul's immor- 
 tality, an idea not strange or unwelcome to the Greek 
 mind. 1 Not the resurrection of Jesus, which they 
 accept as a fundamental condition of their being 
 Christians at all. They are doubting the resurrection 
 of Christians in general, because the word "resurrec- 
 tion" posits not merely personal continuance or 
 immortality, but a rising or returning into a conscious 
 life, analogous to this life, and, like this life, in asso- 
 ciation with a body. Let it be repeated, resurrection 
 meant, to Paul and his readers alike, not that the soul 
 continues to exist, but that it is re-embodied, that it 
 has another life. The very word (Svaatccats, up-standing, 
 Auferstehung, posits the ancient view of the lower world, 
 Hades, up from which souls may come. It meant 
 always for these first-century men, Jews and Greeks 
 alike, Josephus, Paul and the Corinthians, resurrection 
 of the body, or better, resurrection in the body. 2 
 
 1 Lake, p. 14, is inaccurate in statement here. 
 
 3 The dvi of ifd<rTa<ris does not mean up from the grave, but 
 from Hades. Ancient graves were not so commonly dug down 
 into the flat ground as with us, but more often in the side of a hill 
 or bank, so that a body, in emerging, would not naturally come 
 up at all. The verbs &vI<ttihu and iyetpa are both used, in 
 this connection, with reference to the underworld as the point of 
 departure. Meyer-Heinrici ad I. Cor. vi: 14 (1896, p. 203) 
 makes an arbitrary mis-statement in explaining the i£ of Qeyepei 
 there and of QavitrTtuns in Phil, iii: 11 by: "aus den Grabern." 
 The in racpwK following the latter word gives the true reference 
 of the l£. Teichmann, p. 26, is also in error here. 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 77 
 
 There was not for these men that confusion of the 
 concepts immortality and resurrection which is now 
 almost universal in Christian churches, if one may- 
 judge from the sermons heard everywhere on Easter 
 Sunday. Immortality means simply that the soul 
 does not perish with the body, but has an indestruct- 
 ible, endless existence. Resurrection, usually taking 
 immortality for granted, means that the soul gets, 
 after death, new embodiment and life, analogous to 
 our present state. Belief in immortality was held 
 in one or another form by multitudes in the ancient 
 world who did not .share the added hope of resurrection. 
 It is possible, indeed, to believe in resurrection with- 
 out believing in permanent immortality. The soul 
 might live a thousand or ten thousand years, with a 
 multitude of resurrections into new life and embodi- 
 ment, only at last to cease to be. Resurrection can 
 not possibly say anything about permanent immor- 
 tality; it tells only of one life-period succeeding this 
 one. Whether that period shall have an end, after 
 the analogy of this period, it is absolutely unable even 
 to hint. Permanent immortality is necessarily forever 
 incapable of proof or demonstration; belief in it is 
 forever an act of faith. Not until the preachers in 
 our churches see this simple fact clearly, will our 
 Easter sermons cease to be confused presentations of 
 a double proposition, and become really convincing. 
 
 Taking the spiritistic hypothesis as proven, in 
 the case of the appearances of Jesus and of all the 
 rest, on its foundation we can be promised only that 
 we shall live again, not that we shall live forever. The 
 bodily resurrection of Jesus proves nothing for our 
 own future; his spiritual resurrection may prove a 
 
78 The Resurrection 
 
 future life for us; only an act of faith can make us 
 confident of everlasting life. There is no reason why 
 two life-periods should have appreciably more value 
 in demonstrating eternal existence than has one. 
 In either case we must take the leap of faith and 
 declare that second period unending, or, if ending, 
 to be succeeded by a third endless period, or an endless 
 succession of periods. If I shall find myself alive in 
 some heavenly world a million ages from now, I shall 
 still have only the assurance of faith that my life 
 shall not end. The ages that lie behind me cannot 
 guarantee it in the least. They may furnish what 
 seems a strong presumption, but that presumption 
 is largely deprived of its strength by the reflection 
 that in the endlessness of eternity a million ages is 
 but a vanishing moment. 
 
 Our very word "eternal" is a monument to a 
 sublime act of human faith. Meaning literally "per- 
 taining to the (next) age, or life-period," we have by 
 faith imported into it the added significance of "un- 
 ending, " because our hearts have assured us that the 
 life of the next period will be unending. Precisely 
 the same thing was done by devout Jews and Christ- 
 ians, in the four centuries within which the ministry 
 of Jesus forms the central dividing line, with the 
 Greek equivalent of the Latin czternus, aternalis, 
 afuvio?. £cot) aiuvio?, literally the life of the (next) 
 aeon or age, became, for their faith, life everlasting. 
 The chief good of that blessed future age was that in 
 it night and death and all ending should be no more. 
 Death itself should die, and end should have an end. 
 
 For Paul and his readers, then, resurrection was not 
 synonymous with the soul's endless life, but posited 
 
How Are the Dead Raised ? 79 
 
 it; it was the entrance upon that life in its most 
 blessed form. It was the assumption by the purified 
 soul of a new body, the beginning of a new and richer 
 series of those social and spiritual relations which 
 make the real content of "life." 
 
 Now this idea was peculiarly a Jewish one. The 
 Greeks and Romans, in large measure, believed in 
 immortality, that is, in bodiless persistence of the 
 soul, usually conceived as rather dismal and content- 
 less, even at the best. Christianity did not come to 
 them with any promise of immortality merely; that 
 promise would not have meant to them what it means 
 to us, would not have kindled their aspirations and 
 enlisted their eager adherence to such a degree as we 
 might at first suppose. For we, when we say immor- 
 tality, mean immortality plus resurrection; we mean 
 Christian immortality, not mere continuance of the 
 soul, but new life for the soul, in the fullest, richest 
 significance of that term. And from the beginning, 
 Christians have asserted their faith in the resurrection 
 of the body, by which, whatever the phrase may have 
 meant in detail to various minds in various years, has 
 always been meant fundamentally the soul's endow- 
 ment with some organism or medium through which 
 its desires and emotions and volitions might come to 
 expression, through which it might really live, as 
 opposed to its mere persistence as a pale "shade," 
 helpless, hopeless, vague, and ineffectual. 
 
 This was the great hope and promise which Paul 
 came preaching to the Corinthians and to the Gentiles 
 everywhere. It was not a hope new to Jewish thought 
 and aspiration. Jesus and thousands of his fellows 
 had cherished it devoutly; it had been Paul's own 
 
80 The Resurrection 
 
 from his youth up, long before he became a Christian. 
 This part of his gospel fell familiarly on the ears of 
 his hearers of the synagogue, and found easy accept- 
 ance. But to the savants of Athens, the apostle 
 seemed to be a setter forth of strange divinities, 
 because he preached 'I^aou? xal ^ ivatrcaats; to their 
 ears he brought strange things. 
 
 And so in Corinth Paul's message is not permanently 
 appropriated without skepticism. The Greeks there 
 accept the resurrection of Jesus, as a special instance, 
 wrought by divine power for a special end; but that 
 for them all the same great renewal is waiting, that 
 every death among their company, as distinguished 
 from those without, shall be followed by resurrection, 
 to this faith some among them cannot hold fast, as 
 the passage of time weakens the enthusiasm and ardour 
 of their first believing, Then they received it un- 
 questioningly, as a part of the redeeming gospel, 
 carried away by the rush of glad emotion, as from 
 their poor and unclean lives they were called by Paul's 
 demonstration of the Spirit and of power into the 
 exalted life of saints who shall judge the world and the 
 angels, whose bodies are the veritable temples of the 
 most high God. Then, we may easily believe, fol- 
 lowing Paul's suggestion, some of them believed sixf), 
 rashly, impulsively, without due reflection or com- 
 plete intellectual conviction. Now time has done its 
 calming work; the intellectual problem asserts itself. 
 The skepticism that was only buried, not removed, 
 lifts its head. 
 
 Nothing is more striking in the Corinthian epistle 
 than its revelation of the intellectualism that charac- 
 terised that congregation, or at least a large portion 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 81 
 
 of it. Their great word of boasting was : " we know. " 
 Yvuan; and its cognates are written large through the 
 whole epistle, and the pride of knowledge lies at the 
 bottom of most of the faults which the apostle must 
 rebuke. The criticism of Paul by the partisans of 
 Apollos is for the lack of yvCx:i<; and intellectual 
 superiority in his address, as the first four chapters so 
 pointedly indicate. It was knowledge which so 
 puffed up a large part of the congregation as to render 
 it superior to the common morality in its relation 
 to incestuous intercourse and intimacy with notorious 
 evil-doers. It was knowledge that led some men into 
 celibacy and asceticism, others into license and free 
 participation in idolatrous gatherings and the use of 
 sacrificial meats. It was knowledge that made cer- 
 tain of the women superior to the social principles and 
 conventions of the time, and men superior to their 
 ignorant and indigent brethren. Knowledge leads to 
 the preference for tongue-speaking among the spirit- 
 ual gifts, and the lawless conduct of divine service; 
 it is knowledge, finally, that declares there is no resur- 
 rection of the dead. The whole letter is a discussion 
 of the rival claims of knowledge and of love as guides of 
 Christian conduct. Its central sentences are: know- 
 ledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up. Though I 
 know all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not 
 love, I am nothing. 1 
 
 1 It is illuminating to study chapter thirteen with special refer- 
 ence to the words yiviia-Ka, yvuins, and their cognates, noticing 
 also other terms referring to intellectual activity. The whole 
 epistle, studied from this point of view, gains notable significance, 
 in particular the first four chapters. The point is briefly treated 
 by G. Hollmann: Urchristentum in Corinth, 1903, pp. 10-18. 
 6 
 
82 The Resurrection 
 
 It is, then, an intellectual consideration that gives 
 pause to certain among the converts. Resurrection, 
 entrance upon a future life in the body, how is that 
 possible? How do the dead rise, and with what sort 
 of body do they come ? The body is put into the grave 
 and decays; how then can it be raised in newness of 
 life? In other words, these Corinthian skeptics are 
 thinking of the "body" of the resurrection life as in 
 some way the body possessed before death; restored, 
 renewed, glorified, but in substance and continuance 
 the same body. Here we find the first record of 
 belief in resurrection as concerned with the physical 
 body, a belief which is promptly and definitely charac- 
 terised by Paul as erroneous belief and corrected in 
 detail. Yet it becomes the belief of the writers of 
 the gospels, more particularly of the three later gospels. 
 Plainly the view held and preached by Paul as to the 
 resurrection and its attestations is here in Corinth 
 being somehow misapprehended and obscured. Plainly 
 he means by the resurrection-body something other 
 than the buried body of flesh and bone. 
 
 The conception of the physical body as the body 
 with which resurrection has to do may, indeed, have 
 arisen in Gentile circles, possibly in Jewish circles, of 
 the church, at an earlier period than this; it was a 
 natural, perhaps an inevitable, confusion, in that 
 time and among the less reflective classes who every- 
 where made the chief response to the Christian preach- 
 ing. But our records reveal it first here in Corinth. 
 It grew and ultimately prevailed; in the gospels it 
 has become orthodoxy. 1 
 
 1 Clement of Rome, who writes at about the same time with 
 Matthew, probably a little earlier than Luke (Gospel-Acts), 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 83 
 
 The conception produced two different and opposed 
 effects, in different classes of minds. Of one, the 
 Corinthian skeptics are typical; of the other, the 
 gospel of Luke. In Corinth men said: Resurrection 
 is predicated of the (physical) body ; the physical body 
 decays, therefore resurrection does not take place. 
 Luke said : Resurrection is predicated of the (physical) 
 body; resurrection is our dearest and deepest con- 
 viction, therefore the physical body rises. 1 The 
 whole conception becomes thereby materialised ; resur- 
 rection comes to be concerned with the corpse, and to 
 lie wholly within the sense-realm. The skepticism 
 seems to have been limited to few, and not to have 
 persisted within Christian circles, perhaps owing to 
 the very effective way in which it was met by Paul. 
 
 much earlier than John, has very clearly the idea of resurrection 
 as revival and renewal of the buried body. He first among Christ- 
 ian writers makes use of the figure of the phoenix, and in citing 
 Job xix: 26 as a proof -text, he makes it read koX drao-TiJireis 
 t%v <nfpra fuiv Ta.<n-t\v y where the MSS. of the LXX read either 
 ri tilpfia or t& <rdim. Paul is no longer understood, though 
 Clement is familiar with I. Cor., and is writing to the same church. 
 By the middle of the second century all sense of what Paul had 
 meant was everywhere lost in orthodox Christian circles, and the 
 view that the buried body had been revived held undisputed 
 possession of the field. Cf. HaEer, pp. 294-298. Only the Gnos- 
 tics were truer to Paul's thought, truer, indeed, than a host of 
 modern commentators. Haller, pp. 300-313. 
 
 For the development of the view of the resurrection after Paul, 
 cf. C. K. Staudt: The Idea of the Resurrection in the Ante- 
 Nicene Period, 1909. 
 
 ■Of course "Luke" is not here expressing the result of his 
 own reasoning on the matter, so much as reflecting without 
 question the prevailing church belief of his time and environ- 
 ment. 
 
84 The Resurrection 
 
 This result was not wholly fortunate, for Paul's 
 words were very early understood, as they have been 
 understood ever since, to rebuke the skepticism and 
 to assert what the skeptics doubted. He does indeed 
 rebuke the skepticism that says there is no resurrec- 
 tion; but he sees the misunderstanding on which 
 that skepticism is based, and proceeds to correct it in 
 careful detail. He does not say: Resurrection is pre- 
 dicated of the (physical) body; resurrection is proven, 
 therefore the physical body rises. He says : Resurrec- 
 tion is proven; resurrection means future life in the 
 body, therefore we shall live in the body; but this body 
 is not in any sense the physical body which we now 
 possess; it is a new body, a different body, a spirit- 
 body. Indeed, the insistence of the larger part of the 
 chapter is not on rebuking the skepticism, but on 
 correcting the error which led to the skepticism. As a 
 matter of fact, the chapter rebukes and contradicts 
 the presentation of the gospels more forcibly than it 
 does the errors in Corinth. 
 
 What, then, in detail, does Paul urge? His main 
 point is that there is a misapprehension as to what is 
 meant by the body of the resurrection, the same mis- 
 apprehension which has remained the fundamental 
 error to this day. The resurrection body is not the 
 buried body. Thou foolish one, says the plain-spoken 
 apostle, every seed you sow tells you that there is a 
 diversity of bodies. The bare kernel that you put 
 into the ground bears no resemblance to the fair 
 green plant that rises in its place. It must cease to be, 
 must die, decay, and vanish utterly away, ere the new- 
 body rises; in other words, the life-germ which in- 
 habits the body of the seed-kernel must sever itself 
 
How Are the Dead Raised ? 85 
 
 from that body, leave that body to subsequent decay 
 and dissolution, in order that it may re-embody itself 
 in the green shoot. The new body, the growing of the 
 plant, absolutely preclude any persistence or renewal 
 of life in the seed-kernel. 
 
 Of course Paul's figure, like most figures, is not 
 absolutely exact, and must not be pressed in pedantic 
 fashion. The germinating shoot is actually contained 
 in the seed-kernel, the botanist tells us, as an integral 
 part of it, which is, of course, not at all Paul's idea of 
 the relation of the soul to the buried body, or of the 
 two bodies to one another. His point is simply the 
 unlikeness of the young plant to the bare grain. The 
 vegetative life which dwelt in the latter has been 
 re-embodied in the former. The grain is resolved to 
 dust; the plant grows fresh and fair. "Thou sowest 
 not the body that shall be." 
 
 Therefore all interpretation of the passage that 
 makes any use of the continuity which actually 
 exists, as a fact of botanical science, between seed and 
 new plant, all idea that Paul means that the spirit- 
 body develops out of the flesh-body, as the plant out 
 of the seed-germ, is simply turning the figure on its 
 head, and proving with it the opposite of the apostle's 
 intention. Its whole point for him is in the total 
 dissimilarity and non-continuity between seed and 
 plant; we may criticise his botany, but we ought to 
 understand his meaning. Theodor Korff is abso- 
 lutely in error here, when he formulates as Paul's 
 meaning: "As in the seed is contained the basis for a 
 new organism, the embryo or germ of a new plant, 
 so the earthly human body conceals in itself the 
 foundation or the germ of the resurrection-body. It 
 
86 The Resurrection 
 
 is therefore clear that Paul in I. Cor. xv: 36-38 teaches 
 an organic connection between the earthly and the 
 pneumatic corporeality." Korff goes on to speak of 
 the absorption of the endosperm or albumen of the 
 seed by the germ, "wie jede gute Naturgeschichte 
 lehrt, " as conditioning Paul's view that the new 
 resurrection-body assimilated the flesh-body out of 
 which it sprang. 1 But the tertium comparationis 
 used by Korff — the development of the seed-germ— 
 is absolutely unmentioned by Paul, who was not here 
 concerned with facts which "jede gute Naturge- 
 schichte lehrt," even if he knew them, but only with 
 what met the eyes, which saw a hard brown kernel, 
 and then a fresh green plant. 
 
 The figure, for practical purposes, is clear enough, 
 but Paul goes farther, and at great length, by examples 
 from the vegetable and animal world, from the sun, 
 moon, and stars, illustrates the manifold diversity of 
 bodies. All this serves to show that " body " need not 
 always mean the same thing, and illuminates his main 
 point, that the body with which the dead "come" 
 in the resurrection is absolutely of another sort from 
 that put into the grave, in no wise continuous with 
 it, in no wise a reviving or rehabilitation of it. 
 
 To make assurance doubly sure, verses 42-44 say 
 this emphatically and in the clearest of language. 
 The verbs "it is sown" (arceEpexott) and "it is raised" 
 (lyei'peToei) are impersonal; there is no antecedent 
 subject corresponding to the it of the English. The 
 
 1 Korfi, pp. 126 f. Schwartzkopfi, p. 107, is also at fault here, 
 and Haller, pp. 287 f., is not wholly clear. Paul is not thinking of 
 any "Beziehung zwischen beiden Leibern." Clearer here is 
 Staudt, pp. 22 and 27. Cf. also Teichmann, pp. 45 f. 
 
How Are the Dead Raised ? 87 
 
 force is rather: To that which is sown belong corrup- 
 tion, dishonour, weakness ; to that which rises, incor- 
 ruption, glory, power. There is sown a natural body ; 
 there is raised a spiritual body. 
 
 The assumed identity of the one it with the other 
 actually misleads many an English reader and ex- 
 pounder to an assumption of identity between the 
 two predicate nouns which follow. The grammatical 
 translation: a natural body is sown, a spiritual body 
 is raised, would have made this error less easy. Paul 
 is not speaking of one and the same body, which at 
 an earlier period is corruptible and "psychic," but 
 becomes at a later period incorruptible and spiritual. 
 He is speaking of two distinct bodies. One is natural, 
 earthy, the kind of body endowed with iJjuxij and 
 animal life which Adam transmits to all his posterity. 
 The other is a spirit-body of glory, undecaying and 
 strong, transmitted from the exalted Messiah, the 
 first of men to assume it, as Adam was the first to 
 assume the natural body. An earthly progenitor 
 gave us an earthly body; his image we have all repro- 
 duced. A heavenly man, the founder and beginner 
 of a new spiritual race, is to give us in turn his kind of 
 body, a glorious spirit-body. So shall we reproduce 
 his image. 
 
 We shall be changed from one image to the other; 
 our earthly body shall not be transformed, but dis- 
 carded. The body which we received from Adam is 
 a fundamental part of that " old man " which we put 
 off, with all that pertains to it, its passions and lusts, 
 its bondage to law, its subjection to death. This is a 
 great "Pauline thought"; it appears in the apostle's 
 anthropology as in his theology, and is written large 
 
88 The Resurrection 
 
 in all his letters. So notably in the great passage 
 Romans v: 12-vi: 11. So also Rom. viii: 10 f.; II. 
 Cor. v: 14-17. To that old Adam-man, Adam-body, 
 belong the external differences of sex, of race, of social 
 status ; all these differences are inherent in the Adam- 
 body, and are put off with it. So Col. iii: 9-1 1 ; Phil, 
 iii: 3-1 1 (very significant here); Gal. iii: 27 f. and 
 passim. A renewal or persistence of that old body, 
 however made over, would be fatal to this entire 
 scheme of thought. The flesh-and-blood body, already 
 in principle abandoned, will at death be wholly dis- 
 carded. It will go its. way to dust in the grave; the 
 spiritual body is indifferent to it. 1 
 
 Verse 50 makes this statement even more explicit, 
 with its emphatic reiteration that flesh and blood, 
 corruptible as they are, can have no inheritance in the 
 new life. This verse is very conclusive, in its definite 
 statement that the physical body is not to be the sub- 
 ject of the change, is not to inherit the qualities which 
 distinguish the body of the new life. The continuity 
 is broken; the spirit-body is a new creation, heavenly, 
 not earthly, in its origin, and even now awaiting us 
 above, a dwelling not made with hands, a building 
 of God, eternal, a habitation which is from heaven, 
 which shall come down upon us, not rise out of the 
 
 1 This is well put by Teichmann, pp. 32 f.: "It is obvious that 
 the more emphasis is laid on the opposition between <ri£p? and 
 rvevfM, the more to be desired becomes the annihilation of the 
 swim, as the form of the <r<£f>{. This body, which consisted of 
 <rdp£, might go its way into destruction; it needed not to be pre- 
 served against the day of the parousia. For God would then 
 give man, who, freed from aipi , now consisted only of irwO/wi, 
 a new trta/ia, a new form. " 
 
How Are the Dead Raised ? 89 
 
 grave with us (II. Cor. v: if.). Words could scarcely 
 make clearer the statement that this eternal, God- 
 made spirit-body of the heavenly life-to-be is not, in 
 any sense whatever, a transforming or transfiguring 
 of the body we have borne since birth, the body we 
 leave to the grave at death. 
 
 But what of those who are alive at the parousia, 
 who have not laid aside the old bodies? Here indeed 
 is a "mystery," which the human mind could not 
 know except it were revealed from God through the 
 spirit. We who do not fall asleep shall be changed. 
 The Greek word (dXXaYT)<r<5[jie0a) does not signify 
 alter, transform, so that the meaning here would be: 
 our present bodies shall be refashioned and take on 
 new qualities. Rather, we shall be exchanged. Our 
 present bodies shall be destroyed, done away with; 
 for the slow process of decay shall be substituted an 
 instantaneous annihilation, and we shall assume a 
 body, a cru^a, that is aXXo, numerically and qualita- 
 tively another. Perhaps "instantaneous annihila- 
 tion" says too much; Paul is really not concerned, 
 here or elsewhere, to say what becomes of the fleshly 
 body under these circumstances. What he does say 
 is: we leave it, like a cast-off garment, and assume 
 another body, deathless and undecaying. We go 
 over from one to the other; we do not simply stay in 
 the one while it undergoes a change. So much 
 &Xkayr^s6\L^a, twice-repeated, clearly says. 
 
 Here also Paul evinces himself a thorough Jew in 
 the fundamental concepts which shape his thinking. 
 The Pharisaic view was that the soul, severing entirely 
 its connection with the physical corruptible body, 
 passed into a different body ([JisTa§a(vsiv eEq exepov 
 
90 The Resurrection 
 
 (TtoiAa). 1 Certain Talmudic utterances, indeed, express 
 the thought that the old body shall in some way be 
 made again the habitation of the soul, and, less cer- 
 tainly, a few apocalyptic passages present this con- 
 ception. 2 In Volz's admirable presentation of the 
 material bearing on this point, the differing anthropo- 
 logical bases, and the differing religious needs to be 
 met, on which the opposing views rest, are excellently 
 brought out. The idea of the revival of the buried 
 body is the popular, coarser view, and prevails 
 chiefly in the rabbinic theology. The expectation 
 of a new body, of more ethereal stuff, develops in 
 the finer, more advanced minds, and is most dominant 
 in the apocalyptic and the broader philosophy. Its 
 presupposition is the spiritual anthropology, which 
 regards the spiritual (pneumatic) element as the 
 essential thing in man, and as something independent 
 of the material. The other view presupposes the 
 material anthropology, which makes the physical 
 body the essential thing, and the chief condition of 
 man's existence. This view meets the common 
 unreflecting demand for the continuance of the 
 present personal identity ; the spiritual view expresses 
 the longing for purity and divine perfection. 
 
 This analysis of the motives behind the two views 
 
 1 Josephus, Bell. Jud., ii., 163. So Josephus expresses his own 
 conviction, Hi., 374. Cf. on this point Wm. Weber, in The Monisl, 
 vol. xi., pp. 390 f. This article of Weber's gives an excellent 
 popular account of Jewish, Greek, and Roman ideas concerning 
 "life after death, " especially concerning the conceptions of Hades 
 and Sheol. The account in Korff, pp. 208-221, is confused and 
 inaccurate. 
 
 3 Volz, pp. 252-255. 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 91 
 
 as they were held by Jews of nearly a score of cen- 
 turies ago, is, ceteris paribus, perfectly valid for the 
 views as held substantially in the same form to-day. 
 One has only seriously to inquire what lies in the 
 minds of the unreflecting masses of people when they 
 declare, "I believe ... in the resurrection of the 
 body. " At any rate, one cannot be in doubt as to which 
 anthropology was Paul's. Any of his epistles, most 
 notably Romans, will tell us that trb itvsu^axadv, not to 
 (jju^iKdv, still less to au^aTixdv or to aapxtudv, is the high- 
 est and truest and most permanent element in man. r 
 
 Special emphasis is laid by Charles, Thackeray, 
 and Lake on a passage in the first-century (roughly 
 contemporary with Paul) Pharisaic Apocalypse of 
 Baruch, chapters xlix. to li. 2 Here the dead are 
 restored by the earth, "making no change in 
 their form," because it is "necessary to show to the 
 living that the dead have come to life again." The 
 identification being satisfactorily made, the righteous 
 undergo a change into another form, "that they may 
 be able to acquire and receive the world which does not 
 die. . . . They shall be made like unto the angels, and 
 be made equal to the stars, and they shall be changed 
 into every form they desire, from beauty into loveli- 
 ness, and from light into the splendour of glory." 
 
 This passage is with right cited as in some sense 
 
 'This is also, of course, the view of Jesus. Cf. Weizsacker, 
 p. 13. Haller, pp. 283 f., is too sweeping in his generalisation as 
 to Jewish belief in bodily resurrection. 
 
 2 Charles, pp. 280 ff.; Thackeray, pp. 114 ff.; Lake, pp. 24 ft. 
 The passage will be found in Charles, A pocalypse of Baruch, 1896, 
 pp. 81-85. Wernle, p. 206, thinks it "probable" that Paul's 
 view was substantially that of Baruch. 
 
92 The Resurrection 
 
 analogous to the statement of Paul, but it is not 
 valid reasoning to interpret Baruch as meaning a 
 resurrection of the buried body, later to be trans- 
 figured, and then to argue from this premise that for 
 Paul " the Resurrection implied that the old material 
 body was changed into a new spiritual one, not that it 
 was, as it were, left behind." 1 It is not necessary 
 that in all points Paul must agree with Baruch, because 
 there is analogy in certain details; it is, moreover, far 
 from certain that Baruch implies a resurrection of the 
 physical body, and its change. He speaks only of 
 rising in the old form, and the change comes over the 
 aspect or form of the righteous. They themselves are 
 transformed and made glorious, not the bodies of 
 their earthly life. At any rate, this passage cannot 
 be made to prove Paul's belief that resurrection 
 concerns the earthly body, in the face of his own 
 clear statements to the contrary. 
 
 Lake argues that Paul and Baruch alike predicate 
 the actual rising of the buried physical body, as Luke 
 holds in his gospel account, and that all alike hold this 
 revived body to be sublimated and transformed later 
 into the spiritual body. The only difference between 
 them, Professor Lake thinks, is that Paul regards this 
 transformation as immediately consequent on the 
 resurrection, while Baruch and Luke put it after an 
 interval, the latter, in the case of Jesus, putting it at 
 the ascension, perhaps forty days after resurrection. 2 
 
 This is to press out of Paul's words a meaning they 
 will not bear, and to make his figure of the germinating 
 seed the most unfortunate in the world. For the 
 
 1 Lake, p. 27. ' Lake, p. 234; cf. also pp. 21-23. 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 93 
 
 tertium comparationis on which he lays his stress is 
 the decaying of the seed-grain in the earth, and the 
 entire distinctness of the young plant which comes 
 out of the ground, from that grain. When Paul is 
 asked: With what body do they come? his answer 
 would have been quick and ready had he believed 
 they would come with the physical body, even if 
 "changed. " Jesus' resurrection-body had "appeared " 
 to many of his followers; why does Paul not refer to 
 that, if it were the material body which the gospels 
 represent it to have been? If one such new body had 
 actually been present among men on earth, walking 
 and talking, eating and drinking, taking particular 
 pains to demonstrate its characteristics, declaring 
 itself flesh and bone, bearing the marks of its death- 
 wounds, demanding the tangible testing of these 
 attributes by skeptical beholders — why does Paul pass 
 all this by, and resort to analogies from the world 
 of nature which really prove an opposite conclusion? 
 The matter of the exact time of the "change" in 
 the properties of the body is not so important as Lake 
 makes it; the important thing is to be sure what, in 
 Paul's view, is the thing that rises. If he holds that 
 the buried body comes from the grave, then he can 
 easily believe with "Luke," that it retains some, at 
 least, of its material qualities for a period of days or 
 weeks. 1 The real question is, in brief: Does Paul's 
 
 1 That Paul did so believe is argued by OttoSohmoller, in Studien 
 u. Krihken, 1894, p. 670. Here Paul is said to mean by Jesus' resur- 
 rection an occurrence which was concerned "mit dem Leibe Jesu 
 nach seinem Todgeschehen, genauer ein nicht im Grab bleiben, son- 
 dern wieder Lebendigwerden desselben. " The whole passage (pp. 
 669-693) deserves notice for its energetic presentation of this view. 
 
94 The Resurrection 
 
 view necessitate the empty grave, in the case of Jesus 
 or in that of the Christians who shall rise at the 
 parousia? This question a careful exegesis of Paul's 
 words seems to answer with an unqualified negative. 
 
 It must in justice be added, however, that Paul 
 no doubt gave to the Corinthians some ground for 
 misapprehension, by an ambiguous use of the term 
 aCy^a, body. He cannot think of life without a body; 
 life means the activity of an embodied spirit. The 
 existence of spirits during the period between death 
 and resurrection is, in his terminology, a state of 
 death; these spirits are "the dead," oi vexpdi, out 
 from among whom Jesus rises, and who themselves, 
 so far as they are Christians, shall be raised to a new 
 life, i.e., to a new body. The others shall remain 
 dead; their further fate is not intimated. But those 
 who attain resurrection shall live in the body. 
 
 So Paul would say, and the phrase might easily 
 lead to misconception. A more accurate expression 
 of his thought would be : they shall live in a re-clothed 
 body. For aw^a, though Paul, of course, often used 
 it loosely, as we do, for the physical body of flesh we 
 now wear, meant for him, when strictly used, some- 
 thing different. It meant that outline form which dis- 
 tinguishes the individual from every other individual, 
 in which inheres, therefore, the personality. " Body, " 
 in this sense, is the organism which is each man's real 
 self, in which lies the continuity which makes his im- 
 mortality. In form — for it is essentially form, not sub- 
 stance — it includes only the outward man, that which 
 meets the eye; it has no inward parts or organs. 1 
 
 1 This meaning of crS/j.a is roughly equivalent to what is meant 
 by "soul," in many accounts of primitive animistic beliefs. Cf. 
 
How Are the Dead Raised ? 95 
 
 In the present world this body is clothed with 
 flesh and bone and blood, literally incarnated; in the 
 next world, having laid aside the fleshly garment, 
 the Christian's body shall be clothed with spirit- 
 stuff. The body is the same; the difference is in the 
 material which the aw^a takes to itself and to which 
 it gives shape. Just so an artist's outline figure 
 might be covered with clay, then the clay removed 
 and the form reclothed with wax. The appearance 
 is the same, the material is another. So in the spirit- 
 body men shall be recognised, shall resemble their 
 former selves, for the old body is there, to which the 
 new clothing conforms as perfectly as did the old. 
 When Jesus "appeared" to Peter, to James, they 
 knew him; the old face and hair and eyes, the old form, 
 were there. So this conception of "body" lies, 
 consciously or unconsciously, behind all descriptions 
 of "ghosts" in all times; the departed are recognised 
 by those who have known them, as bearing the same 
 external form and limbs and features, only moulded in 
 some new ethereal transcendental substance. 1 
 
 In Paul's common parlance, as in ours, "body" 
 is the body as it is now clothed in aapi;, hence it is the 
 
 E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, American Ed., 1874, chapters 11 
 and 12. The "astral body" of the theosophists may perhaps 
 offer a helpful analogy. More precisely analogous is the corporeal 
 soul argued for by Tertullian in his treatise De Anima: Cf. 
 especially the description of a soul seen in vision by a Montan- 
 ist sister (ch. 9). "A soul in bodily shape . . . such as would 
 offer itself to be even grasped by the hand, soft and transparent, 
 and of an ethereal colour, and in form resembling that of a human 
 being in every respect. " Trans, by Peter Holmes, in Ante-Nicene 
 Fathers, American Ed., vol. Hi., 1885, p. 188. 
 
 1 Cf. Tylor, loc. cit., vol. i., pp. 450, 455-457; vol. ii., p. 19. 
 
96 The Resurrection 
 
 seat of sin, weakness, corruption. As used in relation 
 to the resurrection-life, "body" is the same organism 
 clothed ;n icveut^a, the seat of goodness, power, in- 
 corruption. "Hence between the bodies there is no 
 exact continuity. The existence of the one depends 
 on the death of the other. Nevertheless some essen- 
 tial likeness exists between them. This essential 
 likeness proceeds from the fact that they are suc- 
 cessive expressions of the same personality, though 
 in different spheres. It is the same individual vital 
 principle that organises both." 1 What Professor 
 Charles here means by "individual vital principle," 
 Paul means by ad>(j.a, strictly used. 
 
 According to Moulton and Geden's Concordance, 
 Paul uses the word aio(j.a in seventy-five separate 
 passages. 2 Of these, forty-one, or more than half, 
 are in I. Corinthians, the word itself occurring forty- 
 six times. Romans has it in thirteen passages, II. 
 Corinthians in nine, Colossians in eight, Philippians 
 in two, Galatians and I. Thessalonians in one each. 
 For its specific meaning, Phil, iii: n is illuminating: 
 "Who shall refashion ((AstaaxiQUaTfaEc) the aw(j,a of 
 our humiliation conformable (ci^ogtfov) to the 
 Crusoe of his glory. " Our body, now in a . humiliating 
 dress of flesh, shall put off the accident of its external 
 
 1 Charles, p. 394. 
 
 2 The word itself occurs a somewhat larger number of times, be- 
 ing sometimes used more than once in the same sentence. These 
 seventy-five passages are found in I. Thess., Gal., I. and II. Cor., 
 Rom., Col., and Philippians. The word not unnaturally fails 
 in Philemon. In the pseudo-Pauline II. Thess. and Pastorals 
 it does not occur at all, but in Eph., also pseudo-Pauline, it 
 occurs nine times, chiefly in passages modelled on Colossians. 
 
How Are the Dead Raised ? 97 
 
 CT XW a and assume a form, a n^P9 1 Q» like the body of 
 glory worn by Messiah in heaven. 1 
 
 The discussion in I. Cor. vi: 12-20, on the enormity 
 of fornication, has its whole point in this conception 
 of aw(Mt. The "body" which is here to be kept pure 
 and holy for the Lord whose own it is-, which is the 
 temple of the most holy Spirit, is not the fleshly body 
 of sin which is to be done away, but an enduring 
 entity which the Lord shall claim at his coming. 
 God raised up the Lord in his body, and shall raise us 
 in ours. Our body and his put on alike, after resur- 
 rection, the clothing of spirit ; one spirit, one substance, 
 for our relation to him is as the relation of wife to 
 husband on earth, who are one flesh. This "body" 
 has the outer form, but not the inner organs, of the 
 fleshly body we know; it is, as it were, a hollow shell, 
 having only those parts which meet the eye. The 
 belly is no part of it ; the sexual members, on the con. 
 trary, are a part. Sins of gluttony, drunkenness, and 
 the like do not affect the "body"; fornication directly 
 concerns it, and prostitutes what is consecrated to 
 the Lord. 2 
 
 1 Cf. J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, 1888, 
 pp. 130 f., and Marvin R. Vincent, Epistles to the Philippians and 
 to Philemon, 1897, p. 120 f. J. Weiss, Christus, 1909, p. 54, makes 
 the illuminating observation that the process undergone by the 
 believer in Phil, iii : 1 1 is the precise opposite of that undergone by 
 Christ Jesus in Phil, ii: 6. 
 
 3 There is of course no real connection between Paul's thought 
 and that of Jerome, in his Liber Contra Joannem Hierosolymita- 
 num. In the resurrection, says Jerome, men "habent dentes, 
 ventrem, genitalia, et tamen nee cibis nee uxoribus indigent." 
 (Migne, vol. xxiii., p. 585.) Jerome does what Paul fails to do, and 
 proves his point by reference to Jesus' risen body. "Noli poten- 
 7 
 
98 The Resurrection 
 
 So in I. Thess. v: 23 Paul prays that sanctification 
 may be complete, that icveC^a, ^u^, and aw^a may 
 be kept and found blameless at the Lord's parousia. 
 The body must be kept pure in readiness to be claimed 
 by the Lord. This is also the real sense of I. Thess. 
 iv: 2-8; fornication must be avoided on precisely the 
 same ground as is urged in I. Cor. vi; it defiles what 
 belongs to Christ, the enduring au^a, the real man. 1 
 
 Perhaps Paul's conception of the true body and 
 its successive clothing comes out most clearly in 
 the passage II. Cor. v: 1-10. This much-discussed 
 passage, which many commentators 2 describe as pre- 
 
 tiam Domini magorum prasstigiis adasquare, ut videatur fuisse 
 quod non fuit, et putetur comedisse sine dentibus, ambulasse 
 sine pedibus, fregisse panem sine manibus, locutus esse sine lin- 
 gua, et latus monstrasse sine costis. " (Migne, p. 587.) The 
 passages ought to be read in their context, and may be found, in 
 excellent English translation, in the Library of Nicene and Post- 
 Nicene Fathers, 2d series, vol. vi., 1893, pp. 440-442. 
 
 1 For a careful and complete presentation of this notion of <rG>/w 
 in Pauline usage, cf. Holsten, Die bedeutung des wortes 24/>( 
 im lehrbegriffe des Paulus (in Zum Evang. d. Paulus u. d. Petrus, 
 1868), pp. 376-378. "An dem begrifie der form aber hat [<rw/ui] 
 seine qualitative bestimmtheit. " Cf. also Schmiedel (in Holtz- 
 mann's Hand-Commentar, ii: I, 2d Ed., 1892), excursus ad I. 
 Cor. vi: 20. For the view of I. Thess. v: 23 presented above, cf. 
 Schmiedel's comment ad loc. in the same volume. 
 
 Similarly J. Weiss, Christus, 1909, p. 51, defines "body," as 
 Paul uses the term, as "eine festumrissene Personlichkeitsform, 
 wir wurden sagen: eine 'Gestalt' (dies wohl die beste Ubersetzung 
 von Soma)." Cf. A. P. Stanley, Epistles of St. Paul to the Corin- 
 thians, 3d Ed., 1865, p. 314 {ad xv: 35). "The corresponding 
 modern notions would be better conveyed, not by the word 'body,' 
 but 'organisation' or 'framework.'" 
 
 3 Charles, p. 400; Thackeray, pp. 128 ff.; Teichmann, pp. 65-67; 
 Schmiedel (Hand-Commentar, ii: 1, 2d Ed., 1892), pp. 236-241; 
 
How Are the Dead Raised ? 99 
 
 senting a developed or altered view of the resur- 
 rection from that in I. Cor. xv, is really in perfect 
 harmony with the latter. Paul is here not longing for a 
 death which should usher him at once into "heaven" 
 and the presence of his Master, as is frequently stated. 
 He groans and longs for the possession of the new 
 spiritual body, but there is nothing that indicates 
 his expectation of possessing it before the parousia. 
 What he longs for is precisely the "change" of I. Cor. 
 xv : 52 f. Our modern chapter-division is misleading. 
 The whole context, iv: 7 to v: 10 must be taken to- 
 gether. The apostle recounts his physical hardships 
 and weaknesses, which are wearing away his fleshly 
 body in which, as he goes about, he bears continually 
 this process of vlxpwci;, a "putting to death" like 
 that of his Master. 1 And as his physical form decays, 
 his spiritual life, a life like that of his glorified Master, 
 comes more and more into evidence. The way to the 
 perfect realisation of the spiritual life lies through the 
 entire putting off of the fleshly au(Jia, either through 
 death or through the "change" at the parousia. 
 Paul still expects, not death, but the "change" while 
 yet alive. And yet if death should come, the interim 
 of "sleeping" would be a period of rest, and so brief 
 that it would have no real terrors for him; he would 
 look over and beyond it to the day of resurrection. 
 His faith is perfect, his assurance unshakable. 
 Wherefore he faints not; unmoved he sees his out- 
 
 Orello Cone, in The New World, June, 1895, pp. 297 f.; H. J. 
 Holtzmann, N. T. Theol., vol. ii., p. 193; Oskar Holtzmann, 
 N. T. Zeitgeschichte, 2d Ed., 1906, p. 386; and others. 
 
 1 Holsten, p. 69, note * * * reads too much out of this word. 
 
ioo The Resurrection 
 
 ward fleshly man decay, while his spiritual life is 
 ever renewed by communion with its Lord, as it 
 draws nearer its day of realisation. On that day and 
 its glories his eye is fixed. Rejoicing in the promise 
 of the spirit-body, he cares not what fate overtakes 
 the fleshly body. Its dissolution is a matter of 
 indifference to him; he has laid up for him, above, a 
 house of divine workmanship, eternal, glorious. 
 
 Here we have the clearest possible distinction 
 between the two bodies, between the "earthly house" 
 and the " building from God. " One decays, the other 
 is divinely prepared in anticipation of the coming 
 occupant. 1 That the "habitation which is from 
 heaven" is a making over of the "earthly house," 
 as is commonly urged, is an idea absolutely impossible 
 to this context. The one point of connection be- 
 tween them is the identity of the occupant. 
 
 How Paul longs for the day when he may take 
 up his abode in the heavenly house, not least because 
 
 1 Cf. the Ascension of Isaiah iv:i6 f . (Charles's Ed., 1900, p. 34). 
 "The saints will come with the Lord with their garments which 
 are (now) stored up on high in the seventh heaven; with the Lord 
 they will come, whose spirits are clothed, they will descend and 
 be present in the world, and He will strengthen those who have 
 been found in the body, together with the saints, in the garments 
 of the saints, and the Lord will minister to those who have kept 
 watch in this world. And afterwards they will turn themselves 
 upward in their garments, and their body will be left in the world." 
 
 Charles is probably right in conjecturing that the Ethiopic 
 verb translated "He will strengthen" goes back to a corruption of 
 the original Greek wording (not extant) "he will clothe"; for 
 example, ivurxfoa for ivdija. Cf. also ix: 7-9 (Charles, p. 60). 
 "And there I saw all the righteous . . . stript of the garments 
 of the flesh, and I saw them in their garments of the upper world 
 and they were like angels, standing there in great glory. " 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 101 
 
 it means being rid forever of the house of weakness, 
 pain, error, sin, which has for so many weary years 
 been the dwelling of his spirit! He groans in his 
 longing; it is weary waiting. He groans, indeed, not 
 simply to put off the present garb (changing the 
 figure), not simply to be naked and unclothed, because 
 the garment of flesh is grievous to his spirit. No, that 
 state of naked disembodiment, though it be a sleep, 
 has no attraction for Paul; far rather would he battle 
 on in weakness and hardship until the end. But that 
 end itself, with its new body and its endless life, with its 
 farewell to weakness, corruption, mortality, that he longs 
 for with eager desire. Not unclothing, but reclothing ; 
 and that which is to put on the new vesture is the 
 essential aw^a. There is here nowhere any indication 
 that Paul expects this reclothing before the time. He 
 wishes it were his; he knows it cannot be, until the 
 parousia. Yet is he not cast down; he is content to 
 wait, because of his absolute assurance, because of the 
 pledge (appaJJwv) which God has given him in the Spirit. 
 He is, then, of good courage in his present lot, 
 enduring his temporary absence from the Master 
 without complaint, though his personal desire is 
 strongly for the call to take leave of the physical 
 body and to enter the Master's intimate presence. 
 He longs, in brief, for the parousia. 1 But meantime 
 
 1 So Kennedy, p. 266, Staudt, p. 22, and, in substance, R. Ka- 
 bisch: Die Eschatologie des Paulus, 1893, pp. 299 f., and C. P. 
 G. Heinrici, Das Zweite Sendschreiben d. Apostel Paulus an d. 
 Korinthier, 1887, p. 256. Similarly, though not in entire agree- 
 ment, Wernle, pp. 207 f. Cf. further Meyer-Haupt ad Phil, iii: 
 10 (1902, pp. 135 f.) and Bousset ad 2 Cor. v: 1-5 (in Schriften 
 des N. T.). 
 
102 The Resurrection 
 
 it is his aim to be well pleasing to the Master, now in 
 his absence as he shall be in that blessed time when he 
 shall live continually in the Presence. For as one 
 uses this present body, when one's home is in it, for 
 divine purposes or for selfish lusts, so shall one's lot 
 be determined in that day when we shall all face the 
 judgment of Messiah. Only those whose life in 
 the ou[j.a aapxixdv has been worthy shall receive the 
 
 The same mood and thought come to expression 
 in Phil, i: 20-24. Again the hardships of life in the 
 flesh press upon him, and the longing for the new 
 life cannot be suppressed. Imprisonment, persecu- 
 tion, the spite of false brethren, all conspire to make 
 him weary of the struggle. Confident of his own 
 rectitude, he knows that neither death nor life can 
 put him to shame. Living, he magnifies his Master's 
 name and influence; dying, he dies as witness to his 
 Master's grace. Death for Christ is already becoming 
 a [xapirupEa in a new and powerful sense. For himself 
 he would welcome death; it is rest and it is the path- 
 way to the new life. The parousia cannot now be 
 long delayed. Shall Paul remain here to work under 
 ever-increasing difficulties, or shall he depart? If to 
 continue life in the flesh means fruit from the work 
 which he might do (for to live is to goon preaching), 
 then he will not declare his personal preference. 1 
 
 He is beset by contrary claims, his longing to 
 "break up camp" (ctvaXOcoet) and give over his 
 warfare, which were indeed gain to him, and his desire 
 to prolong his missionary activity and so win more 
 
 "yvwptfa here, as always in the N. T., has the sense of tell, 
 make known. Cf. Vincent ad loc. 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 103 
 
 fruit for his Master. The former were very far better 
 for him; the latter is more needful for the men he may 
 help. And here, as always, Paul subordinates every 
 thought of personal preference to the one supreme 
 purpose of gaining men for Christ. Gladly will he 
 stay; gladly, indeed, would he consent to have the 
 parousia and his release deferred yet a little longer, 
 if that be God's will, that by all means he may save 
 some. 
 
 It is a mistake to read into these brave words of a 
 weary and broken man any systematic declaration of 
 eschatological doctrine, or to assume that the phrase 
 "desire to depart and to be with Christ" implies 
 that the apostle had changed his views of the fate of 
 those dying before the parousia, and now believed 
 that such death meant immediate resurrection to the 
 heavenly life. As Wernle well puts it, "the man who 
 wrote the great resurrection chapter in I. Corinthians 
 did not possess a modern theologian's capability of 
 changing his opinions; the hope to which he there gives 
 expression is for him truth for which he is ready to 
 live and to die." 1 In his Roman prison, as amidst 
 the fightings and fears out of which he wrote his 
 "reconciliation-letter" to Corinth, Paul longs for 
 the Renewal and the perfect life, and it is only 
 pedantry that asks him to weigh his words so that 
 future exegetes will find them all consistent parts 
 of his "system." 
 
 "He only sees the earthly life, on the one hand, 
 and Christ, in whom his life is hid, on the other. 
 What may happen between cannot interfere with 
 
 1 Wernle, p. 207. 
 
104 The Resurrection 
 
 his glowing conviction that his salvation is indepen- 
 dent of death. "* To be absent from the body means 
 — passing over the brief interval before the parousia — 
 to be at home with the Master; to depart is to take 
 the first step toward being with Christ. It is alto- 
 gether mistaken when Teichmann declares, "The 
 resurrection of the Christians is by II. Cor. v. rendered 
 not only unnecessary, but wholly impossible." 2 We 
 must not forget that the Paul who wrote II. Cor. v. 
 and Phil. i. wrote also Phil, iii: 10-21. He is the Paul 
 who in the latter passage craves as a prize fellowship 
 with Christ's sufferings and conformity to his death, 
 that out of his death he may attain to resurrection, 
 the Paul who is waiting for the coming from heaven of 
 a saviour, who shall refashion his body of humiliation 
 into his own glorious likeness. Resurrection and 
 parousia are too clearly present in the apostle's 
 thought here to have been rejected by his thought in 
 the earlier lines of the same letter. 
 
 The more specific conception of "body" is found 
 in numerous other passages of Paul's letters. So 
 plainly in Rom. viii : 23 ; the aw(jt.a is to be redeemed by 
 putting off flesh and assuming spirit. In Rom. xii: 1, 
 also, the bodies which are to be presented to God as a 
 living sacrifice are not the "bodies of sin," but the 
 enduring bodies, which are not to be fashioned to 
 this age (sju) auvaxY^aTi^saSe T <P od&vi toutu), but 
 transformed by a renewal of the disposition over 
 into a new mode of existence ([ASTa^opcpoOaGs). The 
 language is that of Phil, iii: 20 f., and the thought 
 
 1 Kennedy, p. 272. 
 
 ' Teichmann, p. 67. Thackeray, p. 133, rightly says, " These 
 statements are quite unwarranted by St. Paul's language." 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 105 
 
 is the same. So in I. Cor. vi: 19 f. the aw^athat is 
 a shrine of the Holy Spirit, the aw^a in which God 
 is to be glorified, as a divinity is worshipped in his 
 temple, is not the physical body of sin, but the body 
 which is for the Lord, as throughout this chapter. 
 
 It may be granted that Paul's language is not always 
 guardedly consistent, free from ambiguity, as indeed 
 is the language of no living man, least of all that of 
 an active propagandist and preacher like Paul, whose 
 writings are the rapid occasional utterances which the 
 varying stress of the moment provokes. Sometimes 
 that which experiences resurrection and is endowed 
 with the garment of spirit is called by the apostle 
 cw(mc, in the strict sense; sometimes it is "we," the 
 persons, the selves. In either case the idea is the 
 same, for in the au^a inheres the personality, the con- 
 tinuity of identity. 1 But the one clear conclusion 
 from all his utterances is that in the process of resur- 
 rection and what follows it, the physical body plays 
 no part whatever. It does not rise, it is not changed, 
 every grave still holds the flesh and blood that was 
 committed to it, when resurrection is already an 
 accomplished fact. 
 
 The question raised by the Corinthian skeptics 
 was concerning the reality of resurrection for them- 
 selves and their fellow- Christians ; it included no 
 doubt that Jesus had been raised. And Paul's whole 
 discussion has been a demonstration of the resurrection 
 
 1 Cf. Tennyson, In Memoriam, 47. (Quoted by Tylor, vol. i., 
 
 p. ^50.) 
 
 "Eternal form shall still divide 
 The eternal soul from all beside; 
 And I shall know him when we meet. " 
 
106 The Resurrection 
 
 of Christians in general, taking the resurrection of 
 Jesus as a fixed premise from which to argue. But 
 any treatment of the resurrection of Jesus must 
 necessarily take into account this discussion of 
 Paul's, not only verses 3 to 8, in which the rising and 
 subsequent appearances of Jesus are cited, but the 
 whole chapter. In brief, all writers on the resur- 
 rection of Jesus recognise, though not all clearly 
 express it or consistently apply it, that whatever 
 Paul says concerning the resurrection of any Christian 
 man is valid also for the resurrection of Jesus, save 
 only the element of date. In his thought there was 
 only one kind of resurrection, only one experience 
 which could bear that name, and through this process 
 Jesus had already passed, as his followers should pass 
 on the near day of their Master's coming. 
 
 If we ask, then, just how Paul conceived Jesus' 
 resurrection, we have already the answer to that 
 question. Jesus in death laid aside the cru^a aapxixdv 
 and, after an interval of hours, during which he (or 
 his "self" or au[i.a in the strict sense) existed "naked" 
 in the lower world among 0! vexpdi, he was raised 
 Ik twv vexpwv into the heavenlies and endowed with 
 his new cu>(Aa rcveufj.aT»iov. His followers' fellowship 
 with him henceforth is with a living man, not with 
 the memory of a dead leader. Negatively, it is abso- 
 lutely clear that Paul not only did not hold the view 
 that Jesus' resurrection concerned his buried body 
 and necessitated an empty grave, but that he protests 
 strongly against any supposition that might lead to 
 such a view. 1 That view is precisely the thing which 
 
 1 Cf. A. Kalthoff, Die Entstehung des Ckristentums , 1904, p. 14. 
 "Die Frage, ob es sich bei der Auferstehung urn die Wiederbele- 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 107 
 
 his whole discussion is concerned to combat. That 
 this has not been clear to every student is simply 
 another tribute to the influence of the precedence of 
 the gospel stories, both in order and in emphasis. 
 
 Apparently the precise thought of Paul, as expressed 
 in this great fifteenth chapter, was not clearly appre- 
 hended in Corinth. He convinced the doubters, 
 indeed, but not of the exact conception for which he 
 argued. He caused them to believe what they had 
 hitherto been unable to believe, the resurrection of 
 the body, but "body" for them continued to imply 
 in this connection something other than it implied 
 for Paul. Paul's thought never succeeded in becom- 
 ing the common possession of the early church; if it 
 had, we should not have the gospel stories in their 
 present form. If it had, these stories would give no 
 account at all of anything connected with the grave 
 and the buried body, nothing of doings of the dead 
 Jesus, but would chronicle only experiences of his 
 followers. They would but fill in the details of Paul's 
 brief word, "he appeared" to Cephas and the rest. 
 They would approximate more nearly to the account 
 in Acts of the "appearance" to Paul, with visual and 
 perhaps auditory phenomena, but with no ascription 
 of physical characteristics to the Risen One. 1 Our 
 gospel stories are the product of the error of the 
 
 bung eines Scheintoten, oder um das reelle Lebendigwerden eines 
 Gestorbenen handelt, fur die Epistel literatur gar nicht in Betracht 
 kommen [kann]." 
 
 1 Cf. Holsten, p. 34. For the reason noted above, such a re- 
 lation of Luke's resurrection-narrative to Paul's as H. J. Holtz- 
 mann once assumed (Die Synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, p. 396) 
 is quite the reverse of the reality. 
 
108 The Resurrection 
 
 a^povec in Corinth, an error which proved so wide- 
 spread and deeply-rooted that even the ardent and 
 definite declarations of the apostle were unable to 
 uproot it, or to prevent it from becoming the ortho- 
 doxy of twenty centuries. 
 
 Now it is granted, indeed, by a very considerable 
 number of critical scholars that Paul did not think 
 of Jesus' resurrection as the revival of his corpse, 
 after the fashion of the gospel narratives. But by 
 certain of these scholars it is urged that Paul none 
 the less believed that the change was wrought 
 upon the corpse, that when the cw^a TcveufxaTixdv ap- 
 peared, the 0-wfj.a capx,Mdv disappeared, sublimated, as 
 it were, and swallowed up by the "clothing upon" of 
 the new organism. * The object upon which the change 
 is wrought, that is, is the au^a aapxtxdv, not the 
 ad\j.<x as such, stripped of cap!;, naked and indifferent 
 to its abandoned vesture. In short, it is urged that 
 Paul's view, no less than that of the gospels, necessi- 
 tates the empty grave. 
 
 As Beyschlag declares, "Paul emphasises the burial 
 of Jesus and thereby explains Jesus' resurrection as 
 being a going forth from the grave," 2 so also even 
 Schmiedel, though convinced that Paul kn'ew nothing 
 of the (unhistorical) story of the finding of the empty 
 tomb, yet asserts, "That Jesus was buried and that ' he 
 
 1 So, e. g., Haller, p. 290; Steude, p. 19; B. W. Bacon, in Am. 
 Jour. Theol., 1902, p. '257. 
 
 2 Beyschlag, p. 447. Beyschlag, of course, makes Paul in 
 close agreement with the gospel presentation. It is difficult to 
 find in ko.1 iri^t] the "Betonung" that for Beyschlag is "von 
 grosster Bedeutung." The same "Betonung" is found by Voigt, 
 p. 143, note 1. 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 109 
 
 has been raised' (I. Cor. xv: 4) cannot be affirmed by 
 any one who has not the reanimation of the body in 
 mind. " ' Paul, as a Jew of his time, thinks Schmiedel, 
 must have believed that the body of the new life was 
 a transformation of the body of the old life, which 
 must come out of the grave for that purpose. Schmie- 
 del finds the view which Paul must have held in Matt. 
 xxvii: 52, "many bodies of the saints that had fallen 
 asleep were raised, and coming forth out of the tombs, 
 after his resurrection they entered into the holy city 
 and appeared unto many." It is difficult to believe 
 that even for "Matthew" what happened to these 
 saints was actually their "resurrection" and entrance 
 into the new life; it is impossible to believe that Paul 
 conceived the process in such coarse fashion. 2 
 
 Schmiedel finds the same idea, 3 of the revived corpse 
 as in substance the resurrection-body, in certain 
 passages of Josephus — Antiquities, xviii., I: 3 and 
 Jewish War, iii., 8: 5 — passages which on examination 
 seem to say anything but this. Even if Schmiedel's 
 
 1 Schmiedel, col. 4059. Similarly Korff, p. 138 and pp. 16 f. 
 So Harnack, Chronologie, p. 708, understands Paul as guarantee- 
 ing the empty grave. In Das Wesen des Chris tentums, 1900, p. 
 1 02 , he is less pronounced ; " wahrscheinlich " instead of " un wider- 
 sprechlich. " Cf. also Dogmengeschichte, p. 82 (English tr., vol. i., 
 1895 pp. 85 f .). Similarly, Schwartzkopf, pp. 105 f. ; Voigt, p. 22 ; 
 Vernon Bartlet, Apostolic Age, 1899, p. 4; S. J. Case, in Am. Jour. 
 Theol., April, 1909, p. 181 ; A. Loisy, L'Evangile etl'E'glise, 3d. ed., 
 1904, p. 120; J. Grill, Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des 
 vierten Evangeliums, i., 1902, pp. 71 f., note. Cf. infra, pp. 225-228. 
 
 2 It is surely to beg the question to cite, as Schmiedel does, 
 Christian writings from the end of the century (Matt., Acts, Rev.) 
 as evidence for Paul's view. That Paul held the view of " Mat- 
 thew" and "Luke" is precisely the question at issue. 
 
 J Col. 4062. 
 
no The Resurrection 
 
 exegesis of Josephus were correct, the equation: the 
 Pharisees (as represented by Josephus here) equal 
 Paul, would be unjustified. But we have already- 
 seen what the Pharisees and Josephus really held, 1 
 and have found that Paul could believe in the new 
 body as entirely discontinuous in substance with the 
 old, and be in perfect agreement with a very consider- 
 able part of the best Jewish thought of his time. 
 Schmiedel's dictum that the spiritual body was not 
 "given to Jesus at his resurrection as a new body 
 whilst the old body remained in the grave, but . . . 
 it came into existence through a change wrought on 
 the buried body," 2 is not demanded by the evidence 
 of contemporary Jewish belief, and is opposed to all 
 the direct evidence of Paul's own utterances. Von 
 Soden has the more correct statement. "According 
 to the Jewish notions concerning death and the tran- 
 sition into the eternal heavenly world, the grave need 
 not at all be taken into consideration. Without the 
 corpse leaving the grave, out of the life-germ contained 
 in it, which passes with the soul into the underworld, 
 the new heavenly organism may be shaped." For 
 Paul also, "the way from the underworld into heaven 
 does not lead through the grave." 3 So Pfleiderer, 
 briefly and to the point. " Ausgeschlossen ist . . . 
 jedwede Beziehung des [dem Paulus] so geoffenbarten 
 himmlischen Lebens Christi zu dem ins Grab gelegten 
 
 1 Supra, pp. 89 f . and Volz, as there cited. 
 
 3 Col. 4076 f . 
 
 3 H. von Soden, Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, 1904, 
 p. 104. Von Soden's only uncertainty (and this a needless one) 
 is whether Jesus would use for the transition into the heavenly 
 world the term "resurrection," as Paul does. 
 
How Are the Dead Raised ? 1 1 1 
 
 Leib Jesu. " ' Finally, Martineau has the perfectly cor- 
 rect statement. "To Paul and his believers it would 
 have made no difference if the Jewish authorities had 
 rifled the tomb and publicly replaced the body upon the 
 uplifted cross ; this would no more prevent the spirit he 
 had committed into the Father's hand from putting 
 on its garment of heavenly light, than the contest be- 
 tween Michael and Satan for the body of Moses could 
 detain the lawgiver from his welcome by the angels." 2 
 
 Those who read so much out of Paul's %a\ Irdbpi] 
 need to consider seriously whether, after all, Paul's 
 whole faith, his whole religion, we might almost say, 
 and the faith of Christianity for these twenty cen- 
 turies, would have been impossible save for the chance 
 clemency in Pilate which gave the body to Joseph 
 for burial. Suppose Pilate had been in less complais- 
 ant mood, suppose the body had been unburied, left 
 upon the cross, a prey to the elements and noisome 
 birds. Or suppose Jesus, instead of being crucified, 
 had been burned to ashes at the stake; suppose that 
 he had been devoured by beasts in the arena, would 
 Paul's faith, nay, Paul himself, as we know him, have 
 then been impossible? Would it then have been im- 
 possible for Jesus to rise from the dead? 3 
 
 That is precisely what is claimed by those who 
 insist that the grave is a necessary element in the 
 
 1 Pfleiderer, p. 5. Similarly Wernle, p. 127. 
 
 1 Martineau, p. 370. The same point is excellently put by 
 Holsten, pp. 125-134, especially p. 129. 
 
 3 See this point briefly considered, without definite conclusion, 
 by W. J. Sparrow Simpson, in the Dictionary of Christ and the 
 Gospels, vol. ii., 1908, p. 510, first column. Mr. Simpson urges 
 that the empty tomb and the reanimated body have no essential 
 connection with the resurrection as such, but were indispensable 
 
ii2 The Resurrection 
 
 resurrection-process, that resurrection may have no 
 other definition than an issuance of the corpse (how- 
 ever changed) out of the tomb. If this is seriously 
 to be held, then it ought to be consistently held, 
 and the burial made a central point in the series of 
 events on which the world's salvation depends, a 
 Hauptheilsmoment. 1 It would then be little, if any, 
 
 as evidence to the crude minds of Palestinians of the first century. 
 This is an advance on the point of view of the popular apologetic, 
 though one might call in question the principle of the divine action 
 presupposed. 
 
 1 With as good right Lactantius, Divine Institutes, iv.,26, urges 
 the providential nature of Jesus ' death by crucifixion, instead of 
 by beheading, e. g., so that his body might be left intact and in 
 condition to be revived. Cf. Athanasius, De Incamatione Verbi, 
 xxiv., 4. 
 
 To be sure, ra4>tma. occurs in the original form of the Old 
 Roman Symbol, but it has not the value of a separate article of 
 faith, but only adds reality to the statement of crucifixion and 
 death {aTavpwdtvra ko.1 ratptvTa) . It is worth recalling that the 
 burial of Jesus is mentioned in the New Testament, aside from 
 the gospel narratives, only six times, Mark xiv: 8 ( = Matt. xxvi: 
 i2);Rom.vi:4 (=Col. ii: 12); I. Cor. xv: 4; Acts xiii: 29. Only 
 the last two of these are statements of the fact. Two of the six 
 are repetitions of other two; four of the six are attributed to 
 Paul, though but two of them are really his. Prior to the last 
 quarter of the second century only Aristides {Apology, ch. 2) 
 and Justin (Dialogue, chs. 97 and 118) certainly mention it. It 
 is mentioned also in three dubious Syriac fragments attributed 
 to Melito of Sardis (fl. ca. 165), found in W. Cureton, Spici- 
 legium Syriacum, 1855, pp. 52-56, and A.N.F., American 
 Ed., vol. viii., 1866, pp. 756-758. So far as the N. T. is con- 
 cerned, only the gospel stories and Acts xiii: 29 f. (a reflection, of 
 course, of the account in Luke xxiv.) bring the burial into rela- 
 tion with the resurrection. It is especially significant that Jesus, 
 despite all his allusions to his expected rising, never couples with 
 them any allusion to his burial or tomb. 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 113 
 
 inferior to the death of Jesus in necessary significance 
 for human redemption. That this has not been, and 
 cannot be, seriously urged, is sufficient evidence that 
 for no believer has the grave of Jesus actually had the 
 importance which is attached to it in treatises on the 
 resurrection. Unconsciously the deeper conviction, 
 even of the writers, has remained unpersuaded by the 
 dialectic arguments of the mind. 
 
 It is one of the most curious things in the history 
 of dogma that the grave and the physical body have 
 been so strenuously insisted on as necessary moments 
 in the very conception of "resurrection" as used of 
 Jesus, while they have not entered at all into the 
 definition of resurrection as expected for Jesus' 
 followers. No one now fancies that it has the least 
 bearing on his own resurrection whether his body 
 is buried or burned or left to decay on the field of 
 battle. Yet we are told, in effect, that lack of burial 
 would have been absolutely prohibitive to resurrection 
 in the case of Jesus. Why he was subject to this 
 curious limitation from which every one of his fol- 
 lowers is free, is not explained. From all such con- 
 fusions and contradictions of thought Paul, at least, 
 was free. For him it was true of Jesus, precisely as 
 of all Christians, that when the earthly house of his 
 tabernacle met dissolution, he received, not the same 
 house again, made over, but a new dwelling, a build- 
 ing from God, not made with hands, a habitation 
 eternal, ready in the heavens for his coming. 1 
 
 1 It would be much worth while to make a study, not alone of 
 
 the New Testament doctrine of resurrection, but of the twentieth 
 
 century Christian doctrine of it. What do the great masses of 
 
 Christian preachers and Christian people actually believe to- 
 
 8 
 
ii4 The Resurrection 
 
 We must therefore dissent from the view of Schmie- 
 del and Lake that for Paul and the earliest believers 
 Jesus' resurrection necessitated the "sublimation" 
 of his earthly body, or its disappearance from the 
 grave, because from it, in some mysterious way, must 
 be fashioned the new body of his spirit-life. 1 But we 
 must agree with them on what is, after all, a much 
 more important point, namely, that granting this 
 conception as that of Paul, it does not in the least 
 imply that the apostle believed or even knew any one 
 of the gospel stories concerning the revived body. It 
 does not guarantee in any degree Paul's belief that the 
 women went to the grave, that the stone was rolled 
 away, that the body came out; still less his belief in 
 the earthquake, the angels, the walk to Emmaus, the 
 eating and drinking, and the other episodes we read 
 in our gospels. 
 
 To read belief in these things into Paul's statements 
 is an act of purely arbitrary conjecture. To grant 
 
 day, not about immortality, but about resurrection? What does 
 Dr. Orr actually believe? May the question be raised whether, 
 after all, Christian people to-day believe in resurrection at all, 
 in any real sense? It is easy to re-define the word so as to 
 cover our own belief, whatever that be. But do we believe in 
 resurrection, defined as Paul defined it, or has the Christian 
 world given up Paul's belief as an error? Of whatever adjust- 
 ment individual consciences are capable, it is historical false- 
 hood to affirm: "I believe in the resurrection of the body," 
 thereby meaning: "I believe in the immortality of the soul." 
 Cf. J. Wendland, Der Wunderglaube im Christentum, 1910, p. 113. 
 1 Holsten, p. 37, "muss gegen Beyschlag entschieden bestreiten, 
 dass der auferstehungsleib des herrn fur Paulus nicht ein neues 
 a-d/ja iirovpdPiop, sondern der fruhere, zu einer hoheren, geistigen 
 existenz-form verklarte irdische leib gewesen sei." 
 
How Are the Dead Raised? 115 
 
 that he believed the appearance of the spiritual body 
 necessitated the disappearance of the material body 
 is only to say that he held, theoretically, that if Jesus' 
 grave could be found and opened, there would be no 
 body within. But this he would hold, granting that 
 he held it at all, purely as a matter of theory, because 
 his anthropological system demanded it. When he 
 returned to Jerusalem as a Christian, eight or nine 
 years after Jesus' death, it was of course too late to 
 make inquiries about the corpse. But on no hypothe- 
 sis whatever would Paul have the slightest reason to 
 make inquiries concerning the body. On Schmiedel's 
 hypothesis, his very seeing of Jesus precluded any 
 such inquiry. If I meet my friend in New York, I 
 do not cable to inquire whether he has yet left London. 
 If I see a book on my desk, I do not search whether 
 it be still on the shelf. On the view of Paul's belief 
 here presented, it would not be of the slightest con- 
 sequence whether Jesus' body were still in the grave; 
 it would of course be assumed to be there, and would 
 not be a subject of inquiring thought at all. 
 
 In the case of the brethren who have died in Thes- 
 salonica, Paul does not inquire whether their bodies 
 have been burned to ashes, whether they were de- 
 voured by wild beasts or drowned in the sea. As 
 little as their resurrection-to-be is conditioned on 
 their dying in their beds and the usual interment of 
 their bodies, so little was Jesus' resurrection condi- 
 tioned by the disposition or fate of his body after the 
 moment when his spirit left it. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 Paul's further witness 
 
 WE have examined Paul's witness to the resur- 
 rection of Jesus, as written in the fifteenth 
 chapter of First Corinthians. We have tried to 
 answer most of the questions raised by that chapter, 
 and have come to a definite understanding as to the 
 belief of the apostle to which the chapter witnesses. 
 But it is possible that the evidence of this chapter, 
 when taken alone, may be misleading. Elsewhere 
 Paul may qualify it, or suggest points of view that 
 will put certain parts of the testimony in a different 
 light, or add elements that are here lacking. At any 
 rate, in order to secure a clear and complete answer to 
 the question : What did Paul believe about the resur- 
 rection? we must examine his other letters for utter- 
 ances on the same theme. Of such further utterances 
 we shall find no lack. In each of the genuine letters 
 of Paul, 1 except Philemon, there is frequent reference 
 to the resurrection, either of Jesus or of believers in 
 Jesus, and we have already seen that resurrection 
 means one thing for both, that what is said of Jesus' 
 rising is valid for that of his followers, and vice versa. 
 Some of these passages have already been touched 
 
 1 II. Thess., Eph., and the Pastorals are not regarded as from 
 Paul's pen. 
 
 116 
 
Paul's Further Witness 117 
 
 upon; we may briefly examine the content of others. 
 Any complete treatment of the resurrection as wit- 
 nessed by Paul's letters would require an examination 
 of practically the whole of each letter, so large does 
 the conviction of the risen life loom in Paul's Christian 
 consciousness. Yet the more definite utterances may 
 here be noticed. 
 
 First Thessalonians, Paul's earliest letter to be 
 kept in our canon, has in i : 10 a very simple, brief, 
 and yet complete statement of his belief about resur- 
 rection. It is characteristic of the Christians that 
 they "are waiting for his son [to come] from the skies, 
 whom he raised out from among the dead, Jesus, who 
 rescues us from the coming wrath." Here there is 
 no hint of an intermediate tarrying of the risen Jesus 
 on earth, such as that of "the forty days," but he is 
 raised ex. vexpwv et? tov oupavdv. All the moments of 
 value are in this transition, and the interpolation of 
 such episodes as the gospels give us at this point would 
 only disturb the sense and confuse the real emphasis 
 of the passage. Jesus was raised, as always in Paul's 
 thought and expression, by God, by an act of the divine 
 power, which is only a briefer statement of what is said 
 in II. Cor. v: 1-10. God has made ready for his own a 
 body in heaven, which he keeps against the dissolution 
 of the earthly frame; then by his almighty power he 
 raises the naked "soul" and "gives it a body, even as 
 it pleases him, and to each a body of its own. " 
 
 Further, the raising of Jesus is not here cited as 
 a witness to his unique or superhuman nature; for 
 Paul it is never that, it could not be that. The only 
 thing which is unique about Jesus' resurrection is that 
 it precedes all others in point of time. Otherwise it 
 
n8 The Resurrection 
 
 witnesses, not to anything about Jesus, but to the 
 power of God, to God's love and goodness in promising 
 resurrection also to the followers of his son. In this 
 assurance which it gives that the faithful shall in 
 their turn rise from the dead, lies the chief ground of 
 the mention of resurrection here. Jesus rose in order 
 that from the heavens he might return in power to 
 bring about for faithful men what God had wrought 
 for him. 1 "I go to prepare a place for you; I come 
 again and will receive you unto myself, that where I 
 am, ye may be also. " 
 
 Of course it will be at once objected, what we would 
 not in the least deny, that Jesus' resurrection did have 
 for Paul the other value, that it was for him the 
 supreme, practically the one and only, proof of 
 Jesus' divine mission and Messiahship. This is 
 fundamental to all Paul's thought, as needs not to be 
 said. Rom. i: 4 is the clear statement of it. 2 But 
 none the less, it is not Jesus' rising as such that de- 
 clares him the Son of God; it is his rising on the third 
 day, his priority to all other men. At the last day 
 
 1 So the latest commentator, George Milligan, St. Paul's 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians, 1908, ad loc. For the same point of 
 view of the resurrection as witnessing not primarily to Jesus' 
 supremacy, but to the promise of future blessedness for the Christ- 
 ians, Milligan very justly cites Rom. viii: 11; I. Cor. xv: 20 ft.; 
 II. Cor. iv: 14; Col. i: 18; Acts xvii: 31. He might have cited 
 nearly every allusion of Paul to Jesus' resurrection, e. g., I. Thess. 
 iv: 14; Phil, iii: 10 f., 20 f., etc. 
 
 1 But almost the only direct statement of it in Paul's letters. 
 The other point of view is everywhere predominant. Acts com- 
 monly has the evidential conception of Rom. i: 4; so Acts ii: 24-36, 
 iii: 15, x: 40 f., xiii: 33 f., xxvi: 33. Acts xvii: 31 also belongs here, 
 though Milligan cites it for its bearing on parousia and judgment. 
 
Paul's Further Witness 119 
 
 all the faithful rise; rising in itself conveys no dis- 
 tinction. Only as Jesus was singled out and removed 
 from Hades speedily, ere yet his flesh saw corruption, 
 only as he was given Messianic power upon his 
 entrance into the heavenly world, given power to 
 reveal himself to his followers on earth, power to 
 commune with them and live in them, power to come 
 again in glory and might, with all the holy angels, to 
 set up the Kingdom — only so was he "declared to be 
 the Son of God with power by the resurrection from 
 the dead." Not his rising, but his rising so, proves 
 him the Anointed One. These elements are of value 
 as proofs, to persuade men to accept the gospel; but 
 when men are once Christians, the resurrection of 
 Jesus is for them primarily a great promise. " Because 
 he lives, we shall live also. " 
 
 Theologians have ever been of various minds as to 
 the precise point of uniqueness in Jesus' resurrection, 
 that differentiated it from all others. 1 On the one 
 hand, its substantial identity with the resurrection 
 awaiting us must be maintained, for here, as Paul 
 was so keenly conscious, lie its values for us. On 
 the other hand, an essential difference must also be 
 maintained, or wherein shall Jesus' resurrection 
 witness to a supernatural character in him which 
 our resurrections shall in no wise demonstrate as 
 belonging to us? Paul at least was not for a moment 
 in doubt on this matter. Jesus is declared anointed 
 Son of God in that he rose from the world of the 
 dead (a) prior to all others, prior to the end of the age, 
 almost immediately after death; (b) to be endowed 
 
 * Cf. Appendix. 
 
120 The Resurrection 
 
 in the heavenly world with all the powers, dignities, 
 and attributes of Messiah, power to inspire men now, 
 and to come in glory to establish the Kingdom of 
 God ; (c) by a direct act of the divine will, whereas all 
 others shall be raised by virtue of their relation to him. 
 
 This last point needs to be stated a little more 
 fully, as it is exceedingly important in Paul's thought, 
 and is yet commonly overlooked. Paul expects 
 resurrection only because he has established relations 
 with the glorified Messiah; the power to rise is medi- 
 ated only through that relationship. 1 How, then, did 
 Jesus rise, for whom there was no Messiah? For him 
 the active principle of resurrection is necessarily 
 somewhat differently conceived : for him, as the prius, 
 the first-born from the dead, there is a special, initia- 
 tory creative act of God's power. Here, too, he is the 
 second Adam. All men are born of women; Adam 
 was created by God. Our physical bodies are inherit- 
 ances; our spiritual bodies are of God, not made with 
 hands. Our natural lives, weak, sinful, under law, are 
 inheritances; our spiritual lives are a new creation. 
 
 Here are two lines of development; at the head of 
 each is a man created, not born. The first man, of 
 the earthly line, became, by God's creative act, a 
 living ^u%ri; the second man, of the heavenly order, 
 became, also by God's creative act, a life-giving 
 iuveujj.oc. After each comes the long line of posterity 
 wherein each member is no longer a special creation, 
 but inherits a derived life, consequent on his relation 
 to the head. Resurrection, as Paul conceives it, 
 is possible alone to those who have been transferred 
 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 72-75. 
 
Paul's Further Witness 121 
 
 from the one line to the other. Such transference of 
 relationship from the first Adam to the second Adam 
 frees one absolutely from all the claims and contin- 
 gencies of the first order — law, sin, death. There are 
 Paul's theology and philosophy of religion in a sentence. 
 Jesus' resurrection was the creative act of God by 
 which he was established as the second Adam, as 
 "the head of the body, the church, who is the begin- 
 ning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things 
 he might have the pre-eminence" (Col. i: 18). 
 
 Such, then, are the factors which, in Paul's faith, 
 give to the resurrection of Jesus its pre-eminence and 
 uniqueness. But though this unique aspect of the 
 matter is clearly present to his mind, it is not the aspect 
 on which he lays greatest emphasis, or to which, in 
 writing to his churches, he most frequently calls 
 attention. It is Jesus' resurrection as the "first- 
 fruits," as the pledge and promise of that of his 
 followers, which commonly comes to expression. So 
 we found it in the verse which we were examining, 
 I. Thess. i: 10. The last clause of that verse deserves 
 a passing comment, It]jouv tbv pud^evov v^a? sx. ttj? 
 dpYfj? Tfjq ip%oy.evr\<;. Jesus, by his resurrection 
 and establishment as "head" of the new spiritual 
 order, rescues the believers from the wrath which is 
 coming, not by inducing God to spare them, nor by 
 miraculously protecting them when the wrath comes, 
 but simply by removing them from the field where 
 the wrath shall be exercised. 1 By the simple transfer 
 
 1 The present participle pvb^vov is not equivalent to pwbiuvor, 
 "shall rescue us when the wrath comes. " It is strictly present; 
 the rescuing is now going on, the wrath is yet to come. The two 
 do not synchronise. Cf. Meyer-Bornemann, 1894, ad loc. 
 
122 The Resurrection 
 
 from one "order" or "kingdom" to the other, they 
 are removed from the sphere of wrath. 'Opy^ falls 
 upon that world to which belong a\L<xpzla, v6y.os, 
 OdvaTo?, fSopdt. Those whose citizenship is in an- 
 other world thereby escape it. They are by the 
 goodness of God "rescued (Ipuaato) from the power of 
 darkness and transferred into the kingdom of the son 
 of his love" (Col. i: 13). Wrath shall come upon "the 
 world," but "our citizenship is in heaven." "God 
 did not appoint us unto wrath, but unto the obtaining 
 of salvation through Jesus our Master, who died for 
 us, that whether we wake or fall asleep, together with 
 him we should enter into life." 1 
 
 The passage of I. Thess. which deals most definitely 
 with the resurrection is iv: 13-17. Here Paul gives 
 explicit expression to his belief concerning the resur- 
 rection of Christians at the parousia and its relations 
 to the rising of Jesus. Here the believers are expressly 
 contrasted with oE Xoircol, the rest of men, who have 
 no hope of resurrection for their dead. The Thessa- 
 lonian Christians have no fear for themselves, for their 
 own change into the spirit-body at the parousia, but 
 for those of their number who die, who are not on 
 earth, but in Hades, when the Lord comes, there is 
 doubt. Shall they not miss the blessedness of his com- 
 ing, and while they may ultimately enter the glorious 
 kingdom, yet be delayed and forced to pass through 
 experiences of trial and testing? 
 
 1 1. Thess, v: 9 f. The aorist iicrioiuiv means: put on life, 
 attain life, not merely: live. There is effective contrast of 4fo- 
 Bavbvrn with jtfcrafiev. "Wake or sleep" of course takes up 
 the thought of iv: 13 ff. ; KadeiBw in v: 6 f. is clearly used in 
 another sense. 
 
Paul's Further Witness 123 
 
 The answer to all such questioning is the case of 
 Jesus himself, the great Master. He did not pass 
 through the supreme change while alive, as many of us 
 shall be privileged to do. He died, as your friends have 
 died; yet he rose again in triumph. So also we are 
 sure that these shall be brought up from death and 
 appear with him at his parousia. So far, indeed, from 
 being behind us that remain alive, they shall precede 
 us. As the Lord descends, and the trumpet sounds, 
 they shall rise, glorious in their heavenly dress; then 
 we who have not died shall be changed into the same 
 spirit-body, and casting behind us flesh and earth, 
 we shall all rise together, a shining company, into the 
 clouds upon which our Lord rides, to meet and greet 
 him in the air. This is "the parousia of our Lord 
 Jesus with all his saints " (iii :1s). 1 This is very clear, 
 very literal, very artless, and it is the picture that re- 
 mained in Paul's mind until he, too, fell asleep, and in 
 his dying hour joined in thought that company of the 
 dead in Christ who shall rise first, content, perhaps, at 
 the end, not to be among those who should be alive 
 and left when the Lord should come. 
 
 Into verse 17 we must read what the apostle passes 
 over as taken for granted, the "changing " of the living 
 from the physical body to the spirit- body, as in I. Cor. 
 xv : 52. "We that are alive [shall be changed and] 
 together with them shall be caught up." 2 It is 
 
 1 Cf. Teichmann, p. 22. 
 
 1 The "change" of the living into another body is "wohl 
 stillschweigend vorausgesetzt, " Meyer-Bornemann ad loc. So 
 Ellicott ad loc. Thackeray, p. 109, also p. 112, because "no 
 transformation of the earthly bodies is spoken of, " thinks Paul 
 expected the risen and the surviving Christians to carry their 
 
124 The Resurrection 
 
 to be noted that Paul does not here use the verb 
 rise (dvEaTiqtu or kydpoy.au) r of any except the deceased 
 Christians. Strictly speaking, those who are still alive 
 are changed, they do not rise. The word rise, postulat- 
 ing transition from a lower place to a higher, means 
 issuance from Hades, the underworld, or Sheol. Re- 
 surrection is always, in strict usage, &v&<rta<nq iv. vexpwv. 
 The distinction is not always sharply drawn, for in 
 essence the process is the same whether the living be 
 "changed" or the dead be raised and given a new 
 body, yet Paul does not, and could not, use the phrase- 
 ology: the living rise. I. Cor. xv. illustrates how in- 
 evitably the subject of £Ys!pea0at is vexpdq or vexpoE. 
 Verse 22 instinctively substitutes ^woitorr^aovTat for 
 iYep0Tfaovi;at because xdvts? includes Christians alive 
 at the parousia as well as those who have died. 2 
 The distinction, we have said, is not always sharply 
 
 physical bodies into the Kingdom of God, ever to be with the Lord. 
 This idea Paul, however, gives up before writing I. Cor. Surely it 
 is an absurdity thus to press the argumentum e silentio, and to 
 assume a complete change of conception each time an idea is ex- 
 pressed not previously expressed in so many words. We may be 
 permitted to repeat Wernle's saying, "Paul did not possess a 
 modern theologian's capacity for altering his opinions. " I. Thess. 
 iv: 1 7 is most strikingly brought into connection with II. Cor. iv: 
 iff. in the passage from the "Ascensionof Isaiah, " quoted supra, 
 p. 100, especially in the phrase (iv: 17): "And afterwards they 
 [those alive at the parousia] will turn themselves upward in 
 their garments, and their body will be left in the world. " 
 
 1 dvlaraadai is used by Paul for rising from the dead only in 
 I. Thess. iv: 14 and 16. iyelpav he uses some forty times, the noun 
 dvia-rajis eight times. Milligan ad I. Thess. iv: 14. 
 
 3 xv: 36 refers only to deceased Christians; "that which thou 
 sowest is not quickened (fwo7roieircu) except it die"; but, as in 
 vs. 22, some may be made alive without being "sown, " or dying. 
 
Paul's Further Witness 125 
 
 drawn by Paul, for there is a sense, and a very real 
 sense, in which every Christian, by the simple act of 
 becoming a Christian, dies, rises from the dead, puts 
 on the spiritual life and its body. By faith this ex- 
 perience becomes his here and now, in anticipation, 
 and it is this resurrection through faith, through which 
 every believer has already passed, which is meant in 
 the majority of Paul's allusions to the subject. Typical 
 is Col. iii: i, "If ye then were raised with Christ, 
 seek the things that are above," or Rom. vi: 4, "like 
 as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory 
 of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. ' ' 
 This, simply for convenience ' sake, without concern- 
 ing ourselves with the precise applicability of the 
 term, we may call "the ethical resurrection." 
 
 Now unless we enter into the real thought of Paul 
 at this point, we shall not understand at all what he 
 meant by his religion. This ethical resurrection 
 is the real, vital experience of which the literal 
 resurrection at the parousia is only the outward ob- 
 jective realisation. Paul's interest is not primarily 
 in eschatology, but in spiritual redemption. What 
 his whole being cries out for, and finds in the gospel 
 of Jesus, is not the reshaping of environment — body, 
 world, conditions of life — but the reshaping and re- 
 vitalising of his own moral personality. His need 
 is for the attainment of a new principle of life, which 
 should free him at once from every claim and conse- 
 quence of the old order and make him a citizen of that 
 diviner, spiritual order of life which is God's blessed 
 and blessing will for his children. 
 
 Here Paul was the true disciple of his Master. For 
 Jesus, too, preach, as he did, unceasingly of the King- 
 
126 The Resurrection 
 
 dom of God, and point, as he did, ever forward to the 
 speedy fulfilment of his people's eschatological ex- 
 pectations, yet in his heart of hearts knew God as 
 Father, not as King, and unconsciously preached, 
 through his preaching, the timeless union of the soul 
 with God as the highest good, man's original destiny. 
 Both these men held fast the two ideals, and never 
 fully realised their discrepance, if they are discrepant ; 
 but the religious ideal of both has lived and shaped 
 the world's life, even when their eschatology has been 
 ignored, denied, or made the meaningless formula of a 
 creed. 
 
 Paul has one sublime idea, call it "justification by 
 faith, " or what we will. It is that through Jesus has 
 been revealed and actualised a new order of life, a new 
 principle of living. It is new to men, but in reality it 
 was God's ideal for his children's life from the begin- 
 ning. He meant that men should live in the spirit 
 as he, their father, lived; should share his life, his 
 glory, his bliss ; should live consciously as his children, 
 not under his orders, but doing his will because they 
 loved him, because his will was their will. Man as 
 Son in the fullest sense, heir of all the riches of the 
 Father, this is man as God created him in his ideal and 
 purpose; man created in the image, bodily and spirit- 
 ual, of the Father out of whose life issues the life of 
 man. 
 
 But man as he has lived upon earth, historically, 
 has not realised this ideal. That is only too evident 
 to Paul, to any thinking mind. There was a sad 
 blunder made, somehow, at the beginning of man's 
 career on earth, a fall into a lower kind and conception 
 of life. Naturally this "fall" is connected with the 
 
Paul's Further Witness 127 
 
 name of Adam, the founder of the human family on 
 earth; just how Paul conceived the terrible mistake to 
 have been made, it is not necessary here to stop to 
 inquire. At any rate, man, as history finds him, is 
 not the being of God's ideal. He lives a life commonly 
 degraded and low; spirituality, wisdom, bliss, deathless- 
 ness, glory, are qualities he does not possess. Of God 
 he has some knowledge, dimmer or clearer, but his 
 conception of his relation to God is, even in its highest 
 form, of God as Lord and himself as slave. God has 
 given him laws and rules, as expressions of his will; 
 the Jewish race has even a specially revealed code of 
 laws whose observance God enjoins; but all this is an 
 ineffectual makeshift, far from that original ideal. 
 The most scrupulous observer of the most definite 
 code is none the less wretched, and the more clearly he 
 sees what he was meant to be, the less peace does all 
 his law-abiding bring him. And if his lot is a miserable 
 one, he who knows of the higher destiny and the su- 
 premer duty of man, what of all the hosts of ignorance 
 and wickedness and idolatry? Surely, as it is written, 
 
 "There is none righteous, no, not one; 
 
 There is none that understandeth, 
 
 There is none that seeketh after God. 
 
 They have all turned aside, they are altogether 
 become unprofitable; 
 
 There is none that doeth good, no, not so much as 
 one." 1 
 
 All have missed the mark (ijnapTov) and fall short 
 of the glory of God (Rom. iii: 23). Of them truly 
 is it said, "Destruction and misery are in their ways, 
 
 'Psalm xiv: 1-3, as quoted in Rom. iii: 10-12. 
 
128 The Resurrection 
 
 and the way of peace have they not known" (iii: 
 1 6 f.). Such is man as he is- such is not man as he 
 was meant to be. 
 
 But meantime God has not given up his ideal; God 
 has not ceased to cherish that diviner Man, made in 
 the image of the invisible God, the first-born of 
 all creation. That heavenly man Paul conceives as 
 existing through the ages with God, an ever-present 
 ideal, yet never come to realisation in a living man on 
 the earth. This "pre-existence" of the heavenly man 
 we need not here further discuss; it is a fixed part of 
 the substructure on which Paul's faith is builded. 1 
 
 Now, in the fulness of time, God determines — or 
 rather, has determined before the worlds — to make 
 a new beginning, a second creation. At the first 
 creation the "man" who actually came to realisation 
 on earth was not the ideal Son of God, but a weaker, 
 imperfect SvBpuico?. He became the founder and 
 head of a race upon whom came ills never meant 
 for man, — sin, death, corruption, — for whom service 
 of God was possible only through conformity to laws 
 and precepts. Meant to be sons, they were at best 
 slaves. Now should the heavenly Man be sent as a 
 second Adam; he should appear on earth born of a 
 woman, a human being like his prototype, to initiate 
 a new order of men, the original divine order of the 
 divine plan. 2 But this order should not descend from 
 him by process of human generation; rather by the 
 process of spiritual kindling and quickening. They 
 who enter the new order do it, not by being born, but 
 
 1 Cf. Holsten, pp. 74 f. 
 
 2 On the first and second Adams, cf. Holsten, pp. 72-74; 
 Thackeray, pp. 44 f . 
 
Paul's Further Witness 129 
 
 by being born again, as John, whose gospel is a setting 
 forth of essentially Pauline ideas, has it; the founder of 
 the new order gives to already living men power to 
 become sons of God by a birth which is "not of blood, 
 nor of the will of flesh, nor of a man's will, but of God. " 
 
 We have, then, a new creation, which is to make good 
 all that the first creation made ill, and which is con- 
 ceived in large measure according to the analogy of 
 the first creation. The current apocalyptic could at 
 this point contribute to the shaping of Paul's thought 
 and phraseology. 1 The new Adam is to be a life- 
 giving spirit ; he is to be able to communicate to all who 
 come into spiritual fellowship with him the gift of the 
 divine life, even as the first Adam entailed upon his 
 descendants death and sin. The second Adam is born 
 of a woman, in the likeness of sinful flesh, under the 
 law, in all things made like the men of the old order. 
 And so he is able to redeem them into the new order. 
 Any man, now living or yet to live, may pass over 
 from the one order to the other. The transfer may be 
 called adoption (uto0ea!a, Rom. viii: 15; Gal. iv: 5); 
 it may be called redemption or justification or salva- 
 tion. It is the becoming what God wanted men to be; 
 it is being rescued from all the ills incident to the old 
 order, and from the wrath which shall fall upon the 
 wrong and wickedness of that order. 
 
 How is this transfer to be effected? To answer that 
 question we must first ask: What does it actually 
 
 1 For the apocalyptic view of the parallelism between the crea- 
 tion of the present world and the eschatological events in which 
 the new age is born, cf. H. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, 1895, 
 pp. 367-371; Hugo Gressmann, Der Ursprung der Israelitisch- 
 jiidischen Eschatologie, 1905, p. 199. 
 
130 The Resurrection 
 
 effect? What are the elements of which one must get 
 rid, as belonging to the old order, and what are those 
 which must be assumed, as belonging to the new? 
 First of all those things which are to be done away is 
 the human ao>[jt,a in its present embodiment of a4p^. 
 As flesh, it is subject to every ill, its fleshly substance is 
 the seat of sin, of evil passions and desires, of vile deeds. 
 It is the abode of weakness, of sickness; its certain 
 fate is death and corruption. This physical body must, 
 therefore, be gotten rid of, with all the passions and 
 lusts of it, with its sin and death and corruption. And 
 there must be assumed a new ffu(xa, embodied in a 
 new substance, the seat of new desires, under no im- 
 pulsion to sin, unsubject to death. The body of the 
 new order is the aw^a itveufMCTtKtSv, a body like that of 
 God himself. The transfer from one order to the 
 other likewise means ceasing any obligation to the law 
 which has hitherto expressed God's will and dictated 
 man's action. In the new order law has no place; 
 men are to live as children, not as slaves. 
 
 Now how are men to get rid of the earthly body 
 and of allegiance to the law? The older Jewish theo- 
 logy had a ready answer to this question; simply by 
 dying. Death stripped the self of its fleshly garments, 
 and sent it shivering and naked into the underworld, 
 where it no longer had opportunity or obligation 
 to keep the law (Rom. vii: i). And the righteous 
 might look forward to a resurrection, at the end of the 
 age, into a new and better body, and to a blessed life 
 in the presence of God. 
 
 That view is Paul's also; but under his Christian 
 experience it vastly expands and becomes transfigured. 
 It becomes a part of his faith in a greater redemption, 
 
Paul's Further Witness 131 
 
 a redemption which is not merely a reward for virtuous 
 conduct, promised to law-abiding Israelites at the end 
 of time, but the immediate opportunity for every man 
 to become what he would have been had the initial 
 fall of humanity in Adam never taken place. Man 
 fallen, sinful, under law, belonging to the old order, 
 is divided into Jew and Gentile. In that old order, so 
 long as it is valid, that distinction is valid and useful. 
 In that order, the Jewish law and all the institutions 
 connected with the observance of the peculiar people 
 have their place. But they have no place in the new 
 order, as they had no place in God's original ideal of 
 humanity. Man as redeemed is neither Jew nor Greek, 
 bond nor free ; not even male or female, for in the resur- 
 rection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, 
 but are like the angels in heaven. 
 
 To every man alive, irrespective of race or creed or 
 status, comes now the opportunity of going over into 
 the new order. And that order is the Kingdom of 
 God, in Paul's language. As men go over into it, one 
 by one, hundred by hundred, there builds up, under 
 Paul's eyes, the company of the redeemed, the com- 
 munity of "saints, " who are in the original sense child- 
 ren of God, the Messianic fellowship which is to form 
 the society of the new age. When the wrath of God 
 falls on this present age, the present order of life with 
 its sin and corruption, the members of the new order 
 shall be untouched of it, for they dwell apart, in 
 another sphere. 
 
 But still we have not answered the question : How 
 is the transfer to be made, and made now, by living 
 men who are a part of the present world? The answer 
 is perhaps not easy to set forth in words ; it is none the 
 
132 The Resurrection 
 
 less very clear and definite, as Paul conceives it. The 
 heavenly Man — let us call him Messiah — comes to 
 earth and is born like his brethren, a Jew under the law, 
 subject to the contingencies of mortal existence. This 
 was not at all a necessary part of the common ex- 
 pectation about Messiah; at least, such a preliminary 
 appearance of Messiah as an ordinary human being 
 had no significance in any Messianic conception. 
 Messiah was an eschatological figure, and his work was 
 to be miraculous and spectacular, as that of the glori- 
 ous King inaugurating the new age amid the ruins of 
 the old. But Paul, while in no degree giving up the 
 eschatological function of Messiah, unites with it 
 another, that of his pure life and martyr-death as a 
 man on earth, before the real Messianic work begins. 
 Here again we see that Paul's primary interest was not 
 eschatological ; the eschatological programme is really 
 only the realisation and completion of the essential 
 and proper process of redemption already accom- 
 plished in the earthly career of Messiah. Neither 
 Jesus nor Paul displaced the Jewish Messianic con- 
 ception by another; they added to it another. Messiah 
 lives on earth a pure life, obedient to the law; he is the 
 teacher and the friend of men; he exemplifies the kind 
 of life God meant his sons to live, the relation to God 
 which is at once all men's privilege and duty. Himself 
 essentially of another order, sin has no hold on him; 
 the law he keeps naturally, but his righteousness is 
 not limited to its observance, exceeding that of the 
 strictest scribes and Pharisees, the expression of his 
 own pure nature. He lives as the typical Son of God, 
 exemplifying the new order. The old order instinct- 
 ively hates him, opposes him, and brings him ulti- 
 
Paul's Further Witness 133 
 
 mately to death. But death has no real hold on him, 
 as it has none on the sons of God, according to God's 
 plan. It simply means for him the laying aside of the 
 earthly body which he has assumed. The only thing 
 which gives death real hold on men is the sin and cor- 
 ruption incident to the "fall" and the body of flesh. 
 
 Thus the new order is founded. Its head, the new 
 Adam, has lived as a man on earth, has escaped from 
 all the penalties of the old order, escaped from death, 
 entered into the life which God meant his sons to 
 live. It only remains for other men to follow him, to 
 press with eagerness into the Kingdom. As the first 
 Adam begat children and surrounded himself with a 
 numerous progeny, so the second Adam surrounds 
 himself with an ever-increasing company of those who 
 by a birth of the spirit enter the new order. This new 
 birth is the act of faith. As Adam's fall and sin are 
 valid not only for himself, but are entailed upon all his 
 descendants, those who are bound to him by the re- 
 lation of physical generation, so the second Adam lives 
 and dies and conquers not for himself alone. His 
 experience is representative and is entailed on all 
 those who come into spiritual relationship with him. 
 He has lived a life independent of Adam's fall, just as 
 if he were the first man; he has escaped any domination 
 of sin, any bondage to death; he has entered into the 
 heavenly body and the heavenly life. All these 
 things become immediately true of every one who 
 establishes the spiritual relationship to him, who, in 
 Paul's phrase, puts faith in him, in short, who becomes 
 a Christian. 
 
 If to escape the physical body with all the lusts of 
 its flesh, if to become free from obligation to the law, 
 
134 The Resurrection 
 
 we must die, then we have died, in Messiah's death. 
 We are, therefore, already free from these things. 
 Law, sin, death, corruption — these and their like have 
 no longer any dominion over us, because we have re- 
 moved to a sphere where they have no jurisdiction or 
 application, never did have, never were meant to have. 
 For us Adam's fall and all its consequences are nulli- 
 fied; we start anew, and this time we start aright. 
 This is the meaning of becoming a Christian. In the 
 old days we read God's law and tried to observe it; 
 now we have God's spirit. The very spirit of the 
 divine Father himself comes into us and makes us 
 divine beings, forms the substance and the reality of 
 our lives. As all our old life was tainted and spoiled 
 by the flesh in which lay the seat of countless evils, 
 now our lives are made pure and holy by the divine 
 spirit in which we live. Jewish eschatology promised 
 that after we had died, had remained in the under- 
 world as naked souls until the end of time, had then 
 been presented before God's throne for judgment and 
 pronounced worthy, we should receive the new body 
 and enter the heavenly life. Paul affirms that by 
 the simple act of becoming a Christian, all that is 
 accomplished. It all lies behind us — death, judg- 
 ment, resurrection, and the entrance upon the 
 heavenly life. 
 
 Now it is evident that there is just one point in 
 which this simple and sublime construction of Paul's 
 seems to be contradicted by reality. In becoming 
 Christians men did not lose their physical bodies ; they 
 continued as before to live in the flesh, with all its 
 passions, and therefore still fell into sin and vice. 
 Any one of Paul's letters is abundant evidence of that. 
 
Paul's Further Witness 135 
 
 But Paul does not allow this obvious fact to negate 
 his conviction. What he has said of the Christian's 
 transfer to the new order is ideally true; it is literally 
 true of the inward man. He still keeps his body of 
 flesh, indeed, but that is, however practically import- 
 ant, in reality a secondary matter. It is but for a very 
 brief time; any day, any hour, may see the change into 
 the other body. The change is not wrought individ- 
 ually upon Christians, as they one by one come into 
 the new order; the Jewish ideas of resurrection and the 
 coming of Messiah here control Paul's thought. It is 
 wrought for all together, at one time, at the great day 
 of the Lord. Those Christians who have in death 
 laid aside the physical body have not gone at once into 
 the new body and the heavenly life, but have lain 
 asleep for the brief interval. Those who remain alive 
 shall experience the change as the dead rise incorrupt- 
 ible, and all alike shall join their Lord and Head to live 
 with him for ever as the Sons of God. That actual 
 external material realisation must, then, wait a little, 
 a few days, or weeks, or years ; but the real resurrection, 
 the real passage into the new order of life, of which 
 that is but the formal completion, has already taken 
 place. It belongs to the past. The kind of life, in 
 principle, which is to be lived in the Kingdom of God, 
 the kind of life which is characteristic of the new order, 
 which is the essence of the new order, that kind of life 
 the Christian has already begun to live. Since that is 
 true, the rest may come in its good time; the essential 
 thing is an accomplished fact. 
 
 Thus hastily and incompletely we have sketched 
 Paul's conception of what is meant by becoming a 
 Christian. It need not be pointed out how essentially 
 
136 The Resurrection 
 
 unrelated it is to anything which passes for "ortho- 
 doxy" in modern "evangelical" churches. Our sole 
 purpose in presenting it here is to get the proper 
 point of view for understanding what Paul says about 
 the Christians' resurrection. His letters, particularly 
 those to the Galatians and the Romans, are little 
 more than explications, from one or another point of 
 view, of this conception of Christianity. It is the 
 one theme that can concern him when he writes to 
 his churches. 
 
 Read Galatians, for example, with this construction 
 in mind. The very greeting is significant. "Paul, an 
 apostle (not from men, neither through man, but 
 through Jesus Messiah and God the Father who 
 raised him from among the dead) to the churches of 
 Galatia. " A similar insistence that Paul's call to 
 apostleship came through the will of God is found in 
 the salutation of I. Cor., II. Cor., and Col., and, in 
 somewhat less direct form, in Romans ("separated 
 unto the Gospel of God . . . Jesus Messiah our 
 Master, through whom we received grace and apostle- 
 ship"). This insistence is directed against the Juda- 
 istic slander that Paul, in distinction from the Twelve, 
 had no call from Jesus to the apostleship. His call, he 
 avows, came from God himself, and thus really ranks 
 above the call of the Twelve, if comparisons are to 
 be made. This repeated reference to Paul's call from 
 God has in mind the Damascus experience, his vision 
 of the risen Lord, as is explicitly said in Gal. i : 1 , where 
 the call comes through Jesus and God who raised him 
 from the dead, thereby rendering possible his appear- 
 ance and call to Paul. So in i: 15 f., "it was the good 
 pleasure of God, who separated me from my mother's 
 
Paul's Further Witness 137 
 
 womb [separated unto the gospel of God, Rom. i: i], 
 and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in 
 me, " and that the reference is to his conversion near 
 Damascus Paul shows by the following words, "im- 
 mediately I . . . went away into Arabia, and again 
 I returned unto Damascus." As the substance of 
 Paul's gospel was not received save through revelation 
 of Jesus Messiah (i: 12), so was his call to proclaim that 
 gospel given in the same revelation of Jesus (81 
 dxox.aXuipeox; 'It]<tou X9 i(SX0 ^ I: i2 = 4xoxaXi5ijiai xbv ulbv 
 auTou Iv l^o£ i: 15). The same is the clear statement 
 of I. Cor. ix: 1: oux. d[L\ dwdoToXo?; ou^ 'lr\aouv xbv 
 xupiov ^(juiv ecopoaa; the call from God comes 
 through Jesus, risen and appearing in his glorious 
 body. * 
 
 Gal. ii: 19-21 is a clear expression of what we have 
 called "the ethical resurrection." In the person of 
 Messiah "through law to law I died, that to God I 
 might become alive. With Messiah have I also been 
 crucified, and live no more do I, but there lives within 
 me Messiah. And what I now live in flesh, in faith I 
 live of the Son of God who set his love upon me and 
 gave himself up in my behalf. I reject not the grace 
 of God, for if through law righteousness [is attainable] 
 then Messiah in vain laid down his life. " This rough 
 literal rendering of the Greek hardly needs comment. 
 Paul believes that Jesus rose that he might return in 
 power to set up the Kingdom and call all believers to 
 resurrection; but he believes further — and here lies 
 his chief concern — that Jesus rose that in him all 
 
 1 This insistence on Paul's divine call does not appear in the 
 salutation of I. Thess., Phil., or Philemon, as the slander did not 
 need combating to the recipients of these letters. 
 
138 The Resurrection 
 
 believers might rise to the freedom of the life of son- 
 ship. The believer shares the death of Messiah, and is 
 so freed from law, sin, and further death; his continued 
 life is really the life of the heavenly man, the Son of 
 God, in him. He has shared Messiah's resurrection, 
 he shares his pure and heavenly life. As far as his 
 continued life in the flesh is concerned, that he lives 
 in faith, in the conscious appropriation of Messiah's 
 life, and therefore in a perfect ScxatoajviQ which God 
 accepts. If this Stxaiociivr] (what God really means 
 by righteousness) were possible of attainment by 
 keeping the Jewish code, then all in vain were the 
 death of Messiah by which it is now made possible. 
 It is Jesus' death as effecting the Christian's death 
 to sin and resurrection to righteousness that is here 
 in mind. That is the point of view from which Paul 
 depicted him crucified before the very eyes of the 
 Galatians (iii: 1) ; the connection here is very close. 
 
 Precisely the same is the motive of the apostle in 
 preaching in Corinth "Jesus Messiah and him cruci- 
 fied," a preaching that contained the only salvation for 
 the world, however it might seem but foolishness to the 
 scornful sophist. And so in Gal. vi : 14 f. , Paul glories 
 in one thing alone, in the cross of Messiah, for on that 
 cross the old world-order, the flesh with its passions 
 and lusts (v: 24), sin and death and despair, have all 
 been crucified. The old Paul has there died; the Paul 
 who now lives is a new creation (xatvfj xtEci?). 
 The observance of law is powerless in any way to make 
 that new creature, powerless to do away with the body 
 of sin and death and remake the man. What the 
 law could not do, deliver the despairing soul from this 
 body of death, God, sending his own Son, has done 
 
Paul's Further Witness 139 
 
 (Rom. viii: 3). The old man, with his doings, is put 
 off; the new man is put on, the man who walks by the 
 spirit, not by the flesh, for the flesh has been crucified. 
 The new spiritual organism is even now ours, in a very 
 real sense, and in it we are to live (Gal. v: 16-25) ; for 
 real ScxaioauvY] or justification is not possible in the 
 flesh-body, but only in the spirit-body. So beauti- 
 fully does the apostle write (II. Cor. v: 14-17), "One 
 died in behalf of all, therefore all died. And in behalf 
 of all he died that they who live no longer to themselves 
 should live, but to him who in their behalf died — 
 and rose. So that we from now on know no one ac- 
 cording to the flesh ; even if we have known according to 
 the flesh Messiah, yet now no longer do we know him 
 so. So that if any one is in Messiah, there is a new 
 creation. The things of the earlier order (xa ap%aia) 
 passed away; new things have come." Thus has 
 God "translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his 
 love" (Col. i: 13). 
 
 The epistle to the Romans is in substance an ex- 
 plication of this same great idea of the Christian as 
 redeemed, as dying and rising, by the act of appro- 
 priating as his own the experiences of Messiah. In 
 one sense it may be said that its constant theme is the 
 resurrection. Rom. i : 4 we have already touched upon. 
 The Greek here (<5pca8evTo<; ulou 6eou...il[ dvaaTassu? 
 vexpwv) is perhaps a little awkward, but kvaurz&aeuH; 
 vexpwv is here one word, as it were, like the 
 German Todtenauferstehung. 1 The divine power 
 which shall raise all believers into new life realised 
 this great experience first and most strikingly in him, 
 raising him from his temporary submission to the vicis- 
 
 1 So Meyer-Weiss, Sanday-Headlam, et al. 
 
140 The Resurrection 
 
 situdes of mortality into the complete glory of actual- 
 ised sonship. From the death of the cross, "God 
 highly exalted him and gave him a name which is 
 above every name" (Phil, ii: 9). "He was crucified 
 through weakness, but he liveth through the power of 
 God" (II. Cor. xiii: 4), that God of whose power the 
 highest is said when one says, "He makes alive the 
 dead, and calls the things that are not as though they 
 were" (Rom. iv: 17). 
 
 But the great purpose of this supreme act of the 
 divine power was that men might through the dying 
 and rising of Messiah pass into the same state of son- 
 ship of which he is the embodiment and exemplifica- 
 tion. "Delivered for our trespasses, he was raised 
 for our justification" (Rom. iv: 24 f.). By faith 
 passing over into the life of sonship, we are what God 
 wants us to be, Bixato? in his sight, and are at 
 peace with him. This is the argument of Romans v. 
 The death of Jesus led to our reconciliation with God; 
 his present life, shared by us, is our saving (v: 10). 
 As death came upon men in their relationship to Adam, 
 so life becomes their portion as related to Messiah. 
 Chapter vi. has the whole argument in its first eleven 
 verses. "We who were baptised (literally: dipped) 
 into Messiah were baptised into his death. We were 
 buried therefore with him through the baptism, into 
 the death, in order that, as Messiah was raised from 
 among the dead through the glory of the Father, so 
 also we in newness of life might walk (icepMtorcifa<oii.ev, 
 aorist, = might set out on our walk, in freshness of life; 
 walk = life-career.) For if we have become united 
 (aufjuputot = grown together) to him by the likeness of 
 his death, on the other hand (dXXd) we shall also 
 
Paul's Further Witness 141 
 
 be by the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, 
 that our old (t61mo<;, of long ago, the opposite of 
 vsos, fresh, recent) man was crucified with him, in 
 order that the body of sin (the physical body of flesh, 
 in which sin has its seat) might be done away with, so 
 that we be no longer enslaved to sin, for the dead man 
 has been justified from sin. If we died with Messiah 
 we believe that we shall also become alive (auv^ao(xev) 
 with him; knowing that Messiah, being raised from 
 among the dead, dies no more, death no further has 
 mastery (xupieuei) over him. For in that he died 
 (8 ax£0avev = in dying), he died to sin once for all; but 
 in that he lives (8 t^=as concerns his life), he 
 lives to God. So also you, account yourselves to be 
 dead to sin, but living to God in Messiah Jesus. " 
 Comment on this luminous passage is unnecessary. 
 It may only be pointed out that the doing away with 
 the body of sin (vi : 6) , even ideally by faith, and even 
 more certainly in actual realisation at the parousia, 
 is utterly incompatible with the idea of the physical 
 body as the subject of resurrection and as being made 
 over into the "spiritual body" of the new life. 
 
 Ideally the mortal body has been laid aside, with all 
 its lusts and passions, its weakness, corruption, and 
 mortality. Actually we still keep it for a longer or 
 shorter period, brief at the longest, but we must live 
 as if freed from it, undominated by any element in it. 
 God and his grace are already the sweet compulsion 
 of our living; to him we present ourselves, as already 
 alive from the dead. Discharged from our service to 
 sin, our wages of death received, we now receive the 
 gracious gift of eternal life from Messiah Jesus our new 
 Master, vii : 1-6 continues the same thought of trans- 
 
142 The Resurrection 
 
 ference from one service and order of life to another; 
 it is so real for Paul that he can write (vii: 5), "when 
 •we were in the flesh." One with Messiah, his people 
 share the experiences of his aw(jia. In the putting off 
 of its garment of flesh, in the assumption of its gar- 
 ment of spirit, they share (vii: 4). They have been 
 "reconciled in the body of his flesh through death" is 
 the very direct statement of Col. i: 22, which is the 
 precise meaning of Rom. v: 10, "reconciled to God 
 through the death of his Son. " Perfect harmony with 
 God, such as he intended for his children, is possible 
 only for those who live no longer in the flesh, but in the 
 spirit. Such is the living of every Christian; living in 
 the Spirit, and the Spirit living in him. Otherwise 
 he is no Christian (viii: 9). The possession of the 
 Spirit excludes that of the physical body; we live in 
 the flesh or in the spirit, in the cufia aapxwdv or the 
 aw[Aa xveu[AS:Tix(5v. The either-or is exclusive. Our 
 temporary status, living in the spirit and in the phys- 
 ical body at once, is merely temporary and forms no 
 real contradiction of the principle. The body may 
 seem to be here, alive; it is in reality dead and removed 
 from any influence on our living. Our life is spirit- 
 life, just as truly as if our body were already the spirit- 
 body. "If the spirit of him that raised Jesus from 
 among the dead dwells in you, he that raised from the 
 dead Messiah Jesus shall make alive also your mortal 
 bodies through his spirit dwelling in you" (viii: 11). 
 This at first sight might appear to imply a restoration 
 to life of the buried physical body, and it has been so 
 interpreted. But, as Charles 1 points out, ta 6v^xa 
 minora &n.uv does not mean: ycur dead and buried 
 1 Charles, p. 402, note. 
 
Paul's Further Witness 143 
 
 bodies, as if %k vexpa ato^aia were written, but only: 
 your bodies that are subject to death. Paul is thinking 
 of his readers, with himself, as alive at the parousia. 
 Then the divine spirit, dwelling already within the 
 (ju^a of every Christian, shall cast off the clothing of 
 flesh, which makes the <jw(j.a at present 0vy)-c6v, and the 
 body shall stand forth a thing of spirit, deathless and 
 glorious. It is but a somewhat fuller way of saying: 
 We shall be changed. 
 
 Here it must be remarked that in his utterances 
 concerning resurrection, Paul is not commonly think- 
 ing of the future experience of dead Christians at all. 
 As a matter of fact, Paul does not expect there will be 
 any great number of dead Christians. Those who 
 "rise from the dead, "in the literal sense, will be com- 
 paratively few. The great bulk of those who enter 
 the Kingdom and the spirit-body shall do so by the 
 experience of " change, " while yet alive. In I. Thess. 
 iv: 13 ff. and in I. Cor. xv the question had been raised: 
 What of the Christians who die? And Paul had an- 
 swered it. But commonly he is thinking of a resur- 
 rection or transition attained without dying. Rom. 
 xiv: 8 f. reckons with the possibility of the death of 
 some of the readers, II. Cor. i : 9 and chapters iv and v, 
 with the possibility of Paul's own death, but these 
 passages are exceptions. The word vsxp<5? Paul uses 
 more frequently in I. Cor. xv and in the first ten chap- 
 ters of Romans than anywhere else, and here it stands 
 more often for those out from whose company Jesus 
 rose than for those who shall themselves rise. 
 
 Without therefore limiting in any degree the im- 
 portance of resurrection in Paul's thought, it is clear 
 that his chief concern is not with the literal resur- 
 
144 The Resurrection 
 
 rection from the dead, which Jesus experienced, which 
 Christians who die prior to the parousia shall experi- 
 ence. It is rather with what we have called the ethical 
 resurrection, as an experience of living men. Paul 
 does not himself expect to rise Ix. vsxpuv; he does not 
 expect most of his readers to, for the simple reason 
 that he does not expect himself and them to go icpiiq 
 vexpou?. W. Haller has very properly called atten- 
 tion to the fact that for Paul resurrection was the 
 reviving of those not long dead, in any case, whose 
 bodies would in most instances not have been sub- 
 jected to total dissolution. 1 But Kennedy with still 
 more pertinence goes farther and points out that 
 Paul's ' ' thoughts dwelt more on the future condition of 
 those living when Christ should appear, than on that 
 of the dead." 2 It is obvious that if this fact be care- 
 fully weighed in its bearing on Paul's teaching concern- 
 ing resurrection, it will necessitate a rather complete 
 reshaping of much that has been written on the sub- 
 ject. Outside of I. Thess. iv and I. Cor. xv there are but 
 three possible allusions to the rising of vsxprfi (of course 
 Christian vexp<5i) in the literal sense. These are 
 Rom. iv: 17, II. Cor. i: 9, which are most general ex- 
 pressions of the power of God to "raise the dead, " and 
 
 1 Haller, p. 291. On p. 286 Haller points out that Jesus, like 
 Paul, says little of the resurrection of believers, because he expects 
 the end of this age while most of his followers are still alive {cf. 
 Mark ix: 1). Those who do not "taste of death" cannot "rise 
 from the dead. " So Paul hopes for himself and most of his read- 
 ers (Haller, p. 289). Such a saying as that of I. Thess. iv: 15-18, 
 based on "a word of the Lord," is in truth equivalent to what 
 Jesus has in mind in sayings like Mark ix: 1. Cf. Schwartzkopff, 
 p. 8i, and some good remarks by Schweitzer, p. 363. 
 
 3 Kennedy, p. 261. 
 
Paul's Further Witness 145 
 
 Rom. xiv: 9, which is scarcely more definite. Else- 
 where vsxpdi who rise are men dead in sin who rise 
 into the new order of life, as in the words to the Colos- 
 sians (ii: 13), "you being dead through your tres- 
 passes and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you did 
 he make alive together with him." I. Cor. vi: 14 
 Ofca? S^eyepei) and II. Cor. iv: 14 (r^a? lyepei) seem 
 to be the only other clear statements of the literal 
 resurrection of dead Christians. 
 
 The Christian, then, though still living in the flesh 
 (Rom. viii: 12), has no further obligation to it; his 
 entire obligation is to the spirit, the substance of his 
 new life. The deeds of his fleshly body he puts to 
 death and so lives entirely, though as yet ideally, in 
 the spirit-body (viii: 13). He is now a son and heir 
 of God, in the fullest sense, heir to all the glory which 
 his great Master has already begun to enjoy. His 
 present sufferings, however great they may be, are 
 not worthy to be named in comparison with that in- 
 heritance of glory, into which he also is about to enter. 
 It is nothing less than the ideal life of God's original 
 plan, a life of blessedness which eye has not seen, or 
 ear heard, which has not entered into the heart of man. 
 For it the whole creation has been waiting and groaning 
 in travail since the beginning of time. The creation, 
 as God meant it, was a community of free children of 
 God, in spiritual bodies, in a spiritual world of blessed- 
 ness, a world without sin or pain or death or corruption. 
 That creation was not realised in the world of Adam 
 and his posterity; its realisation has now begun in 
 the work of the new Adam. Its perfect realisation 
 is about to dawn, in a new heaven and a new earth, 
 a perfect environment for perfect men. We share 
 
146 The Resurrection 
 
 already in the life of that perfect world-order, having 
 the first fruits of the spirit (viii : 23) as a pledge of its 
 full possession (dppa^wv tou xvsu^axo?, II. Cor. v: 5). 
 But meantime, bound to the flesh, we sigh with 
 impatience for the complete actualisation of our adop- 
 tion, the redemption (ocrcoXuTpwati;) of our aw^a from 
 flesh to spirit. That redemption will conform us out- 
 wardly in substance as inwardly in spirit to the image 
 of God's Son, who shares no glory of nature that 
 shall not be ours, but has only entered upon his inheri- 
 tance sooner than we, as the first-born among many 
 brothers (viii: 29). The complete realisation of our 
 expectation is guaranteed by the inviolable purpose 
 of the God who began in us the process of adoption 
 (viii: 30). What wonder, then, at the sublime shout 
 of confident exultation, which finds great words and 
 yet is too great for all words (viii: 31-39)?' 
 
 No system of Christian theology that was ever de- 
 vised has adequately reproduced the sublimely simple 
 religious fact which Paul puts into the words: Christ 
 died for us. For Paul was not a theologian, but a 
 passionate mystic, struggling to put into words for 
 the redemption of other lives something too great for 
 words, which had been the redemption of his own life. 
 For me to live is Christ. Can the longest paraphrase 
 of the commentator make those four words l^oi xb £jjv 
 Xptaxd? any clearer? The absolute mastery of the 
 Christian's life by Messiah's life is something no 
 words can fully express. No vicissitude of life, not 
 death itself, can weaken in any degree that relation- 
 ship. "For to this end Messiah died and became 
 alive, that both of dead and of living he might be- 
 come Master" (Rom. xiv: 9). In his death he shared 
 
Paul's Further Witness 147 
 
 every experience that death brings to any man. He 
 went into the underworld of Hades, ■ though but for 
 the briefest tarrying, and even there the tie that binds 
 his follower to him is unweakened. The "faith" by 
 which one enters into this unio mystica, and con- 
 fesses to the mastery of Messiah's life, is in itself 
 salvation; and it is a faith which may become the 
 portion of every human being alike, Jew or Greek, 
 bond, free, Scythian, barbarian, man, woman, child 
 (Rom. x:9~i3;Col. iii:n). 
 
 At some length we have recalled the utterances of 
 Paul to the Romans, for the whole letter is a setting 
 forth of the great theme which is engaging us. So also 
 is Col. i: 1 to iii: 17 an explication of the same idea; in 
 the death and resurrection of Messiah the Christian 
 shares, and the Christian life is the life of the Kingdom, 
 of the new world-order, precisely the life we shall live 
 in the spirit-body, precisely the life Jesus is now living 
 above. The first two chapters of Colossians have not 
 reached us precisely as they left the pen of Paul, but 
 the interpolators have not obscured the marvellous 
 expression of the apostle's faith in resurrection, in the 
 deepest, fullest sense of that word. Nearly every 
 verse has something of that expression. Many of the 
 passages have already been noted. The crown of it 
 all is iii: 1-4. One cannot read that and still think 
 Paul's interest in resurrection to lie chiefly in the re- 
 storation to life of such Christians as shall die. It is 
 an exhortation to living men. " If therefore ye were 
 raised together with Messiah, seek the things above, 
 
 1 Paul nowhere uses the word 98171, but the idea is plain in the 
 free paraphrase of Deut. xxx : 11 f. in Rom. x: 7. The correct 
 reading of I. Cor. xv: 55 has eivare in both clauses. 
 
148 The Resurrection 
 
 where Messiah is seated at the right hand of God. Be 
 mindful of the things above, not of the things upon 
 earth. For ye died, and your life has been hid with 
 Messiah in God. When Messiah shall be manifested, 
 your life, then you too along with him shall be mani- 
 fested in glory. " As Messiah's present life is unseen, 
 there in the presence of God, so our true lives are 
 unseen, hid there with his. The life in the flesh which 
 we still live is simply not our true life. Its values are 
 no longer valid. The only life which can tempt desire 
 is the hidden life, the risen life. "I count all things to 
 be loss for the superiority of the knowledge of Messiah, 
 of Jesus my Master, that I may know him and the 
 power of his resurrection and fellowship of his suffer- 
 ings, being conformed to his death, if somehow I may 
 attain to the resurrection from the dead" (Phil, iii: 8- 
 1 1). Here, too, it is not the resurrection that is medi- 
 ated by physical death which the apostle desires above 
 all things to make his own, but the resurrection which 
 is an experience of his life. Physical death, and there- 
 fore the certain promise of literal resurrection, may be 
 before him, but the real goal toward which he presses 
 is something far more central and immediate, the prize 
 of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus, the glori- 
 ous freedom of the Sons of God. Resurrection as 
 spiritually experienced in Christ, and resurrection 
 perhaps to be experienced as one who is among the 
 vsxpot at the parousia, are here not distinctly sepa- 
 rated in the apostle's mind. In the uncertainty as 
 to his fate, this whole epistle is given a double aspect; 
 now continued life, now speedy death, seems the 
 probable issue. He is himself not anxious, nor has 
 much choice between the alternatives ; to live is Christ, 
 
Paul's Further Witness 149 
 
 to die is gain. Whether he lives or dies, the sharing 
 of the risen life of his Master is the one blessing he 
 craves. This is resurrection from the dead, this is 
 life eternal. 
 
 If, with these utterances of Paul in mind, we turn 
 to the twenty-fourth chapter of Luke, and read the 
 account of what the evangelist means by the resur- 
 rection of Jesus, it will at once be clear that what he 
 means is divided by the breadth of heaven from what 
 the apostle means. 1 If we might for a season com- 
 pletely forget the gospel narrative and read Paul for 
 himself, we might not always understand his full 
 meaning, but we certainly could by no possibility get 
 the impression that by Jesus' resurrection he means 
 any renewed activity on the part of the buried body. 
 He rose from the dead: on that Paul stakes his life. 
 But to fancy Paul asserting that the gravestone must 
 be rolled away to make this possible, that anything 
 came out of the grave, that a body walked and talked 
 and ate and drank on earth, leaving the tomb empty 
 of its clay; to fancy that angel and earthquake and 
 frightened women are a possible part of Paul's picture 
 of T] avdaTaais tou Xpiaxou h. tov vsxpwv — this is to mis- 
 understand him as completely and as culpably as did 
 some among his converts in Corinth, and for the sake 
 of an ecclesiastical tradition to distort and degrade 
 the most original and sublime conception of the way 
 to spiritual freedom that man has yet attained. 
 
 1 Cf. Canon Henson, in Hibbert Journal, vol. ii., p. 488. He 
 cites Luke xxiv: 36-43, and asks, "Is it possible that the author 
 of I. Cor. xv believed all this?" His reply is "that he certainly 
 did not. " 
 
BOOK TWO 
 
 THE WITNESS OF MARK 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 THE ATTESTATION 
 
 THE gospel narratives are written down long after 
 Paul's work is done and his voice is still, at a 
 time when his letters have become the common pro- 
 perty of many churches, but his direct influence has 
 largely been replaced by other types of teaching and 
 practice. The Church has been spreading and growing 
 both inwardly and outwardly since Paul wrote. No 
 man of anything like his power has succeeded him. 
 We have three versions of the gospel, called synoptic, 
 whose sources He in that Jewish-Christian church 
 which even in Paul's lifetime had entered upon 
 another way than his. Its geographical and ethno- 
 graphical demarcation from the sphere of his peculiar 
 labours was typical of a deeper difference in mental 
 horizon and spiritual apprehension. This notwith- 
 standing the certain fact, already noted, that in their 
 understanding of the resurrection and its significance, 
 Peter, James, and John, with the rest of the Twelve, 
 were at one with Paul. 
 Of these gospels one alone, that of Mark, comes from 
 150 
 
The Attestation 151 
 
 the pen of a man who had known Paul and, however 
 briefly, had been his companion. Acts xiii pictures 
 Mark as starting out with Paul on his "first missionary 
 journey, " but as turning back ere the real work was 
 begun, a vacillation which made Paul refuse to con- 
 sider him as a companion for the second journey (Acts 
 xv : 37-39)- This refusal brings on an estrangement 
 between Paul and his fellow-worker Barnabas, Mark's 
 uncle. Paul's letter to the Galatians lets us see an- 
 other side of this estrangement: how that Barnabas, 
 and surely Mark as well, had fallen into Peter's "hy- 
 pocrisy," and had taken the narrower Judaistic view 
 of the Christian gospel. Henceforth they go another 
 way than Paul's. Papias tells us 1 that Mark became 
 a sharer of Peter's missionary work, in the capacity 
 of interpreter. At the close of Paul's life, during his 
 two years of detention in Rome, Mark is again with 
 him as a "fellow-worker," but not as a prisoner (Col. 
 iv: 10; Phm. 24; II. Tim. iv: 11?). How long he has 
 been with Paul there we do not know, or what led to 
 a reconciliation, but their renewed association can at 
 most have been only a matter of months. It has been 
 ten or twelve years since Mark deserted Paul at Perga, 
 and he has no doubt been associated with the Jewish- 
 Christian circles during most of this intervening time. 
 Somewhere from six to ten years after Paul's death in 
 Rome, Mark writes there his gospel, relying for much 
 of its material, as John the presbyter very naturally 
 concludes, on his memories of Peter's missionary 
 
 1 In the often-cited passage, Euseb., H. E., iii., 39. On Mark's 
 personal history cf. H. B. Swete, Gospel According to St. Mark, 
 1905, Introduction. 
 
152 The Resurrection 
 
 discourses. We must now examine his witness con- 
 cerning the resurrection of Jesus. 
 
 Mark gives us, in distinction from anything in Paul's 
 letters, a narrative of events. He has described the 
 crucifixion and, briefly, the burial of the crucified 
 body in a "tomb hewn out of a rock, " before which a 
 stone had been rolled. The two Marys "were ob- 
 serving where he has been put." The twenty-four 
 hours of the Sabbath pass, the grave lying quiet and 
 unvisited. After sunset on the Saturday, Mary Mag- 
 dalene and Mary of James and Salome go out and pur- 
 chase spices with which, at the next dawn, they may 
 anoint and, in a measure, embalm, the body of the 
 Master. 
 
 Where are the disciples all this time? The last 
 mention of them in Mark's story is the terse statement 
 in the account of Jesus' arrest (xiv : 50) : they all left 
 him and fled. Only Peter has appeared since, and he 
 but to curse and swear that he knows not the man who 
 is about to die for him. None of the Twelve appear at 
 the crucifixion, nor is there any indication that any 
 one of them knew how or where Jesus was buried, or 
 whether he was buried at all. Indeed it is not definitely 
 stated that they even knew of Jesus' death, though 
 Peter, at least, must have known that his Master 
 would die before Friday's sun had set, and the other 
 ten, even if they had fled the city, could have little 
 doubt as to the result. But it is worth noting that 
 whatever their fears or expectations, there is no indi- 
 cation in Mark that any one of the disciples had per- 
 sonal knowledge of what had happened to Jesus after 
 the cock-crow which sent Peter, shamed and weeping, 
 out into the dawn. 
 
The Attestation 153 
 
 Only three faithful women see that the body finds 
 burial and take steps for anointing it as best they may 
 for its long rest. Very early on Sunday morning, as 
 the sun has just risen, these three are seen coming to 
 the tomb. 1 And they are saying to each other, "Who 
 will roll back for us the stone from the door of the 
 tomb?" And looking up, they observe that the stone 
 has been rolled back — for it was exceedingly large. 
 And entering into the tomb they saw a youth sitting 
 at the right, clothed in a white robe, and they were 
 struck with amazement. And he said to them, "Be 
 not amazed. You are seeking Jesus, the crucified 
 Nazarene. He was raised; he is not here. Behold 
 the place where they laid him. But go say to his 
 disciples and to Peter, ' He precedes you into Galilee ; 
 there shall you see him, as he told you.'" And 
 coming out they fled from the tomb, for trembling 
 and bewilderment were upon them. And to no one 
 did they say anything, for they were afraid. . . . 
 And here the narrative, and the gospel, come to an 
 abrupt and untimely end in the middle of a sentence. 
 A conclusion of the sentence, and of the narrative, 
 one cannot help conjecturing, but before we ask 
 concerning what is lacking, we may note certain 
 points in what is present. 
 
 We are here introduced to three women who are 
 going to open the closed tomb of a man, a member of 
 
 1 Paul le Breton, pp. 21 f., 44, asserts, in defiance of the context, 
 that the women are represented as coming to the grave at the 
 first (hour) of Sabbath, i.e., on Saturday at dawn. He further 
 asserts that " le dimanche (Start, a l'<5poque du Christ et plusieurs 
 anne'es apres lui, le second jour de la semaine. Le samedi ou 
 sabbat <Hant alors le premier jour de la semaine. " 
 
154 The Resurrection 
 
 the family of no one of them, who has been buried 
 about thirty-six hours, in order to anoint the body for 
 burial. They saw the body wrapped in linen and laid 
 away, saw the Xc'Boi; ^kyaq a<p<$5pa rolled before the 
 entrance, yet they come now on their errand, raising 
 the question as to how the stone may be removed only 
 as they approach the tomb. They apparently trust 
 to the friendly assistance of some chance passer-by 
 to accomplish that to which their united strength is 
 unequal, and to the same fortuitous help to replace the 
 stone when their pious task is done. What these 
 three women together could not do, perhaps one man 
 alone could not, though his assistance might enable 
 them to accomplish it. The stone is indeed [liya? 
 aip6Spa, for it is sufficient to cover a door into the 
 tomb large enough for the women to pass freely in 
 and out. The tomb itself is spacious, for on the right 
 side (of the doorway, as the women enter) is room for 
 a young man to sit, and in the remaining space the 
 three women can stand. 
 
 The young man, in his white robe, is clearly a super- 
 natural visitant; he knows the women's errand before 
 they speak, knows of the resurrection, and is charged 
 with a message for the disciples. This message neces- 
 sarily implies that Jesus, or this heavenly visitant, 
 knew in advance that the women or other followers 
 of Jesus (possibly some of the disciples themselves) 
 would come to the grave to receive it. The vsavfono? 
 has remained in the tomb for the express purpose 
 of delivering the message to the expected visitants. 
 The message declares that Jesus (that is, the body, 
 which is no longer in the tomb) has departed (xpodcyet 
 present, he is now preceding) for Galilee; the dis- 
 
The Attestation 155 
 
 ciples, after their expected arrival there, shall see him. 
 No more definite time or place of this "seeing" is 
 indicated, but its promise is said to be but the repeti- 
 tion of a promise already given by Jesus. Such a 
 saying of Jesus we actually find in the text of Mark 
 xiv: 28, "However, after I am raised up, I will go 
 before you into Galilee." The message, despite its 
 importance and its supernatural bearer, is not de- 
 livered by the women. With the very strong double 
 negative, ouSsvl ouSlv, "to nobody nothing," Mark 
 declares the non-fulfilment of the angel's bid- 
 ding. 1 The reason for this strange ignoring of a 
 supernatural command he gives as the women's 
 fear of some one or something not named in our 
 extant text. 
 
 So much Mark says when read by himself, without 
 the addition of any details from the other evangelists. 
 He has a narrative of an episode occurring after the 
 death of Jesus, in which no one of the Twelve was an 
 actor, of which the disciples could have known only 
 from the report of others. If we examine Mark's 
 narrative as a whole, we find only five passages, up to 
 the point of Jesus' death, in which he is not present, 
 as the central figure of the scene. Two of these deal 
 with John Baptist. i: 1-8 briefly describes John's 
 mission; vi: 14-29, as briefly, his arrest and death, 
 with their consequences. These narratives had doubt- 
 less come to Mark, directly or indirectly, from the 
 
 1 The emphatic nature of this double negative is commonly 
 overlooked. B. Weiss (Meyer-Weiss ad loc.) notes it, but mis- 
 apprehends its purport. John vii: 4 {oiSels ti iroiei), x: 28 
 (oi% ipirdo-eiTts),!. Thess. i:8 (j*>i xp^av ix e <- v 1C« \a\av ti) show 
 the milder negative. 
 
156 The Resurrection 
 
 followers of John. 1 In any case, John's career was a 
 matter of common knowledge, as Josephus indicates. 
 The three other passages in question have to do with 
 the disciples, either singly or as a whole, vi: 12 f. 
 (30) chronicles, in most cursory fashion, the evan- 
 gelistic expedition of the Twelve in Galilee; its ex- 
 periences are later related to Jesus. Peter is no 
 doubt Mark's informant here, as he is for the vivid 
 piece of personal revelation in xiv: 54, 66-72, 
 Peter's denial. There remains xiv: 1 f., 10 f., the 
 plot of the Sanhedrin and the treachery of Judas. 
 There is nothing in this summary notice that the 
 subsequent events did not make clear. Details 
 are strikingly absent, notably any hint of Judas's 
 motive, which apparently no one of his fellow- 
 disciples ever fathomed. So much as is here stated 
 Peter could easily relate to Mark. 
 
 The narrative of the crucifixion no doubt came also 
 to Mark from Peter, but there is no indication that 
 Peter was himself an eyewitness of the closing scene. 
 The ones who saw, and related, what took place on 
 Golgotha were certain women looking on from afar, 
 the Marys and Salome and others with them (xv: 40 f .). 
 The visit of Joseph to Pilate may have been related 
 later by the worthy councillor himself; its results the 
 same faithful women saw (xv: 47). It is then these 
 women who are the witnesses to the scene of Sunday 
 morning. Whatever Mark knows of it has ultimately 
 come from them. The "to no one did they say any- 
 thing " can naturally not be taken absolutely, despite 
 its emphatic form. The only question can be: When 
 
 1 Cf. Mat. xiv: 12, "And his disciples . . . went and told 
 Jesus. " 
 
The Attestation 157 
 
 was the women's silence broken? The answer to that 
 question is the reconciling of the contradiction be- 
 tween the ouBevl ouoev lixav and the fact that Mark 
 knows about it. 
 
 This definite declaration that the women told no one 
 a single word of all this, Mark sets down simply be- 
 cause he knows no word of it was in the original pro- 
 clamation of the resurrection, as Peter and James and 
 John and Paul had preached it. 1 Paul's view has 
 already become clear to us, with no place for a possible 
 belief in such a narrative. That view, with its ac- 
 ceptance of the experiences of Cephas and the Twelve, 
 Paul had in turn received from these very men. 
 " Whether then it be I or they, so we preached and so 
 ye believed. " But here is a narrative which puts the 
 resurrection in a new light. It has come to Mark, we 
 know not how, in these later days, after the preaching 
 of his masters, Peter and Paul, is over. He is a man 
 far inferior to either of these masters in original 
 thought and in spiritual perception. He had never 
 been wholly congenial to Paul, even though he was 
 in attendance only as a ux-qperr)?, not as an apostle 
 of the faith ; at the best, " he is useful to me for minister- 
 ing" (II. Tim. iv: n, if the verse be Paul's). His 
 gospel-narrative reveals a man whose religious con- 
 ceptions lie nearer the earth than the great Tarsan's, 
 and, while testifying to the accuracy and fidelity of 
 
 1 So J. Weiss, in Schriften des N. T., vol. i., p. 209, and B. W. 
 Bacon, Beginnings of Gospel Story, 1909, p. 232. Arnold Meyer, 
 p. 28, has only part of the truth when he says the women's 
 silence is emphasised "in order to explain why the disciples 
 did not convince themselves of the empty grave by seeing it for 
 themselves. " 
 
158 The Resurrection 
 
 which John the presbyter speaks, bespeaks also a 
 man who is infinitely inferior to Paid in power to com- 
 prehend Jesus, to sense the purport of his gospel, if 
 the expression may be allowed. The objectiveness 
 of his narrative constitutes its great value ; we cannot 
 be thankful enough that the earliest evangelist was not 
 a thinker like the latest. Mark's narratives of the 
 Gadarene swine and of the withered fig-tree reveal 
 sufficiently the niveau of his thought. The story of 
 the empty grave, coming to him after the lapse of 
 perhaps nearly two-score years, he accepts, as not un- 
 congenial to his own thought and the thought of 
 many in his time and environment. Though he is 
 perfectly conscious that Paul and Peter never spoke 
 of the incident, he is not clearsighted enough — as hund- 
 reds of exegetes to this day are not — to see how fund- 
 amentally irreconcilable with their conception is the 
 presupposition involved in it. It is a simple matter 
 for him to explain their ignorance of the incident — the 
 women did not tell; only of late has the story come 
 out. 1 
 
 In Mark's time, in brief, the error of the Corinthian 
 skeptics, that resurrection has somehow to do with 
 the buried body, is affecting widely the view of Jesus' 
 resurrection. Mark, here as always the honest ob- 
 jective recorder of the gospel tradition, sets down the 
 story as it comes to him. Brandt ascribes too much 
 original creative activity to Mark when he makes 
 
 1 So Schmiedel in Biblica, vol. ii., cols. 1879 f.; WelUiausen, 
 Ev. Marci, p. 146; J. Weiss, Das Aelteste Evangelium, 1903, p. 
 341. "Der Evangelist sich bewusst war, eine nicht allgemein 
 bekannte Tatsache mitzuteilen. " 
 
The Attestation 159 
 
 him invent this incident. 1 But it is very clear, as 
 Professor Loofs has argued, 2 that Mark is here repro- 
 ducing no primitive source, whether from Peter or 
 another, but is only registering a more recent element 
 of tradition. 
 
 We may now turn to Mark's uncompleted sentence. 
 It ought to be unnecessary to point out that the sen- 
 tence is uncompleted. Greek sentences are almost as 
 unlikely as English sentences to end with the word for 
 (y<*p) • 3 But if it is clear that the sentence is incomplete, 
 it is no less clear that the gospel also is incomplete. 
 The author's original plan carried the narrative farther, 
 and included the fulfilment of the promise : there shall 
 ye see him. That Mark should have meant to end 
 thus in the air, with the discovery of an angel in the 
 open tomb, voicing a command which was not obeyed 
 and a promise whose fulfilment is not recorded, is 
 intrinsically incredible, and is rendered quite impossi- 
 ble by the construction of the narrative up to this 
 point. This is almost universally recognised, and 
 does not demand further demonstration. 4 
 
 'Brandt, pp. 317 f. "Das hier Erzahlte [war] uberhaupt bis 
 dato unbekannt geblieben; . . . kein anderer als der Evangel- 
 ist selbst hat die Geschichte von dem leeren Grab zum ersten 
 Male erzahlt. " 
 
 3 Loofs, p. 28. 
 
 3 So Westcott-Hort, Notes on Select Readings, 1882, p. 46. 
 John 13: 13 is an exception. Cf. Burkitt, in Am. Jour. Theol., 
 April, 191 1, pp. 172 f. 
 
 « That Mark originally had the fuller ending is well argued by 
 Korff, pp. 23-26 and Volter, p. II. Among those who still think 
 that Mark meant to end his gospel with xvi : 8 may be named 
 Brandt, p. 351; O. Holtzmann, p. 389; B. Weiss: Meyer-Weiss, 
 ad loc, and elsewhere; P. W. Schmidt, Die Geschichte Jesu, part 
 
160 The Resurrection 
 
 A considerable number of scholars have yielded to 
 the very natural temptation and have essayed to re- 
 construct the lost end of the gospel. For we may re- 
 gard it as certain that there once existed an ending 
 which is now lost ; the hypothesis that Mark was pre- 
 vented by accident or death from adding anything 
 after the yap, and that he or another therefore put 
 the work into circulation in the incomplete shape, need 
 not detain us. * Our question therefore is this : What 
 did Mark originally relate concerning events following 
 that Sunday morning which had bearing on Jesus' 
 resurrection and triumph? We have already seen that 
 he must have related the "seeing" of the risen Jesus 
 in Galilee by the disciples and in particular by Peter. 
 Of that we feel very sure; that he related anything 
 beyond that is not rendered necessary by what we 
 read in the extant verses of chapter xvi. 
 
 If we ask who is Mark's source of information for 
 this Galilean episode, the answer is, of course: Peter 
 himself, according to Papias's testimony and to intrin- 
 sic probability. We should expect a high degree of 
 historicity in the account, therefore, if we could re- 
 cover it; it would presumably agree with whatever 
 other apparently trustworthy information we might 
 secure on the subject. We have discovered from 
 Paul's testimony — which is valid for Peter's belief 
 as well as for his own — that the risen Jesus had "ap- 
 
 ii., 1904, p. 122 ; W. Bruckner, in Prot. Monatshefte, 1899, pp. 96 f.; 
 Wellhausen, ad loc; Von Soden, Christliche Welt, 1908, col'. 483. 
 1 Among recent upholders of this view may be cited Zahn, 
 Einleitung, vol. ii., p. 234, and Gesch. d. Kan., vol. ii., partii., pp. 
 930 f. Cf. also O. Schmiedel, pp. 49 f., and Holtzmann, H. C, p. 
 183, ad loc. 
 
The Attestation 161 
 
 peared" to Peter first, subsequently to the rest of the 
 Twelve. Not only is the order of the "appearances" 
 fixed by this testimony of Paul's as to what Peter had 
 preached, but their character as well. They are ap- 
 pearances of the glorified Jesus in his spiritual body, 
 in which remains nothing fleshly or earthly, and they 
 are phenomena of sight only. "He appeared to Ce- 
 phas." "There shall ye see him." Neither Paul 
 nor Mark indicates that any sense save that of vision 
 was concerned when the risen Master made himself 
 known. The nature of Jesus' revelations of his risen 
 life, the persons to whom he revealed himself, and in 
 what order, the place in which these revealings were 
 granted, of so much of what Mark once wrote at the 
 end of his gospel, we can be very sure. 
 
 And is not this all? Mark can hardly have said 
 more than this, as he certainly cannot have said less. 1 
 We have here, then, the substance of "the lost end of 
 Mark"; it is only the actual text which is lacking. 
 This text we might conjecturally reconstruct, if it 
 were worth while. The task would be to write in 
 Marcan style and vocabulary a not too long account 
 of how the disciples returned to their Galilean homes, 
 and presumably to their old occupations, which for 
 Peter and a number of the others would be fishing. We 
 would necessarily say some simple words about the 
 
 1 Zahn, Einleitung, vol. ii., p. 234, Gesck. d. Kanons, vol. ii., 
 part ii., p. 931, curiously conjectures that Mark was meaning to 
 add very much more material ; the interruption at xvi : 8 came when 
 he was perhaps "nicht weit uber die Mitte" of the book he was 
 planning. Voigt, pp. 78 f., notes, is inclined to adopt this view. 
 So F. C. Burkitt, Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, 1910, pp. 
 85 f„ thinks Mark may have included the story of the first twelve 
 chapters of Acts. 
 
162 The Resurrection 
 
 grief and despair of these men, whose life's hope had 
 been crushed at one terrible blow — for we must re- 
 member that the women had told them not a word of 
 the events of Sunday morning. To Peter's agony of 
 sorrow and shame there might be special allusion. 
 Then we would describe — it would not be easy — how 
 when Peter is one day sadly engaged in some daily 
 task, most naturally at his fishing, his Master "ap- 
 pears" to him. That scene we would paint in fewest 
 words. Of his joy and of his quick communication of 
 the wonder to his fellow-disciples we would say some- 
 thing, and then recount their sharing of the same 
 blessed vision. With a word as to their ecstasy of joy 
 and faith and their immediate dedication to the apos- 
 tolic work of proclaiming as Lord and Messiah this 
 Jesus who had been crucified, we might then write: 
 TeXo? rou x,aTa Mapxov suayysXlov. 1 
 
 Such an attempt at the reconstruction of the text 
 would, of course, have only conjectural value, but we 
 may, I think, be quite sure that it would embody the 
 substance of what Mark originally wrote, however its 
 wording differed from his. Now it may be at once sug- 
 gested, and indeed has often been argued, that other 
 extant gospel-documents used Mark as a source before 
 
 1 From the brevity of Mark's whole treatment, and from the 
 great probability, if not certainty, that no conversation or dis- 
 course of the risen Master belonged to his account of the original 
 appearances, this reconstruction would not make Mark very much 
 longer than it is with the spurious verses 9-20. It is never the 
 narrative, but always the discourse of Jesus, that gives any length 
 to Mark's episodes. It is of course possible that Mark's account 
 included some brief solemn word of blessing and apostolic charge 
 as spoken by Jesus to the disciples. So Rohrbach, Schluss, pp. 
 23. 52. 
 
The Attestation 163 
 
 his work was mutilated, and that we may therefore 
 find his original ending reproduced in one or another 
 of these. That is an interesting possibility. It raises 
 at once the question: By whom was Mark mutilated, 
 and why? Without here going into this question 
 deeply, the obvious answer is: because Mark's ac- 
 count at this point was not satisfactory to some person 
 or group of persons. The offending portion was there- 
 fore removed, perhaps by the simple expedient of 
 detaching the last leaf of papyrus. * Then, perhaps by 
 the removers, or, with less probability, by some later 
 Christian who found the gospel circulating in muti- 
 lated form, the spurious ending which we know was 
 added. 2 
 
 Now if any gospel writers used Mark in its original 
 form, it would be at an earlier period, when Mark's 
 presentation was still acceptable, or it would be done 
 by so altering or adding to Mark's presentation as to 
 make it acceptable. It is an assured result of the 
 modern critical study of the gospels that Matthew and 
 
 1 This would be the simplest explanation of the break in the 
 middle of a sentence, with ydp, without giving the object of 
 
 llpofJOVVTO. 
 
 ' Paul Rohrbach, Schluss des Markusemngeliums, 1894, gives 
 a very suggestive treatment of this point. Cf. also Ad. Julicher, 
 Einleitungin das N. T„ 3d and 4th ed., 1901, p. 258; C. R. Greg- 
 ory, Einleitung in das N. T., 1909, pp. 415 f.; Joh. Leipoldt, 
 Geschichte des neutestamentl. Kanons, vol. i., 1907, p. 116, note 2; 
 B. W. Bacon, Beginnings of Gospel Story, 1909, Introduction, 
 pp. xvii f. Voigt, p. 89, note (cf. p. 57), will hardly find con- 
 verts to his view that a part of the spurious (Ariston) ending of 
 Mark is taken from the original genuine ending. Even more re- 
 markable is the suggestion of F. C. Conybeare, Myth, Magic and 
 Morals, 1909, p. 311, that Luke was the one who removed the 
 original Marcan ending! 
 
164 The Resurrection 
 
 Luke both used Mark as a source, and that the fourth 
 evangelist knew Mark's work, though writing inde- 
 pendently. If we look at the narratives of Matthew 
 and of Luke, we find that their common dependence 
 upon Mark is clear up to the point where the women 
 receive the angelic announcement, that is, up to 
 Mark xvi : 8. Matthew up to xxviii : 8 and Luke up to 
 xxiv: 8 tell a common story; beyond that point they 
 tell an absolutely different story. The reason is either 
 that neither one read anything in Mark beyond xvi : 8, 
 and followed independent sources thereafter, or that 
 one knew and used Mark in complete form, while the 
 other knew only the mutilated form. If we recall the 
 substance of Mark's presentation, as Paul helped us to 
 reconstruct it, we may get some light at this point. 
 Though Mark had come to think that at Jesus' resur- 
 rection his body had disappeared from the grave, yet 
 he knew too well from Peter and Paul what had oc- 
 curred in Galilee, to describe any presence or activities 
 of the buried body there. A man who thinks of the 
 resurrection in the terms of Luke xxiv or John xx 
 might well be wholly dissatisfied with Mark's presen- 
 tation and be tempted to remove it, or to replace it 
 by an account of more definitely physical phenomena. 
 Certainly the author of neither of these chapters had 
 used Mark's presentation as a source. 
 
 But if Luke did not follow Mark's original ending, 
 it is so far possible that Matthew did. Internal evi- 
 dence may now support or destroy this possibility. 
 A comparison of the text of Mat. xxviii : 8-20 with 
 what we have conjectured as the probable substance 
 of the missing verses in Mark does not tend to convince 
 us that these verses were here followed. Verse 8 is 
 
The Attestation 165 
 
 deliberately altered from Mark xvi: 8; vss. 9 f. cannot 
 have been in Mark, who knew only of appearances to 
 the disciples, and in Galilee. We shall see, moreover, 
 that these verses were almost certainly not originally 
 in Matthew. Vss. 1 1-15 belong to Matthew's narrative 
 of the guard (xxvii: 62-66), and could not, of course, 
 have been in Mark, which has nothing of that narra- 
 tive. Vss. 16-20, on the other hand, do relate what 
 Mark must have related, the going of the disciples to 
 Galilee and an appearance of Jesus to them there. But 
 this is told in such a way as to make it almost certain 
 that these five verses do not rest on a use of Mark. 
 "Unto the mountain where Jesus appointed them" 
 has no point of connection with Mark, and the appear- 
 ance is a single one to the eleven gathered together 
 at a specific place to receive the revelation. Mark's 
 story was rather, as it seems, of two appearances, 
 one to Peter and one to the whole group, appear- 
 ances, moreover, which came suddenly, to disciples 
 unprepared for them. r The lack in Matthew of any 
 mention of Peter, and the full, solemn, theologically 
 advanced address of Jesus (vss. 18 to 20) 2 make it 
 practically certain that here Mark is not the source 
 followed. There is too little that could have come 
 
 1 Korff, p. 30, would deny any special significance to the "and 
 Peter" of the angel's words. 
 
 2 Though the Trinitarian formula in the command to baptise 
 is not Matthew's original phrasing, as has been shown by F. C. 
 Conybeare, Zeitschrift fur N. T. Wiss., 1901, pp. 295 ff. Cf. 
 Allen, ad loc, and the literature there cited, to which may be added 
 a reply to Conybeare by J. R. Wilkinson, in Hibbert Journal, vol. 
 i., p. 571. Cf. also Pfleiderer, p. 602; Harnack, Dogmengeschichie, 
 p. 76 (Eng. tr., vol. i., 1895, p. 79), note; Martineau, pp. 515 f.; 
 G. H. Gilbert, Bib. World, Dec, 1909. 
 
1 66 The Resurrection 
 
 from Mark. 1 The Greek wording, also, does not ap- 
 pear to be reminiscent of Mark's style. The most that 
 can be said is that Matthew has here a confused 
 report of an incident recounted in the original end of 
 Mark, an incident given to Matthew by the tradition. 2 
 As to the fourth evangelist, it is clear, as we have 
 seen, that John xx does not reflect anything of the 
 material which was presumably in the missing part 
 of Mark. Its presentation is entirely limited to events 
 in Jerusalem. John xxi, on the other hand, which is so 
 entirely without connection with the solemn close of 
 chapter xx as commonly to be spoken of as an appendix 
 to the gospel, does bring some of the material which 
 Mark must have presented. The likeness to the 
 
 1 Indeed, in this brief notice Matthew is not following any writ- 
 ten source, but chronicling an item which the tradition gave to 
 him without fulness of detail. 
 
 2 So Lake, pp. 88-90; Rohrbach, Schluss, pp. 24 f., Berichte, pp. 
 21-24. Among those who would find the lost end of Mark in 
 Matthew may be named Holtzmann, Synoptische Evangelien, 
 1863, p. 99 (but cf. H. C, p. 183); Carl Wittichen, in Jahrbucher 
 filr Proi. Theol., 1879, pp. 167-173 (this article of Wittichen's is 
 very valuable. Cf. his reconstruction of Urmarkus in the same 
 journal, 1891, pp. 481 ff.); Keim, p. 567 (Eng. tr., pp. 319 f.) and 
 authors cited in his note; Beyschlag, in Stud. u. Krit., 1899, p. 518; 
 Arnold Meyer, p. 28 (less definitely); Voigt, p. 57; Korff, pp. 27- 
 29 (on p. 71 Korff offers a reconstruction of the lost ending, based 
 on the text of Mat.) ; Allen, ad he. (less definitely); F. H. Chase, 
 in Jour. Theol. Studies, vol. vi. (July, 1905), pp. 481-483; T. S. 
 Rordam in Hibbert Journal, vol. iii., pp. 769 ff.; E. J. Goodspeed, 
 in Am. Jour. Theol., vol. ix. (1905), p. 484; Staudt, p. 24. 
 
 Volkmar, pp. 610 f., offers a reconstruction of the lost passage, 
 based mainly on Matthew, but with elements from Luke and the 
 present "false conclusion. " A more eclectic reconstruction, also 
 starting from Matthew, is offered by A. J. Edmunds, in the Open 
 Court, vol. xxiv. (1910), pp. 135 f. 
 
The Attestation 167 
 
 Marcan material is much closer than it was in Mat- 
 thew. We have the return of the disciples to Galilee 
 (assumed) , their return to the old occupation of fishing, 
 special mention of Peter and a special meeting be- 
 tween him and the risen Master, followed by a meet- 
 ing with the entire group of seven disciples who were 
 together fishing. There can be no question that the 
 evangelist is here reproducing in some fulness the 
 material which Mark once contained; the only ques- 
 tion is whether he had the complete Marcan text 
 before him, or, like Matthew, is dependent only on the 
 tradition. It is certain that "John" had the three 
 synoptics at his disposal; it is equally certain that he 
 treats them with sovereign independence. Even if 
 he had the complete Mark before him, therefore, he 
 would deal with it with such freedom that we could 
 not feel any confidence in a reconstruction of Mark's 
 text from that of John. 
 
 Yet if John xxi seemed with sufficient certainty to 
 contain in some detail the same material as that which 
 Mark once presented, and if its text further showed 
 evidence of being adapted from an earlier written 
 source, we might feel with a high degree of confidence 
 that the author of John xxi knew and used the com- 
 plete text of Mark. That such is the case has been 
 persuasively argued by Paul Rohrbach, 1 and Bey- 
 
 'Schluss, pp. 41-52; Berichte, pp. 40-43, 49-53. Rohrbach 's 
 results were accepted by Harnack, Chronologie, pp. 696 f., and 
 have been somewhat more definitely established and carried 
 further by Hans Schmidt, in Studien und Kritiken, 1907, pp. 487 ff. 
 Similarly, Volter, p. 54. The sharpest critique of Rohrbach's 
 positions came from Beyschlag, who in Studien u. Kritiken, 1898, 
 pp. 110-115, spoke briefly and with some scorn of the earlier 
 
168 The Resurrection 
 
 schlag has not succeeded in making the suggestion 
 seem impossible. The narrative of verses I to 14 
 shows clearly non-Johannine material rewritten by 
 the Johannine pen. The "appearance" of Jesus is 
 plainly his first appearance, though "John" numbers 
 it as the third in order to fit it to the narrative of the 
 preceding chapter. Verses 1,7, and 14 are the work 
 of the editorial Johannine pen, and the phraseology 
 of verse 8 has been adapted to verse 7. 
 
 Can the rest of the narrative, or its substance, have 
 stood in Mark? There seem to be very definite rea- 
 sons why it cannot have stood there, despite the 
 pertinence of Rohrbach's arguments. In the first 
 place, there is lacking any specific appearance to Peter 
 alone, at some time prior to the appearance to the 
 rest. Such prior appearance is demanded by Paul's 
 039815 K-qipa irrot ToTq StoSexa, and if Peter were Mark's 
 informant, must have been so described by Mark. 
 The statement in vs. 7 that Peter cast himself into the 
 sea, obviously that he might first reach the land and 
 approach Jesus, is, indeed, probably a reminiscence 
 of the tradition of Peter's priority in seeing the 
 risen Master, but the narrative here, with or without 
 vs. 7, is surely not the narrative of Mark. There is 
 but one appearance, and that to only six disciples 
 besides Peter; we may reduce Paul's StoSsxa to 
 eleven, but not easily to seven. And the story is too 
 detailed and circumstantial to have been the story 
 which Peter told Mark of his own experience and that 
 of his fellow-disciples. The Jesus who stands on the 
 shore and tells the fishers, out of his supernatural 
 
 monograph, and in the same journal, 1899, pp. 507 ft., offered a 
 refutation of the Berichte in detail. 
 
The Attestation 169 
 
 knowledge (it is surely meant so) where to cast their 
 nets, the Jesus who fetches bread and fish, who kindles 
 a fire and cooks a breakfast and serves it to the dis- 
 ciples, is not the Jesus of Peter's "seeing," but a very 
 material figure, such as the later thought loved to con- 
 ceive. John xxi rests on a source which aimed to give 
 a picture of the "appearance" to the disciples in 
 Galilee, 1 but that source was not Mark. Its picture 
 is not Mark's, though the episode it would describe is 
 ultimately an episode recounted b" Mark. 2 We shall 
 later return to John xxi. 
 
 We have failed to find any certain indications of 
 the use in our canonical gospels of the original end of 
 Mark, although we find transcriptions of the "appear- 
 ance" to the disciples which Mark must have attested. 
 It is possible that some apocryphal gospel or patristic 
 document may preserve something of the text for 
 which we are searching. The only such document 
 that can have any claim to be seriously considered 
 here is the Gospel of Peter. That this work actually 
 
 1 This appearance was, as Rohrbach points out, conceived by 
 the author of John's source here as the first after the resurrection. 
 No appearance to Peter has preceded it, though there is the remi- 
 niscence in vs. 7 of Peter's special prominence on this occasion. 
 It would be, of course, the only appearance to the group of dis- 
 ciples; Paul's list indicates that only once did they see the risen 
 Jesus. Peter, in distinction from the others, had apparently two 
 visions, one alone and one with the others. 
 
 2 So H. H. Wendt, Das Johannesevangelium, 1900, p. 229. A. 
 Stulcken, in Hennecke's Handbuch, p. 88, thinks it "moglich" 
 that John xxi gives an " Uberarbeitung des Stoffes, der am Schlusse 
 des Mc.-Evangeliums erzahlt werden sollte und vielleicht erzahlt 
 wurde. " Cf. infra, Chapter XIV., for further treatment of John 
 xxi and its sources. 
 
170 The Resurrection 
 
 used as a source Mark in its complete form, and keeps 
 for us something of the lost Marcan ending, was sug- 
 gested by Harnack, in his edition of the Gospel of 
 Peter. 1 The suggestion was taken up by his pupil 
 Rohrbach, 2 and argued at length and with much plausi- 
 bility. There is much to be said for it. For " Peter's ' ' 
 account of the resurrection, Mark xvi: 1-8 is very 
 clearly the source, as far as it goes. What follows is 
 a direct continuation, without perceptible break or 
 change of style, as if from one source to another. The 
 phraseology has something in common with Mark; for 
 example, Ev. Petri has "Levi the son of Alphseus" 
 who is so called only in Mk. ii: 14, whereas the Lucan 
 parallel has Levi, and the Matthean Matthew, both 
 without patronymic. "We the twelve disciples" ac- 
 cords with I. Cor. xv : 5, the only canonical passage 
 where "the Twelve" is used for the disciples after 
 Judas's defection, 3 and with Mark's usage, who has the 
 title eleven times to Matthew's eight and Luke's 
 seven, though so much shorter than the latter gospels. 
 But more important, Pseudo- Peter contains pre- 
 cisely such statements as Mark must have made, as 
 we may see from the following passage, which im- 
 mediately succeeds the statement of the women's 
 
 1 T. und U., vol. ix., part ii., 1893, p. 33. Cf. Chronologie, p. 
 696. 
 
 a Schluss, pp. 26-33; Berichte, pp. 13 f., 43-49. Cf. also Hans 
 Schmidt, in Stu&ien u. Kritiken, 1907, pp. 494-496; Korff, p. 92; 
 Lake, p. 162; F. C. Conybeare, Myth, Magic, and Morals, 1909, 
 pp. 310 f. ; Volter, p. 50. Against the view of Harnack and Rohr- 
 bach cf. especially Beyschlag, in Stud. u. Krit., 1898, p. 112, and 
 1899, pp. 521 f.; also Stiilcken in Hennecke's Handbuch, pp. 87 f. 
 
 3 John xx : 24, Acts vi: 2, and Rev. xxi: 14 are of course not 
 exceptions. I. Cor. xv: 5 reproduces the "Petrine" tradition. 
 
The Attestation 171 
 
 flight from the tomb. " Now it was the last day of the 
 unleavened bread, and many went forth returning to 
 their homes, as the feast was ended. But we, the 
 twelve disciples of the Lord, mourned and were grieved : 
 and each one grieving for that which was come to pass 
 departed to his home. But I Simon Peter and Andrew 
 my brother took our nets and went away to the sea ; 
 and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom 
 the Lord. . . . "' Here our extant fragment of the 
 text breaks off as abruptly as does our text of Mark, in 
 the midst of a sentence. But we have here the dis- 
 ciples' grief, their return to Galilee (clearly not having 
 received any message from the women), their renewal 
 of the old life, and we would surely have, if the frag- 
 ment were longer, an appearance of Jesus to Peter 
 as he was fishing in the lake, and to a group of other 
 disciples as well, perhaps at the same time with Peter, 
 perhaps separately. This is surely the substance of 
 the lost end of Mark. And we find it in a "gospel" 
 bearing the name of Peter himself as author, and there- 
 fore purporting to give the authentic Petrine tradition. 
 The date of this apocryphal work cannot be fixed with 
 certainty. Harnack argues for no-130, 2 Stulcken for 
 about 150, 3 Swete for somewhat later, preferably about 
 165. 4 The question of date is complicated by the 
 
 1 Translation from J. Armitage Robinson, in The Gospel A c- 
 cording to Peter, and the Revelation of Peter, 1892. 
 
 3 Chronologie, p. 622. Cf. also p. 474. 
 
 3 Hennecke's Handbuch, p. 79. 
 
 * H. B. Swete, The Akhmim Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel 
 of St. Peter, 1893, p. xlv. For other dates assigned cf. The Gospel 
 of Peter. A Study. By the author of Supernatural Religion, 
 1894, p. 43. The present writer is inclined toward one of the 
 later dates suggested, such as Swete's. 
 
172 The Resurrection 
 
 uncertainty as to Justin's acquaintance with the work, 
 but it is not here of vital importance. The average 
 date assigned is about the middle of the century, and 
 that we may accept as near enough for our purposes. 
 Now just this date makes it difficult to believe, as 
 Beyschlag somewhat scornfully urged, that the author 
 had before him an unmutilated copy of Mark. Even 
 if we should accept Harnack's average date of 120, we 
 should still be a half-century after the writing of 
 Mark, while the more probable date of 150 would bring 
 us to a point eighty years after Mark wrote. Even a 
 century may easily lie between the two works. But 
 be it a century or half a century, or any intermediate 
 period, it is extremely unlikely that in Syria, the pro- 
 bable home of Pseudo-Peter, a manuscript of Mark in 
 its complete form was still to be found. For Mat- 
 thew, a quarter-century or little more after Mark's 
 time, knew only the mutilated Mark, and Luke, not 
 much, if any, later, although he had "traced the course 
 of all things accurately from the first," and was ac- 
 quainted with many works offering a transcript of the 
 gospel, also had nothing in Mark beyond xvi : 8. Rohr- 
 bach has really not made his case very plausible at this 
 point, though he has put Pseudo-Peter as close as 
 possible to the year 100. l Harnack declared in 1893, 2 
 "A strict proof that the canonical gospels are made 
 use of cannot be brought, even for Mark, although the 
 using is very probable. It is possible that the Gospel 
 of Peter, without standing in a direct literary relation- 
 ship to our gospels, drew from the same flow of tra- 
 
 1 Berichte, pp. 48 f. Cf. Beyschlag, Stud. u. Krit., 1899, pp. 
 521 f. 
 
 2 In his edition of Ev. Petri, T. u. U., vol. ix., p. 79. 
 
The Attestation 173 
 
 dition and legendary development, only partially fixed 
 in writing as yet, as did they— that it did not even use 
 Mark, but Mark's source (Urmarcus?) ." In 1897 
 Harnack had properly grown more confident that the 
 gospels themselves were used, 1 but if there is room for 
 any doubt that use was made of texts we have before us, 
 we cannot feel any certainty that use was made of a 
 text whose general content, only, can be conjectured, 
 and whose very existence is doubted by many. 
 
 Besides these general considerations that make it 
 doubtful whether Pseudo-Peter knew Mark in its 
 complete form, there is an argument from the 
 Greek text itself. The last words of the angel to the 
 women are: avkax-q yap x,at dbrr)X0sv Ixet o6ev dbcsaTcieXiq, 
 which words are substituted for Mark's bidding (xvi : 
 7), "Go say to his disciples and Peter: He goes before 
 you into Galilee; there shall ye see him as he told you." 
 In the Gosp. Pet. there is no message to the disciples 
 at all, and of course no statement of the non-delivery 
 of such message. The women did not tell the dis- 
 ciples of their discovery, indeed, but neither had they 
 been bidden to do so. According to Mark the form 
 that is missing from the tomb is on its way (xpoa-j-si) 
 to Galilee; according to Pseudo- Peter it is already in 
 heaven (6xfjX0ov) whence it was sent. The latter 
 phrase is, as Harnack pointed out, Johannine, and 
 posits a different point of view from that of Mark. 2 
 The appearance of Jesus which "Peter" is about to 
 
 1 Chronologie, p. 622. On this point of. W. Sanday, Inspiration 
 (Bampton Lectures for 1893), 4th impression, 1901, pp. 3101., as 
 also the various editions of Ev. Petri. 
 
 3 Cf. Luke iv: 43, ^rl tovto &irc<rT&\riv as contrasted with its 
 source in Mk. 1 : 38, eis to0to H9^m>- 
 
174 The Resurrection 
 
 describe, therefore, we may reasonably conjecture 
 to be an appearance in glory from heaven, perhaps 
 analogous to the accounts of Paul's Christophany in 
 Acts. The description of the resurrection itself 
 would lead us to expect something of the sort, striking 
 and spectacular. We read (using Dr. Swete's trans- 
 lation) of "three men coming forth from the tomb, 
 two of them supporting the other, and a cross follow- 
 ing them; and the head of the two reached to heaven, 
 but that of Him who was led by them overpassed 
 the heavens. And they heard a voice from the 
 heavens, saying, Thou didst preach to them that sleep; 
 and a response was heard from the cross, Yea." 1 It 
 would seem probable, therefore, that though the gen- 
 eral framework of the story in Pseudo-Peter — return of 
 disciples to Galilee and their former occupation, ap- 
 pearance of Jesus to them, and notably to Peter — is 
 the same as that of Mark's lost section, "Peter" told 
 the story itself in quite a different fashion. The text 
 of Mark, at least, cannot be recovered from the apo- 
 cryphal fragment, nor with confidence be assumed to 
 have been before its author. 
 
 The phrase immediately following the one already 
 quoted (the angel's words) seems further to indicate 
 quite clearly that the Mark used by the apocryphal 
 writer ended with Itpo^ouvTO yap. The latter words 
 are clearly not only not the end of a book, but 
 also not the end of a paragraph or section, or what 
 would correspond to a chapter in modern books. 
 They are not, indeed, the end of a sentence. We 
 are forced to conjecture an object of Icpo^ouvro, such 
 
 1 This last sentence is somewhat obscure, and has been trans- 
 lated in several different ways, but the general sense is clear. 
 
The Attestation 175 
 
 as "the chief priests and the elders. " Jesus has been 
 brought to death by his Jewish enemies ; in the event of 
 his escaping from that death the natural fear is of the 
 enemies' vengeance. 1 Most expositors seem to inter- 
 pret the fear here as the rpfyo? xat exsToroi.; which 
 had fallen on the women, but that would not be lasting, 
 and Mark plainly means a fear that kept the women's 
 lips sealed at least until the disciples had learned, from 
 his appearance, that Jesus was risen. 2 Some word or 
 words, then, stood originally as the object of I90- 
 #oimo in Mark xvi: 8, probably words descriptive of 
 Jesus' enemies of the Sanhedrin. But Pseudo-Peter 
 has no sign of any such object. Its corresponding 
 sentence is much briefer than Mark's, and has some- 
 thing of the latter's abruptness. Mark has xal k^ek- 
 Gouaat ©puyov . . . lipoJJoGvTO yap. "Peter" has T<ke ocl 
 YuvaTxE? cpoJ3-r)0eTaac apuyov. In both the principal verb 
 is apuyov; in both the qualifying verb is a form of 
 <po|Slo(jwsi. But "Peter" has made this verb an 
 aorist participle, "because they had been frightened," 
 plainly by the angel in the open tomb. He interprets 
 Mark's epo^ouvTo, in other words, precisely as modern 
 exegetes do, who have no text beyond yap. And that al- 
 though he omits any reference to the ip6y.oc, xal excxaat? 
 of which Mark speaks, and indeed, gives no explanation 
 at all why the women should be frightened. Mark's 
 &po(JoiJVTo, imperfect, is meant to carry the fear 
 forward over the later weeks or months. "They said 
 
 1 Cf. F. C. Burkitt, Two Lectures on the Gospels, 1901, p. 28. 
 T. S. Rordam, in Hibbert Journal, vol. iii., p. 779, suggests 
 "feared that it might not be so," which seems improbable in the 
 context especially since the messenger is a supernatural visitant. 
 
 ' So Rohrbach, Berichte, p. 19; Lake, pp. 71 f. 
 
176 The Resurrection 
 
 not a word to any one, for they were in constant terror 
 of the Sanhedrin, " is his thought. The sentence in 
 Pseudo-Peter is a reforming of the sentence in Mark, 
 but of the sentence as ending with yip. 
 
 Further, a comparison of the vocabulary of the con- 
 cluding section of the Petrine fragment with that of 
 Mark does not afford any real evidence of dependence. 
 The following characteristic words are not found in 
 Mark: tsXemafo: (not in N. T.), SxoaTpepovTss (not 
 the true reading in Mk. xiv: 40), xauaa^sv-r)?, 2£(juov 
 Ilikpo? (despite Mk. iii: 16 and xiv: 37), Xt'va. 
 The title Kupio? (here without the article) is used 
 of Jesus in Mark only in xi: 3. So far as the vocabu- 
 lary of Pseudo-Peter reflects the canonical gospels 
 at all, it is closest to the phraseology of Luke and John. 
 The agreements with Mark are in very usual and famil- 
 iar words, common also to the other evangelists. 
 Of course we must except the phrase already noted, 
 Aeusii; 6 tou 'AXipafou, found only in Mk. ii: 14, and 
 perhaps the expression 01 ScoSsxa (jio:Gt)tg« may have 
 some Marcan tendency. But neither indicates at 
 most anything more than familiarity with Mark as 
 we know it, and that is certain in any case. 
 
 We may conclude, therefore, that the author of the 
 Gospel of Peter used, among other sources, Mark as 
 we have it, ending at xvi: 8, and a further narrative 
 of the appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee. 
 This latter narrative reproduced, in its own way, the 
 account of that event which Mark originally described, 
 and may, directly or indirectly, rest on Mark's lost 
 conclusion. It would be strange if absolutely no 
 literary use had been made of Mark in the early days, 
 before its mutilation. At least we may assume that 
 
The Attestation 177 
 
 the memory of what Mark had originally written 
 would persist in the minds of those who had read it 
 or heard it read, and that some of its details would re- 
 appear in other accounts. All that our examination 
 of other gospels has made reasonably certain is that the 
 authors of neither Matthew, Luke, John, or "Peter" 
 had before them the unmutilated Mark and made 
 direct use of the text of its closing portion. 
 
 That certain elements of Mark's account came medi- 
 ately to these authors, and were used by them, seems, 
 however, equally clear. To take an example of minor 
 importance, we have already conjectured as altogether 
 probable that Mark's unfinished sentence originally 
 named, as object of the verb e?o{Jouvto, the Jewish 
 enemies of Jesus who were responsible for his arrest 
 and death. The Gospel of Peter, in its account of 
 the coming of the women to the tomb, has in three 
 different places the statement that they were very 
 much afraid of being attacked and punished by the 
 Jews, insomuch that they must move secretly and 
 with caution. They had been unable to anoint his 
 body, or even to "weep and bewail him on the day 
 when he was crucified, " and now they will attempt to 
 perform these last offices of love, if they may escape 
 observation. The phrases are: "Mary Magdalene 
 afraid by reason of the Jews, forasmuch as they 
 were inflamed with wrath" (tpo^ou(Jievi) 8ia tou? 'IouSctfou?, 
 IxsiSt) lipXeYOVTO Sub Tfj? (Spy?)?) ; "And they feared lest 
 the Jews should see them" (apo^ouvco (XT) 'iSuaiv aika? 
 oi 'IouSatoi) ; "We fear lest any man see us " OpopouneGa 
 „j xt( . yjjjuj,- YSyj ) . That threefold statement has undoubt- 
 edly some source besides the author's own reflection, 
 and this source is most probably ultimately the 
 
178 The Resurrection 
 
 statement of Mark, mediated to "Peter" through 
 the document from which he drew his account of the 
 disciples' experience in Galilee. * 
 
 The grief of the disciples, their fishing excursion, per- 
 haps the names of those present, may be further ele- 
 ments of the Petrine account which were originally 
 Mark's. The fact that John xxi gives the names of 
 the disciples who had together gone fishing may also 
 suggest that Mark once offered such a list. 2 The list 
 in John and that in "Peter " may be compared. John 
 gives: Simon Peter, Thomas Didymus, Nathanael of 
 Cana, the sons of Zebedee, and two others unnamed, 
 seven in all, of whom one is later (xxi: 7) identified 
 with the mysterious "disciple whom Jesus loved." 
 "Peter" gives: Simon Peter, Andrew his brother, Levi. 
 Here the fragment breaks off, but it is at least as pro- 
 bable that the names of other disciples followed as that 
 Levi was the last. There is no a priori reason why 
 Andrew and Levi might not be the two unnamed dis- 
 ciples in John, or why Thomas, Nathanael and the 
 sons of Zebedee might not have followed in Pseudo- 
 Peter. Nathanael, to be sure, is peculiar to the 
 Fourth Gospel, where Matthew (or Levi), on the 
 contrary, is never named. It has been suggested 3 
 that Nathanael is John's equivalent for Matthew, 
 since Moc68aTo<; is the transliteration of a Hebrew 
 
 1 There may be a reminiscence of the same statement in John 
 xix: 38, xx: 19, "for fear of the Jews," though here the phrase 
 refers respectively to Joseph and to the disciples. There is 
 no probability that the Gosp. Pet. is dependent on these 
 Johannine passages. 
 
 2 But cf. infra, pp. 414 f. 
 
 3 By Hilgenfeld, Resch, Volter (p. 54), and others. Cf. Encyc. 
 Biblica. art. "Nathanael" and Schmiedel, col. 4047, note 3. 
 
The Attestation 179 
 
 name meaning: gift of Jahweh, and Na9ocvo^X in 
 Hebrew is: God has given. In the synoptic lists of 
 the Twelve (Mk. iii: 18; Mat. x: 3; Lk. vi: 15) the 
 names of Matthew and Thomas are coupled, as here 
 in John xxi: 2 those of Thomas and Nathanael. If 
 Nathanael were indeed John's substitute for Levi the 
 son of Alphasus, there would be still greater probability 
 that Mark originally gave such a list of disciples 
 together when the Lord appeared. But if so, the 
 list must have been longer than either John's or 
 Pseudo-Peter's, and in truth this identification is 
 obviously too hypothetical and precarious to have any 
 evidential weight. 
 
 We have not found the text of Mark's lost conclu- 
 sion. But we have learned the substance of it, and 
 we have found several presentations of its chief episode, 
 which witness to the original presence and influence of 
 that text, though having only mediate relation to it. 
 These are Mat. xxviii: 16-20; John xxi: i-i4;Gosp.Pet. 
 Of these three, the last shows most Marcan character, 
 Matthew least. To these must be added a fourth 
 presentation of the same episode, that in Luke v: 1-11, 
 which will concern us later. Here also belongs Paul's 
 brief word in I. Cor.xv: 5, written of course long before 
 Mark's gospel. 
 
 This word of Paul's, <3<p0r] Ky^S, shot -rot? 8<&8exa, 
 is linked by 8ti to rcccpiSoxa u^liv 8 xae TOtplXaJSov; 
 it was plainly a fixed part of the Christian xapdSoai?, 
 one of the first things (Iv xputot?) to be de- 
 clared to a group of converts. These "appearances" 
 were, that is, of fundamental importance, and never 
 failed to be recounted. The other appearances cited by 
 Paul have not this dependence on the preceding verbs, 
 
i So The Resurrection 
 
 and do not seem to have had the same fixed place 
 in the preaching; Paul adds them to make his demon- 
 stration as convincing as possible. 1 This old message, 
 which the Twelve had proclaimed in the first years of 
 the Church, and Paul after them, how the risen Master 
 had appeared to Peter in Galilee, forgiving his sin, 
 removing his shame, setting him apart to the apostle- 
 ship, then with similar consecrating power to his ten 
 colleagues — this old gospel, without which there is no 
 gospel, naturally, inevitably, found a place in Mark's 
 transcript of the Christian proclamation. Removed 
 thence, overshadowed by another tradition, it did not 
 yet wholly disappear, but left numerous traces of 
 itself, as the message proclaimed at the first. 
 
 But Mark's presentation is not limited to the sub- 
 stance of this old gospel; there is something new. It 
 is the report that three women had, on the third day 
 after Jesus' death, found his tomb open, his body gone, 
 and an angel within who announced his resurrection 
 and departure for Galilee, startling news which the 
 women had divulged to no one, owing to their fear of 
 the Jewish authorities. This story, coming to Mark 
 we know not how, he has accepted and here gives it 
 currency by writing it in his gospel. Though not a 
 part of the old message, it fits into the old message as 
 a preliminary to those "appearances" in Galilee of 
 which Peter had told. So far as Mark can tell, it 
 was never known to the disciples, to Paul, or to the 
 Christian teachers prior to his own time. 
 
 This new element in Mark's summary of the Christ- 
 ian message we must now examine more in detail, and 
 
 1 So Rohrbach, Berichte, p. 2 ; Beyschlag, in Stud. u. Krit., 1899, 
 p. 509; Hans Schmidt, in Stud. u. Krit., 1907, p. 493. 
 
The Attestation 181 
 
 inquire as to its historical character. We have seen 
 that it was unknown to the apostles of the earlier time ; 
 the women, not the apostles, are its ultimate source, 
 and to Mark it has come but lately, not from the 
 women directly, but through oral tradition. Even if 
 we should grant, for the moment, that it had been 
 known to the apostles, and that Jesus' resurrection and 
 appearance to them meant, in their minds, that his 
 body issued from the grave, came to Galilee and there 
 was seen, yet for them the women's story is a matter of 
 quite subordinate importance. This was no experi- 
 ence of theirs, but only something of which they had 
 later heard, as had Mark. It was no appearance of 
 Jesus, but only a declaration that he is no longer in the 
 tomb and will appear to them. What is this experi- 
 ence of the women compared to their own experience 
 in Galilee, when they saw him for themselves and were 
 assured of his living presence? Granting that when 
 they returned to Jerusalem, some time after the "ap- 
 pearances, ' ' joyfully declaring that they had seen the 
 risen Jesus, they had been told by the women, now 
 grown bolder, "Yes, we knew he was risen, an angel 
 declared it to us on the third day after his death, but 
 we have feared until now to tell," — granting this, of 
 what importance is that tardy confession now, when 
 Jesus has been with his disciples amid the old scenes? 1 
 To imagine them searching the tomb for confirmation 
 of the women's story is to suppose them unconvinced 
 by their own experience of seeing the Master, even if 
 it were not too late to establish the identity of a corpse 
 which the grave might contain, or to demonstrate in- 
 fallibly that only by resurrection could the grave now 
 1 Cf. Clemen, p. 203, last sentence on page. 
 
1 82 The Resurrection 
 
 be tenantless. But in truth we cannot imagine its 
 even occurring to the disciples to undertake such in- 
 vestigation or demonstration, on any theory of their 
 conception of resurrection. 1 
 
 1 Cf. Schmiedel, art. " Gospels," Encyc. Biblica, vol. ii., 
 cols. 1880 f. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 WHO SHALL ROLL AWAY THE STONE? 
 
 IP there seems less certain attestation for the episode 
 of the women's experience at the grave than for 
 most of Mark's material, the details of the narrative 
 itself are such as to suggest legend rather than a tran- 
 script of actual fact. To begin with, the women's er- 
 rand is scarcely probable. The body has been wrapped 
 in a grave-cloth and buried; the grave is sealed 
 with its stone. It is late for anointing, in the climate 
 of Jerusalem, when a body has been already two nights 
 and a day in its grave. We may not unreasonably 
 doubt the probability of friends disinterring (that is 
 really what would be done) a once buried body, even 
 though the rites of sepulture had been hasty and in- 
 complete. Jewish feeling concerning the uncleanness 
 of a corpse would furnish a strong presumption against 
 the probability of such a procedure. And this is a 
 body buried not by themselves or any one with whom 
 they have relations, and in a tomb not their pro- 
 perty. Surely Keim is right, "Neither the burier nor 
 the prevailing usage would allow of any supple- 
 mentary act after the sepulture had been completed 
 and the stone finally placed before the grave." 1 
 The stone is in more senses than one an insuperable 
 
 1 Keim, p. 522 (Eng. tr., p. 268). He adds in a footnote, "It 
 was an absolute rule that the grave should not be opened again, 
 
 183 
 
184 The Resurrection 
 
 difficulty; women who had seen the interment would 
 surely not have brought their spices and come to 
 anoint the body on the bare chance of there being for- 
 tuitous passers-by who would assist them to remove 
 the stone. The problem offered by the stone appar- 
 ently does not occur to them until they approach the 
 grave, when we find them discussing it, else they 
 were not there without some means for its removal. 
 This [liyas <j<p<58pa X!0o?, sufficient to close the door 
 of a roomy tomb, is not to be removed by any critical 
 expedients; as the evangelists saw, if it is rolled away 
 at all, it must be by angelic power. The stone, 
 then, is strong evidence against the women's errand. 
 And one has only to picture the scene to see its 
 complete lack of verisimilitude; what, for example, 
 would be the state of mind of the chance passer-by, 
 (a Jew!) thus appealed to? Is it at all normal or 
 natural that he would accede to the request of a group 
 of strange women that he would open a closed grave 
 for them, as a matter of accommodation? Is that a 
 probable request, and if it were made, what would be 
 the probable response? The opening of tombs where 
 dead men lie is no such simple matter. Moreover, 
 the opening by a group of women of the tomb of a man, 
 buried the day before yesterday, is hardly a matter of 
 course. One does not wish to press the argument 
 from propriety, but it is not amiss to refer to it. r 
 
 posted quam lapide sepulcrali clausum est, see Buxt., p. 438. " The 
 reference to Buxtorf I have been unable to verify, but the note 
 seems important, and to correspond with the overwhelming pro- 
 bability as to Hebrew usage. Cf. also Wellhausen ad Mark xvi: 2. 
 1 Cf. Ulysse Chevalier, in Revue Bibligue Internationale, vol. 
 a. (1902), p. 569, note 3. 
 
Who Shall Roll Away the Stone? 185 
 
 As a matter of fact, the difficulty of the women's 
 errand was felt by practically every later user of this 
 narrative. Matthew (xxviii: i), with apparently a 
 keen sense of what was possible in the Palestinian en- 
 vironment, having Mark's statement before him, de- 
 liberately omits any allusion to the intended anointing, 
 any suggestion that the women hoped to open the 
 tomb, saying, instead, that the women came merely 
 "to see the sepulchre." John (xix: 39 f.) has the 
 anointing already done by Joseph and Nicodemus, 
 with no suggestion that the women thought of perform- 
 ing this service. Pseudo- Peter substitutes, by curi- 
 ous circumlocutions, something else for the women's 
 purpose to anoint. The passage is interesting. "Mary 
 Magdalene . . . had not done at the sepulchre of 
 the Lord what women are wont to do for those who die 
 and are dear to them . . . took with her her female 
 friends, and came to the sepulchre where He was laid. 
 And they feared lest the Jews should see them, and 
 they said, Although we could not weep and bewail Him 
 on the day when He was crucified, let us do so now at 
 His sepulchre. But who shall roll us away the stone 
 which was laid at the door of the sepulchre, that we 
 may enter in and sit by Him, and do the things that are 
 due? for the stone was great, and we fear lest any 
 man see us. And if we cannot, even though we 
 should cast at the door the things which we bring for 
 a memorial of Him, we will weep and bewail him until 
 we come to our house. " * Mark was before the writer 
 of this passage, yet the women are said to intend, 
 not to anoint the body, but to pay it the tribute of 
 
 1 Swete's translation. Italics mine. 
 
1 86 The Resurrection 
 
 tears and lamentation and to leave votive offerings 
 at the tomb. Luke, also, though he repeats from 
 Mark the buying and bringing of the spices (xxiii: 56, 
 xxiv: 1), yet does not say with what purpose this was 
 done, or state the intention of opening the tomb. 
 Mark's suggestion of the stone as a source of per- 
 plexity he entirely passes over, as he has previously 
 omitted to mention the placing of the stone at the 
 tomb-door. It is only inference or memory of 
 Mark that finds in Luke the women's intention to 
 remove the stone and to enter the tomb to anoint 
 the body. Only our familiarity with Mark and our 
 unconscious harmonisation of texts prevent our notic- 
 ing this awkward hiatus in Luke's account. The stone 
 is mentioned only at the point where the women note 
 its absence from the door of the sepulchre; even its 
 heaviness, emphasised by Mark, Luke leaves unnoted. 
 It may be observed, in passing, that the phrase ^v yap 
 y.Eya? <j<pd8pa clearly ought to come before Mark xvi: 4, 
 not after it. It grounds the women's question how 
 the stone may be removed, not their perception that 
 it has been removed. Here it stands in the Sinaitic 
 Syriac version, in Codex D, and certain other manu- 
 scripts, and here the author of Pseudo-Peter evidently 
 read it. x 
 
 The women, then, did not go to the tomb to anoint 
 the body. Nor can they have gone, as Matthew 
 thought more plausible, merely to see the sepulchre. 
 
 1 Cf. Brandt, p. 315; Rohrbach: Berichte, p. 45; author of 
 "Supernatural Religion," The Gospel According to Peter, 1894, 
 p. 98; J. M. S. Baljon, Commentaar op het Evangelie van Markus, 
 1906, p. 270. For the common reading, Wellhausen, ad loc, and 
 Lake, p. 56 (top). 
 
Who Shall Roll Away the Stone? 187 
 
 Left without motive, they surely did not go at all. 
 But if their errand lacks verisimilitude, still more so 
 does the discovery they make on their arrival. The 
 stone is rolled away; who has done it? Matthew says 
 (xxviii: 2), "An angel of the Lord descended from 
 heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat 
 upon it . " Mark and Luke leave something similar to be 
 inferred, or possibly think of the superhuman power 
 of the revived Jesus as thrusting away the stone from 
 within. 1 The critics do not accept Matthew's state- 
 ment; they do not believe in angels ; yet their explana- 
 tions of the stone's removal are scarcely more credible 
 than his. In vain have they ascribed to Joseph of 
 Arimathea, to the disciples, to the hostile Jews, to the 
 (naturally) reviving Jesus, this momentous activity. 
 It has not been difficult for the defenders of the super- 
 natural narrative to demonstrate lack of motive, or 
 of ability, or of opportunity, in the case of each of 
 these supposed removers of the stone; and the later 
 course of the narrative, as well as the question of the 
 body's further fate, would seem to make it infinitely 
 more likely that the stone was not rolled away than 
 that any such secret and deceptive and motiveless 
 activity went on. 
 
 This conclusion is only strengthened by the con- 
 tinuation of the narrative. Half of the episode in 
 Mark (vss. 5-7) is commonly rejected outright by 
 critics, not on any critical grounds that separate it 
 from the context, but solely because they do not be- 
 
 1 So Wellhausen ad Mk. xvi: 4 and Arnold Meyer, pp. 29, 33. 
 Origen {Contra Cels., v., 58) suggests that Jesus and the angel 
 together removed the stone. Tertullian (Apol. 21) says it was 
 moved by the earthquake. In the Ev. Petri, it moves of itself. 
 
1 88 The Resurrection 
 
 lieve in angels. * As a matter of fact, the whole centre 
 and heart of the episode in Mark is what the women 
 see and hear inside the tomb; their observance of the 
 displaced stone is quite secondary. To assume, as is 
 so frequently done, that the women found the tomb 
 open and vacant, and to make this empty tomb the 
 one central and historically true element in the narra- 
 tive, is nothing less than violence to the sources. They 
 know of no empty tomb ; they know only of an angel- 
 tenanted tomb, from the lips of whose celestial occu- 
 pants comes the message that becomes the basis of 
 Christian preaching and begins a new epoch in the 
 world's life. 2 
 
 Remove the angel from Mark's account, and the 
 whole narrative falls to the ground; the angel alone 
 gives it point and coherence. Every element is ex- 
 pressly related to the angel. How is the stone re- 
 moved? By the angel^ Mark's emphasis on its 
 exceeding size serves to indicate a more than mortal 
 power as its remover. 3 As the women enter the tomb, 
 what do they see? "A young man sitting on the right 
 side, arrayed in a white robe." Do they note for 
 themselves the absence of Jesus' body? No, from 
 the angel they learn that the Master has left the tomb, 
 
 1 So, for example, Volter, pp. 10 and 27. 
 
 2 Of course at certain moments (Lk. xxiv: 3; John xx: 5-8) the 
 tomb appears empty, but in all the gospels angels (one or two) 
 are seen within or at the entrance, and their message is the 
 chief point of the narrative. 
 
 ^ It is quite clear that Matthew understood Mark correctly here. 
 The idea of an angel as the opener of doors to let out those con- 
 fined is sufficiently common (cf. Acts v: 19, xii: 7-10), and Mark's 
 idea of Jesus' resurrection-body scarcely ascribes to it power to 
 remove such great weight of matter. 
 
Who Shall Roll Away the Stone? 189 
 
 they learn all that they know of the resurrection. 1 
 From him they receive the message which, if actually 
 given, would be of supreme importance, but which, as it 
 fits into Mark's narrative, is deprived of any signifi- 
 cance whatever, because it is not delivered until other 
 events have made its repetition unnecessary. Why 
 are the women "amazed"? Naturally enough, at 
 the sight of the angel. Why do they flee from the 
 tomb? Not to deliver their message, but simply be- 
 cause "trembling and astonishment had come upon 
 them" before the angelic visitant. 
 
 Thus without the angel there is practically no con- 
 tent at all to Mark's narrative; the stone is not re- 
 moved, the grave is not certified as empty, the women 
 are ignorant of what has happened. It is impossible, 
 on any legitimate critical grounds, to select in Mark's 
 account the one element of the empty tomb, and reject 
 the rest as inseparably connected with the angel. 2 Verse 
 4 leaves the women standing in surprise at the sight 
 of the displaced stone. What then, if the following 
 
 1 This consideration is strengthened if, with Cod. Vat., we read 
 i\$ov<rcu in vs. 5 and omit the &£eh6oS<ra.i. in vs. 8. Then there 
 would be no direct statement that the women themselves 
 saw the interior of the tomb, or had any assurance that the body- 
 was gone except the angel's words. Cf. Lake, pp. 62-65, an d for 
 el<re\dov<ra(., Volter, pp. 5 f. 
 
 2 Cf. A. K. Rogers, The Life and Teaching of Jesus, 1894, P- 33 2 - 
 Maurenbrecher, p. 32, describes Mark's narrative as "eine Ge- 
 schichte in der der Engel nicht nur Staffage ist, sondern im ent- 
 scheidenden Mittelpunkt der Handlung steht. " 
 
 In this connection one may properly quote a sentence from 
 Adolf Hausrath, Jesus und die neutestamentlichen Schrifts teller, 
 1909, vol. ii., p. 43, "Die Erzahlungen ihrer wunderbaren Bestand- 
 teile zu entkleiden und dann den Rest fur historisch auszugeben, 
 hat fruher nicht fur Kritik gegolten. " 
 
190 The Resurrection 
 
 verses do not picture historical fact? We cannot 
 leave them standing there ; something must have hap- 
 pened next. Or shall we rescue verse 8a, as having no 
 direct mention of the angel, and see them fleeing in 
 bewilderment and terror from the tomb? But what 
 has occurred in the interim? Some striking experi- 
 ence they must have had, to account for their trembling 
 and astonishment. Is it merely that they have en- 
 tered the tomb and found no body? Bewildered 
 terror is hardly the emotion that discovery would be 
 likely to call forth; still this construction may be 
 granted as a conceivable one. But we still have the 
 insoluble questions: Who had removed the stone? 
 What had become of the body? As for verse 85, it 
 clearly refers to the non-delivery of the angelic message; 
 only in a stress might it be construed to fit the con- 
 struction which omits the angel. 
 
 But in truth the episode without the angel is a com- 
 pletely emasculated one, and one which never existed 
 in the tradition. A moment's reflection should con- 
 vince us that the story of the women's discovery was 
 never told without including the angelic visitor and 
 his message; only in these lies the faintest excuse for 
 telling it at all. It is told because it embodies the 
 Easter-message of resurrection, as voiced by the angel, 
 and nothing is clearer than that merely finding the 
 Master's grave open and the body gone would never 
 have given the finders that message. In fact, what 
 actually first gave that message was Jesus' appearance 
 to Peter in Galilee, and only a violent recourse to 
 angels could transfer the annunciation to the tomb in 
 Jerusalem and the third day. 
 
 No, Mark's narrative has no point without the 
 
Who Shall Roll Away the Stone? 191 
 
 angel and his message. Any attempt to conserve it 
 without these must inevitably fail, as entirely foreign 
 to the original purport of the narrative. And it 
 must be a real angel and a real resurrection-message. 
 The most plausible attempt to conserve the form of 
 the narrative while excising all that gives it any excuse 
 for being, has been made by Professor Lake. * He sug- 
 gests that the women were so confused and troubled 
 in mind at the time they watched Jesus' burial, and 
 stood at such a distance, that they had "but a limited 
 power to distinguish between one rock-tomb and an- 
 other close to it. " As a consequence, the simple ex- 
 planation of the whole story is that they came to the 
 wrong tomb on the Sunday morning. " They expected 
 to find a closed tomb, but they found an open one; 
 and a young man who was in the entrance, guessing 
 their errand, tried to tell them that they had made a 
 mistake in the place. ' He is not here, ' said he ; ' see 
 the place where they laid him, ' and probably pointed 
 to the next tomb." This construction of the young 
 man's words is assisted if the reading of Codex D is 
 adopted, otix, Iutiv uSs, 'i'Sets Ixec (rbv) totcov aikoO oxou 
 eGiqxav atkdv. 2 " But the women were frightened at the 
 detection of their errand and fled, only imperfectly or 
 not at all understanding what they had heard. It was 
 only later on, when they knew that the Lord was risen 
 and — on their view — that his tomb must be empty, 
 that they came to believe that the young man was 
 something more than they had seen; that he was not 
 telling them of their mistake, but announcing the Re- 
 surrection, and that his intention was to give them a 
 message for the disciples. " 
 
 1 Lake, pp. 250-252. 2 Lake, pp. 68 f. 
 
192 The Resurrection 
 
 Professor Lake urges that "these remarks are not to 
 be taken as anything more than a suggestion of what 
 might possibly have happened." As a suggestion, 
 it is interesting, but it can hardly be made really 
 plausible. z The premise that the women mistook the 
 grave, though two of them, at least, had seen the burial, 
 and they must, under the circumstances, have care- 
 fully noted it, is too convenient to be very convincing. 
 There appears no hesitation as to the identification 
 of the grave; the moment the stone becomes visible 
 lying at one side, that moment the Master's grave is 
 recognised as open. One might conceive an agitation 
 of mind which would make both women uncertain as 
 to the exact location of the tomb they sought; not so 
 easily one which should make both certain of the same 
 tomb, and that the wrong one. 
 
 And the young man who by chance is standing in 
 the defiling precincts of this tomb, who recognises at 
 once the women and their errand, knows more accu- 
 rately than themselves the location of their Master's 
 tomb, kindly points them out its rock-covered door, as 
 they stand feeble and trembling before him, yet fails, 
 though knowing their errand, to offer assistance in 
 forcing an entrance — this is hardly a matter-of-fact 
 young citizen of Jerusalem, taking the air in so extra- 
 ordinary a place at sunrise, and so strangely well 
 informed. 
 
 Moreover, if the women "only imperfectly or not at 
 all" understood what they heard, how comes it that 
 we have the report of the exact words (whether in the 
 Bezan or the common text), words which the women 
 who heard and reported them wholly misinterpreted, 
 
 1 Cf. the criticism by Orr, pp. 130 f. 
 
Who Shall Roll Away the Stone ? 193 
 
 but which Professor Lake correctly understands? If 
 they understood what they heard not at all, or even 
 imperfectly, then the words as we have them must be 
 in substance the product of the women's imagination. 
 If so, their form is shaped by the women's (mistaken) 
 theory of the resurrection, and their meaning is what 
 Mark means, not what Professor Lake means. We 
 would have, by hypothesis, not what was actually 
 said by the young man, but what the women, believing 
 him to have been an angel announcing the resurrec- 
 tion, supposed he must have said. But if he did not 
 say these words, in close substance, then Professor 
 Lake's theory falls to the ground, for its only basis is 
 in the form of the words. No essential change could 
 be made in the form of the sentence without destroying 
 the hypothesis. ' ' You are looking for Jesus, the cruci- 
 fied Nazarene; he is not here; look, there is the spot 
 where they placed him. " The suggestion seems there- 
 fore to contain its own refutation, since to give it any 
 foundation, so much must have been accurately heard 
 and reported. 
 
 It is not too much to suppose that if these words 
 had been spoken by an ordinary young man, and if, 
 moreover, he had made his absolutely plain words 
 plainer yet by pointing to the next tomb, the women 
 would not have done what Professor Lake describes 
 them as doing. This friendly young man is the very 
 person they were looking for when they questioned, 
 "Who shall roll away the stone?" Why "frightened 
 at the detection of their errand"? Could they induce 
 the first casual man they might meet to open a tomb 
 for them without revealing the nature of their errand ? 
 What is there in these commonplace, friendly, reassur- 
 
194 The Resurrection 
 
 ing words to send them flying from the place in be- 
 wilderment and terror so great that their lips were 
 sealed for weeks or months, as over some terrible secret? 
 What is there in this young man that makes them later 
 picture him as an angel from heaven, and while re- 
 membering so accurately the one sentence he did say, 
 add to it, by an act of imaginative memory, certain 
 specific and detailed phrases which he did not say at 
 all? These phrases are "Be not amazed — he is risen 
 — go tell his disciples and Peter, he goeth before you 
 into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto 
 you. " Is it not perfectly impossible that women, hav- 
 ing the experience Professor Lake suggests, should 
 ever have remembered, or imagined, that these latter 
 phrases had been said to them by the young man? 
 But if these words are the creation of tradition, em- 
 bodying an erroneous conception of the resurrection, 
 so are the rest. In truth, the angel's words are of one 
 piece; it is hopeless to attempt to divide them into 
 words actually spoken, and words imagined. 
 
 If I have thus at some length pointed out a lack 
 of verisimilitude in Professor Lake's suggestion, it is 
 not in order to depreciate his exceedingly valuable 
 discussion. It is only in order to show, by a criticism 
 of this, the most plausible of hypotheses which treat 
 the episode as historic but wholly non-miraculous, that 
 the episode cannot be so treated. The criticism could 
 be carried into further detail, but enough has been said 
 to show how completely the incident is a unity, how 
 hopeless it is to attempt to pick and choose elements 
 in it which once existed as independent historical tra- 
 ditions, only later gathering to themselves the legend- 
 ary and miraculous features. The narrative and its 
 
Who Shall Roll Away the Stone? 195 
 
 separate parts always existed in relation to each other, 
 and bore the meaning which they bear on their face 
 now, which they bore to the earliest readers of the 
 Gospel of Mark. * 
 
 One further point demands discussion in connection 
 with the angel's message. The words, "there shall ye 
 see him, as he said unto you," plainly refer back to 
 some earlier declaration on the part of Jesus that his 
 disciples should "see" him (in Galilee?) after his 
 death. Such a declaration is found plainly written 
 in our present text of Mk. xiv: 28. On the way to 
 Gethsemane, Jesus declares his conviction that the dis- 
 ciples shall be ;" offended, "which he elucidates by quot- 
 ing (from Zech. xiii: 7), "I will smite the Shepherd and 
 the sheep shall be scattered abroad. " To this declara- 
 tion he adds, "Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will 
 go before you into Galilee." This is not precisely, to 
 be sure, a promise that they should see him in Galilee, 
 though this might be considered implied. At any 
 rate, the latter promise is given in addition to the other 
 in the angel's words in xvi: 7, icpodtysi u^S? elq t^v TaXt- 
 XaEocvlxei aifcbv 8t]>ea0e, xa8dj? slxev ujjlTv. Here the xaGus 
 elicev seems to relate primarily to the S(pea0e autov, 
 whereas the promise of xiv: 28 agrees with the preced- 
 ing clause. A reproduction of the one passage by the 
 other is certain; xiv: 28 has xpoa^eo upas si? tt]v TaX., 
 
 1 Latham, pp. 400-419, argues that the white-robed men seen at 
 the tomb are not angels, but young students from a rabbinical 
 school at Jerusalem, or possibly Essenes. They have been con- 
 strued as Essenes for at least a century past; so, for example, by 
 Karl Friedrich Bahrdt, Karl Heinrich Venturini, August Fried- 
 rich Gfrorer, and others. For references to these, cf. Schweitzer, 
 pp. 43. 47. l6 4f-. l61 - 
 
196 The Resurrection 
 
 xvi: 7 has itpoayei ufjwcs dq tt)v TaX. It would seem, 
 therefore, as if Mark meant the xa0w? sksv to cover 
 both clauses, and the xpoa^u uy.a<;ot xiv: 28 to include 
 a seeing of Jesus by the disciples. 
 
 But one cannot read xiv: 28 without feeling in it a 
 certain disturbance of the context. In vs. 29 Peter 
 repeats Jesus' words of vs. 27, "all shall be offended," 
 as a foil to his protestation of his own unswerving 
 loyalty. The promise of resurrection and return to 
 Galilee, striking and splendid as it is, is passed over as 
 if it had not been spoken. The context, without the 
 promise, is a close unity, in which the promise is at 
 best a foreign element. A declaration of the disciples' 
 recreancy in the approaching trial is only weakened by 
 the assurance that, after all, it will not really matter. 
 However (dcXXct), after I have risen, I will precede you 
 into Galilee, and our interrupted fellowship will be 
 resumed, as if _ your loyalty had not wavered! In 
 order to make any connection here, the phrase "I 
 will go before you" must be interpreted ex eventu, and 
 that circumstance points to an ex eventu origin. It 
 would seem as if all Jesus meant to express at this time 
 was his foreboding that the disciples would, tem- 
 porarily at least, lose their courage and their faith in 
 him. The Zechariah-word need not be pressed to 
 mean more than that. But the ex eventu consideration 
 of the words inevitably saw in them a prophecy of 
 what had happened, of a real scattering of the flock, 
 a flight of the disciples to Galilee. And so, naturally 
 enough, a word was added containing an allusion to 
 their later experience in Galilee which made good their 
 defection. The natural suggestion for the form of this 
 added word was found in the angel's word in xvi: 7, 
 
Who Shall Roll Away the Stone ? 197 
 
 TCpoct-ifei ujidt? ef? tyjv TaXiXatav. But, as we shall see, 
 this word was first added, in all probability, by the 
 author of the Gospel of Matthew (xxvi: 32), and 
 found its way into the Markan text by imitation of 
 the latter passage rather than by direct suggestion 
 of Mark xvi: 7. 
 
 The prophecy, "I will go before you into Galilee," 
 is entirely different from any other of Jesus' promises 
 of his resurrection in that it posits resurrection in a 
 physical body, back into the earthly environment, and 
 announces a journey of the risen body from Jerusalem 
 back to Galilee, with an implied reunion with the dis- 
 ciples there. Without this reunion, as just pointed 
 out, the words have no significance, though the re- 
 union is seen to be implicit in the words only when the 
 later events are known. Every other declaration by 
 Jesus of his resurrection simply announces, "I shall 
 rise again." There is no suggestion of the body's 
 leaving the grave, of resuming relations to earth, or of 
 appearing to his disciples. Jesus commonly speaks of 
 his resurrection in connection with his parousia; the 
 wording of his promises never implies rising out of the 
 tomb back to the Jerusalem hillside, to Palestine, to 
 the scenes of earth, but always rising out of the world 
 of the dead into the heavenly world. Any idea of 
 lingering for a time on earth by the way has been im- 
 ported into these declarations entirely ex eventu, to fit 
 the later gospel stories. To this important point we 
 shall return again. It is sufficient here to point out 
 that the prophecy of Mark xiv: 28 is of an entirely 
 different sort from all the rest, that it has its only 
 analogy in xvi: 7, where appears not only its analogy, 
 but its verbal duplicate, save for tense and person 
 
198 The Resurrection 
 
 of the verb. In brief, xiv: 28 has every appearance 
 of being, not only unhistorical as an utterance of Jesus, 
 but an interpolation into the original Markan con- 
 text. 1 
 
 If this is true, we must seek for the words xaSox; 
 elitev u[juv in xvi: 7 a new point of reference. The 
 angelic message, of which these words form a part, we 
 have already recognised as the formulation of tradition, 
 on the basis of the event, and we are therefore prepared 
 to find that their supposed point of reference may be 
 understood by the writer in a sense dictated by the 
 event, and foreign to Jesus' intent. The author, 
 knowing that the risen Jesus had appeared to his dis- 
 ciples, that the sum and substance of the preaching 
 concerning his resurrection was the icapdSoac? of 
 those "appearances," inevitably understood Jesus' 
 prophecies that he would rise as meaning that he would 
 appear. So the readers from his day to ours have 
 understood them. %<xQG>q slxsv ujjuv, then, we shall 
 take, as syntax bids, with autbv 8(];ea8£ alone, and 
 seek its point of reference, not in some earlier form of 
 the Tcpoays' clause, with which it has really nothing to 
 do, but simply in Jesus ' prophecy of the resurrection. 
 The passages in Mark's mind are viii: 31, ix: 31, x: 34, 
 and the like. 
 
 It cannot be shown that any later evangelist who 
 used Mark as a source read xiv: 28. There is no trace 
 of it in John, nor in Luke. The passage Luke xxii: 31 
 ff. lacks any such allusion, and xxiv: 6 f. explicitly 
 explains Mark xvi: 7 as referring to Jesus' earlier 
 
 ■This was argued by Wittichen, in Jahrb.fiirProt. Theol., 1879, 
 p. 169 (note), and more fully, 1891, p. 512. Cf. also H. J. Holtz- 
 mann, H. C, ad loc, and Volter, p. 6. 
 
Who Shall Roll Away the Stone? 199 
 
 prophecies, such as Mark viii: 31 and the others just 
 cited. This is not due simply to Luke's desire to sup- 
 press the connection of the resurrection-appearances 
 with Galilee, as is frequently assumed, but is a per- 
 fectly correct understanding of Mark. The witness 
 of Matthew is perhaps doubtful here. In xxviii: 7 
 Mark's xaScoq ekev 5[/iv is rendered as JSoi ekov u(juv 
 by Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort, in accordance 
 with the MSS., but the latter editors suggest that ekov 
 is a primitive error for ekev. Other scholars, also, 
 have conjectured that this very simple and natural 
 error of one letter was made in our text of Matt., and 
 that the original agreed with Mark. 1 If we retain the 
 MSS. reading, it would appear that Matthew did not 
 see anywhere in Mark a prophecy which agreed 
 with the ekev, and so changed it to ekov. That 
 would look as if he properly interpreted the xa6d>? 
 ekev ujjuv as belonging to aikbv otpeuSe alone, and 
 either did not have xiv: 28 in his Mark, or did not 
 regard it as having any connection here. If we 
 read ekev, there would still be no evidence that 
 Matthew read Mark xiv: 28; he might simply be 
 reproducing Mark's words in Mark's meaning, pre- 
 cisely as Luke did. It will at once be objected that 
 Matt, xxvi: 32 reproduces Mark xiv: 28 word for word, 
 that this, therefore, is the reference in mind in xxviii : 7 
 (reading ekev), which clearly shows dependence 
 on Mark. To this it may be answered that the read- 
 ing ekev is a wholly unattested conjecture, and that 
 without it xxvi: 32 has no connection with the exei 
 au-ibv o(J)ea0e of xxviii: 7, while even with this reading 
 1 For these conjectures cf. Meyer Weiss, ad loc, and Wittichen, 
 loc. cit. 
 
200 The Resurrection 
 
 there is no necessary connection. The truth seems to 
 be that Matthew failed to find in Mark any prophecy 
 corresponding to " There shall ye see him, as he said," 
 and so changed Mark's elrcev to elicov, as all our 
 MSS. testify. With the xaOw? elxev or £Soi ekov the 
 xporfyst clause has nothing whatever to do, in the 
 mind of either evangelist, but on the basis of this 
 clause, to relieve the tragedy of the disciples' prophe- 
 sied defection, Matthew adds, in xxvi: 32, the words 
 \t.ex& Tb If sp0YJvit \>.s itpoatjti) i^aq st? ttjv TaXikalav. From 
 there the phrase was interpolated into the parent 
 of our MSS. of Mark. 
 
 It may further be pointed out that in the Gospel 
 of Peter there is no reference to Galilee in the angel's 
 words, although Mark is being used, and the going of 
 the disciples to Galilee and their sight of Jesus there 
 are described in some detail. No stress can be laid 
 on this, yet there is at least no evidence here that Mark 
 xvi: 7 originally had reference to xiv: 28. If the 
 author was unable to find in his Mark any point of 
 reference for xaOwq sItcsv ujjuv, that would be one 
 reason, at any rate, for omitting it and the words to 
 which it was attached. 
 
 Finally, we may cite the so-called Fayoum fragment, 
 discovered in 1885 among the papyri in the collection 
 of the Archduke Rainer in Vienna, which apparently 
 witnesses to an older text of Mark xiv: 26-30 than 
 that in our MSS. 1 The text of the fragment as de- 
 
 1 Out of the considerable literature of this gospel-fragment re- 
 ference may be made to Harnack's treatment in T. u. U., vol. v., 
 partiv., 1889, pp. 483 ff.; Resch's in vol. x., part i., second Heft, 
 pp. 28-34, an d Zahn's in Gesch. d. Kan., vol. ii., second half, pp. 
 780-790. 
 
Who Shall Roll Away the Stone? 201 
 
 ciphered and restored by Professor Bickell, its dis- 
 coverer, is as follows: . . . xpb tou (i.s ^eTaXXa-y stv 
 waauTw?" x(4vts? 'sv Tauvf) Tfj vuxtI axavSaXtsOifcsaSe 
 xcaa zb ypaipev xaTdijw -rbv xot(jiva xal to: xpi^ata 
 StaaxopxtaQ^aovraf lixdvroq too IleTpou" xal eJ itavTE? 
 ojx, Eyw" eTt auT(j>" 6 dXsxTpuuv SI? xoxxiSljei xort au xpw-rov 
 •cpls dxapvi^aj) (as. 1 Some of Bickell's conjectured 
 reconstructions are doubtful, other scholars have 
 restored missing words somewhat differently, but these 
 details are of no importance in our present connection. 
 It is clear that the author of this text knew the text 
 of Mark and almost certain that he knew it without 
 the words of xiv: 28. 2 When this consideration is 
 added to those already noted, we need not hesitate 
 to regard Mark xiv: 28 as no part of the original text. 
 We have seen that the women's errand at the grave 
 of Jesus lacks probability, that the discovery made at 
 the tomb is even less credible, that the angelic message 
 bears every appearance of being an ex eventu inter- 
 pretation of the disciples' Galilean experiences. If 
 we turn, finally, to Mark xvi: 8, the description of the 
 women's conduct upon receiving the angel's bidding — 
 or upon their experience at the grave, however it may 
 be rationalised into a normal and commonplace oc- 
 currence, — this also is seen to be wholly incredible. If 
 
 1 G. Bickell, "Ein Letztes Wort uber dasPapyrus-Evangelium," 
 Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung des Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, 
 1892, pp. 78 ff. Cf. also E. Nestle, Novi Testamenti Graeci Sup- 
 plementum, 1896, p. 67; Hermann Usener, Religions geschichUiche 
 Vntersuchungen, parti., i889,p.94;E.Hennecke,i4^ofe., pp.9, 11, 
 and Handbuch, p. 21; Erwin Preuschen, Antilegomena, I90i,pp. 
 
 19 f. 
 
 " See this urged by Alfred Resch in T. u. U., vol. x., part i., 
 second Heft, 1894, pp. 18, 326, 385. 
 
202 The Resurrection 
 
 the young man is an angel, or so regarded by the 
 women, surely no fear of the authorities could prevent 
 the fulfillment of a mission enjoined by a messenger 
 direct from heaven. What penalties the women could 
 incur from the Sanhedrin it is not easy to see, nor how 
 the Sanhedrists could become aware of the secret 
 whispering of a message into the ears of Peter and his 
 companions, a message that bade these men depart at 
 once from Judea, into Galilee and the jurisdiction of 
 Herod Antipas. Or if we assume that the disciples 
 have already left Jerusalem for Galilee, and that what 
 is meant is that the women did not tell the general 
 public, there are at once a host of objections. 1 Why 
 should they tell the general public, when their message 
 was a private one intended for the ears of the disciples? 
 Did not the angel know that the disciples had left 
 Jerusalem? Why then give the women a message 
 which they could not deliver? Or if he did give such a 
 message, was it not intended that the women should 
 follow the disciples back to Galilee, and there make the 
 communication? Is not this, after all, the natural 
 thing to expect? These women are Galileans, only 
 come to the capital to the feast; why should they not 
 forthwith return to their homes, especially since the 
 men of their party, sons and kinsmen, have already 
 gone? The commentators seem in general, for no 
 avowed reason, to think of the women as necessarily 
 remaining in the city. 2 But if the women go to Galilee, 
 their fear cannot still operate there to prevent all 
 
 I Keim,p.554 (Eng.tr., p. 305), and others, take Mark to mean 
 that the women told their experience to no one whom they 
 chanced to meet on their way to their lodgings. 
 
 ' The reason is, of course, the desire to harmonise this account 
 
Who Shall Roll Away the Stone ? 203 
 
 three of them from obeying the angelic command. 
 They are safe from possible attack by the Jerusalem 
 authorities, an attack already seen to be imaginary, 
 even in Jerusalem. 
 
 But it may be argued that the apojiouvro refers not 
 to fear of the authorities, but, as commonly under- 
 stood, to the xpd^o? xai Ixaxaat? which fell upon 
 them at seeing the angel and hearing his com- 
 munication. Now it is of course impossible for any 
 one in the twentieth century to discuss what conduct 
 is proper or even psychologically conceivable when 
 one is addressed by an angel. Any argument is here 
 out of place; psychology, logic, all the laws of human 
 thought and action withdraw from the stage when 
 an angel makes his entrance. Yet one cannot help 
 feeling that this supposition makes the women's 
 conduct still more incomprehensible. Jesus had re- 
 peatedly assured his disciples that he would rise from 
 the dead; these women, closely connected with the 
 disciples as with himself, could hardly be ignorant of 
 these declarations. Why, then, should they have 
 been so frightened to hear that he had done just what 
 he had said he would do, at precisely the time he had 
 indicated — for the story assumes that resurrection 
 means issuance from the tomb? With all their awe 
 before the heavenly visitant, there can scarcely have 
 been such amazement and terror at his communication, 
 especially in such degree as to cause disobedience to his 
 express command. The message would have been 
 the most joyful possible; it is difficult to imagine the 
 women keeping it to themselves under any conceivable 
 
 with the later ones, notably that of Luke. But Mark, taken by 
 itself, is here, as elsewhere, irreconcilable with Luke. 
 
204 The Resurrection 
 
 pressure, how much less in the face of a direct bid- 
 ding given by an angel from heaven. But again, all 
 possibilities of argument are nullified when an angel 
 becomes one of the premises. 
 
 If we take, then, such a suggestion as that of Pro- 
 fessor Lake, that the young man was only a normal 
 young man, and his words only a commonplace 
 friendly direction, the confusion becomes worse con- 
 founded. Why the Tp^o? and gxataais? Why the 
 terror? To be sure, the women later came to be- 
 lieve that they had seen an angel, but this was only 
 after the "appearances" in Galilee, and the report of 
 them by the disciples. What kept the women silent 
 during the days or weeks, or whatever the interval may 
 have been, between the Easter morning and that time? 
 If they did not at once take the young man for an angel, 
 they must have taken him for an ordinary young man. 
 But if so, there is not the faintest excuse for their 
 amazement, their terror, their flight, or for the state- 
 ment that they told nothing to any man. For on a 
 hypothesis like Lake's, what would they have to tell? 
 What would be the tidings they withheld? It is 
 surely meaningless to say that they told no one that 
 they had seen a young man, who had perceived what 
 they wished to do, and had spoken a word to them 
 about it. Finally, "the detection of their errand" is 
 far too feeble a cause for the amazement and terror 
 without which the story has no point. 
 
 Thus again it is clear that the episode is a unity, 
 that its elements had, when it was first related, the 
 significance, and the relation to each other, which they 
 now bear. It is not a historical narrative into which 
 a legendary supernatural element has been introduced ; 
 
Who Shall Roll Away the Stone ? 205 
 
 it is in toto a non-historical narrative, with every part 
 of which the supernatural is equally connected, and 
 every part of which owes its origin to a pious imagin- 
 ing, on the basis of the "appearances" in Galilee. 1 
 In plain words, there is not the slightest reason to 
 suppose that the women went to anoint the body, 
 that the grave was found empty, or ever was empty. 
 Every consideration, on the contrary, points in pre- 
 cisely the opposite direction. 2 
 
 1 So P. W. Schmidt, Die Geschichte Jesu, part ii., 1904, pp. 
 406 f. 
 
 * So Schmiedel, col. 4066. The empty grave is regarded as un- 
 historical by Arnold Meyer, Knopf, A. Neumann, Weinel, P. W. 
 Schmidt, Pfleiderer, Bruckner, Brandt, Harnack, Weizsacker, 
 Volkmar, Kcim, Strauss, and many others. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE EMPTY GRAVE 
 
 A CAREFUL examination of Mark's narrative has 
 made it impossible for us to affirm, with a dis- 
 tinguished scholar, as a "material fact beyond dis- 
 cussion or controversy . . . that on the second day 
 after the crucifixion, very early in the morning, the 
 tomb where the body of the crucified one had been 
 laid was found empty." 1 The evidence for that is 
 precisely the same as for the angel, without whom it is 
 never mentioned, apart from whom it has no existence. 
 The two are parts of a single creation of faith. Not 
 only is this the result of a study of Mark xvi., there 
 are general considerations which point inevitably to 
 the same conclusion. We have only to ask ourselves 
 what would be the normal consequences of such a dis- 
 covery. Eliminating the angel and his message, and 
 assuming with Reville and many others that the tomb 
 was found (by the women) on Sunday morning to be 
 empty (for some simple natural reason), what would 
 happen? 
 
 In the first place, we may well doubt whether the 
 women would, on this basis, have inferred, as explana- 
 tion of the emptiness of the tomb, that the Master had 
 
 1 Albert Reville, in the New World, September, 1894, p. 512. 
 Similarly Volter, pp. 3 and 31. 
 
 206 
 
The Empty Grave 207 
 
 come to life and departed. There are so many natural 
 ways in which a body might be removed from such a 
 tomb that it is doing violence to all probability to sup- 
 pose that the ecstatic thought would at once come: 
 He is risen. It would be scarcely more natural for 
 these Galilean women nineteen centuries ago than 
 for American women to-day, who might find a loved 
 one's grave open and tenantless. What would actu- 
 ally happen under such circumstances is well pictured 
 in John's account of the visit of Mary of Magdala to 
 the tomb (xx: i f., 14 f.). Seeing the tomb open, her 
 immediate and natural thought is: They have taken 
 away the Master out of the tomb, and we know not 
 where they have laid him. And appealing to the sup- 
 posed gardener, she begs : Sir, if thou hast borne him 
 hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will 
 take him away. Indeed, the whole gospel account is 
 far more consistent here than many of the critics, 
 who fail to think the scene through. Nowhere do the 
 women infer from the empty tomb that the Master "has 
 risen; in every case they learn this only from the lips 
 of the angel, or from those of the risen Jesus himself. 
 Here again the angel is seen as an indispensable element 
 of the story. In truth, only a message from heaven 
 could possibly have made the empty tomb mean the 
 resurrection of the Lord. 
 
 It has, therefore, sometimes been assumed that 
 during the first few weeks after the women's experience 
 they had no suspicion of the resurrection, or any other 
 thought than that Jesus' body had been surrepti- 
 tiously removed and elsewhere concealed by unfriendly 
 hands ; only on learning that the disciples have seen the 
 Master in Galilee do they interpret the facts otherwise. 
 
208 The Resurrection 
 
 Opposed to this is the fact, already ascertained, that 
 the disciples did not report a meeting with the buried 
 body in Galilee, as well as the difficulty of accounting 
 for the removal of the body. Mark's story has no 
 meaning save as it is attested to the women on the 
 third day that their Master was risen from the dead. 
 
 But even granting that not until several weeks have 
 elapsed does the discovery of the empty tomb become 
 the great, indeed the only, external evidence of the 
 resurrection, even so, events must have been other 
 than as described. Indeed, it makes little difference 
 whether on the third day, or on the forty-third, it be- 
 came clear to the women that the disappearance of 
 Jesus' body from its tomb was his resurrection; in 
 either case the result would have been the same. That 
 empty tomb would at once have become the centre of 
 attention; it would have been given even exaggerated 
 importance as an external proof, patent to all eyes, of 
 the truth of the Christians' claim, for being the only 
 such piece of external evidence, it would have to bear 
 the entire weight of testimony. It is idle to say that 
 the women could not identify, after a few weeks, the 
 sacred spot where they had seen their Master laid, 
 whither they had gone at early dawn with their spices, 
 where they had been so startled and distressed at what 
 had seemed to them profanation. They would find 
 the grave at once, and would triumphantly point to it 
 as the irrefutable confirmation of their claim. The 
 unbelieving Jews would have used every effort to 
 crush the heresy by showing how the body had actually 
 been removed by human means; this ought not to have 
 been difficult, and then the Christian faith would have 
 been destroyed ere scarce it was born, since for the 
 
The Empty Grave 209 
 
 hypothesis now being criticised the disciples' concep- 
 tion of resurrection involved the empty grave as a 
 necessary element. 
 
 As a matter of fact, instead of being the very centre 
 of debate, the empty grave does not appear as the sub- 
 ject of controversy at all, except in the late story of the 
 guard, peculiar to Matthew. In all Paul's discussion 
 of the resurrection, there is no faintest hint that it 
 could be questioned except on general grounds of Welt- 
 anschauung; no empty grave is defended or alluded 
 to. In the book of Acts we have many pictures 
 of the controversy between the primitive Christian 
 community in Jerusalem and their Jewish brethren, 
 but the emergence of Jesus' body from its tomb is 
 never a point at issue. 1 The appeal to it could hardly 
 be avoided in ii: 32, iii: 15, iv: 33; in iv: 2 the only 
 expedient, when the Sanhedrists are sore troubled be- 
 cause the disciples "proclaimed in Jesus the resurrec- 
 
 1 Korff, pp. 42-57, 104 f., has the extraordinary view, which 
 quite inverts all the existing evidence, that the empty grave, in- 
 stead of being a strong argument for the Christians in their con- 
 troversy with the Jews, was on the contrary used by the latter 
 against the Christians. "You found the grave empty, and on 
 that flimsy basis supposed your Master risen!" was the charge. 
 This proved very embarrassing for the Christians, who were driven 
 in desperation to suppress or deny the empty grave. For this 
 reason Paul, who knows it well, never mentions it, and Mark as- 
 serts that the disciples were in Galilee and saw the risen Lord long 
 before they knew of the empty grave. The truth (unknown, how- 
 ever to Mark), was that the women told the disciples of the empty 
 grave before they left Jerusalem, and the first appearances came 
 in that city. Despite Mark's long and intimate association with 
 Peter, it never occurred to him, thinks Korff (p. 57), to ask the 
 apostle concerning the time, place, and circumstances of the "ap- 
 pearances. " 
 14 
 
210 The Resurrection 
 
 tion from the dead, " is to throw them into jail. This 
 is an entirely impossible situation, if the claim made 
 by the disciples is that a certain tomb, lying close at 
 hand for any one to see, no longer contains a dead body 
 committed to it, because the dead man has risen. 
 
 If we are surprised at the lack of controversy over 
 the empty tomb, and of interest in it on the part of 
 unbelieving Jews, it is no less surprising to see how 
 little notice it attracts among the Christians themselves. 
 Besides the three women who made the discovery, 
 only two of the followers of Jesus are reported to have 
 even looked at the grave which has for centuries been 
 the chief shrine of Christendom; for the rest it had ap- 
 parently no interest or importance. Not even to see 
 whether or no the women had told the truth would 
 these men go near. Can that be made plausible? As 
 a matter of fact, the vacant tomb, triumphant witness 
 to their preaching and monument to their Master's 
 divine power, would have been for these earliest Chris- 
 tians a sacred place of pilgrimage and of adoring rever- 
 ence. x It could not have failed to appear, as a central 
 element, in all their preaching of the resurrection, 
 in all their controversy with the orthodox Jews. Mark 
 clearly feels this; first putting the empty tomb into a 
 written account, he feels called upon to explain why 
 it was not a well-known and prominent fact in the 
 earliest proclamation, as he knows it was not. His 
 explanation is that only three women knew of the 
 empty tomb, and that fear prevented them from tell- 
 ing anyone else. But Mark's explanation, however 
 well meant, is from every point of view inadequate. 
 Others besides the women would have had an interest 
 
 1 Cf. Baldensperger, pp. 35 f. 
 
The Empty Grave 211 
 
 in the tomb; what, for example, of the multitude of 
 pilgrims from Galilee, who had made Jesus' entry into 
 the city so triumphant, and whose enthusiasm for their 
 prophet led the Sandhedrists to the swift and secret 
 execution of their plan? "The complete absence of 
 the impression which the empty grave must have 
 made, the fact that, according to the oldest report, 
 even the women who saw it said nothing about it, 
 makes it improbable that the grave of Jesus was really 
 empty." 1 
 
 This general consideration, to be sure, has been 
 used to support the actuality of the bodily resurrection. 
 For example, Professor Marcus Dods writes: 2 "If the 
 belief in the Resurrection was a delusion, why was it 
 not exposed at the time? Hundreds of persons must 
 have visited the sepulchre during the succeeding weeks. 
 The apostles affirmed the Resurrection when they were 
 brought before the Sanhedrim. Why did not the 
 authorities at once explode this nascent sect and dan- 
 gerous heresy, by exposing the delusion on which it 
 was based? Nothing was easier, if the body of Jesus 
 still lay in the tomb." The answer is, of course, ob- 
 vious. This criticism takes for granted the very point 
 at issue. If the resurrection proclaimed by the dis- 
 ciples was not the issuance of Jesus' body from the 
 grave, then the criticism is meaningless. 3 The pro- 
 duction of Jesus' body by the Sanhedrists, as a matter 
 of fact, would as little prove to the earliest disciples 
 
 1 Cf. Arnold Meyer, pp. 115 f. 
 
 2 In The Supernatural in Christianity, 1894, p. 100. The 
 same argument for the empty grave is brought by Clemen, p. 199, 
 and by Schwartzkopff, pp. 1 1 5 f . 
 
 3 Cf. Canon Henson, in Hibbert Journal, vol. ii., p. 489. 
 
212 The Resurrection 
 
 or Paul that the Master had not risen ex. vexpwv, as 
 the production of Bishop Westcott's body, some weeks 
 after his death, would prove to the common people of 
 his diocese that he had not "gone to heaven." 
 
 The belief that the grave was found empty, as held 
 by those critics who do not believe in the angel and the 
 bodily resurrection, labours under another great diffi- 
 culty. There is as yet no satisfactory conjecture as to 
 how or why the body was removed. If we accept this 
 view, we can only say: human hands took the body 
 from the grave between the hours of six on Friday 
 evening and three or four on Sunday morning. But 
 who did it, with what motive, or what disposition was 
 then made of the body, we are absolutely ignorant, and 
 no conjectures will help. Some of the suggested 
 theories we may note. 
 
 There is first of all a hypothesis which does away at 
 once with any resurrection from the dead, and at the 
 same time with any removal of the body, by friends 
 or by foes. This is the "Scheintod" hypothesis, or 
 theory of apparent death, according to which Jesus 
 was not really dead at all, but taken from the cross in 
 a state of syncope; in the tomb he revived and, with or 
 without assistance, removed the stone and so came 
 forth. The various "appearances," therefore, were 
 simply the meetings of the still living Jesus with vari- 
 ous friends. After sundry such meetings, Jesus is sup- 
 posed to have withdrawn into seclusion, and at some 
 time and place unknown, to have died a natural death. 
 
 This hypothesis, with variations in detail, has been 
 argued by a considerable number of scholars, notably 
 by Professor Paulus of Heidelberg ; among many others 
 who regard it as probable may be named Herder, 
 
The Empty Grave 213 
 
 Schleiermacher, Gfrorer, Bunsen, and Hase. 1 The 
 construction of events may be granted as within the 
 limits of possibility ; more cannot be said for it. That 
 after all Jesus had suffered, he should have died after 
 six hours on the cross is nothing strange, although 
 victims commonly lived much longer, and Pilate 
 naturally enough expresses a mild surprise over this 
 speedy end. That he was only in a stupor, a stupor 
 from which the process of taking him from the cross, 
 (with the pulling out of the nails), and the preparation 
 of his body for burial did not rouse him, a stupor so 
 profound that those who performed these offices 3 de- 
 
 1 H. E. G. Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1828, vol. ii., pp. 277-305; 
 A. F. Gfrorer, Das Heiligtum und die Wahrheit, 1838, pp. 107- 
 m, 232-252. For the further references, with discussion of the 
 whole point, cf. Keim, pp. 573~576 (Eng. tr., pp. 32&-331); 
 Steude, pp. 23-34; Arnold Meyer, pp. 116 f., with the notes in 
 each. 
 
 The Scheintod hypothesis, like most of the other suggestions of 
 modern critics, was offered in ancient times. Pseudo- Justin 
 (Diodorusof Tarsus?) must reply to it in no. 78 of the Queestiones 
 et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos. Harnack, Diodor von Tarsus 
 (T. U. Neue Folge vi., Heft 4), 1901, p. 107. Cf. Bauer, p. 483. 
 
 A curious argumentation for the hypothesis was offered by 
 Jakobus Andreas Brennecke: Biblischer Beweis: doss Jesus 
 nach seiner Auferstehung nock sieben und zwanzig Jakr leibhaftig 
 auf Erden gelebt und zum Wohl der Menschheit in der Stille 
 fortgewirkt habe. No place. 1819. 
 
 Recent exponents of this view are George L. Cary, The Synop- 
 tic Gospels, 1900, pp. 326-329; Pierre Calluaud, Le Probleme de 
 la Resurrection du Christ, 1909. In a review of Baldensperger's 
 " Urchristliche Apologie " (Review of Theol. and Phil., Dec. 1910), 
 William Watson suggests that the piercing of Jesus' side (John 
 xix: 34) was the fourth evangelist's reply to the Scheintod charge 
 made already in his time. 
 
 ' Joseph must have been assisted, probably by servants. 
 
214 The Resurrection 
 
 tected no sign of life, is harder to believe. That in a 
 tomb, of which the entrance was stopped by a stone, 
 and which therefore must have been comparatively- 
 airless, he revived, and regained sufficient strength to 
 push away the stone (which three women despaired of 
 moving) and walk out, is most difficult of all. Of 
 course it has been suggested that a fortuitous earth- 
 quake (Mat. xxviii: 2) removed the stone, and the 
 shock revived Jesus; much is made of the coolness of 
 the tomb, of the invigorating effect of the spices (these 
 only in John xix: 39 f.), and the like. The white- 
 robed men usually conceived as angels are interpreted 
 as Essene physicians, ready to assist reviving nature; 
 Joseph has perhaps suspected that life is not extinct 
 and has made every effort to restore the Master to 
 consciousness and strength. But this latter sugges- 
 tion means that Joseph and Jesus alike were guilty of 
 conniving at fraud, in their allowing without protest 
 the disciples to proclaim their Master risen Ix. vexpuv, 
 on the basis of their having seen him and spoken with 
 him, in the body, since his supposed death and burial. 
 Whatever grounds of abstract possibility may be 
 urged for the recovery of a man who apparently dies 
 after six hours of crucifixion, whatever favourable 
 conditions our unfettered imagination may bring to 
 facilitate that recovery, the whole hypothesis goes to 
 pieces so soon as we come to the "appearances" of this 
 resuscitated Jesus. If these appearances were simply 
 meetings between the still living Jesus and his disciples 
 the whole course of events becomes incomprehensible. 
 To say that Peter and the rest, to say nothing of Paul 
 (whose "heavenly vision" is brought into the same 
 category) , met and talked with Jesus alive and well, and 
 
The Empty Grave 215 
 
 on the basis of these interviews proclaimed him "risen 
 from the dead, " as the New Testament makes certain 
 that they did, is practically to assert their insanity. 
 If the gospels make anything clear, it is that the fol- 
 lowers of Jesus were not expecting any resurrection of 
 his body from the grave ; every announcement of it is 
 greeted with amazement and incredulity, to say noth- 
 ing of the burial, or of the anointing planned by the 
 women and performed by Joseph and Nicodemus. It 
 is impossible, then, to assert that these men, meeting 
 Jesus again, miles away in Galilee (or, indeed, in Jeru- 
 salem), should at once say: This is a dead man risen, 
 instead of the natural, inevitable inference: He then 
 did not die. Can one imagine Jesus talking even for 
 five minutes with the disciples, and leaving them with 
 the resurrection-message on their lips? Either he or 
 they, or both, must surely be charged with conscious 
 fraud. And this resuscitated Jesus, who is strong 
 enough to travel back to Galilee, and yet appears only 
 a half-dozen times, in secret and mysterious fashion, to 
 certain of his followers, who lives in hiding, cared for 
 by unknown friends, never seen by any outsider, who 
 five years later makes a journey to Damascus and there 
 comes upon Saul of Tarsus in such sudden, startling 
 wise as to change the world's history, who lives and 
 dies no one knows where or how or when — this Jesus 
 is a monstrous figment of a rationalising imagination. 
 What nonsense this theory makes of I. Corinthians xv, 
 and of that saying we once thought so profound : it 
 pleased God to reveal his Son in me! And all this 
 simply in order to be able to accept as perfectly his- 
 torical Mark xvi : 1-5 while rejecting as perfectly un- 
 historical verses 6 and 7. It is one of the signs of an 
 
216 The Resurrection 
 
 increased sanity of critical judgment that this hypo- 
 thesis is in recent years but rarely appealed to by 
 reputable scholars. 1 
 
 Accepting the fact of Jesus' death on the cross, then, 
 there are numerous suggestions which would account 
 for the removal of his body from the grave by natural 
 means. All alike labour under the disadvantage of 
 being unable to assign an adequate motive for the 
 deed, whoever its perpetrator. One cannot easily im- 
 agine any reason for the action on the part of a Roman 
 or other Gentile, while the Jewish religious scruples 
 against the defilement caused by a grave and a corpse 
 would make such action by a Jew most improbable, 
 even if a plausible motive could be conjectured. A 
 Jew, even if he were contemplating grave-robbery, 
 would probably not violate the Sabbath by his deed; 
 if so, the time of the action would lie between six on 
 Saturday evening and three or four on the following 
 morning, when Jesus has been thirty-three to thirty -six 
 hours dead, and thirty hours or more buried. Read- 
 ing the various critics, we get the impression that any 
 number of Jews in Jerusalem would be ready, for al- 
 most any reason, to rob a grave of its body. Surely no 
 impression could be more erroneous. Such an act 
 was regarded as no less heinous then than now, and had 
 against it, in addition, the belief in ceremonial pollu- 
 tion from dead bodies and everything connected with 
 them. 
 
 It seems, however, most commonly assumed that if 
 
 1 Cf. the criticism of the hypothesis by Keim and by Arnold 
 Meyer, he. cit., and by D. F. Strauss, Leben Jesu Jiir das Deut- 
 sche Volk, part i., section 47, especially the last paragraph (12th 
 ed., 1902, pp. 375-378)- 
 
The Empty Grave 217 
 
 human hands took Jesus' body from the grave, those 
 hands were Jewish. The most valuable discussion 
 from this point of view has been offered by the late 
 Professor H. J. Holtzmann. 1 His conjecture is, in 
 brief, that the burial on Friday was only a hasty and 
 provisional one, to avoid the violation of the Sabbath 
 sanctity, and that on Saturday night Joseph removed 
 and reburied the body, probably at Arimathea, his 
 home. The empty tomb, however, agrees Holtzmann, 
 had nothing whatever to do with the disciples' belief 
 that Jesus had risen. That faith rested entirely on 
 the "appearances," and originally, as with Paul, did 
 not mean a rising of the buried body at all. Holtz- 
 mann doubts whether Paul ever heard of the women's 
 story of the empty tomb, but this story, told later, had 
 much to do with materialising the original conception 
 into that presented by the gospels. 
 
 In addition to general considerations against the 
 empty grave, it must be replied to this specific conjec- 
 ture that it leaves Joseph quite without adequate mo- 
 tive for his extraordinary action. If his only concern 
 is for the holy day, not for the body itself, there is no 
 reason why the hasty burial of Friday would not suffice. 
 Holtzmann properly understands that the grave is not 
 Joseph's own ; why may not the body remain there, at 
 least till some one else may care to use the tomb? 
 Why Joseph should come secretly during Saturday 
 
 1 In the Theologische Rundschau, March and April, 1906. The 
 same suggestion in his Hand Commentar on the Synoptics, p. 105. 
 Oskar Holtzmann, pp. 392 f., and Renan, Vie de Jesus, 17th ed., 
 1882, p. 447, take the same view. Holtzmann's Rundschau 
 articles offer a complete compendium of the literature pro and 
 contra the hypothesis. 
 
2i 8 The Resurrection 
 
 night, with servants or a pack-mule, defile himself and 
 his assistants by the contact with the corpse, and 
 hastily carry it off over the hills twenty-five or thirty 
 miles, a journey that would last well into the following 
 day, it is not easy to see. * Nor can one easily imagine, 
 if Joseph were at such pains to dispose of the body, 
 why no Christian was ever permitted to know of it, 
 and how the resurrection preaching was allowed to go 
 on without any disclosure of the real fate of the body. 
 For Holtzmann thinks that the Christians before all 
 too long, perhaps even in Paul's time, had begun to 
 understand and proclaim the resurrection in the physi- 
 cal sense. Furthermore, it is wholly arbitrary of 
 Holtzmann to reject, as he does, all the statements of 
 Mark's account save only that the women went to the 
 tomb and found it empty. Even the purpose of 
 anointing he (correctly) finds legendary. But the ac- 
 count is too much of a unity, as we have seen, to allow 
 of such division into true and fictitious elements. 2 
 Nor does this critic account for the lack of knowledge 
 of the empty tomb in the early Jerusalem days. In 
 general, any attempt to make Joseph a Christian or a 
 friend of Jesus (not shared by Holtzmann), and so to 
 explain his disposition of the body, is made futile not 
 
 1 Arimathea is probably (so Holtzmann himself, p. 105) the 
 modern Bet RIma, twenty miles, air-line, north-west of Jerusalem, 
 and of course much farther by the winding roads over the moun- 
 tains. Some scholars identify it with Er-Ram (Ramah), five 
 miles north of Jerusalem. (So Arnold Meyer, p. 118.) Cf. the 
 Bible Dictionaries. 
 
 2 Cf. a very thorough and just criticism of Holtzmann's article 
 by Schmiedel, in the Protestantische Monatshefte, vol. xii., no. 1 
 (Jan. 29, 1908), pp. 12 fl. Korff, pp. 226-230, also offers a 
 trenchant criticism. 
 
The Empty Grave 219 
 
 only by the witness of Mark, but by the fact that what 
 he had done was never known in Christian circles. 
 
 Another suggestion has been made by Albert Reville 1 
 to the effect that on the principle: Is fecit cui profuit, 
 the Sanhedrists had most motive for removing and 
 secreting the body. They were unwilling that their 
 hated enemy should have the honour of decent sepul- 
 ture, but, more important, they feared lest the grave, 
 if the body remained there, should become a place of 
 pilgrimage for Jesus ' Galilean followers, and so a centre 
 of disturbance. Very likely they appealed to Pilate 
 for permission and assistance in carrying out their 
 purpose, which the procurator was glad to give; the 
 " group of armed men who had been seen going toward 
 the tomb " may therefore have given rise to Matthew 's 
 story of the guard. Consciousness of the meanness of 
 their act kept these Sanhedrists and their assistants 
 from ever mentioning what they had done. 
 
 We may well doubt whether such veneration of 
 an entombed body was at all to be feared among first- 
 century Jews, or whether the Sanhedrists would have 
 denied themselves in the attempt to prevent it. 2 Still 
 more unlikely is it that no one of the very considerable 
 number of persons concerned ever betrayed the secret, 
 excellent weapon as it might have been against the 
 Christian preaching — for Reville supposes that the dis- 
 ciples and all "the earliest Christians believed firmly 
 that Jesus left the tomb, where his corpse had been 
 laid, with a living body." In general, it may pass 
 almost as an axiom that if the disciples had preached 
 
 1 In the New World, September, 1894, p. 514; Jesus de Naz~ 
 areth, vol. ii., pp. 460-463. Similarly, Volter, pp. 30 f. 
 1 Cf. Schmiedel, col. 4066 c; Arnold Meyer, p. 117. 
 
220 The Resurrection 
 
 the resurrection of Jesus' body from the grave, and if 
 the grave were empty because Jewish hands had re- 
 moved the body, the preaching would have been stop- 
 ped by the disclosure of this latter fact. That no 
 such disclosure was ever made is consistent with the 
 view of the gospels, in which angel and earthquake 
 are integral parts, or with the view that the grave was 
 not empty, nor so preached ; it is utterly inconsistent 
 with Jewish responsibility for the body's disappear- 
 ance. 
 
 A suggestion somewhat similar to Reville's dispenses 
 with the Sanhedrists, and supposes Pilate to have sent 
 Roman soldiers "to open the tomb and remove the 
 body, for the very same object as that for which Lord 
 Kitchener lately destroyed the Mahdi's remains in 
 the Sudan — that they might not become a centre of 
 veneration, and thus start a new cult, having as its ob- 
 ject aman whom the law had executed as a malefactor." 
 This expedition of the Roman soldiers is, as similarly 
 in Reville, held to be the suggestion for Matthew's 
 account of the guard at the tomb. 1 
 
 A more ancient suggestion starts from the "garden" 
 of John xix: 41. If certain Jews of the first century 
 (before "John" was written and the garden heard of) 
 mockingly suggested that Jesus' own disciples had 
 stolen the body, others of the second century had an- 
 other solution which at least has the merit of greater 
 plausibility, even if no more true to the facts. Both 
 are referred to by Tertullian, in the last chapter of his 
 treatise on the Shows. In splendidly dramatic lang- 
 uage he pictures the great spectacle of the end of the 
 
 1 T. W. Rolleston, in the Hibbert Journal, vol. iv., p. 640. 
 The whole article is keen, and worth reading. 
 
The Empty Grave 221 
 
 world, and the punishments meted out to the enemies 
 of Christianity. Most of all he exults in the retribu- 
 tion visited on the Jews, as they appear for judgment 
 before Christ. He joys to think how he shall then cry 
 out to them, "This is that carpenter's or hireling's son, 
 that Sabbath-breaker, that Samaritan and devil-pos- 
 sessed! This is He whom you purchased from Judas! 
 This is He whom you struck with reed and fist, whom 
 you contemptuously spat upon, to whom you gave gall 
 and vinegar to drink! This is He whom his disciples 
 secretly stole away, that it might be said He had 
 risen again, or the gardener abstracted, that his lettuces 
 might come to no harm from the crowds of 
 visitants!" 1 
 
 The substance of these and other Jewish animadver- 
 sions upon the gospel story we find in the mediaeval 
 Sepher Toldoth Jeschu. For example, in the Vienna 
 MS. of that curious work we read, after the description 
 of Jesus' crucifixion,, "He remained hanging until 
 evening, and the young men and the women threw cords, 
 mud, arrows, and stones upon him. But at evening 
 the Wise Men [i.e., the Jewish religious leaders] sent 
 to take him down, and they took him down that they 
 might fulfil what stands (in the Scripture): 'Let his 
 body not remain upon the tree, ' so also did they, and 
 buried him. Afterwards came the Apostates [i.e., the 
 disciples of Jesus], and the Apostates made a plot to 
 steal the corpse of Jesus and conceal it in another place, 
 that they might say he had ascended to heaven, and 
 
 1 "De Spectaculis," ch. xxx. Trans, by S. Thelwall, in Ante- 
 Nicene Fathers, American Ed., vol. iii., 1885, p. 91. The Latin 
 of the last sentence may be quoted (Ed. Oehler), "hortulanus 
 detraxit, ne lactucse suas frequentia commeantium laederentur. " 
 
222 The Resurrection 
 
 that they might on account of him smite the Jews fear- 
 fully. At that time there passed by a Jew, by name 
 Judas the gardener, and he perceived the words of the 
 Apostates, and their plot. What did this Jew? He 
 went toward evening by night, made a grave in his 
 garden, stole Jesus from his grave, and laid him in his 
 garden. Afterwards the Apostates came to take him, 
 opened his grave and found him not, for Judas the 
 gardener had already taken him. The Apostates 
 said, ' Surely he was the Son of God and Messiah, and 
 his Father in Heaven has taken him into Heaven; now 
 shall we demand his blood and take vengeance on 
 Israel, that no single one of them be left. ' " 
 
 Then follows the proclamation of Jesus' resurrection 
 before Queen Helena, wife of Constantine, who suc- 
 ceeded Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon [sic!], where- 
 upon she sends the Sanhedrists to investigate the tomb. 
 They in confusion report it empty, and in wrath she 
 gives them five days to find the body, swearing that if 
 they fail she shall put to death every Jew in the world, 
 because they have slain the Messiah. Then is great 
 weeping and distress in Israel, and great exultation 
 among the Christians. At last the fatal fifth day ar- 
 rives. "On that day Rabbi Tanchuma went out of 
 the city and fled to the gardens, weeping and crying 
 without pause. And he lifted up his eyes and behold, 
 Judas the gardener was eating and drinking in his gar- 
 den, singing and dancing. Rabbi Tanchuma said to 
 him, 'Foolish one, art thou no Jew, that thou thus re- 
 joicest? Why shouldst thou make merry when all 
 Israel sorrows?' Judas the gardener answered, 
 'Wherein consists the distress of Israel?' Then 
 Rabbi Tanchuma told him all that had taken place. 
 
The Empty Grave 223 
 
 Thereupon the gardener spoke and confessed every- 
 thing, what he had heard from the Apostates, and what 
 he had done with the corpse. 'Sorrow not,' said he, 
 'for he is in my power. Be glad."' So all the 
 Israelites come with trumpets and horns, buy the 
 body from the gardener for thirty pieces of silver, and 
 drag it in triumphant procession through the streets of 
 the city, and before the queen. 1 
 
 In this narrative we see a combination of many 
 elements, — the garden of Joseph, Judas the traitor, and 
 the field which he bought, the thirty pieces of silver, the 
 discovery of the empty tomb, and other points of the 
 canonical accounts, as well as certain apocryphal ele- 
 ments. 2 It is clear that toward the end of the first 
 century and through the second, the Christians were 
 claiming that Jesus' resurrection involved the disap- 
 pearance of his body from the tomb. The Jewish op- 
 ponents of that day, unable to disprove the fact, took 
 the easier method of explaining it by a more probable 
 hypothesis. At first, and more commonly, it was 
 said that the disciples had themselves stolen the body, 
 in order to make the claim of bodily resurrection. 
 Others declared that the disciples would have done this 
 had their intention not been frustrated by the fore- 
 thought of a clever Jew. Others again, that the gar- 
 
 1 English rendering of a German translation by Samuel Krauss, 
 in his Leben Jesu nach Jiidischen Quellen, 1902, pp. 107 f. This 
 work is the most recent and most complete edition of the Toldoth. 
 Different recensions of the work have some differences of detail; 
 cf. pp. 58 f., 126 f. The material of the Toldoth can be traced in 
 Jewish circles from the latter part of the second century; we find 
 it in written form at least as early as the thirteenth century, 
 probably as early as the ninth (Krauss, pp. 2-7). 
 
 ' Cf. Krauss, pp. 168-171. 
 
224 The Resurrection 
 
 dener would protect his vegetables from the crowd by 
 removing the object which drew the crowd. Common 
 to all these Jewish explanations is the assumption that 
 the body was, or might become, in itself an object of 
 veneration, a suggestion made use of also by Reville 
 and others. This is in itself unlikely among Jews of 
 that time, 1 and the idea has its origin in the exaggera- 
 ted importance given to the body by the claim that it 
 had risen. The Christians of the year ioo would have 
 venerated the body of Jesus, could they have found it, 
 and made it an object of pilgrimage, but not so the 
 disciples of the year 30. The origin of these Jewish 
 explanations of the empty tomb in the stress of dis- 
 putation is sufficiently clear, and they need no critical 
 refutation in our time, as they did in the days of 
 "Matthew" and of Tertullian. 2 
 
 In this connection may be mentioned an explanation 
 suggested by Professor Paul Schwartzkopff. He 
 writes, "It is barely possible that some one from the 
 less immediate circle of the followers of Jesus may have 
 done such a thing, in order, perchance, to obtain a 
 sacred relic in the superstitiously revered body of 
 the Master. . . . Worship of this kind was nothing 
 unusual in those times." 3 But the latter statement 
 is certainly too confident, and a group of people pos- 
 sessing and worshipping the body of Jesus, yet not 
 
 1 Cf. Arnold Meyer, p. 117, and per contra, Krauss, pp. 169 f. 
 
 2 For further early Jewish criticism of the resurrection narratives 
 cf. Justin, "Dialogue with Trypho," 108 (Eng. trans., in A. N. F., 
 American Ed., vol. L), and Origen, "Against Celsus," ii: 55-63; v: 
 56, 58 (Eng. tr. by F. Crombie in A. N. F., vol. iv.). 
 
 s From a valuable article in the Monist, vol. xi., pp. 1 ft. (Oct. 
 1900). Citation from p. 9. Similarly in his Prophecies of Jesus 
 Christ, etc., pp. 117 f. 
 
The Empty Grave 225 
 
 joining the Christian church, or betraying the pos- 
 session of the sacred relic, or interfering with the 
 preaching of the bodily resurrection (assumed by 
 Schwartzkopff) , is surely inconceivable in Judea in 
 the first century. 
 
 In some ways more plausible, even if more abhorrent 
 to our sense of reverence for the fathers of the faith, 
 is the old theory of the Jews that the disciples them- 
 selves had secreted the body, to furnish a basis for 
 their preaching of the resurrection. This suggestion 
 was taken up by Hermann Samuel Reimarus and given 
 a new point, to the effect that the disciples were un- 
 willing to give up the easy, indolent life assured to 
 them by their association with Jesus, and provided for 
 its continuance by making way with his body and pro- 
 claiming him as the miraculously risen Son of God. 1 
 The actual results of the disciples' preaching on their 
 worldly fortunes is more than sufficient refutation of 
 this remarkable suggestion. 2 
 
 We see, then, that not only is the whole course of 
 events strongly against the probability of the empty 
 tomb, but that no natural explanation of the removal 
 of the body can really be made plausible. Uncon- 
 vincing, further, is the argument of Rohrbach, von 
 Dobschutz and others, that the dating of the resurrec- 
 
 1 The passage of Reimarus was printed anonymously by Lessing 
 as the last of five " Fragmente " in " Ein Mehreres aus den Papieren 
 des Ungenannten, die Offenbarung betreffend, " which formed the 
 twentieth number (pp. 261-494) of the fourth issue (1777) of his 
 Beitrage zur Geschichte und Litteratur aus den Schatzen der her- 
 zoglichen Bibliolhek zu Wolfenbiittel. 
 
 ' For further discussion of theories as to the removal of the 
 body, cf. Keim, pp. 570-576 (Eng. tr., pp. 323-331) and Arnold 
 Meyer, pp. 1 16-120. 
 is 
 
226 The Resurrection 
 
 tion on the third day points to some decisive occurence 
 on that day, which can only have been the discovery 
 of the empty tomb. Even Paul's lynfrspTost tfj ^^pa 
 Tjj Tpf-cyj is held to prove that he knew the empty tomb, 
 and rested upon it as one proof of the resurrection 
 itself, and the proof of its date. r Our discussion of the 
 third day as an element in Paul's resurrection-state- 
 ment has shown the incorrectness of this exegesis. 
 That these critics should refuse to accept Paul's 
 own definite reply (Kara tag ypacpa?) to the question: 
 How do you know Jesus rose on the third day? and 
 substitute an answer (the discovery of the empty 
 tomb) to which he never has the faintest allusion, with 
 which he never betrays the slightest acquaintance, is 
 surely one of the curiosities of criticism. 
 
 It may not be superfluous to point out again that 
 the women's discovery on Sunday morning would not 
 be the faintest proof that the body had left the tomb 
 on the third day, that is, after sunset on Saturday. 
 So far as that discovery is concerned, "the second 
 day" is an equally possible date. There is absolutely 
 no external fact that decides between these two dates. 
 What, then, must decide between them? Surely infer- 
 ences from prophecy, or Jesus' own words. Why then 
 are such inferences declared invalid to date the resur- 
 rection on the third day as against the fifth, or seventh, 
 
 1 Rohrbach, Berichte, pp. 77 f.; von Dobschutz, pp. 12-15; Lake, 
 pp. 195 f.; Louis Eugene Menego'z: Le Peche et la Redemption 
 d'apris Saint Paul, 1882, p. 261; J.Weiss, Das Alteste Evange- 
 lium, 1903, p. 344, and many others. Against this view cf. 
 Schmiedel, cols. 4058-9. And J. Weiss may be quoted against 
 himself: Schriften des N. T., vol i., p. 41, "InPaulus' Denken 
 hat [das leere Grab] keine Rolle gespielt. " 
 
The Empty Grave 227 
 
 or tenth, if they must be valid to fix the third day as 
 against the second? Von Dobschutz argues that the 
 belief in the resurrection itself came from Jesus' "ap- 
 pearances, " not from the discovery of the empty tomb, 
 but that the latter is absolutely demanded by the 
 date assigned, which all Old Testament prophecy and 
 all Jesus' predictions never could have suggested. 1 
 But, as we see, they must fix the day, after all, and the 
 empty tomb has no indispensable part to play. The 
 disciples believe that Jesus has risen, because they 
 have seen him ; they ask : When did he rise? The date 
 must be one of the days — let us assume for the moment 
 twenty-one; it cannot have been much longer and was 
 probably not so long — between the day of Jesus' death 
 and the "appearance" to Peter. It is surely absurd 
 to say that without some external event the disciples 
 would have been quite unable to say on which of those 
 twenty-one days the Master arose, and might have 
 surmised the eleventh or the seventeenth ! The exter- 
 nal event is as unnecessary here as in the origin of the 
 belief that the world was created in seven days, that 
 Jesus was a descendant of David, or that he was the 
 son of a virgin. As a matter of fact, the disciples 
 would never have raised the question of date at all, 
 anxiously trying to decide among the days. The 
 third day was given antecedently and accepted by 
 
 1 Loc. tit., p. 15. Lake's argument is even more attenuated. 
 Almost alone among critics, he sees that the empty grave would 
 not decide between the second day and the third (pp. 254 f.); 
 therefore its part is simply to fix the terminus ad quern. Other 
 considerations, Scriptural, mythological, and the prophecies of 
 Jesus, decide for the third day as against the second. They could 
 as easily decide for it as against any other possible date. 
 
228 The Resurrection 
 
 them, not arrived at by them as the result of any in- 
 vestigation or outward happening. 
 
 To argue that Paul's words *ai h&pq imply that 
 in his view Jesus rose Ix. xaqjou is equally unsuccess- 
 ful, as has already been shown. 1 More significant, 
 at first sight, is Rohrbach's argument that the Jewish 
 contention that the disciples stole the body is proof 
 positive that the body had disappeared. 2 But this 
 loses all weight so soon as it is remembered that this 
 contention meets us only at the end of the century, in 
 the Gospel of Matthew. Its origin is simply the claim 
 of the Christians that the body of Jesus had risen. If 
 we suppose that claim to have been generally made in 
 the years from the sixties on, and its refutation by the 
 Jewish suggestion of grave-robbery by the disciples 
 to have followed comparatively soon, as is natural, we 
 have a complete explanation of Matthew's statement : 
 this saying was spread abroad among the Jews until 
 this day. It has been spread abroad from thirty to 
 forty years at the time "Matthew" is writing; very 
 likely he may have been familiar with it in his child- 
 hood. To imagine that the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 
 at the time of the Jewish war, had any possible means 
 of proving whether or no the body of an executed Gali- 
 lean peasant had disappeared from its grave thirty or 
 forty years before, is of course nonsense. The easy 
 thing, the only possible thing, was to grant the alleged 
 
 1 So V6lter, p. 27; von Dobschutz, p. 11; Orr, p. 39; F. Kat- 
 tenbusch, Das Apostolische Symbol, vol. ii., 1900, pp. 646 f. Kat- 
 tenbusch is well answered by H. Weinel, in Z. N. T. W., 1901, pp. 
 40 f. Cf. supra, pp. 37 f . and 108 f. 
 
 'Rohrbach, Berichte, pp. 78-83. Cf. Holtzmann, Theol. 
 Rundschau, April, 1906, p. 119. 
 
The Empty Grave 229 
 
 fact, and deprive it of all significance by another 
 explanation. But this ex post facto explanation is 
 hardly in a position to guarantee the fact. 1 
 
 As we have already seen, there is no particle of evi- 
 dence that the empty tomb appeared in the preaching 
 and the controversy until the years just preceding the 
 time when we find it first written, in Mark's gospel. 
 We find it there in very simple, undeveloped form, and 
 with a consciousness of doubtful historicity. Mark 
 plainly knows that the empty tomb is a recent element 
 in the Christian proclamation, not a part of the preach- 
 ing he had heard in Jerusalem in the early days, or 
 from the apostles with whom he had travelled. He 
 is not critical enough to question the statement; he 
 simply accounts for its absence in the earlier preaching 
 by his declaration that the women had dared to tell no 
 one. But this explanation is in itself so improbable 
 that it could not satisfy any thoughtful reader. It is 
 self-contradictory; if no one was told, how did Mark 
 come to know? Fear could not permanently seal the 
 women's lips. Every later user of Mark's account al- 
 tered this statement ; the first sentence of the "shorter 
 conclusion," found in some MSS., is an almost inevita- 
 ble correction ; "all that was bidden them they briefly 
 declared to Peter and those with him." 2 So Matthew 
 attempts to correct; "they departed quickly from the 
 tomb with fear and great joy and ran to bring his dis- 
 ciples word. And as they were going, behold some of 
 
 1 For this criticism of Rohrbach, cf. Schmiedel, in Prot. Monats- 
 hefte, vol. xii., p. 21. 
 
 a For the "shorter conclusion" and its attestation, cf. West- 
 cott-Hort, N. T. in Greek, 1882, appendix, "Notes on Select 
 Readings," pp. 38, 44 f. 
 
230 The Resurrection 
 
 the guard," etc. We lose sight of the women "as they 
 were going"; we are not told anything of a message 
 delivered to the disciples, though we may infer it. 
 "Matthew" inferred it, but it is plain that he had no 
 tradition of any such message actually delivered to the 
 disciples, or of any knowledge of the empty tomb on 
 their part. 1 No such knowledge is indicated in his 
 gospel. His correction of Mark, that is, is inconsistent 
 and only partial. 
 
 Luke is more definite and thoroughgoing; much 
 more remote, also, from the consciousness of the origi- 
 nal situation. He supposes that the empty tomb was 
 known to the disciples and a part of the earliest pro- 
 clamation; his correction of Mark is very explicit, and 
 twice repeated. Mark's double negative in declaring 
 that the women did not tell is balanced by Luke's re- 
 iteration that they did tell. The correction is deliber- 
 ate. "They returned from the tomb, and told all 
 these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now 
 they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary 
 the mother of James ; and the other women with them 
 told these things unto the apostles." We have here a 
 larger company of women delivering the message, a 
 larger number of followers of Jesus receiving it. Yet 
 Luke also knows too well for denial that the disciples 
 had believed in Jesus' resurrection because their Mas- 
 
 » Nothing can be clearer than" that Mark thought of the disciples 
 as going to Galilee without hearing of the empty tomb, and 
 that this corresponds to the actual fact. Wellhausen (ad Mk. xvi : 
 8) well says, "The appearance of Jesus loses its point, if his 
 resurrection was already known to the disciples in advance, and 
 was only to be confirmed subsequently by the appearance. " Cf. 
 also Allan Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, 1901, p. 289. 
 
The Empty Grave 231 
 
 ter had appeared to them, that even if there were a 
 message of the women about an empty tomb, it had 
 produced no effect, no conviction, in the disciples' 
 minds. So he adds, perforce, the psychologically and 
 historically incredible statement concerning the dis- 
 ciples, "these words appeared in their sight as idle 
 talk, and they disbelieved them." Only when the 
 Master "appeared to Simon," then to the others, did 
 they believe. Luke's correction of Mark, then, though 
 thoroughgoing, is not made plausible, and does not 
 wholly conceal the historic situation. 
 
 "John" has acted in somewhat similar fashion. 
 Mary Magdalene, seeing the stone taken away from 
 the tomb, runs and tells Peter and the beloved disciple 
 that the body has been taken from the grave. It is 
 to be observed that she has seen no angel and has no 
 angelic message; she knows nothing of any resurrection. 
 What she tells, she tells to two men only, and it is 
 simply the troubled utterance of a woman who does 
 not yet believe, of similar value to the women's per- 
 plexed question in Mark : Who shall roll us away the 
 stone from the door of the tomb? She believes in the 
 resurrection only when she sees the risen Lord, and 
 when she delivers that announcement (xx: 18), two, 
 at least, of the disciples have themselves already 
 become believers. 
 
 This universal correction of Mark's denial of any 
 utterance on the women's part shows that for all 
 readers of Mark there was the imperative need to cor- 
 rect him. Not that there was anywhere the slightest 
 tradition of any message given by the women to the 
 disciples — it is clear that there was not — but because 
 the earliest preaching of the resurrection was being 
 
232 The Resurrection 
 
 conceived as the preaching of a body come from the 
 grave. In other words, all these correctors under- 
 stood Mark to mean, as he does mean, that the women 
 did not tell until years had gone by, until near the 
 time of his writing, and that therefore the early church 
 had been ignorant of the whole empty tomb episode. 
 Their correction of Mark is a correction of that con- 
 ception; it has no other motive. If they had under- 
 stood him to mean, as some harmonists would distort 
 him into meaning, that the women talked to no one on 
 the way to their lodging, or that they kept silent only 
 for a few hours, or even days, they would have had no 
 reason to make these explicit and emphatic statements 
 to the contrary. But the suggestion that the early 
 church knew nothing of the empty tomb they cannot 
 let stand ; not that they have any information to the con- 
 trary, but that their theory of what the resurrection was 
 makes it impossible. They are certain, and with per- 
 fect right, that if the grave was found empty, the early 
 Church must have known it at once and made much of 
 it. The correction has no interest whatever in the ac- 
 tion of the women, but every interest in the understand- 
 ing of the resurrection among the earliest Christians. 
 Mark, therefore, as his first readers perceived, wit- 
 nesses to the fact that the church of the first three dec- 
 ades after Jesus' death, at any rate, knew nothing of 
 the empty tomb. It was not the three women on the 
 morning of the third day who discovered that empty 
 tomb ; it was the Christian church about the year sixty. 
 In such circles and at such a time as to make any 
 verification impossible, the story had its rise, the child 
 of the resurrection-faith, falsely apprehended. As the 
 original apostolic conception of what glorious change 
 
The Empty Grave 233 
 
 had come upon Jesus the Messiah when he had laid 
 down his life upon the cross underwent its inevi- 
 table materialisation, it created its legend around it. 
 As the error which Paul had combated years before in 
 Corinth became more and more common in the minds 
 of the Christian population, and "the resurrection of 
 the body" came to necessitate, in popular thought, a 
 change wrought upon the entombed body of flesh, the 
 idea of the empty grave inevitably suggested itself. 
 And the idea could not exist merely as an idea, an in- 
 ference that the grave must have been empty. In- 
 evitably it began to shape its legend, and to tell how 
 the grave was known to be empty, by whom it was seen, 
 with what marvellous circumstances its discovery was 
 attended, and the like. This process is seen at an early 
 and comparatively sober stage in Mark; it develops 
 into extreme reaches of the fantastic in the later "apoc- 
 ryphal" narratives. None the less is Mark xvi: 1-8, 
 the earliest written allusion to the empty tomb, as 
 truly legend as the grotesque picture of Pseudo-Peter. 
 After the legend is fixed as a part of the Christian 
 preaching, begins the controversy over it; the Gospel of 
 Matthew shows this controversy keen in the last quar- 
 ter of the century. To that period belongs the empty 
 grave, not to the years of the third, fourth, fifth dec- 
 ades. 1 The gospels meet the apologetic demands of 
 their own times; out of them we can learn what were 
 the foci of controversy as they were written. 2 If the 
 
 « Cf. Lake, p. 195- 
 
 ' Cf. the excellent book of E. P. Scott, The Apologetic of the 
 New Testament, 1907, and W. Baldensperger, Urchristliche 
 Apologie, 1909, which deals specifically with the apologetic aspect 
 of the resurrection narratives. Further, Wernle, p. 296. 
 
234 The Resurrection 
 
 empty grave had been prominent in the proclamation 
 and controversy of Christianity's first decades, the 
 disputing would have largely died away before "Mat- 
 thew's" time, and the story of the guard would ap- 
 pear, if at all, in a less pointed recension. The vigor 
 of the argument in Matthew is a sign of youth. 
 
 To attempt to account for the origin of the legend 
 in specific detail would be fruitless, as in all similar 
 cases. No one knows how legends arise and grow and 
 get themselves at every point believed; yet all legends 
 have some genesis. We are fortunate if we can dis- 
 cover certain of the suggestions from which they ulti- 
 mately spring. The fact that Jesus' disciples had fled, 
 leaving certain of their female companions the only 
 sources of information as to what followed Jesus' ar- 
 rest and condemnation by the Sanhedrists, made it 
 natural to expect from them witness also to the empty 
 tomb. 1 If they found the tomb empty, they must 
 have gone thither for some purpose. The anointing 
 was a natural suggestion for one without a clear con- 
 ception of the circumstances, and the anointing at 
 Bethany, by a woman whom John (xii: 3 ) names 
 Mary, of whom Jesus said, "Let her alone; . . . she 
 has anointed my body aforehand for the burying" 
 (Mark xiv : 8) , may have offered a suggestion. 2 What 
 the women discovered on reaching the tomb was given 
 by the theory itself; the stone must be removed, that 
 the body might pass out and the women pass in. 
 The angel is almost inevitable in such narratives — cf. 
 the book of Acts! — and is necessary to give the an- 
 nouncement of the Lord's resurrection. 
 
 1 Cf. Schmiedel, col. 4071, 25 a. 
 * Cf. Arnold Meyer, pp. 113 f. 
 
The Empty Grave 235 
 
 In some such way the details may have suggested 
 themselves; any certainty on the point is unattainable, 
 nor would it have great value. We would do better to 
 desist from any speculations as to the precise origin of 
 the details of the legend, being certain only that it is 
 legend, and not history. 1 
 
 About the year fifty-seven we found prevailing in 
 Corinth the error which produced the legend of the 
 empty tomb. How much earlier this error was held 
 by individuals here and there we have no means of 
 learning. The following years saw it spreading in ever 
 more concrete and detailed form, until about the year 
 seventy, so far as we can tell, it first gets written down, 
 by John Mark, probably at Rome. It has been forty 
 years since Jesus was buried in Jerusalem. Forty 
 years of oral tradition, during which the gospel has 
 been growing and spreading rapidly among the igno- 
 rant populations of the Mediterranean world, preached 
 by missionaries who for the most part were not Pales- 
 tinians and had not been in the country at the time of 
 Jesus' death, men who knew only at second hand, or 
 
 1 Arnold Meyer, pp. 124 f., makes certain tentative suggestions 
 as to possible actual occurrences behind the legend, but attaches 
 no value to them. "Who would dare to follow up such possibili- 
 ties and set the products of his own fancy in place of the devout 
 poetry of the primitive congregation? This had in truth no 
 need of such historic basis; we see in the other gospels how it 
 ceaselessly goes on working out of its own inner power, and this it 
 will have done also in Mark, without our being of any assistance 
 by our conjectures." Meyer's conjectures are, in truth, little 
 plausible, and would better have been omitted. Cf. their criti- 
 cism by Orr, pp. 132 f. More plausible is the suggestion of 
 Baldensperger (pp. 37 f.) that the legend began in the utterance 
 of a charismatic speaker in the Christian meeting. 
 
236 The Resurrection 
 
 third, or sixth, of these things. Forty years, during 
 which the gospel has been uprooted from its native soil 
 and transplanted into an alien world, of another speech, 
 another culture, another habit of thought and view 
 of the world, an utterly different religious antecedence. 
 Forty years, during which the original disciples and all 
 to whom the "appearances" had been vouchsafed 
 have passed away, in which Palestine has been devas- 
 tated by an unspeakably savage war, Jerusalem de- 
 stroyed, sacred sites wiped out, and the small band of 
 Palestinian Christians driven into an exile and obscurity 
 from which it never emerged into any real connection 
 with the Christian movement as a whole, degenerat- 
 ing ultimately into a fantastic superstition, negligible 
 and neglected in the triumphal advance of the 
 Church. 
 
 Of that group which fled to Pella there cannot have 
 been more than a very few who were followers of 
 Jesus in his lifetime, and knew at first hand of the 
 tragic events in Jerusalem two-score years before. 
 The evangelist Mark is not one of that group ; as early 
 as the year fifty we find him leaving Jerusalem as com- 
 panion of the great apostles in their expedition into the 
 Gentile world (Acts xii: 25, xiii: 5). We have no indi- 
 cation that he was in Palestine after the year fifty- 
 two, when he starts for Cyprus (Acts xv: 39); our 
 only other glimpse of him is in Rome (Col. iv: 10, 
 Phm. 24). Out of his experiences in the Gentile- 
 Christian world he is moved to construct his propa- 
 ganda-pamphlet, mirroring not only the teaching of the 
 apostles with whom he had companied, but also 
 the thought and feeling and practice, the apologetic 
 and attack, of the environment in which he is living. 
 
The Empty Grave 237 
 
 The legend of the empty grave is part of that contem- 
 porary apologetic, and he reproduces it, still in com- 
 paratively simple, undeveloped form. He tells of no 
 appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem, of no knowledge on 
 the part of any one there, save the three women, that 
 the body is no longer in the tomb. All is quiet in Jeru- 
 salem as yet. Even the disciples have departed, sadly 
 enough, for their northern home. Only three women 
 have a strange secret — but they tell it to no man. 
 
BOOK THREE 
 
 THE WITNESS OF MATTHEW 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 THE conception of Jesus' physical resurrection, 
 with its corollary, the empty grave legend, ex- 
 periences a relatively swift and steady development. 
 Mark's gospel gives it body and wings. As Christian- 
 ity rapidly spreads among new populations the legend 
 grows with it. A quarter of a century passes, and 
 there appears another version of "the gospel," this 
 time also from the pen of a Christian of Jewish ante- 
 cedents, though not of that Ebionite Christianity 
 which still persisted in its will to be a sort of Judaism 
 and not a free religion for all men. This author is 
 little original; he combines the account of Mark with 
 the "Logia" or utterances of Jesus, compiled nearly 
 half a century before by the disciple Matthew, adds 
 elements known to the tradition of his own day, and 
 edits the whole into a "gospel" which simply registers 
 the form which the deposit of Christian tradition had 
 reached in his time and environment. Where he en- 
 larges upon the account of Mark (which lay before 
 him as a source) , or corrects it, we commonly have evi- 
 
 238 
 
Jerusalem 239 
 
 dence of the advanced stage of the tradition, or of 
 Christian thought and practice, in his time. 1 It is 
 seldom that he furnishes "previously unpublished" 
 material from the older tradition; his changes are usu- 
 ally due to his own reflections on the text of Mark. In 
 his account of the events which followed the death of 
 Jesus, this observation, in the main, holds true. It is 
 apparent that the copy of Mark which he used was 
 mutilated, ending with the spofloOviro ydp of xvi: 8, 
 but up to that point — save for the one episode of the 
 watch at the tomb — he has plainly no other source 
 than Mark and his own pious reflections. 
 
 To control "Matthew's" narrative completely, we 
 must begin with his account of the burial (Matt, xxvii: 
 57 ff. =Mk. xv : 42 ff.). 2 Mark's account here is quite 
 explicit. "And it having already become evening, 
 since it was 'Preparation' (which is the day before 
 Sabbath), Joseph coming — he that was from Arima- 
 thea, a respected councillor, who also himself was look- 
 ing for the kingdom of God — having plucked up cour- 
 age went in unto Pilate and begged for the body of 
 Jesus. And Pilate wondered whether he was already 
 
 1 Cf. an interesting article by B. H. Alford, "Variations be- 
 tween Matthew and Mark, " in the Hibbert Journal, April, 1909. 
 
 a F. C. Conybeare, Myth, Magic, and Morals, 1909, pp. 297 i., 
 following suggestions of Loisy (vol. i., p. 223, vol. ii., pp. 696 ff.), 
 decides that the body was never buried, but thrown into the com- 
 mon pit reserved for the executed. Cf. C. W. Emmet, "M. Loisy's 
 View of the Resurrection," in the Contemporary Review, Nov. 
 1909, pp. 588-599, where references are given. This claim is not 
 criticism, but arbitrary assertion. The same view in Volkmar, p. 
 603. For earlier denials or questionings of the burial, by Strauss 
 and others, and their refutation, cf. Keim, pp. 525-527 (Eng. tr., 
 pp. 271-274). 
 
240 The Resurrection 
 
 dead, and summoning the centurion he inquired of him 
 if he were already dead, and finding out from the cen- 
 turion, he presented the corpse to Joseph. And hav- 
 ing bought a fine cloth, taking him down he wrapped 
 him in the cloth and put him in a tomb which was cut 
 out of a rock, and rolled a stone up to the door of the 
 tomb. And Mary Magdalene and Mary the (mother) 
 of Joses were observing where he had been placed. " 
 
 In the first place, Mark notes the time; it was <3^£a, 
 i. e., the last division of the Hebrew day, the hours 
 from three to six in the afternoon. 1 That the scene 
 took place before six o'clock, or sunset, is plainly stated 
 in the announcement that it was still napasxeu^, or 
 Friday. The time of Jesus' death is fixed by verse 34 
 as the ninth hour, i. e., three o'clock in the afternoon. 
 From that time on it is 6tyl<z, and most of the avail- 
 able time must have been needed, with all allowance 
 for haste, for Joseph's recorded activities. There is 
 no lapse of time intended between the events of vss. 
 37-41 and the dtpfa? fsvofxivfiq of vs. 42. About half- 
 past three, then, we may picture Joseph as hurry- 
 ing off into the city to seek Pilate. 
 
 The councillor's motive is hinted at by Mark, 
 though not explicitly stated. Mark had of course 
 absolutely no way of knowing Joseph's motive ; he 
 was left to inference, as we are, but his inference is the 
 inevitable one. Joseph begged Jesus' body for burial 
 because (lxe() it was already late on the day before 
 Sabbath. That can only mean, of course, that the 
 
 1 It is difficult to understand Wellhausen 's self -contradictory 
 comments (ad Mark xv: 42, 46) that the burial must have taken 
 place long after Sabbath had begun, because i^la. "is never 
 earlier than sunset, mostly later " (sic). And yet it is still Friday! 
 
Jerusalem 241 
 
 dead body ought not to remain unburied on the holy- 
 day. The Jewish custom (Deut . xxi : 22 f .) is so famil- 
 iar to Mark that he does not explain it further, though 
 the fourth evangelist (John xix: 31, 42) is more ex- 
 plicit. x As a matter of fact, the following day was not 
 only Sabbath, but the first day of the feast of unleav- 
 ened bread, most sacred day of all the year; it must 
 not, therefore, be defiled. Any common day is pol- 
 luted by the unburied corpse, how much more should 
 this day be kept pure ! And since burial would be un- 
 lawful on the holy day, the body would have to hang 
 on the cross throughout the succeeding twenty-four 
 hours, which would be most offensive. The Jewish 
 feeling of the time may be voiced by Josephus, com- 
 menting on the "pitch of impiety" which cast out two 
 bodies unburied : " The Jews are so concerned for burial 
 that they take down before sunset and bury those 
 who have been condemned and crucified. " a 
 
 The motive of Joseph, therefore, is his interest in 
 the sanctity of the feast day; the following clauses em- 
 phasise the fact of his loyal and orthodox Judaism. A 
 distinguished member of the Sanhedrin, 3 and one who 
 himself (like Simeon and others in Luke ii: 25, 38) was 
 looking for the Messianic Kingdom, he is marked as 
 
 1 J. Weiss, in Schriften des N. T., vol. i., p. 208, unnecessarily 
 supposes Mark's original text to have been altered to conform to 
 the Johannine explanatory clauses. 
 
 'Bel. Jud., iv., 5: 2, quoted by Lake, p. 173. For further in- 
 stances of ancient scruples as to burial, especially among the Jews 
 cf. Keim, pp. 507 f. (Eng. tr., pp. 250-252), with notes, especially 
 the references to Josephus. 
 
 J This is denied by O. Holtzmann, N. T. Zeitgeschichte, 2d ed., 
 1906, p. 228, and F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Trans- 
 mission, 1908, p. 56. 
 16 
 
242 The Resurrection 
 
 a devout and zealous Pharisee. Nothing points to his 
 being a follower of Jesus; Mark's description shows 
 interest and appreciation for the man whose piety had 
 furnished the Master with a grave, but that piety 
 clearly has as its object the ancestral religion rather 
 than the person of the crucified prophet. Mark does 
 not know so much about Joseph without knowing 
 whether or no he were a Christian; and he could not 
 know him to be a Christian and fail, in this passage, 
 to say so in unambiguous terms. This devout man 
 who is looking for the Kingdom of God has certainly 
 not seen in the Galilean builder the Messiah who is 
 the establisher of that kingdom ; he may, indeed, have 
 felt a friendly pity or sympathy, seeing in Jesus a 
 fanatic rather than a criminal, but more than this can- 
 not be said. 1 His pity did not blind him to the fact 
 that a claim to Messiahship from a man like Jesus 
 brought with it the extremest condemnation. Other 
 considerations aside, "it is expedient that one man 
 should die for the people, and that the whole nation 
 perish not" (John xi: 50). Luke's inference, "He had 
 not consented to their counsel and deed" (xxiii: 51), 
 is natural and well-meant, but probably not correct. 
 The fact that the only mention of Joseph in the New 
 Testament is here in the account of Jesus' burial, that 
 he disappears from the scene forever when he has 
 
 1 Cf. Meyer-Weiss ad Mk. xv: 43. "He now would show the 
 last honours to him who had lived and suffered for the hope of 
 Israel. " Mention may be made of the suggestion by A. Kalthoff 
 (Das Christus-problem, 2d ed., 1903, p. 81) that Joseph and 
 Nicodemus are perhaps reminiscences of the Consul Flavius 
 Clemens, or of Asturias, who, according to Euseb., Ch. Hist., vii., 
 16, buried Christian martyrs. There is quite gratuitous skeptic- 
 ism concerning Joseph in Maurenbrecher, p. 254. 
 
Jerusalem 243 
 
 rolled the stone before the tomb, shows that he never 
 had any relation to the Christian movement. 1 That 
 Joseph acts as a Jew, not as a Christian, is the obvious 
 thought of Acts xiii: 29, "when they had fulfilled all 
 things that were written of him, they took him down 
 from the tree and laid him in a tomb," and should no 
 longer be questioned. 3 
 
 To this pious Jew, therefore, Pilate, after assuring 
 himself that Jesus is actually dead, grants the body, an 
 act of favour, indeed (eSwpfjaaio), but quite compre- 
 hensible on the part of one who had had so little dis- 
 position to order the execution (Mk. xv: 14 f.). The 
 hour must by this time be growing toward five. Ap- 
 parently on his way from Pilate's hall back to Golgotha 
 Joseph buys a sheet — the shops are still open, it is 
 before six — then hastily takes down the body. No 
 
 1 A. Reville, New World, Sept., 1894, p. 515, note, explains 
 Joseph's "surprising effacement" by the fact that he knew what 
 had been done with the body and could not therefore share the 
 resurrection faith, i. e., be a Christian. Is it, then, true that 
 the possession of such incidental information would keep a man 
 outside the Christian religion? 
 
 3 This Acts passage at once prevents our reading too much out 
 of Luke xxiii: 50 f., as if "Luke" reckoned Joseph on the Christ- 
 ian side. Further, cf. Keim, p. 525 (Eng. tr., p. 272) with the 
 references to Tertullian and Lactantius. It is worth noting that 
 according to John xix : 3 1 " the Jews ' ' had already taken steps to 
 secure the burial of the corpses, in observance of their law, and that 
 if Joseph had not interred Jesus they would have done so. And ac- 
 cording to John xix: 42 the burial by Joseph and Nicodemus is 
 "because of the Jew's Preparation." So in the Toldoth Jeschu 
 it is the Jewish leaders who bury Jesus, that they might fulfil the 
 Deuteronomic prescription. Cf. supra, p. 221. All indications 
 agree that the original motive for the interment was not devotion 
 to Jesus' person, but concern for the law. Cf. Lake, pp. 176 f. 
 
^44 The Resurrection 
 
 details are given; the haste is apparent. "Having 
 bought . . . and taken down ... he wrapped . . . 
 and laid." The whole episode of the burial, from 
 the moment Joseph receives Pilate's permission to 
 that when the body actually lies in its grave, uses but 
 thirteen words (x,cci dyopctoas . . . -rtji [xviQ^aTc). There 
 must have been an officer sent from Pilate to authorise 
 Joseph's action, assistance in removing the body he 
 must have had — but all these details are taken for 
 granted. The tradition did not preserve them; all 
 that the women could report was that the body had 
 been buried, and by whom. 
 
 As to the tomb itself, Mark says only "a tomb which 
 was hewn out of a cliff, " without further word of de- 
 scription. If we had only Mark's account, no one 
 would ever have read in these words anything save a 
 chance tomb, chosen for its proximity (as John xix: 
 42 understands), into which the body was hastened. 
 Such tombs, liable to appropriation by any one who de- 
 sired, existed in number without the walls of most Pal- 
 estinian cities; in them lepers and demoniacs, already 
 unclean, not infrequently found dismal habitation. 
 So, e. g., the Gadarene demoniac came to meet Jesus 
 out of the tombs, where he had his dwelling (Mark v: 
 2-5). These burial caves were not the personal pro- 
 perty of the demoniac or of his family, nor did he need 
 to secure the permission of any one in order to occupy 
 them. Empty and deserted, they were used by any 
 one who would. Similar tombs may be seen in great 
 number to-day about Jerusalem and other Syrian 
 towns, one of the features most frequently commented 
 on by travellers in that land. 1 
 
 1 On Palestinian tombs cf. George Williams, The Holy City, 
 
Jerusalem 245 
 
 , In such a chance grave, unnamed and unmarked, 
 which has nothing to distinguish it from a hundred 
 others, Joseph hastily thrusts the body of Jesus, and 
 rolling a stone against the entrance, with all speed de- 
 parts to make his preparations for the feast. So much 
 and no more, Mark's narrative, read by itself, says. 
 We shall later see if the parallels in Matthew and Luke 
 make it necessary to reconceive the nature of the tomb 
 and the burial. Finally, Mark adds the authority for 
 the report; it was Mary Magdalene and Mary of Joses 
 who "were observing where he had been placed" 
 (e0supouv xou tiQevzai). The use of the perfect 
 TeOeiToct would seem to indicate that the women did 
 not actually witness the burial, but arriving on the 
 scene after it is done, see where the body had been laid. * 
 If they were not present at the interment, the identi- 
 fication of the tomb, in case it were ever attempted, 
 
 2d ed., 1849, vol ii., pp. 140 ff.; Edward Robinson, Biblical Re- 
 searches in Palestine, 2d ed., i860, vol. i., pp. 352 ff.; James Fer- 
 gusson, article "Tombs" in Smith's Bible Dictionary (1863); W. 
 M. Thomson, The Land and the Book, 1885 (see index under 
 "Tombs"); T. Nicoll, article " Burial, " in Hastings' Dictionary 
 of the Bible (1898); Reports of the Palestine Exploration Fund 
 for 1 889 and 1897; S.Klein, Tod und Begrdbnissin Palastina, 1908, 
 pp. 66-100; J. Boehmer, mDie Christliche Welt, vol. xxiv. (1910), 
 No. 13; Merx, part ii., Second Half, 1905, pp. 510-516, where in- 
 teresting and valuable pictures of such tombs are given, more 
 pertinent than the realistic ones in Henry Latham's The Risen 
 Master. 
 
 1 So B. Weiss, in Meyer- Weiss, ad toe, and Die Vier Evangelien, 
 2d ed., 1905, pp. 277 f. The Textus Receptus has rlBerat. 
 The Syr. Sin. has "had seen" in place of iBedpovv, which 
 would support this interpretation. Codex D has tBdaavro rbv 
 rlnrov tirov, and some of the versions have perfect or aorist verbs. 
 Cf. Merx ad loc. 
 
246 The Resurrection 
 
 would be more difficult, and a certain support would be 
 given to Professor Lake's suggestion. But be this as 
 it may; no great importance attaches to it, for our 
 purpose. In any case, the women must be at least the 
 traditional sources of all the information the early 
 church possessed concerning the burial of Jesus. 
 
 Turning now to Matthew's version, let us note the 
 changes. The time is, as in Mark, 6tyi<x, but the 
 noting of the day of the week is omitted. Yet Mat- 
 thew (xxviii: 1) knew that the day was Friday, and in 
 xxvii: 62 the curious phrase "on the morrow, which is 
 the day after IlapaaxeuYJ," instead of "the Sabbath," 
 shows conclusively that he had the reference to Ilapa- 
 axeui] before him in Mark. 1 Matthew's omission is 
 due to the simple fact that he (quite correctly) under- 
 stood Mark's phrase ixti ^v x.t.X. to give the motive 
 for Joseph's action, and he had another motive to 
 suggest in its place. It thus becomes practically 
 certain that the original account in Mark meant to 
 attribute to Joseph concern only for the ancestral law, 
 and no personal relation to Jesus. Matthew naturally, 
 almost inevitably, feels that the good man who had the 
 exalted honour of laying the Messiah in the grave from 
 which he had so gloriously risen, must be counted on 
 the Christian side. It was a friend, not an enemy, 
 above all, not one of that group of councillors who had 
 condemned Jesus as a blasphemer and forced the un- 
 willing Pilate to his execution, who had provided him 
 sepulture. Joseph is exalted in Christian tradition 
 precisely at equal pace with Pilate, and in inverse 
 
 1 This meets the needless doubt of Lake, pp. 51 f., whether the 
 phrase be not an interpolation in Mark. Luke xxiii : 54 also 
 vouches for its originality. 
 
Jerusalem 247 
 
 ratio to the growing enmity toward the Jews. Lines 
 are more sharply drawn; Joseph must take sides, friend 
 or enemy, Christian or Jew. Like Pilate he ultimately 
 becomes a Christian saint. Through Luke and John 
 the process of his exaltation may be traced, and so on 
 with scarcely a break to the legends which connect him 
 with the Holy Grail and Glastonbury. 
 
 So we comprehend Matthew's rendering of Mark's 
 "who also himself was looking for the Kingdom of 
 God" as "who also himself was discipled to Jesus." 
 He has no new source of information; he simply reg- 
 isters the automatic development of the tradition. So 
 the ei3<JX 1 l! JLa)V @ouXeuTifc he turns into avBpwxo? xXouato?. 
 He feels certain that Joseph cannot have been one of 
 that group of chief priests and elders against which 
 his gospel is more bitter than either of the others, that 
 group which takes measures to guard the grave (how 
 could it be the private property of one of their own 
 number?) in xxvii: 62, and fabricates the most abomin- 
 able of all slanders against Jesus' followers in xxviii: 12. 
 As for icXouffcos, it was in the vulgar speech a syno- 
 nym of euaxr^tov. z Whether Isaiah liii : 9 hovered in 
 Matthew's mind here is very doubtful; "the rich" are 
 for the prophet very different folk from the evangelist's 
 conception of Joseph, and "buried by a rich man" is 
 hardly equivalent to "buried with the rich." 2 
 
 Further, Matthew omits Mark's account of Pilate's 
 query as to the speedy death of Jesus, and his verifica- 
 tion of the fact. Since Luke has precisely the same 
 omission, it has been suggested that xv : 44 f. is an 
 
 1 H. B. Swete ad Mark xv: 43; Lake, pp. 50 f. 
 ' Cf. Keim, p. 527 (Eng. tr., p. 274). 
 
248 The Resurrection 
 
 interpolation into the original text of Mark. T But no 
 possible motive can be alleged for such an interpola- 
 tion, while the incident in itself is not so important as 
 necessarily to be reproduced. It is perhaps possible 
 that Matthew supposes the earthquake, the opening of 
 the tombs, the appearance of the revived corpses of the 
 saints (xxvii: 51 f.) sufficient to apprise Pilate that his 
 victim has actually passed away. What else could be 
 the meaning of these portents, which Pilate could 
 hardly have failed to observe? At any rate, there is 
 no indication of a source of information other than 
 Mark. 
 
 The tendency of Matthew, already noted, to exalt 
 Joseph's personal devotion to Jesus, is seen in two 
 slight but most significant changes in the account 
 of the disposition of the body. The sheet (afvSov) 
 is clean, as a tribute of honour, and the place of burial 
 is "his new tomb which he hewed in the cliff. " That 
 the tomb is new is only an expression of the common 
 feeling that for the use of an exalted guest only that 
 which has never before been used is suitable. Pre- 
 cisely so the colt "whereon no man ever yet sat" in 
 Mark xi : 2. That the tomb is Joseph's own, which he 
 had cut in the rock, is Matthew's natural inference ; 
 shall Messiah be laid, like a pauper, in any common, 
 forsaken grave, and not rather in the most honourable 
 tomb which the devotion of a rich disciple can offer? 
 Matthew had no authority for this change but his own 
 inference; it is an inference clearly intelligible and al- 
 most inevitable. But it is a mistaken inference; it 
 was not at all what Mark meant, or what the primitive 
 
 1 Cf. Lake, pp. 52 f. 
 
Jerusalem 249 
 
 tradition, which Mark is reproducing, understood. 
 Joseph is no resident of Jerusalem, and in the absence 
 of Matt, xxvii: 60 no one would ever have supposed 
 him to be. Neither Mark, Luke, nor John affirms that 
 the grave belonged to Joseph. 'A%b ' Api^aBatas means 
 that he is at home in that city and only temporarily 
 in Jerusalem, probably for the feast. Just so in Matt, 
 xxi : 11 Jesus is called <5 xpotpTqT-rji; &%b Nai^apsB ttjs 
 Takikodaq. Joseph's " family tomb," of which commen- 
 tators tell us so much, 1 would be at Arimathea, not at 
 the capital. If our previous conclusion is correct, that 
 Joseph was in no sense a follower of Jesus, then ob- 
 viously he would not give up his own new grave. The 
 two things are part of one conception in Matthew, and 
 that conception an erroneous one. The original 
 presentation of Mark is alone true to history; in a 
 chance grave, chosen as conveniently near at hand, the 
 pious councillor lays the body of Jesus and goes his 
 way. 2 The women learned what had been done and 
 observed where the tomb lay. But it had no marks of 
 distinction, and identification after weeks or months 
 would be a practical impossibility. 
 
 In the account of the burial, therefore, Matthew is 
 dependent simply on Mark and his own reflections. 
 We now come to his narrative of the succeeding events 
 
 1 E. g., Wellhausen, ad Mk. xv: 46, says, "That one not of kin, 
 and one, moreover, who had been executed, is received into a 
 family tomb, is very uncommon and magnanimous. " 
 
 3 So Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, 1901, ad Mk. xv: 46; Arnold 
 Meyer, pp. 123 f. For the view that Mark, like Matthew, con- 
 ceives Joseph as a disciple and the tomb his own cf. Korff, p. 158; 
 Wellhausen ad loc; J. Weiss, Schriften des N. T., vol. i., p. 208. 
 Orr, p. 98, has a vigorous polemic against the view outlined above. 
 
250 The Resurrection 
 
 and its comparison with that of Mark. 6tyk aaffl&zw 
 tfl Ixupuaxouoyi eiq (i.(av aa$$&xw. what are we to un- 
 derstand by these words? Literally taken, they can 
 mean only one thing, and were it not for the apparent 
 contradiction with Mark, they would never have been 
 supposed to mean anything but "late on the Sabbath, 
 as it drew on toward the first day of the week. " The 
 time indicated, that is, is just before sunset on Satur- 
 day afternoon. There is a possibility, indeed, that the 
 words might literally refer to Saturday evening after 
 sunset, the early hours of Sunday, 6tyi being taken as 
 roughly equivalent to "just after the close of," and 
 Tfj ixupwraoiiq] to "as it was beginning to be" the 
 first day, etc. 1 But they cannot literally refer to the 
 hour just before dawn on Sunday morning. It is all 
 well enough to say that "there is no evidence for 
 ixupwaxelv in Greek in any sense except a reference 
 to sunrise, " 2 yet Luke (xxiii : 54) , who knew Greek well, 
 uses it for a time which is plainly six o'clock in the 
 evening, and the Gospel of Peter twice uses it in the 
 general sense of "approach." Herod, on Friday 
 morning before the crucifixion, says aifflaccw Ixuptiuxet, 
 and the night after Sabbath is described as xfj vux-rl f) 
 Ixstpwffxsv -q xupiaxi^. 3 Moreover, Professor Merx has 
 shown that though the Greek word could not of itself, 
 indeed, properly refer to the technical beginning of 
 the Jewish day, at 6 p.m., yet it was forced into use as 
 
 1 Cf. J. H. Moulton, Grammar of N. T. Greek, vol. i. (Prole- 
 gomena), 2d ed., 1906, pp. 72 f., with note. 
 
 ' Lake, p. 58. 
 
 s Swete's edition of Gosp. Pet., 1893, pp. 3 and 16 of the text. 
 Similarly Sio^ttto ( = 8ia0cio-/cei), in Acta PH., A, xii., 1, is used of 
 Friday evening after the burial; <r6.pfia.Tov duupaiu. 
 
Jerusalem 251 
 
 the necessary substitute for the proper Hebrew term, 
 no other Greek word being available. 1 Taking the 
 words by themselves, then, it would seem that, in 
 Matthew's view, the women started toward the 
 sepulchre just before, or about, six o'clock on the 
 Sabbath, or Saturday, evening. 2 
 
 But, on the other hand, we must not make Matthew 
 contradict his own statements, and it is sufficiently 
 clear that he is entirely at one with Mark in dating the 
 resurrection on the third day, or Sunday. If the literal 
 rendering of Matthew's note of time would place the 
 event before Sunday, we must unhesitatingly conclude 
 that however obscure and misleading his phrase may 
 
 1 Merx, part ii., 2d half, pp. 506-508. Cf. part ii., 1st half, 
 P- 437- 
 
 1 So argued by R. W. Macan, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
 1877, p. 39 ; Keim, pp. 552 f . (Eng. tr., pp. 303 f .) ; Brandt, pp. 433 f . ; 
 Merx, loc. cit.; Allen ad Matt, xxviii: 1; Schmiedel, cols. 4041- 
 2; Loisy, vol. ii., p. 717; Moulton, loc. cit.; Schmidt, p. 321, note 
 2 ; and others. The view that Matthew means Sunday morning is 
 upheld by Zahn,Wellhausen,andB.Weissa<ZJoc.; Beyschlag, p. 435; 
 F. Blass, Grammar of N. T. Greek, Eng. tr., 1898, p. 97; Lake, pp. 
 56 f.; Orr, p. 124; Arnold Meyer, p. 30; Bauer, pp. 255 f., and 
 most. It is noteworthy that the Syriac Didaskalia renders Mat- 
 thew's phrase as follows: "Abends am Sabbat, als der erste in der 
 Woche (Sonntag) anbrach, " and the point of time is in the next 
 sentence given as "drei Stunden in der Nacht nach dem Sabbat." 
 A few lines further, " In der Nacht also, da der Sonntag anbrach, er- 
 schien er der Maria von Magdala und der Maria der Tochter des 
 Jacobus, und im Morgengrauen des Sonntags trat er bei Levi ein 
 und dann erschien er auch uns. " H. Achelis and J. Flemming, 
 "Die Syrische Didaskalia" (T. U. Neue Folge, vol. x., Heft 2), 
 1904, pp. 106 f. The clear meaning is that the women came to the 
 grave Saturday evening, and that the resurrection occurred, after 
 their arrival, at 9 P.m. The latter statement is repeated a little 
 later (p. 112). 
 
252 The Resurrection 
 
 be, he means to express by it Sunday morning. But 
 such contradiction is not at all present. The day of 
 Jesus' resurrection was fixed from the first; the ques- 
 tion as to the hour does not seem to have risen at the 
 time of Mark's writing. Sometime in the ten or twelve 
 hours between 6 p.m. on Saturday and sunrise on Sun- 
 day the great event occurred, unseen of mortal eye, is 
 as far as Mark's picture goes. Matthew reflects more 
 closely as to the time. Is it not natural to minimise 
 the time during which Messiah is held in the power of 
 death? He must wait until the third day, according 
 to the prophecy, but with the first hour of that day 
 there is no longer any reason for his tarrying in the 
 grave. When one thinks of it, why should he linger 
 there six or eight hours longer after the resurrection 
 day had begun, and assert his power only at midnight 
 or later? What more natural and fitting than that as 
 the first hour of the new day struck, the earth should 
 tremble and the tomb burst open at the touch of an 
 angelic hand? Matthew's conception is psychologi- 
 cally and dramatically far more true than that of Mark, 
 which passes over the actual event in silence, without 
 indicating even its hour, and lays all its stress on the 
 later discovery that it had taken place. There is no 
 significance of any kind in the sunrise hour of Sunday ; 
 there is every significance in the sunset hour of the 
 previous evening, which ushers in the glorious day. 
 Matthew, then, gives another note of time than that 
 in Mark because he is describing an earlier episode 
 than that given by Mark. Matthew, it should be 
 noted, is the only evangelist who at all indicates the 
 time of the resurrection itself. Both Mark and Luke, 
 as well as John, give only the time and the circum- 
 
Jerusalem 253 
 
 stances of the discovery that Jesus had risen, with no 
 suggestion as to how much earlier the rising had taken 
 place. Matthew does well, from every point of view, 
 to synchronise the women's errand, the discovery of 
 the empty tomb, and the angelic explanation with the 
 hour of the great event itself. But there is nothing 
 in any account to indicate that Matthew's hour, the 
 earliest moments of the third day, is not the thought 
 of all the evangelists, and of the entire primitive 
 church, so far as the exact time of the resurrection was 
 reflected on at all. 1 The statement of Matthew, how- 
 ever, with its alteration of Mark, is again due, not to 
 any new information, but to his own reflections. 
 
 If the women start from the city just before the end 
 (6tyk) of the Sabbath, so that they would not cover a 
 "Sabbath day's journey" before the new day had 
 come, they will arrive at the sepulchre just in the 
 earliest moments of the first day of the week, just in 
 time to experience the earthquake and behold the 
 angelic presence who rolls away the stone. Is not 
 
 1 Cf. the late tradition that Jesus rose three hours after the new 
 day came in (i. e., at 9 p.m. not at 3 a.m. as Schmiedel will), in 
 the Didaskalia, the Anaphora Pilati, and the old Latin codex k. 
 These are commented on by Schmiedel, col. 4049, and Resch, T. 
 u. U., vol. x., part iii., pp. 758 f. For alleged traces of a tradition 
 that Jesus rose on the evening of the Friday on which he died, 
 cf. E. Preuschen, in Herzog-Hauck 's Realencyclopadie, 3d ed., 
 vol. xiv., 1904, pp. 727 f. The existence of such a tradition is 
 very doubtful, but any basis it may have speaks at least for re- 
 surrection as soon as possible after death, and in the evening. 
 Against it cf. Bauer, p. 256. Acta Pilati, A, xiii., 2 and xv., 5, 
 gives midnight as the hour of resurrection. Wherever the hour 
 of the resurrection is reflected on at all, it is placed early in 
 the third day, never after midnight. 
 
254 The Resurrection 
 
 this very clearly what Matthew means? The one 
 point in which it seems to be in contradiction to the 
 further account is the statement (xxviii: 13) that the 
 Sanhedrists plotted with the guards to say: his disciples 
 came by nighfand stole him away while we slept. 1 
 But this is no necessary contradiction. Some of the 
 guards go into the city (xxviii: 11) at the same time 
 with the women, i. e., after the events of vss. 2-10. 
 It is already between six and seven. By the time they 
 reach the city, find the chief priests, and tell their tale, 
 it is growing late. Then the Sanhedrin is called to- 
 gether, the matter discussed, the plot worked out, so 
 that vs. 13 brings us surely well into the night. Their 
 tale the soldiers would not spread abroad till morning; 
 who is to know, save themselves and the Sanhedrists, 
 that the real removal of the body was some hours 
 earlier than they claimed? The word of the women is 
 precisely the thing they are contradicting in toto. 
 Since their story as a whole is a cunningly devised 
 falsehood, there is no reason for regarding this one 
 item concerning the time of the falsely alleged grave- 
 robbery as based on any fact. It is only a part of their 
 excuse; that it was night accounts for their being 
 asleep, and for the darkness which assisted the dis- 
 ciples' nefarious purpose. In other words, Matthew 
 himself considers the vuxt<$s a part of the guards' 
 falsehood, and there is no contradiction between 
 verses 1 and 13, even when read literally. But in 
 truth, the whole episode of the guards is a tissue of 
 
 1 Urged by B. Weiss, Meyer-Weiss ad loc, note. But Keim, 
 p. 553t note (Eng. tr., p. 303) and Schmiedel, col. 4042, adduce 
 the wkt6s of xxviii: 13 as supporting the reference of xxviii: 1 to 
 Saturday evening. 
 
Jerusalem 255 
 
 contradiction, as we shall see, and could not in any 
 case be used to invalidate the plain meaning of the 
 earlier passage. 
 
 It is quite obvious, as has often been pointed out, * 
 that for the form of his note of time here Matthew is 
 dependent on the combined notices of Mark xv: 47 and 
 xvi : 1 f . There the women, on Friday evening, either 
 during or just after the burial, were observing where 
 Jesus had been laid; then on Saturday evening after 
 sunset, it being the first day of the new week, they 
 bought spices, "and very early on the first day of the 
 week they came to the tomb at sunrise." 2 The 
 phrases icpwi and <£vxre(XavTo; tou ifklou show plainly 
 that a night intervenes between vss. 1 and 2, yet from 
 a superficial reading it might be possible to understand 
 the time indicated in the two verses to be the same, as 
 if the women, having bought the spices, continued 
 their way to the tomb. But the whole transaction 
 would then fall on Sunday morning, not on Saturday 
 night. But xv : 47 tells of another visit of the women 
 to the tomb, this time, as it would seem, on Friday 
 evening, when they observed (I0sa>pouv) where Jesus 
 had been buried. Our chapter and verse division 
 connects this so closely with the preceding notice of 
 the burial, that we universally understand the time of 
 
 1 E. g., by B. Weiss and Allen ad loc. ; Lake, p. 57; C. E. Caspari, 
 Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the Life of Christ, 
 Eng. tr„ 1876, p. 240. 
 
 * On AvarelKamos tou tjXLov, cf. Lake, p. 57. The irpul might 
 possibly be understood in the general sense of early, i.e., early 
 on the first week-day, or soon after sundown on Sabbath. 
 Yet this is quite unlikely, as rpwl almost invariably means early 
 in the morning. 
 
256 The Resurrection 
 
 this visit to be during the interment, or immediately 
 after. This is doubtless Mark's intention; yet it is 
 not definitely so stated, and especially if we read an 
 aorist or perfect verb, with some MSS. and versions, 1 
 the words indicate only that after the burial the 
 women came out and saw where the tomb was. At 
 any rate, Matthew has divided the notice of Mark xv: 
 47, having (xxvii: 61) the women sitting opposite the 
 tomb during the burial, and (xxviii: 1) coming out to 
 observe (Oewprjaat) the tomb twenty-four hours later, 
 when Mark has them buying the spices. This is the 
 more natural since Matthew has omitted entirely all 
 reference to the buying of the spices and the women's 
 intention to anoint the body. Reasons for this omis- 
 sion we have already seen; 2 to them we may possibly 
 add the guard which, according to Matthew, now sur- 
 rounds the tomb. 3 Matthew's statement (xxviii :i), 
 therefore, is of the women's visit to see the tomb (Mark 
 xv : 47), at the close of the Sabbath (Mark xvi: 1), 
 as the first day of the week was about to dawn 
 (Mark xvi: 2). These notices of Mark he combines, 
 by the aid of his own reflection, into a new statement, 
 by which he synchronises the women 's visit with the 
 moment of resurrection. 
 
 We next inquire what was observed by the women as 
 they approached the tomb. According to Mark, they 
 saw, at that morning hour, that the stone had been 
 rolled away (avaxsxuXiaTat) ; according to Matthew 
 they saw, the preceding evening, the stone being rolled 
 away. There was further a great earthquake, like 
 
 1 Cf. supra, p. 245, note. » Cf. supra, p. 185. 
 
 3 But cf. infra, p. 265. 
 
Jerusalem 257 
 
 the one in xxvii: 51 (both unknown to the other evan- 
 gelists) a part of Matthew's setting for the great events 
 which were taking place. The women, in Mark, had 
 in perplexity entered the tomb and found therein a 
 young man in a white robe. How long he had been 
 sitting there, or whence he came, Mark does not say. 
 Matthew, picturing a scene of perhaps ten hours ear- 
 lier, represents this youth as an angel (so Mark meant 
 him to be), whose appearance is as lightning and his 
 raiment white as snow. He is seen to come down 
 from heaven, before the very eyes of the women, his 
 descent being synchronous with the earthquake (yap) ; 
 he goes up to the tomb, rolls away the stone, and trium- 
 phantly takes seat upon it. That all this takes place 
 as the women draw near, and is seen by them, is Mat- 
 thew's plain statement. There is no change of time 
 in the verbs from vs. i to vs. 5 ; r it is only the desire to 
 harmonise this account with Mark's that reads the 
 aorists of vss. 2 and 4 as if they were pluperfects, de- 
 scribing events prior to the women's advent, and riot as 
 contemporary with the aorists of vss. 1 and 5, between 
 which they intervene. Vs. 5 itself, "The angel an- 
 swering said to the women: Do not you be frightened," 
 makes no sense at all except as the words are spoken 
 to reassure the women, terrified at the sights and 
 sounds which have just stretched the keepers as dead 
 men upon the ground. The whole of this spectacular 
 description is foreign to Mark; it is Matthew's 
 heightening of the scene, to make it more worthy 
 of Messiah's glorious victory over death. For these 
 
 1 ix&SriTo (vs. 2) means: he took seat on the stone and re- 
 mained sitting there during the following scene. 
 
258 The Resurrection 
 
 details he has no source save his imagination; the 
 historicity of the scene scarcely demands discussion. 1 
 The words of the angel to the women are substan- 
 tially as in Mark, with the addition of xayy, and the 
 omission of %a\ tw IleTpei) in the message to the disciples. 
 The injunction to speed may have no special signifi- 
 cance ; it is perhaps possible, however, considering also 
 vs. 8 (taxu, e5pa[z,ov), that it has a connection with 
 Matthew's new dating of the women's experience. 
 If the disciples were still in Jerusalem, and received 
 the message early Saturday evening, it might be that 
 with great haste they could reach Galilee and see their 
 risen Master there before sunset of the next day; i. e., 
 the first "appearance" would fall on "the third day." 
 This could be made possible, if at all, only by the rising 
 of Jesus with the first moments of the new day, and 
 the receiving of his message by the disciples as soon 
 thereafter as might be. 2 If this were really Matthew's 
 idea, the one appearance of Jesus to his disciples and, 
 supposedly, his departure or "ascension" would, ac- 
 cording to this gospel, fall within the third day, a con- 
 ception of which there are other early traces. It may, 
 indeed, be doubted whether Galilee could be reached 
 from Jerusalem in — let us say — twenty hours, even 
 with the greatest haste. Josephus remarks that by 
 taking the short route through Samaria, the journey 
 might be made in three days. 3 None the less, of 
 
 1 One notes with astonishment that even Orr (p. 126) doubts 
 historicity here, and suggests that the scene is "a reflection, pos- 
 sibly, of the terrified imagination of some of the guards. " What 
 terrified them? 
 
 2 So Brandt, pp. 443 f. ; Schmiedel, col. 4072, 26 a. 
 
 3 Vita, section 52. Cf. Keim, vol. i., 1867, p. 307 (Eng. tr., vol. 
 ii., p. 1), note 2. 
 
Jerusalem 259 
 
 course, Matthew might have so conceived it. The 
 point must for the present be left doubtful, nor 
 is it here of especial importance; it will meet us 
 again. 
 
 The omission of xal Ttp IleTpw is more significant. 
 The only "appearance" of which Matthew knows is 
 that to the eleven disciples together (vs. 16). In his 
 time the special appearance to Peter no longer figured 
 in the tradition. First and most important of the ap- 
 pearances, it has left the scantiest traces in the written 
 sources. Paul (I, Cor. xv: 5), Mark (xvi: 7), Luke 
 (xxiv: 34) attest it, but have no account of it, though 
 probably the lost ending of Mark had such account. 
 In vs. 8 Matthew offers a deliberate correction of 
 Mark's ouSevt ouSev elicov. He cannot but think of 
 the angel's bidding as fulfilled, and his aorist eSpa^ov 
 posits the errand as completed. He has not, however, 
 any definite tradition of the receipt of such a message 
 by the disciples, and makes no definite statement to 
 that effect. 1 In vs. 16 he goes on, much as the lost 
 end of Mark must have done — save that Matthew 
 thinks the departure on Saturday night, and due to the 
 angel's message — to recount how the eleven disciples 
 went into Galilee, and there were vouchsafed an "ap- 
 pearance" of Jesus. Up to vs. 16, with the exception 
 of the grave-watch episode, and one other, to be noted 
 immediately, Matthew has plainly no other source 
 than Mark and his own reflections. We have not 
 found the slightest reason to alter in any detail 
 the picture of events our study of Mark left in our 
 minds. 
 
 A really new element, however, is introduced in vss. 
 
 1 Cf. supra, p. 230. 
 
260 The Resurrection 
 
 9 and 10. "And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All 
 hail. And they came and took hold of his feet and 
 worshipped him. Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear 
 not; go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, 
 and there shall they see me. " Here is the first ap- 
 pearance of the risen Lord; it is in Jerusalem, not in 
 Galilee, to two women, not to the disciples. The meet- 
 ing has no independent content; in passing, as it were, 
 Jesus meets the women, simply repeats to them what 
 the angel had said, and departs, apparently for Galilee, 
 while they resume their interrupted flight into the city. 
 It is impossible not to believe these verses an interpo- 
 lation into Matthew's original text. The connection, 
 both in thought and in wording, is interrupted; the 
 events otherwise succeed as in Mark, and the aikuv 
 itopeuoiiivwv of vs. n, which follows naturally after 
 the eSp«[x,ov &xaYY e '^ at of vs. 8, is very awkward as 
 the text stands. The verb of motion which itopeuofiivwv 
 takes up ought immediately to precede ; the reference 
 across the two verses to eSpa^ov is difficult. Surely no 
 one would begin a clause, "and as they go," when in 
 the preceding passage they are not going, but kneel- 
 ing on the ground clasping Jesus' feet. Moreover, the 
 aorist verb sSpa^ov strictly excludes the interruption 
 of vss. 9 f . ; it posits the action as completed. If any- 
 thing were to occur on the way, the imperfect etpexov 
 would have been demanded, as in the parallel case 
 John xx : 4, or in Gal. v: 7. The verses have really no 
 attachment to their context on either side; in particu- 
 lar we miss between verses 10 and 11 some conclusion 
 of the episode, some such phrase as "and having said 
 this, he parted from them," or the like. What the 
 verses relate is not what the preceding verses prepared 
 
Jerusalem 261 
 
 for, nor has it the slightest relation to anything that 
 follows. The rest of the narrative ignores the episode 
 as completely as does Mark or Luke. So loosely are 
 the verses inserted that they may be removed with- 
 out affecting any single word of the context, and 
 with positive gain to its clarity. It must also be 
 noted that the MSS. do not agree as to the opening 
 words of vs. 9, where the connection is made with 
 the preceding. The T. R. reads w? Ixopeuovro 
 4icaYY s '^ at TOi? [AaB-QTal? aifcou xai (Soi 'Iiqaous x. t. X., 
 while W. H., with most modern critical editors, 
 begin with the %a\ iSou. 1 The MS. evidence on which 
 these discrepant texts rest indicates at any rate either 
 that the vss. are uncertain, or that early scribes felt 
 their lack of assimilation to the context, and tried to 
 better it. 
 
 But quite apart from any considerations of the 
 Greek text it is quite impossible that Matthew should 
 have made so colourless and contentless the first ap- 
 pearance of the risen Master. For him the Messiah 
 is supremely glorious, his resurrection is given most 
 imposing supernatural setting of earthquake and 
 mighty angel with dazzling brow; we rightly expect 
 the appearance of the risen Lord to have dignity and 
 majesty, and his words to be the fitting charge of 
 Messiah to his apostles. The whole effect of the ap- 
 pearance in vss. 16-20 is spoiled if such a casual ap- 
 pearance as that of vss. 9 f. has already taken place. 
 Further, the angel is on the scene, has come from 
 heaven, primarily to give the women a message, and 
 that message is that the risen Jesus will appear to his 
 
 1 For the evidence cf. Tischendorf and Meyer-Weiss ad 
 he. 
 
262 The. Resurrection 
 
 disciples in Galilee. He is declared, indeed, to be al- 
 ready on his way thither (izpodyu). The message of 
 the angel is rendered entirely unnecessary if Jesus is 
 waiting just outside to tell the women precisely the 
 same thing. It is absolutely impossible to find room in 
 the clearly expressed intent of vss. 2-8 for the idea that 
 Jesus is still lingering near, that he is to appear first 
 to these women, before that promised appearance in 
 Galilee, that he is himself to repeat the angel's message. 
 No, this appearance of Jesus is clearly only a doublet 
 to the preceding appearance of the angel; it has no 
 point or meaning, serves no purpose. Jesus has ab- 
 solutely nothing to say except to repeat what the angel 
 has said; his injunction is plainly unnecessary, as the 
 women are already hastening as fast as they can to ful- 
 fil their charge. Indeed, the appearance of Jesus only 
 delays them in their mission, and interferes with the 
 angel's admonition to speed. Not to Matthew, but 
 to some interpolating scribe, we must attribute this 
 disturbing intrusion. * 
 
 That this appearance is historic, therefore, we have 
 no ground for believing. Its entire lack of any inde- 
 
 1 So Rohrbach, Schluss, p. 56, Berichte, pp. 22 f., 63, 84; Keim, 
 P- 557 (Eng. tr., p. 309); Harnack, Chronologie, p. 698, Luhas 
 der Artzt, p. 157; Stulcken in Hennecke's Handbuch, p. 86; 
 Schmidt, p. 394; Le Breton, p. 96; and others. Contra, Beyschlag, 
 in St. Krit., 1898, p. 113. 
 
 Loofs, p. 17, finds these verses "ein aus andrer Quelle (die 
 eine mundliche sein kann) eingesprengtes Gut . . . das freilich 
 schon der Evangelist hier eingefugt hat. " So, in substance, Volk- 
 mar, p. 628, and Korff, p. 50. Pfleiderer, p. 600, thinks the vss. 
 original in Matthew's text, but aimless and awkward, and without 
 historic content. Voigt, p. 57, thinks Matthew took these verses 
 from the original end of Mark! 
 
Jerusalem 263 
 
 pendent content shows that we have here to do only 
 with a doublet to the appearance of the angel. When 
 it came to be believed that Jesus had not only ap- 
 peared to his disciples in Galilee, but that his resur- 
 rection on the third day had been attested by his 
 appearance in Jerusalem on (hat day, the earlier gospels 
 that had no such suggestion were edited into con- 
 formity with this view. Mark suffered mutilation, 
 Matthew, interpolation. Luke and John were written 
 from the new point of view, though John xxi brings 
 also the older tradition. From the tradition that 
 angels had been seen at the empty grave proclaiming 
 the resurrection and promising the appearances of the 
 risen Master, it was a natural development to the tra- 
 dition that he himself was seen there. But the ma- 
 terials out of which the description of his appearance 
 is made are the phrases used by the earlier tradition 
 for the angel's appearance. * Professor Lake's favour- 
 ite idea that the "young man" of Mark was really a 
 matter of fact young man, and nothing more, who was 
 actually seen and spoken with by the women, leads 
 him to suggest that there were two possible super- 
 natural interpretations of this youthful stranger. One 
 was that he was an angel ; the other, that he was Jesus 
 himself. Matthew simply adopts both, by a process 
 of conflation not without frequent parallel in his 
 pages. 2 Whatever of truth there may be in this sug- 
 gestion, a more plausible explanation and a factor at 
 any rate more influential was the tendency to harmon- 
 ise the earliest tradition of the appearances with the 
 
 "So Brandt, pp. 338 f.; Wernle, Synoptische Frage, 1899, pp. 
 176 f.; Pfleiderer, p. 4; and even Beyschlag, p. 435. 
 'Lake, pp. 85 f., 185 f. 
 
264 The Resurrection 
 
 later developments. The conception that finds its 
 clearest expression in John xx: 1-18 is the conception 
 that xxviii : 9 f . serves to insert into the gospel accord- 
 ing to Matthew. The similarity of phraseology between 
 these verses and John xx: 17 is significant, especially 
 the "go unto my brothers"; nowhere in the gospels, 
 save in these two passages, does Jesus speak of the 
 disciples as his brothers. * Aside from this Johannine 
 narrative, the appearance to the women at the grave 
 has the entire gospel account against it. It is ex- 
 cluded by the clear intent of Mark and of Matthew's 
 context, and is distinctly denied by Luke (xxiv: 9-1 1, 
 23 f.), where the women return to the disciples with 
 their report of empty tomb and angels, a report re- 
 garded as nonsense by the disciples. Even when dis- 
 ciples go to the tomb, "him they saw not." The 
 whole narrative of Luke xxiv: 9-35 is absolutely in- 
 compatible with any appearance of Jesus to any of the 
 company before that to Peter (vs. 34). The disciples 
 accounted as "idle talk" reports of angel and empty 
 grave ; so soon as Jesus was seen, they were convinced, 
 
 Of the points in which Mat. xxviii : 1-1 5 goes beyond 
 the Marcan account, certain details are due to Mat- 
 thew's reflection, the episode of Jesus' appearance is no 
 original part of the text and is unhistorical; it remains 
 to look at one such point, the episode of the watch at 
 the tomb (xxvii: 62-66, xxviii: 4, 11-15). This nar- 
 rative also fits somewhat loosely into the context, and 
 yet there is no reason for suspecting its place in the 
 
 1 Cf. Rohrbach, Schluss, pp. 54-57; Berichte, p. 84. Mk. iii: 34 
 f. ( = Mt. xii: 49f.) and Mt. xxv: 40 are not analogous. The 
 wpoaeKirnaav of vs. 9 is doubtless borrowed from vs. 17. 
 
Jerusalem 265 
 
 original form of the text. 1 The connection with the 
 context is established in vss. 4 f. (note the emphatic 
 u^el?: fear not ye, like the watchers) and 11; no diffi- 
 culties are created for the Greek text, nor is the plain 
 intent of the whole narrative contradicted by this 
 episode. It is true, however, that the episode forms a 
 separate and compact element in the narrative, with 
 no real connections with its other elements ; it depends 
 on nothing and nothing depends on it. Though its 
 phraseology has roots, its statements of fact have none. 
 The way in which the actual episode, though it is in- 
 serted in three fragments into the context, never actu- 
 ally mingles with the surrounding episodes, is quite 
 extraordinary. It is the only element in the whole 
 narrative which is thus detached. It is, indeed, fre- 
 quently assumed that there is such mingling in Mat- 
 thew's omission of the women's intention to anoint the 
 body, that this omission is due to his belief that the 
 tomb was sealed and guarded. But Matthew does not 
 indicate that the women knew this, and the omission 
 is much more probably due to his consciousness of the 
 impossibility of such anointing; the more honourable 
 burial which he supposes Joseph to have provided 
 would also tend to make such subsequent anointing 
 less natural. • The XfGo? y.iyat; (vs. 60) would in fact 
 be as effective a barrier as the guard; Mark makes 
 plain that these hindrances were not reflected on in the 
 growth of the legend. 
 
 No, this episode is no interpolation into Matthew's 
 
 1 Keim, pp. 523 f., 556-558 (Eng. tr., pp. 270, 308 f.) ascribes 
 the whole episode to the Vberarbeiter of Matthew, and cites Hil- 
 genfeld and Holsten for the same view. H. A. W. Meyer (5th 
 ed., 1864), ad loc, cites Stroth for this view, and refutes it. 
 
266 The Resurrection 
 
 text; he himself interpolated it into the account he re- 
 ceived from Mark. It is an element, and an important 
 element, in the Christian tradition of his day. It gives 
 a vivid picture of the polemic and controversy of those 
 years. The Christians urge triumphantly that "God 
 had made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom 
 ye crucified," in proof of which " God raised him from 
 the dead, whereof we are witnesses." And this re- 
 surrection from the dead was claimed to have been the 
 rising of his body from its tomb outside the wall of 
 Jerusalem. To this the Jewish opponents, thus ac- 
 cused of having slain Messiah in the person of "Jesus 
 of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised 
 from the dead, " have a sharp reply. 1 They are in no 
 position to deny that the body had disappeared from 
 the tomb, but an easy and natural explanation of the 
 fact lies ready to their hand ; the very disciples who so 
 ardently proclaimed that the body was no longer 
 there had themselves the best reason to know why. 
 To such calumny — as in truth it was — the story of the 
 grave- watch is the Christians' answer. The shameful 
 origin of the accusation and the real version of what 
 took place at the sepulchre are set forth with polemic 
 vigour. 
 
 "And the next day, which is after Preparation, the 
 chief priests and the Pharisees were assembled unto 
 Pilate saying : Sir, we are reminded that that deceiver 
 said while still alive, After three days I rise. There- 
 fore order the grave to be secured until the third day, 
 lest the disciples come and steal him and say to the 
 people, He is risen from the dead, and the last decep- 
 tion will be worse than the first. Pilate said to them, 
 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 228 f. 
 
Jerusalem 267 
 
 You have a guard. Go secure [the grave as well] 
 as you know how. And they, departing, secured the 
 grave, having sealed the stone, with the guard." As 
 the new day came in the angel descended "and from 
 the fear of him the watchers were shaken and became 
 as dead." A little later "some of the guard, coming 
 into the city, announced to the chief priests all that 
 had transpired, and having gathered with the elders 
 and having formed a plan, they gave a considerable 
 number of silver-pieces to the soldiers, saying, Say, 
 His disciples, coming at night, stole him, we being 
 asleep. And if this be heard by the governor we shall 
 persuade [him] and make you care-free. And they, 
 taking the silver-pieces, did as they were instructed: 
 and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews 
 until this day." 
 
 The question immediately arises : Is this story true, 
 or substantially true? The only answer can be: It is 
 entirely fictitious. It is from beginning to end with- 
 out any historical foundation, owing its origin entirely 
 to the controversy with Jewish opponents. In the 
 first place, it must be taken in toto; it has no point or 
 meaning without the angel and the earthquake of vs. 2. 
 Professor Orr suggests that the dazzling angel descend- 
 ing from heaven and rolling away the stone may be 
 "a reflection of the terrified imagination of some of the 
 guards." 1 But he quite forgets that the witnesses for 
 this scene are not the guards, but the women. The 
 story told by the guards is an entirely different one. 
 How are we to conceive "some of the guards" telling 
 the Christians about the angel and his action — as they 
 imagined him to have looked and acted, — when this is 
 
 1 Orr, p. 126. 
 
268 The Resurrection 
 
 precisely the story they have been paid not to tell? 
 To say "imagination of the guards" is to make the 
 whole story meaningless; if the guards "imagined" 
 the angel and his action, then the women did not see 
 him, then he was not there at all. Then where is 
 the story? What were aicavxa to: Yevd[j.evcc which the 
 guards told the Sanhedrists? Their imaginings? But 
 what set them to imagining such extraordinary things 
 as angels and earthquakes? Something happened; 
 the stone was removed, the Master's body emerged. 
 The watchers did not become as dead men because 
 terrified by their own imaginations. Certainly their 
 story is told by them for literal fact, is believed by 
 the Sanhedrists as literal fact, is related by Matthew 
 for literal fact. There is imagining, but the guards are 
 not the imaginers, but the imagined. The story is all 
 of a piece; the angel cannot be expurgated and leave 
 any content at all in the report the guards are hired to 
 keep secret. As was true in the case of Mark's nar- 
 rative, one who cannot accept the angel cannot accept 
 the story of the empty tomb at all ; without the angel 
 the tomb must remain closed. 
 
 But the angel, formidable as he is to modern belief, 
 is the least of the difficulties of this narrative. Every 
 detail is impossible. The note of time at the outset 
 invites criticism; that the Sanhedrists (chief priests 
 and Pharisees!) should go in unto Pilate and deliberate 
 with him on the Sabbath, and on a Sabbath which was 
 doubly sacred as being the first day of the feast 
 of unleavened bread, is quite incredible. Even the 
 fourth evangelist (xviii: 28) knew better than that. 
 And Matthew himself knew better. His curious phrase : 
 the next day, which is (jleto: tt)v xapaaxsui^v, is absolutely 
 
Jerusalem 269 
 
 unexplainable except as a conscious attempt to avoid 
 the natural and normal expression: on the Sabbath. 
 He must have the plot made and the guard stationed 
 on that day, because with its sunset comes the critical 
 third day, in whose first moments the Master is to rise. 
 There is no alternative but to violate the Sabbath. 
 We have here another clear indication, in addition to 
 those already given, 1 that Matthew thinks of the re- 
 surrection as taking place just after sunset on Saturday 
 evening. Had the next morning been the decisive 
 time, he could have placed the conference with Pilate 
 and the stationing of the guard in the evening, "when 
 the Sabbath was past," and so have avoided all 
 difficulty. But, however awkward the dating, the 
 guards must be there before the Sabbath sun had 
 set. 2 Yet Matthew cannot quite write the bald state- 
 ment : on the Sabbath the chief priests and Pharisees 
 went in unto Pilate; he compromises by an awkward 
 phrase suggested by Mark xv: 42, "the morrow, which 
 is after Preparation." 3 
 
 Further, the utterance of the Sanhedrists is wholly 
 incredible. They remember that Jesus had pro- 
 phesied his resurrection after three days, and they un- 
 derstand this resurrection to imply the issuance of the 
 body from the tomb. Believing that the disciples 
 may attempt to counterfeit such resurrection by a 
 theft of the body, they wish the tomb guarded. One 
 at once wonders why this had not occurred to them 
 the day before, when they could have made such 
 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 250-256. 
 
 a The guards, then, spend only a period of hours at the grave, 
 and no part of the night. 
 3 So Allen, ad loc. 
 
270 The Resurrection 
 
 disposition of the body, without violation of the Sab- 
 bath, as would have made any secret removal impos- 
 sible. But one wonders more how the Sanhedrists are 
 so familiar with the idea that Jesus predicted his bodily 
 rising on the third day, when no disciple or follower of 
 Jesus had the faintest suspicion of such a thing. If 
 anything is written clearly across all the gospel nar- 
 ratives of the resurrection, it is the fact that no single 
 one of Jesus' friends had the least expectation that 
 the tomb had not closed forever on his lifeless body. 
 They flee the city in hopeless despair, they prepare to 
 anoint the body for its long sleep, they weep and la- 
 ment the end of their hopes. There is no possible 
 reconciling of the attitude of Jesus' followers after his 
 death with the idea that he had ever promised them 
 that the third day would see him leave the tomb in 
 triumph. When he appears to them — in all this the 
 gospel narratives are being taken as they stand — 
 they are overcome with amazement and terror; they 
 think him a phantom or some deception. Only with 
 the greatest difficulty are they persuaded that it is 
 really he alive again. When they hear from others 
 that he is risen, they reject the statements as nonsense 
 or humbug, even when they are sworn to by their own 
 kin, friends, fellow-disciples. In short, their behaviour 
 is precisely what the behaviour of hard-headed men of 
 London or Chicago would be to-day, were they con- 
 fronted with similar evidence that some friend whom 
 they knew dead and buried, had come to life and 
 emerged from the grave to revisit his associates. J It is 
 
 1 This skepticism of the disciples is to be sure limited to the 
 later gospels, Luke and John, which place the "appearances" 
 in Jerusalem. Yet Mark and Matthew show as clearly that no 
 
Jerusalem 271 
 
 nonsense to say that the disciples had not believed, or 
 had not understood, or had forgotten Jesus' predictions. 
 But it is greater nonsense to assume, in addition to 
 this, that the Pharisees had remembered and under- 
 stood them, and believed the disciples to have remem- 
 bered and understood them, without believing! What 
 a state of mind to attribute to the Twelve — no belief 
 in what Jesus had claimed, yet ready to risk honour 
 and life in a huge lie to make it appear true ! Did the 
 Sanhedrists remember the word of Mat. xii: 39 f., 
 spoken to ' ' certain of the scribes and Pharisees " ? But 
 Luke xi : 29-32 shows that this word was not spoken by 
 Jesus. If the disciples had no knowledge that led 
 them to expect Jesus' rising from the grave on the Sun- 
 day, we may be sure the Sanhedrists had none. The 
 whole story presupposes that the word "resurrection, " 
 as used by Jesus and his earliest followers, meant the 
 emergence of the reanimated corpse from the tomb — as 
 it did in the apologetic and polemic discussion of the 
 nineties, — but this supposition we have already dis- 
 covered a completely mistaken one. 
 
 Incredible, further, is Pilate's willingness to enter 
 into such a scheme with the Sanhedrists, especially in 
 view of his friendly attitude to Jesus at the trial. The 
 guard (xousT(i>8(a custodia), also, which is at the dis- 
 posal of the Sanhedrin (e/sTe) , 1 to which it must re- 
 port (xxviii: 11), though composed of Pilate's soldiers, 
 
 resurrection from the grave was expected. How all this is re- 
 conciled with the undoubted fact that Jesus did predict his resur- 
 rection, we shall see later. It is, at any rate, absolute disproof 
 of the calumny of "the Jews" and Reimarus. 
 
 1 exere KovaruSlav could not possibly be read as imperative, ever 
 in the absence of xxviii: 11. 
 
272 The Resurrection 
 
 (xxviii: 12-14), does not belong to history. The Jew- 
 ish leaders have authority over the guard, they seal 
 the grave as safely as they know how, they are re- 
 sponsible for the whole double plot; all this reveals 
 the growing tendency, strong in Matthew but much 
 stronger in Luke and John, to exculpate Pilate and put 
 all the blame on "the Jews." Here again the story 
 evinces itself as a part of the apologetic and polemic of 
 the years of contest. T 
 
 But most incredible of all are the statements of 
 xxviii: 12-15. The guards report earthquake, angel, 
 and resurrection, and the Sanhedrists believe them! 
 None the less they hope to defeat God's plan, in the 
 face of this tremendous and direct attestation to 
 Jesus' Messiahship, by bribing the guards to tell a 
 false story! And what a story ! First the guards are 
 to accuse themselves of falling asleep on their watch, 
 all of them, with not one awake to rouse his fellows at 
 any disturbance. They are to sleep so soundly that 
 the disciples can come to the tomb, break the seal, re- 
 move the stone, and carry away the body, without a 
 single guard being awakened. And none the less, 
 when they awaken and find the stone lying flat and the 
 body gone, they are to know precisely what took place 
 during their extraordinary slumber! Thus are the 
 precautions of the Sanhedrists and Pilate to come to 
 nothing, because of the extreme drowsiness of these 
 Roman soldiers! 
 
 The Sanhedrists, assembled in council, deliberately 
 concoct this supremely foolish story and give the sol- 
 diers a "sufficient number of silver-pieces" (dpyiipta 
 foavct) to make them willing to tell it. Naturally the 
 
 ' Cf. Merx ad Mat. xxvii: 65. 
 
Jerusalem 273 
 
 soldiers fear that if they so assiduously declare them- 
 selves one and all to have slept on guard, the affair may 
 be brought to a hearing before their military chief 
 (a*oua0f, liciTou r^e^voq) , but they are comforted by the 
 assurance that more silver-pieces will be forthcoming 
 to induce Pilate to wink at their fault. To recount the 
 details of this story is to produce the strongest evidence 
 against its historicity. That the accusation of having 
 stolen the body is made against the disciples only in 
 the polemic of later years is clear from the simple re- 
 flection that had it been made soon after "the third 
 day" the disciples would inevitably have been arrested 
 and tried for their crime. Any suggestion of the sort 
 is significantly absent from Acts' account of the early 
 days. The accusation and its rebuttal in the gradual 
 growth of the grave-watch legend belong to the later 
 years, when dvdaxaae? has come to mean something 
 done by the buried body, when the parties to the dis- 
 pute are far removed in thought and conception, as 
 well as in time and space, from the men of Jerusalem 
 in the year 30. Here, then, Matthew has added no 
 new item of fact to Mark's account. The guard at 
 the tomb has precisely the status of the earthquake 
 or the angel's descent from heaven; it is but an em- 
 bellishment of the original picture, an element quite 
 secondary and unimportant in the general complex of 
 traditions. 1 
 
 1 So very many, e.g., J. A. W. Neander, Leben Jesu Christi, 4th 
 ed., 1845, p. 768 (note) ; H. A. W. Meyer, Krit. Eg. Handbuch iibcr 
 Matthaus, 5th ed., 1864, pp. 607 f. (one regrets to see this entirely 
 omitted in Meyer-Weiss 1898); Keim, pp. 523-525, 556-558 (Eng. 
 tr., pp. 270 f., 308 f.); Rohrbach, Berichte, pp. 78-83; Brandt, pp. 
 329-336 ; Reville, vol. ii. , pp. 457-459 ; Schmiedel, col. 4065 ; Arnold 
 is 
 
274 The Resurrection 
 
 Meyer, pp. 107-109; Lake, pp. 178-181 ; Korff, pp. 18-20. Reville 
 {New World, Sept., 1894, p. 514, /. de N., p. 462) suggests that the 
 reminiscence of armed men seen going to the grave (in Reville's 
 view sent by the Sanhedrin and Pilate to remove the body) may 
 be responsible for originating the legend of the guard. That the 
 watchers were really Jews, acting under Jewish orders, not re- 
 sponsible to Pilate, he finds suggested by the notice in the Gospel 
 of the Hebrews, that Jesus on rising gave his sindonem servo sacer- 
 dotis. Similarly Merx ad Mat. xxvii: 65, with the excision of 
 xxviii: 14 and reading "guard "instead of "soldiers "in xxviii: 12. 
 B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, 1882, vol. ii., pp. 594 f., 610 f., denies the 
 historicity of the grave-watch, but dates too early the controversy 
 which gave rise to the story. Baldensperger, p. 21, note 24, dates 
 the origin of the legend shortly before the year 70. It is to be 
 dated rather after than before this date. Besides Matthew and 
 the possible, but very doubtful, reference in the Gospel of the 
 Hebrews, the story appears, among early sources, only in the 
 Gospel of Peter. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 GALILEE 
 
 WE come at length to Matthew's account of 
 the "appearance" of Jesus in Galilee. It is 
 placed at "the mountain where Jesus had appointed 
 them," a phrase which has been a frequent source of 
 perplexity, since there is nowhere the statement that 
 Jesus had specified a mountain as the place where his 
 disciples should see him. But this is not at all what 
 is meant; the real significance of the words is: the 
 mountain where Jesus had given them appointment as 
 his disciples and bidding as to their work. J The refer- 
 ence is to Mark iii: 13 f., "And he goes up into the 
 mountain (sf? tb opo?) . . . and he appointed 
 (exodqsev) twelve, whom also he named apostles," 
 etc. To be sure, Matthew (x : 1 f .) has separated the 
 appointment of the Twelve from the scene on the 
 mountain (v: 1 f.), but he could easily remember 
 the original connection in Mark, which he himself had 
 altered, tdaou used absolutely would take a dative, 
 
 1 B. Weiss (Meyer-Weiss, ad loc.) and Brandt (pp. 354 f.) have 
 a similar suggestion, but would take ird^aro here as meaning 
 "gave them the laws of the Kingdom," i.e., spoke to them the 
 Sermon on the Mount. So Volter, p. 34. Cf. Holtzmann, H. C, 
 ad loc. Cf. also Lake, p. 90, and J. Weiss, Schriften des N. T., vol. 
 i. , p. 373, both of whom weigh the suggestion, but reject it. Volk- 
 mar, pp. 240 f., saw most clearly here. 
 
 275 
 
276 The Resurrection 
 
 "gave appointment to them, " like the parallel IvxetXa- 
 [xsvo? Tolq axoaxoXot? of Actsi: 2 and tot? xveu^aot 
 Ixixdaaei of Mark i: 27. But the direct antecedent in 
 Matthew's own gospel for the phrase here is the words 
 Siataaauv toTs SciSsxa y.txQ-qiai<; auxou in Mat. xi: I, which 
 form the conclusion of the scene which the evangelist 
 has in mind in the words Itd^ato auTot? 6 'Iqaous of 
 xxviii: 16. Mat. x: 1-5 is directly dependent on Mark 
 iii: 13-19, as a comparison of the phraseology conclu- 
 sively shows. Mat. xi: 1 (Siardaawv tot? S'iSsxa) sums 
 up the preceding chapter, xxviii: 16 refers directly to 
 xi: 1 with its izi^ano autot?, and still has in mind 
 chapter x. The mountain thus appears in the first 
 and last terms of this series (Mark iii: 13; Mat. xxviii: 
 16), and is no doubt vaguely present in the writer's 
 mind, though not explicitly mentioned, in the middle 
 terms (Mat. x: 1 ff. and xi: 1). Thus is relieved the 
 difficulty which practically all commentators have 
 found with the rendezvous, as it is usually considered, 
 without basis in the text, of xxviii: 16. * 
 
 What is in Matthew's mind is the striking parallel 
 between the two scenes. Months ago, in Galilee, 
 
 1 Pfleiderer, p. 601, says, "Wir uns hier zum Schluss noch einmal 
 auf derselben idealen Hohe befinden, wie zu Anfang bei der Berg- 
 predigt und in der Mitte des Evangeliums auf dem Berge der 
 Verklarung. " Korff, pp. 27 f., goes quite astray here, and his 
 translation "die Berghohe, wohin sie Jesus beschieden hatte, " is 
 quite an unjustifiable rendering of ri> 6pos 08 k.t.X. Voigt, p. 64, 
 sees that the mountain of the great sermon is meant, but thinks 
 of an appointment thither, justifying the rendering of o5 as 
 wohin from Lk. xxiv: 28, tfyyurav els t^c k&)it)v oB broptiorro. 
 I. Cor. xvi: 6, oB ii.v iropeiw/juu, might also suggest wohin, but 
 neither passage makes that rendering plausible in Mat. xxviii: 
 16. 
 
Galilee 277 
 
 Jesus called unto him his disciples on a mountain-top, 
 there chose from the number of ^.aQ-qidi twelve whom 
 he named &%6azo'koi, and giving them authority over 
 evil spirits and human ailments, sent them out to 
 preach the gospel of the Kingdom. Their field of 
 labour at that time was to be, not the way of the Gen- 
 tiles nor any city of the Samaritans, but only the lost 
 sheep of the house of Israel, to whom also he had been 
 sent (Mat. xv: 24, peculiar to this gospel, as is ix: 36, 
 where the same expression occurs). But now it is no 
 longer Jesus of Nazareth, it is the risen Messiah who 
 calls his apostles up into the mountain. Now all 
 authority has been given unto him in heaven and upon 
 earth; his influence is to be limited no longer to the 
 lost sheep of Israel's household, to whom, in earthly 
 life, he had been sent. His messengers are to go forth 
 to all the nations, making them disciples to his name 
 and in his name baptising them. 1 
 
 Thus Matthew parallels, in splendid fashion, the 
 two Aussendungen of the disciples, one to the cities of 
 Israel, one to the nations of the world. Historically, 
 of course, his presentation expresses the truth. The 
 living Jesus of Nazareth felt himself sent to his own 
 people; his message was for them, his dream of the 
 kingdom and his own part in its establishment had 
 meaning only for them. His conscious horizon was 
 not really wider than Israel. But the Providence that 
 guides the history of man would not have it so; the 
 Jesus who was a prophet to Israel died, the Christ 
 who meant the renewal of humanity arose in his stead. 
 The Christ whom Paul preached to a Gentile Christen- 
 
 1 On the trinitarian baptismal formula, cf. supra, p. 165, 
 note. 
 
278 The Resurrection 
 
 dom for whom the law had ceased to be was the risen 
 Christ; Christ after the flesh was no more known. 
 And so it was when Matthew wrote. We ought to 
 have done with the pedantic criticism which places 
 xxviii: 19 beside x: 5 f. and argues Matthew in hope- 
 less contradiction with his own fundamental convic- 
 tions. That no man can easily be. Matthew indeed 
 did not see clearly the full force of Jesus' Galilean 
 utterances or their relation to the later world-mission 
 of the church, but he was honest enough to report 
 those earlier, more limited utterances, as his sources 
 gave them to him, even though the church of his time, 
 and himself as a part of that church, had long since 
 departed from their literal observance. 1 Mat. x: 1 f. 
 is the utterance of Jesus, as he could alone have 
 spoken; xxviii: 19 is the utterance of the real gospel 
 of Jesus breaking through the bonds of its relation 
 to a single spokesman, as it embodied itself in the 
 church of the century's closing years, in Matthew as 
 one voice of that church, xxviii: 18-20 are not literal 
 words of Jesus, spoken to the Eleven after the resur- 
 rection; they did not stand in the "Logia" of Mat- 
 thew the disciple. But they are ideally true to the 
 history of the church of the first century. 2 In and 
 
 1 Of course the church of the earliest years remained true to the 
 original utterances, and only a half-century's struggle, with Paul 
 as protagonist, brought the church to the point where she could 
 utter the words of Mat. xxviii: 18-20. If these words have their 
 origin in the time immediately after Jesus' death, whether on the 
 lips of the risen Lord or in the conviction of his disciples, the book 
 of Acts and every epistle of Paul must be rewritten. 
 
 • Holtzmann, H. C, ad loc, "ubergeschichtliche, ideale Wahr- 
 heit. " 
 
Galilee 279 
 
 through the church Jesus was uttering precisely these 
 commands, and they were being heard and gloriously 
 obeyed. 1 
 
 What of the historicity of the other details, then,— 
 the mountain, the appearance of Jesus, the doubt of 
 some? As we have already seen, all the earliest tra- 
 dition points to an "appearance" of Jesus to the dis- 
 ciples in Galilee. So much Matthew knows from the 
 tradition ; so much, indeed, Mark tells him. But Mat- 
 thew has no written source for this appearance, neither 
 the original end of Mark nor another. 2 There are no 
 details, save that of the place. The Eleven ' ' saw him ' ' 
 (i86vte<; aik<5v); he "came up to them" (itpoasX6u>v) ; 
 these two participles furnish all the description 
 Matthew can give. They are his own words; they 
 witness only to his entire lack of any account of the 
 "appearance." Still the dominant verb is see. The 
 voice of vss. 18-20 is the voice of the Church. 
 "They fell down before him" (xpoaexuviqaav) is Mat- 
 thew's own word, the natural expression of adoring 
 reverence. 
 
 The phrase "but some doubted" (ol Se ISforaaav) is 
 difficult. The words have no connection with the con- 
 text, either backwards or forwards. That the Eleven 
 had followed the bidding of the angel, and had come 
 to Galilee and assembled at the mountain, is proof 
 that they believed Jesus risen and expected to see him. 
 When they saw him they fell at his feet in worship; 
 surely there is no room in itpoaexflvrjaav for doubters 
 
 1 On these words as the voice of the church, cf. Brandt, pp. 
 358-361; Arnold Meyer, pp. 139-156; Conybeare, Myth, Magic, 
 and Morals, 1909, pp. 306 f. 
 
 "So, e.g., B. Weiss, Meyer- Weiss, p. 506, note. 
 
280 The Resurrection 
 
 that it was really Jesus. * And those who are addressed 
 in the following words are not in the slightest de- 
 gree those who think they may be victims of a hallu- 
 cination or a deception. The phrase fits awkwardly, 
 also, into the Greek text; o! 8e properly demands a 01 (xlv 
 before the preceding verb. 2 "Some" can hardly refer 
 to less than three of the company, which would leave 
 only eight believers. It is difficult to persuade one's 
 self that Matthew really thinks of this "appearance" 
 and the lofty words which accompany it as vouchsafed 
 to three doubters and eight who believe. In short, 
 it is not easy to avoid the thought that here is an inter- 
 polation into Matthew's original text. 3 
 
 There is, perhaps, less conclusive ground for the 
 judgment of interpolation here than in some other 
 passages, yet awkwardness of Greek text, lack of re- 
 lation to context and adequate motive are all in evi- 
 dence, and combine to make a consideration of real 
 weight. For the motive of the insertion is clear, 
 whether Matthew's pen or another's is responsible for 
 it. One of the strongest apologetic motives of the 
 later time was the insistence that the disciples did 
 
 1 So clear is this that it is often suggested that others besides 
 the Eleven were present, that, for example, the appearance to the 
 "five hundred brethren at once" belongs here. See this pre- 
 sented with great fulness of creative fancy in Latham's curious 
 harmonisation, The Risen Master, pp. 277-294. 
 
 ' Cf. Reville, /. de N., vol. ii., p. 437. 
 
 'So especially Brandt, pp. 355-357; also H. Zimmermann, St. 
 .K.,vol.lxxiv. (1901), p. 449, note2 (including vss. 18-20); J.Weiss, 
 Schriften des N. T., vol. L, p. 373. Contra, Loisy, vol. ii., p. 747. 
 The fathers liked to minimise the "some" to one, identifying the 
 doubter with Thomas or Philip. Cf. Zahn, in Neue Kirchliche 
 Zeitschrift, vol. xiv. (1903), p. 806, note. 
 
Galilee 281 
 
 not believe easily. Just as Matthew's story of the guard 
 at the tomb lets us see one item from the disputation 
 of the years toward the century's end, so Luke xxiv : 1 1 , 
 36-43 ; John xx : 24 f. , let us see another. The Master 
 arose from the dead, for his disciples and friends saw 
 him, was the claim. "Yes," was the skeptic's reply, 
 " his disciples and friends saw him, precisely those who 
 were prepared to see him. Convinced in advance, 
 these gullible disciples were far too uncritical to give 
 their testimony the slightest validity for us. " To this 
 the inevitable answer was the insistence that the dis- 
 ciples were far from gullible, that they did not believe 
 at first sight, because of their "will to believe" ; on the 
 contrary, they were hardheaded and skeptical too, 
 most critical, and believed only after absolutely con- 
 vincing proofs. * There are several noteworthy things 
 to be observed concerning this apologetic motive. 
 
 First, it is absent from the testimony of Paul, of 
 Mark, of Matthew (save for o! 8s ISfaxaaav). I. e., it 
 appears (in the N. T.) only in the latest gospels, Luke 
 and John. Second, it appears only in those narratives 
 which make literal earnest of the idea of the revival 
 of the actual buried body, and emphasise this material 
 element most strongly (e. g., Luke xxiv: 36-43, John 
 xx : 20-31). Third, it appears only in connection with 
 the claim that the "appearances" of Jesus were in 
 Jerusalem rather than in Galilee. We have here one 
 of the many indications of the strange relationship 
 (as yet unexplained) between the third and fourth 
 gospels ; to enter upon that problem would lead us far 
 afield. What concerns us here is to observe the combi- 
 nation of elements that go to make up what we may 
 
 1 Cf. supra, p. 270. 
 
282 The Resurrection 
 
 call, for convenience's sake, "the Jerusalem tradition." 
 These elements are, to recapitulate, emphatic insis- 
 tence on the material nature of the resurrection-body, 
 as absolutely identical with the buried corpse, on Jeru- 
 salem as the scene of the appearances, on the disciples' 
 unwillingness to believe without overwhelming evidence. 
 
 This tradition shaped the resurrection-narratives 
 of Luke and John. We have already seen it at work 
 on the earlier gospels, removing the end of Mark and 
 substituting another passage in its place, inserting the 
 appearance to the women into Matthew (xxviii: 9 f.). 
 There is surely no valid reason for refusing to see it at 
 work here, inserting the words oi 8e eSeaxaaav. The 
 words may originally have been a marginal note, by a 
 scribe familiar with the other tradition as written in 
 Luke and John, and later embodied in the text. r They 
 do not necessarily mean, when separated from the con- 
 text, "and some doubted, " but may be rendered "and 
 they doubted"; the scribe, that is, wished to note the 
 general fact, clear to him from Luke and John, that 
 the first appearance of Jesus to the disciples was met 
 with doubt and distrust. This motif of the disciples' 
 doubt, which is surely unhistorical, will concern us 
 again when we come to the consideration of the 
 "Jerusalem tradition" in Luke. 
 
 There remains to be considered, of Matthew's ac- 
 count, only the mountain. The one "appearance" 
 of Jesus which Matthew knows, that to his disciples 
 in Galilee, takes place upon the mountain where, some 
 months before, the Master had given appointment to 
 these disciples, and had laid down the constitution of 
 
 1 So W. H. van de S. Bakhuyzen, Over de Toepassing van de 
 Conjecturaal-Kritiek op den Tekst des N. T., 1880, p. 138. 
 
Galilee 283 
 
 the Kingdom of God. Is this a happy literary con- 
 struction of Matthew, or was there a tradition to that 
 effect? It is natural and intelligible as a literary con- 
 struction; great events of this sort, especially where a 
 being from the skies has intercourse with men, are most 
 fittingly located on a height rising from earth toward 
 heaven. The transfiguration, for example, could 
 hardly take place anywhere else than on a lofty height, 
 so the temptation of Jesus to make the kingdoms of 
 this world his own. * In particular, however, must the 
 ascension of Jesus from earth to heaven be from a 
 mountain-top; it is the inexorable demand of congru- 
 ity. The ascension of Jesus is pictured only once in the 
 New Testament (Acts i: 6-12) and there, naturally, as 
 succeeding the last of the "appearances." Matthew 
 knows of but one appearance ; he has no word of what 
 succeeded it, but in the background of his thought lies 
 inevitably the idea: after thus speaking, Jesus de- 
 parted from the summit of the mountain into heaven. 
 Matthew knows of no other appearances, of nothing 
 to keep Jesus longer on the earth; moreover, the con- 
 tent of the Master's words here is in substance the 
 same as that of Acts i: 8, words spoken just before the 
 ascension, and "Lo, I am with you always, even unto 
 the end of the world," are plainly words of farewell. 
 In short, the mountain here is the product of Mat- 
 thew's literary skill, influenced by the idea that after 
 Jesus' appearance and charge to the disciples, he went 
 away into heaven, and that, naturally, from a hilltop. 
 This hilltop the evangelist then conceives, as we have 
 already seen, as the same on which these disciples first 
 received the apostolic call. We are, therefore, unable 
 1 Cf. Arnold Meyer, p. 38; Brandt, pp. 353-355- 
 
284 The Resurrection 
 
 to find anything of history in this notice, and must be 
 content to remain in ignorance of the place in Galilee 
 where Jesus' followers saw him after his death. The 
 mountain will concern us again in our discussion of 
 Luke's narrative. 2 
 
 To Mark's account of the resurrection, then, Mat- 
 thew added the episode of the guard at the tomb, but 
 did not otherwise materially enlarge the tradition. 
 The angelic message in Mark, as well as the primitive 
 tradition, told him of an "appearance" in Galilee. 
 This he chronicled, in the briefest and simplest fashion, 
 his chief interest thereby being in the apostolic com- 
 mission from the Master's lips for the conversion of 
 the world. It is notable that the specific first appear- 
 ance to Peter, listed by Paul, promised by Mark, noted 
 by Luke, is not referred to by Matthew. The xal "zij> 
 IleTptj) of the angelic message in Mark is significantly 
 omitted, and the toT? (jta0Y)TaT? aikoii receives the entire 
 emphasis. There seems to have been no written ac- 
 count of the appearance to Peter, except as it was 
 briefly chronicled in the lost end of Mark. Its signi- 
 ficance, from our point of view, is supreme; Luke xxii: 
 32 has well expressed it, "Do thou, when once thou 
 hast turned again, stablish thy brethren." Peter's 
 experience, that gave to one man the absolute assur- 
 ance that Jesus had risen, paved the way for the similar 
 experience of the others. Yet it had not the same sig- 
 nificance for the early church as the appearance which 
 sent eleven men out into the world as the apostles of 
 
 1 Cf. infra, pp. 349-352, 405-407. It may seem as if two sepa- 
 rate origins have been assigned to the mountain here. The origin 
 of the mountain is suggested above; its identification with "the 
 mountain where Jesus appointed them " is explained on pp. 275 f. 
 
Galilee 285 
 
 the risen Messiah. These two appearances were both 
 part of the primitive xapdtSoffts (I. Cor. xv: 5), but it 
 was on the second of the two that all the emphasis was 
 laid. Out of the first a man was reborn ; but out of the 
 second the church sprang into life. Of the first only 
 that it had occurred was remembered and related ; the 
 second all the evangelists (surely including Mark) 
 aimed to present. For the earliest church it was the 
 great, almost the only, appearance. The later ones — 
 to Stephen, to James, to five hundred brethren, to 
 various apostles, to Paul — were of importance individ- 
 ually ; they had not the same pragmatic significance in 
 the original establishment of the church. * The same 
 is true of the appearance to the Emmaus disciples in 
 Luke, and even more so of that to Mary Magdalene in 
 John. So this one chief appearance to the Eleven, and 
 this alone, Matthew presents. He knows nothing of 
 Jesus appearing again and again, for a period of days ; 
 once the disciples saw their Master, received from 
 him their commission, and the heavens received him. 
 
 If one asks whether Matthew has forgotten the 
 importance of Peter in the critical days that followed 
 Jesus' death, the answer is at hand. He could not 
 have overlooked in Mark xvi : 7 the xal t^ ni-rptf) which 
 he omits. Matthew rarely forgets anything, and what 
 he omits in one place he brings in another. So here, as 
 little as Luke (xxii:32, xxiv: 34) has forgotten what 
 Peter was and did, though he has no details, so little 
 has Matthew. Does he not put into Jesus' mouth at 
 Caesarea Philippi words which no other evangelist 
 knows, which have fixed for the tradition of twenty 
 centuries the fundamental place of Peter, behind his 
 
 1 Cf. Arnold Meyer, pp. 136-139- 
 
286 The Resurrection 
 
 ten colleagues, as the firm base on which the gradual 
 structure of the Christian church arose? "Blessed art 
 thou, Simon Bar-Jona. . . . Thou art Peter, and 
 upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail against it" (xvi: 18 f.). Those 
 words have in them the sound of the farewell charge of 
 Messiah to the apostle whose faith is to be the first firm 
 foothold for the feeble church, on which it shall come 
 to itself and begin to live. l What those words say is 
 in very truth the consequence and meaning of the 
 wcpSiq Kt]9a, and Matthew is not ignorant of it. With 
 that utterance already chronicled, he can spare the 
 xat Tcp IIsTptp when he reaches it. 
 
 All in all, then, except for the story of the guard 
 Matthew stands about where Mark does as to the ma- 
 teriality of the resurrection-body. He takes it for 
 granted that what happened when Jesus "rose" was 
 that his body came out of the tomb. "He is 
 not here; come see the place where he lay." And' 
 yet he has not constructed his narrative consist- 
 ently with this view. He allows no opportunity 
 for the body to emerge. The angel descends, re- 
 moves the stone, and takes seat upon it. This 
 is before the women's eyes, according to Matthew's 
 thought; they are the only witnesses of these prodigies 
 he is relating, and of the stunning of the guard. The 
 frequent assumption of commentators, that the women 
 arrived after the event, to find the watchers lying in a 
 
 1 Cf. Rohrbach, Berichte, pp. 55-58. B. W. Bacon, in Har- 
 vard Theological Review, July, 1909, p. 295, argues that the refer- 
 ence to the "gates of Hades" which had closed upon the crucified 
 Jesus, only to reopen for his escape on the third day, indicates 
 that Mt. xvi: 18 f. was originally a post-resurrection utterance. 
 
Galilee 287 
 
 stupor and the angel sitting on the stone, is a flat con- 
 tradiction of the text. The angel's (at) 9o@e!a6e fl^ei? is 
 intended to keep them from such alarm at the astound- 
 ing sights and sounds as has overthrown the guards. 
 The rolling away of the stone, which the women, 
 therefore, see, has for its only object the affording pos- 
 sibility of exit for the body. Neither Mark nor Mat- 
 thew thought of the removal of the stone in any other 
 connection; as long as the stone covers the door the 
 body is still in the tomb. But none the less, when the 
 stone is rolled away nothing happens; the body does 
 not come forth. The women who look on in wonder 
 see only the triumphant angel, who none the less im- 
 mediately proclaims: He is not here, he is risen. 
 Hither, see the place where he was lying. When did 
 he rise? we ask. Not before the women's arrival; 
 this would place the resurrection before the third day. 
 Not before the stone was removed, else there would be 
 no motive in the removal ; the rising would in this case 
 not be of the material body, which would be left be- 
 hind, still to be seen in its place. If we say that the 
 stone is removed, not to let Jesus out, but to show the 
 women that he is no longer there, 1 we are introducing 
 an evidential motive into the action, quite foreign to 
 the thought of any New Testament writer or any 
 early Christian. And the very fact that the body 
 is not there shows that^the rising has been material, 
 requiring the opened tomb-door as its indispensable 
 condition. Then did Jesus rise after the rolling 
 away of the stone? No, the women would have 
 seen him coming forth ; Matthew would have shown 
 
 1 So Samuel Horsley (Bishop of St. Asaph), Nine Sermons on 
 our Lord's Resurrection, 1815, p. 202. Cf. Lake, p. 251. 
 
288 The Resurrection 
 
 his graphic descriptive power in one of his supremest 
 scenes. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the author is involved in an in- 
 ner contradiction; his conception is confused and 
 blurred. The actual dvaaxaat? ex. vexpwv was an invisible 
 transaction, not the act of flesh and bone : that original 
 consciousness is still with him, in some degree. The 
 "appearance" of Jesus on the mountain he does not 
 think in material, physical terms. But the body was 
 gone from the tomb, otherwise there were no resur- 
 rection : that idea also controls him. And he does not 
 attempt to reconcile the two points of view. 1 Of 
 course no such reconciliation is possible, yet Matthew 
 is not clearly conscious that any is needed. He is less 
 sensitive to contradictions and confusions of narration 
 than either of the other synoptists. In Luke and John, 
 where the apologetic motive for insistence on physical 
 characteristics in the risen body is so much stronger, 
 we have the contradiction made much sharper and 
 more distinct. These writers deliberately think to- 
 gether the two things — a flesh and bone body which 
 can walk, talk, and eat, and a psychic form which can 
 appear and disappear at will on either side of closed 
 doors. Matthew has not yet reflected on the point; 
 he does not really think of the material body passing 
 through the stone. He brings an angel to roll the 
 stone away, as some helpful commentators open the 
 door for Jesus in the narrative of John xx: 19. With 
 Matthew the question: Real body or phantasm? was 
 not a burning point of controversy, as it was with the 
 other two, as the accusation that the disciples stole 
 
 1 Cf . a similar criticism of Matthew's representation in 
 Pfleiderer, p. 599, and in Supernatural Religion, pp. 830 f. 
 
Galilee 289 
 
 the body was for him. As to the nature of the risen 
 body, his conception is unreflecting and naive. He 
 makes no attempt to describe in physical terms the 
 body in which Jesus "appeared" on the mountain; 
 only in the body's disappearance from the tomb does 
 the physical element enter his narrative. 
 
 It is a remarkable tribute to the power of the original 
 conception that neither Matthew nor any other New 
 Testament writer attempts to describe the resurrection 
 itself. No one of them ever brings himself to say, in 
 so many words: the body of Jesus came to life and 
 emerged from the tomb into the open air. Although 
 all believe that the body did come forth, none, appar- 
 ently, deliberately thinks it out and pictures to himself 
 the scene. First the prostrate form, wrapped in the 
 winding-sheet, motionless and silent; then movement, 
 a stirring of the limbs, the body rises to its feet, casts 
 off the sheet, and as the stone crashes away from the 
 door amid the thunders of the earthquake, the naked 
 form strides out into the world in triumph! To sketch 
 such a picture is to show that no evangelist so com- 
 pletely and consistently thought out the scene whose 
 actual occurrence he was so ardent in proclaiming . We 
 find the tomb empty, we hear the angel's ^pO?) ; we are 
 not present at the crowning moment. Even in Mat- 
 thew, where it would seem inevitable, the event 
 strangely fails. We have the moment before, when 
 stone and body are undisturbed ; we have the moment 
 after, when " He is risen " ; but the moment we have not. 
 This is not Matthew's art, as is often claimed, it is his 
 artlessness. It is the final and irrefutable proof of the 
 original definition of <ivd<JTaai<; Ix. vexpuv as concerned, 
 not with grave and garden, but with Hades and Heaven. 
 19 
 
BOOK FOUR 
 
 THE WITNESS OF LUKE 
 
 CHAPTER X 
 
 OUTSIDE THE CITY 
 
 THE gospel according to Luke comes from an un- 
 known Gentile author writing not far from the 
 year ioo. The real Luke (Col. iv: 14; Phm. 24; 
 II. Tim. iv: 11) is related to the double work of this 
 author (Gospel-Acts) as the real Matthew is related 
 to the first gospel, or Peter to the second, as a source 
 of material embodied in the second half of the work. 
 Writing not much later than "Matthew" in point of 
 time, the writer whom we may continue to call Luke 
 represents a very considerable further development in 
 the progress of the tradition. His environment is 
 very clearly another than that of Matthew; the exigen- 
 cies of the controversy are very different. To meet 
 the apologetic needs of this varying situation, the 
 tradition has developed in a somewhat different way 
 and is calculated to meet different criticisms. Where- 
 as in Matthew the apologetic interest is centred in 
 what happened at the grave and the circumstances 
 under which the body left its place of burial, in Luke 
 the interest centres on what this risen body did later, 
 
 290 
 
Outside the City 291 
 
 and the evidential exhibition of its material qualities. 
 Matthew lavishes his chief miracle on the appearance 
 of the angel to open the tomb ; Luke is very restrained 
 at this point (xxiv: 1-3), and keeps his greatest marvel 
 to adorn the appearance of Jesus himself to his fol- 
 lowers. For Matthew — as indeed for the primitive 
 believers — the wonder was that Jesus rose ; for Luke it 
 is rather how he rose, with what body he came. 
 
 And so Luke is very thoroughgoing in his com- 
 plete adoption of the view that the physical body rose. 
 He is not disturbed by any lingering traces of the idea 
 of transcendent "appearances" of the glorified Master 
 from the splendour of his heavenly life; the disciples 
 see and have converse with the very tangible flesh and 
 blood and bone which had been buried. A dead man 
 come to life in all form organises his propaganda. And 
 Luke sees that the consistent acceptance of this view 
 demands that Jesus be seen in Jerusalem, not in 
 Galilee. 
 
 Critics commonly think of Luke as deliberately al- 
 tering the tradition, by substituting for the Galilean 
 account of his predecessors one at variance with it. 1 
 This is really doing Luke an injustice. As a church 
 historian he is, to be sure, controlled by a homiletic 
 and apologetic purpose, It must further be granted 
 that he is under the dominance of a theory about the 
 origins of the church. The striking thing, in his eyes, 
 about the growth of the Christian movement is the 
 fact that it was no sooner born and established in 
 Judaism than it began to go out therefrom, radiating, 
 
 1 Korff, pp. 77 f., represents Luke as familiax with the original 
 end of Mark, with its account of Galilean appearances, and as 
 deliberately contradicting it, knowing Mark to be in error. 
 
29 2 The Resurrection 
 
 as from the centre of a circle, to all the world. In 
 Luke's time the church is at home in all the world, 
 save only in Palestine, its xctxpi?. Both the gospel 
 and the Acts Luke writes with the spell of this phe- 
 nomenon strong upon him, with a desire to set it forth 
 in clear outline, to explain and justify it, as a signifi- 
 cant element in the divine plan. So in the gospel 
 Jesus begins his mission in Nazareth, his itdTptq, and 
 is rejected. Coming to his own he is not received of 
 them. The words of his discourse to his townsfolk 
 (Luke iv: 25-27) transcend the situation in which they 
 are uttered, and parallel the arguments by which 
 Luke in the pages of Acts justifies the turning of the 
 gospel to the Gentiles. * As the preaching of Jesus 
 must begin in Nazareth, so the apostolic proclamation 
 must begin in Jerusalem, as the nation's capital and 
 religious centre. The parallelism is close and signifi- 
 cant. Galilee would by no means have answered the 
 purpose; it could not have stood, as Jerusalem can and 
 does, as equivalent to Judaism, land and people. That 
 the nuclear point out from which the church starts on 
 its victorious career in the world is Jerusalem, rather 
 than Galilee or any other part of Palestine, is unques- 
 tionably a piece of Lucan ideal history, rather than a 
 chronicle of fact. The point will concern us again. 2 
 None the less, Luke means to be honest with his 
 sources and with the facts so far as he can ascertain 
 them. His vision of the beginnings, sixty to seventy 
 years before he writes, is of course not wholly clear, 
 despite his claim to have "traced the course of all 
 things accurately from the first. " The church as his 
 
 1 The notable parallel is the speech of Stephen, Acts vii : 2-53. 
 Cf. Pfleiderer, p. 487. » Cf. infra, pp. 383-386. 
 
Outside the City 293 
 
 investigation first reveals it had its historic centre in 
 Jerusalem, with Peter and James at its head; this same 
 church he knows as the outgrowth of the resurrection 
 conviction among these men and their associates. 
 The experiences which gave these men this great con- 
 viction he naturally places in the locality where these 
 experiences bore fruit in the first Christian congrega- 
 tion. Who was to tell Luke otherwise? The tradi- 
 tion had not preserved, as a fixed part of the xap4Boffi<;, 
 the place of the appearances (cf. Paul's statement!), 
 as indeed, why should it? The fact was the thing 
 which had gospel value ; the place had none. We must 
 always keep in mind the entire lack of interest, among 
 the early Christian teachers, in mere biographical or 
 historical detail. The tradition was sermon-stuff; its 
 values were homiletic. Only use in preaching kept the 
 tradition alive at all, and such elements as, in the view 
 of these primitive preachers, lacked value as texts, 
 were soon lost. 
 
 Here and there persisted the reminiscence that the 
 appearances had come to Peter and the rest in Galilee; 
 everywhere was related that the appearances had come. 
 Mark, of course, knew the truth about it, from his 
 intercourse with Peter and the rest, and, in the words 
 of the angel's message, he certifies to the true place. 
 Matthew takes this reference in Mark at its face value, 
 and repeats it ; he has no other authority than Mark's 
 statement for placing the appearance in Galilee. Luke 
 is limited to the single sentence, "He goes before 
 you into Galilee, there shall ye see him" (Mark xvi: 
 7), as authority for Galilee as the scene, and that is but 
 a promise, of whose fulfilment he finds no account. 
 For Luke's copy of Mark ends with xvi : 8 and, as we 
 
294 The Resurrection 
 
 have seen, lacks xiv: 28. * Matthew Luke has not 
 read. Paul, even if Luke has read his letters (it is 
 almost an absolute certainty that he has not), has no 
 information on the point. "Go tell his disciples and 
 Peter" would indicate that the Eleven were still in 
 Jerusalem, where the women could communicate with 
 them. Where is the proof that they left the city? 
 Indeed, is there not an indication in Mark's closing 
 words that they did not do so? The women said no- 
 thing to any one, did not deliver their message, thinks 
 Mark. Surely, then, the disciples, lacking any know- 
 ledge of the resurrection and any bidding to return to 
 Galilee to see the Master, would lack all motive for 
 departure; they would remain in the city to be startled 
 by appearances of Jesus there. To be sure, Luke 
 is absolutely certain that the women did relate their 
 experience to the disciples, but, in his view, there was 
 nothing in the report which necessitated departure 
 from the city. If, even in Mark, no message to go to 
 Galilee was delivered or acted upon, it is probable that 
 none was sent; in any case, Mark does not compel 
 belief that the disciples did return home. Luke's cor- 
 rection of Mark, as he understands him, is only as to 
 the message, not as to the action of the disciples. The 
 field is really clear for Luke's construction, and he 
 boldly and conscientiously makes it, not doing violence 
 to his sources as he reads them, not consciously substi- 
 tuting one account for another, but attempting to re- 
 construct the actual course of events, and set it in 
 order, that the most excellent Theophilus (and others) 
 might, amid the diversities of tradition, know the 
 certainty of these things. 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 195-201. 
 
Outside the City 295 
 
 There is, however, a further weighty reason why, in 
 Luke's thought, Jesus was seen by his followers at 
 Jerusalem rather than in far-away Galilee. It is be- 
 cause it is so important, in his view, that what the 
 disciples saw was the actual physical body of Jesus, re- 
 stored to life. This motive is largely unconscious 
 with him, but is none the less very influential. Where 
 one thinks of appearances of a glorified spirit-body 
 from heaven, place does not matter; Jesus may be seen 
 as well in one place as another. But where one thinks 
 of a corpse reanimated, coming out of its tomb and 
 showing itself to friends, at once the place is fixed ; that 
 body cannot be indifferent to spacial limits. Pre- 
 cisely as in Matthew (xxvii: 52 f.) "the tombs were 
 opened and many bodies of the saints that had fallen 
 asleep were raised, and coming forth out of the tombs 
 after his resurrection, they entered into the holy city and 
 appeared to many," so for Luke the body coming out 
 of the tomb cannot go far from its sepulchre. Mat- 
 thew does not for a moment think of his two scenes 
 xxviii: 17 ("when they saw him") and xxvii: 53 
 ("many bodies of the saints appeared to many ") as 
 analogous ; for Luke's view they would be perfectly ana- 
 logous. There would be something grotesque and un- 
 thinkable in the journey of that scarred and wounded 
 form, those pierced feet, over the long miles of moun- 
 tain and valley to Galilee. The walk to Emmaus or 
 Bethany is the utmost limit. Of course Mark and 
 Matthew had not interpreted the irpodtYst in any such 
 literal sense; Luke could not easily do otherwise. It 
 is not to be supposed, indeed, that Luke thinks out 
 the matter in any such clear way; it is only that his 
 conception of the revival of the buried body inevitably 
 
296 The Resurrection 
 
 confines the activities of that body to the neighbour- 
 hood of the tomb. 1 
 
 And so we have the "Jerusalem tradition" with its 
 natural origin in the growing thought and apologetic 
 discussion of Luke's environment, not in any capri- 
 cious will to make a violent change in the received 
 tradition. The chief elements in this view of the resur- 
 rection-story, all having their origin in apologetic 
 motives, are, as we saw, first, emphasis on the identity 
 of risen body with buried body; second, Jerusalem as 
 the scene of the appearances; third, the disciples' slow- 
 ness of belief. How these motives come to expression 
 in Luke's narrative, we shall now proceed to see. 
 
 We may begin with the account of Jesus' burial 
 (xxiii: 50-56). Here we find closer following of Mark 
 than in Matthew. Joseph is a pouXsuri]?, but Luke in- 
 fers from the fact that he buried Jesus a certain sym- 
 pathy with Jesus' person, and adds, therefore, "He 
 had not consented to their counsel and deed. " This 
 is not history, nor has Luke a source for it; it is his 
 independent reflection. It does not, indeed, imply that 
 Luke thinks of Joseph as a Christian, as Acts xiii : 29 
 is enough to show. The sfl&x^tMov of Mark Luke ren- 
 ders by dtyotebq %a\ Bfaaio?, a fuller expression of the 
 Christian's appreciation of the Jewish councillor's 
 kindly deed. The same tendency that made Matthew 
 describe the tomb as new makes Luke describe it as 
 one "where never man had yet lain." He does not 
 state the tomb to have been Joseph's own, but ap- 
 parently takes this for granted. The stone at the 
 door, perhaps inadvertently omitted in the burial 
 scene, appears in xxiv: 2. The women are not 
 
 ' Cf. Arnold Meyer, p. 129. 
 
Outside the City 297 
 
 named at this point, but are described as those who 
 had come with Jesus from Galilee (c/. viii : 2 f .) ; they 
 "followed after and beheld (!0eiaavTo, from Mark's 
 !8ecopouv) the tomb and how his body was laid." I. e., 
 they are actually witnesses of the burial, whereas in 
 Mark it is not clear that they are. Returning to their 
 lodgings, they prepared spices and ointments, this, 
 of course, before the actual beginning of Sabbath. 
 That is Mark xvi: 1, with the point of time placed a 
 little over twenty-four hours earlier. 
 
 The women are quiet through Sabbath according to 
 the commandment, but on the first day of the week, at 
 deep dawn (op0pou Jkt0ew;), as in Mark, — Luke really 
 makes no use of Saturday evening — they come to the 
 tomb with the spices which they have prepared. There 
 is in Luke no perplexity as to how the stone is to be 
 removed; the women's intention, though not definitely 
 stated, would preclude such perplexity. No strange 
 phenomena greet the women as they approach the 
 tomb, save that the stone has been rolled away from 
 the entrance. The women enter, but find not the 
 body. 1 No strange sight or sound greets them; only 
 the Master's form is no longer there. In all this Luke 
 is not really reflecting to any degree on the narrative; 
 he reproduces Mark without appreciable change, for 
 his prime interest is not in the tomb and the departure 
 of Jesus from it. That he takes for granted; that is 
 not the theme of controversy. A little closer consider- 
 ation would have found matters here to be made 
 
 1 Wellhausen, ad loc, thinks d(re\$ov<rai an interpolation. We 
 will here pass over the less important details of conjectural and 
 other text criticism offered by Wellhausen, Merx, and other com- 
 mentators. 
 
298 The Resurrection 
 
 clearer ; the stone would have been put in after xxiii : 53, 
 the motive of Joseph more definitely indicated, the 
 plan of anointing stated and related somehow to the 
 closed tomb, the removal of the stone more accen- 
 tuated, and the like. We have seen in Matthew how 
 these details were treated by one whose interest was 
 keenest here. 
 
 With xxiv: 4 we reach the point where Luke begins 
 to do more than reproduce his sources, where he shows 
 original thought and construction, as he approaches 
 that part of the narrative which for him is of keenest 
 import. As the women stand lost in perplexity over 
 the disappearance of the body, suddenly there appear 
 two men standing before them (i%iaTt}aav, the men 
 were not there as the women entered, but "came and 
 took their stand")- These avSpe? are, for the women 
 and for Luke, of course, a^yzkoi, wearing brilliant 
 (acrtponcToiSq], flashing like lightning) raiment, and the 
 women in terror bow their faces to the ground. The 
 question why Luke has two angels, when his source 
 Mark told of but one, has received some attention, 1 
 but is really not of great importance. The sending of 
 two "messengers," instead of one, is a natural literary 
 device, often repeated in both Testaments, to give 
 dignity and importance to the errand or message. So 
 Luke uses it here, as he does in Acts i: 10, to fit the 
 weight of the communication about to be made. The 
 two angels here find their precise analogue in the "mul- 
 titude of the heavenly host" who praise God at Jesus' 
 birth (ii: 13). 
 
 1 Cf., e.g., Brandt, p. 322; Lake, p. 67. Volter, p. 17, thinks the 
 two men are Moses and Elijah, brought here from the trans- 
 figuration story. 
 
Outside the City 299 
 
 The actual announcement of the angels is new in 
 content. The first thing that strikes our attention is 
 that it contains no message at all to the disciples; it 
 is only an assurance of the resurrection to the women 
 themselves. This is a deliberate correction of Mark. 
 The source told of an angelic message to the disciples 
 that they were to go to Galilee to see the risen Master. 
 Yet the source declares that the message was not de- 
 livered, and it is clear (to Luke) that the disciples did 
 not go to Galilee. The source must be in error ; the man 
 who has studied all things carefully from the first and 
 is trying to bring order out of the confused tradition, 
 cannot tolerate an angelic message which was neither 
 delivered nor obeyed, and which did not correspond with 
 the facts, as he understood them. It is much more likely 
 that Mark was mistaken than that the angel was! 
 So the whole announcement is reworded, and the 
 allusion to Galilee is used in an entirely different way ; 
 instead of Ixei ctikbv 3t{>sa0e xa0w? slxev we have, in effect, 
 aixbv oipecj0e xa8uq slicev Ixel. We are, of course, not to 
 look for any "source" for this change, outside Luke's 
 own honest critical reflection. "Why seek ye him 
 who is alive among those who are dead? Remember 
 how he spoke to you being still in Galilee, saying that 
 the Son of Man must be delivered over into the hands 
 of sinful men and be crucified and the third day rise." 1 
 
 1 The oi5k iaTiv ffiSe d\\a ifyipBi) of vs. 6, adopted by Teschen- 
 dorf, bracketed by W.-H., is probably a scribal interpolation 
 from Mark. No motive can be assigned for its omission from 
 the western text, and it is not in the least necessary to the context. 
 The women already know that oix ianv SSe; the angels will 
 but speak words of mild rebuke, which this explanatory phrase 
 interrupts. 
 
300 The Resurrection 
 
 It is clear that what we have here is in substance a re- 
 proach to the women, and through them, to all the 
 followers of Jesus. The women, and the disciples, 
 ought to have known, from Jesus' own words, that he 
 would rise, and not be found in the tomb. Why, then, 
 are they looking for him there? Again, then, we see 
 Luke's interest at work shaping his account. The 
 angels do not appear to announce the resurrection; 
 they do not announce it, indeed. The women see for 
 themselves that Jesus is risen; the angels appear to 
 rebuke them for finding it necessary to see for them- 
 selves. That Jesus rose is not the proposition Luke 
 is here defending, not the declaration he summons two 
 angels from heaven to make, with emphasis, to a 
 skeptical world. That message is, or ought to be, self- 
 evident. The angels are the impressive spokesmen 
 of Luke's rebuke to the unfaith of his time. 
 
 The reference to Jesus' prediction of his passion and 
 resurrection is a general statement (w?, not oti), with- 
 out direct reference to specific passages in this gospel. 
 There is, therefore, no point in indicating that neither 
 Luke ix: 22 r nor xviii: 32 f. are spoken in Galilee. 
 Luke's reading of Mark had made him familiar with the 
 fact of such predictions during the Galilean ministry. 
 Mark x: 33 f. is not necessarily spoken beyond the 
 Galilean frontier, though perhaps Luke (xviii: 32 f.) 
 takes it as spoken nearer Jericho. But Mark ix: 30 f. 
 belongs definitely in Galilee, and that is the passage 
 most important for Luke's reference here. His paral- 
 lel, to be sure (ix: 44), is abbreviated, but it contains 
 a closer approximation to the angel's quotation (6 uib? 
 
 1 Luke gives no local setting for this saying, but Mark (viii: 
 31) puts it at Csesarea Philippi. 
 
Outside the City 301 
 
 tou avOpcoxou (/iXXeixapaSfSoaGae ei? xeipxs <£v8pci>xwv=T?>v 
 uibv tou dtvBpwxou Set xapaBoB-rjvat ei? xeipaq avSpwxuv a[i.ap- 
 tuXwv) than either of the other predictions of the pas- 
 sion in Luke's text. But the context in Luke ix : 44 f . is 
 enlarged over its source Mark ix: 30 f., and this enlarge- 
 ment makes it seem still more probable that a con- 
 nection exists between xxiv: 7 and ix: 44. Mark has, 
 "The Son of Man is delivered into hands of men, and 
 they shall kill him, and having been killed, after three 
 days he shall rise. And they were ignorant as to the 
 utterance (ifaviSouv th prjtwc), and were afraid to inter- 
 rogate him." Luke has, "Put ye (u(j.ei<; emphatic) 
 into your ears these words, for the Son of Man is going 
 to be delivered into hands of men. And they were 
 ignorant as to this utterance, and it was hidden from 
 them, that they should not perceive it, and they were 
 afraid to ask him about this utterance." In the 
 abbreviation of the prediction (for which no reason is 
 apparent) Luke has made the disciples' ignorance of its 
 meaning incredible, and he well explains that the mean- 
 ing was (supernaturally) hidden from them. But 
 Jesus' insistence that the word should be firmly stored 
 in the memory, along with the statement that none the 
 less the disciples failed to grasp its significance, makes 
 us suspect that we are to meet touto -rb pYJ[i.a again, 
 in the later narrative. It is the angels who call our 
 attention to it, with their reproachful ytvujcOYjTe. Does 
 any scoffer, then, say that the disciples might easily 
 fancy or believe Jesus risen because he had declared 
 that he would rise, expectancy, credulity, imagination 
 working the miracle? Luke's answer is ready. Jesus 
 had so prophesied, indeed, but the disciples had en- 
 tirely failed to grasp the meaning of his words, words 
 
302 The Resurrection 
 
 plain enough, to be sure, but their understandings were 
 holden. They had forgotten his words so far that they 
 went to seek him in his grave after the time when, in 
 fulfilment of his words, he had risen. His words were 
 recalled and understood only when repeated by rebuk- 
 ing angels at the empty tomb. 
 
 This is the first appearance of one of Luke's main 
 motifs, the difficulty with which Jesus' followers were 
 persuaded that he had risen. Any later inquirer 
 who finds the resurrection hard to believe may comfort 
 himself by the reflection that it was no less hard for the 
 apostles themselves, and the evidence that was suffi- 
 cient to convince them may convince him too. This 
 motif comes out much more strongly in what follows. 
 "They remembered his words, and returning [from the 
 tomb], 1 announced all these things to the Eleven and 
 to all the others." Note how the women's terrified 
 flight in Mark is replaced by the colourless fiicoarpltyarat 
 — not there lies Luke's interest. Then follow the 
 women's names, given by Mark at the beginning of the 
 scene, an arrangement followed by Matthew. Into 
 the detailed discussion as to the discrepant number 
 and names of the women we need not enter. Mary 
 Magdalene and "Mary of James" are repeated from 
 Mark (xvi: i) by both Matthew ( xxvii: 56, xxviii: 1) 
 and Luke (xxiv: 10). But Mark's Salome is not re- 
 peated by either, and the mention of Johanna is 
 peculiar to Luke (xxiv: 10, viii: 3). Verse 10 is ex- 
 ceedingly awkward and its text is not quite certain; 
 a relative (ai) before IXeyov is imperatively needed to 
 make a readable sentence, but this, though adopted 
 
 1 Omitted by the western text. 
 
Outside the City 303 
 
 by the Textus Receptus, seems not to have adequate 
 MS. authority. 1 
 
 The important point is that Luke distinctly presents 
 as the original witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus 
 a larger company than the two or three women, and 
 the Eleven, known to Matthew and Mark. The 
 women are defined (xxiii: 55) as "the women which 
 had come with him out of Galilee," a palpable refer- 
 ence to viii: 2 f., where are mentioned Mary Mag- 
 dalene, Joanna, Susanna, "and many others." So 
 here (xxiv: 10) are cited Mary Magdalene, Joanna, 
 Mary of James, "and the other women with them"; 
 a numerous company is intended. 
 
 But the group that receives the women's witness is 
 also a larger one than the Eleven cited by the other 
 synoptists. "They told all these things to the Eleven 
 and to all the rest. " Later (xxiv : 13) two of ' ' the rest, " 
 not of the Eleven, start for Emmaus. Returning with 
 the news of their vision of the Master, they "found the 
 Eleven gathered together, and them that were with 
 them" and to this larger group the Master presently 
 appeared, thus vouchsafing to the two from Emmaus 
 a second appearance within a few hours (xxiv: 33 fL). 
 That this enlargement of the circle of primitive wit- 
 nesses has pragmatic value for the author, that it re- 
 flects an interest which he strongly feels, is obvious. 
 These things were not done in a corner, he will say; 
 the original witnesses were many, the original skeptics, 
 
 1 Wellhausen, ad loc, rejects the whole verse as interpolated. 
 B. Weiss, Die Vier Evangelien, etc., 2d ed., 1905, p. 447, puts a 
 full stop after aiSrais, and begins the next verse: "And they 
 said these things unto the apostles, and these words appeared unto 
 them," etc. 
 
304 The Resurrection 
 
 whom only reiterated evidence finally convinced, were 
 a numerous company, not limited to the personal dis- 
 ciples, whom affection or enthusiasm might delude. 
 
 Against the possibility of such delusion vs. 1 1 testi- 
 fies. "And these utterances appeared before them 
 as raving (^Yjpo? is more than 'nonsense'; it is the 
 senseless utterance of one in delirium, one who knows 
 not what he says; Latin texts have delira, delira- 
 mentum), and they gave the women no credence" 
 (■^xfjTouv ocikatq). Here the motif of the disciples' 
 skepticism comes to extreme expression. A numer- 
 ous company of women assure them of a personal 
 experience, of what they have seen and heard, and 
 the reply is "Raving." This motive will concern us 
 soon again. 
 
 Verse 12 is an interpolation, as the MS. evidence 
 shows. 1 It is not in harmony with the immediately 
 preceding judgment of the disciples, and interrupts 
 the connection between vss. 11 and 13; Suo llj aikuv 
 needs an antecedent verse in which the group of men 
 is mentioned. Nor does the content of vs. 12 agree 
 with vs. 24 with its plural dtx?)X6dcv Ttve?; this verse 
 would be differently worded by Luke had he already 
 written vs. 12. Verse 24 forms the suggestion for 
 John xx : 3- 10, which passage, in turn, caused a scribe 
 to insert xxiv: 12 in his text of Luke. It may properly 
 
 1 Cf. the note in W.-H., Notes on Select Readings, Tischendorf 
 ad loc, and the commentaries. The verse is rejected by B. Weiss, 
 Holtzmann, and Wellhausen, ad loc. ; Schmiedel, col. 4041 ; Arnold 
 Meyer, p. 39; Lake, p. 95 (doubtfully); Korff, p. 22; Voigt, p. 66, 
 and many others. It is ardently defended by Merx, part ii., 
 second half, pp. 520-523, 533; also by Brandt, pp. 342 f., and 
 Keim, pp. 554 f. (Eng. tr., pp. 305 f.). 
 
Outside the City 305 
 
 be objected that vs. 24 demands a prior notice of such 
 a visit to the tomb; yet vs. 12 is very ill adapted to 
 serve as such antecedent, and the Emmaus incident 
 is so distinctly a separate element in the Lucan sum- 
 mary of traditions here that we cannot hope to fit it 
 smoothly into the rest of the narrative. If vs. 24 de- 
 mands an antecedent, how much more does vs. 34 ! 
 
 The Emmaus episode is the most perplexing and ob- 
 scure of all the incidents of the resurrection narrative. 
 An episode to which there is not the faintest allusion 
 elsewhere in the New Testament, it is recounted with 
 a literary grace and charm which appeal to every 
 reader. We can but agree with Brandt that here we 
 see "the genius of Luke in his best hours." 1 The in- 
 cident is clearly of the very greatest importance for 
 the evangelist ; it occupies one half of his entire resur- 
 rection-narrative, and is recounted at far greater 
 length than any other incident of the period, with far 
 greater minuteness and emphasis of detail. The two 
 men whose experience is here related must, then, have 
 a peculiar significance for Luke's interest. 
 
 They are not, however, men we have met before, 
 or shall meet again. Only one is named; of their per- 
 sonalities or their histories, either prior to this incident 
 or subsequently, we learn nothing. Despite the fact 
 that the fullest revelation of the risen One is theirs, 
 that to them alone, save to Peter, is granted a double 
 "appearance, " they have no place in the book of Acts 
 among the witnesses of the resurrection. Clearly 
 they are of significance, not in their specific persons, 
 but as representatives. They are the representative 
 
 1 Brandt, p. 365. Cf. Pfleiderer, p. 468; Arnold Meyer, pp. 36 
 f.; J. Weiss, in Sckriften des N. T., vol. i., pp. 482 f. 
 
306 The Resurrection 
 
 members of the larger circle referred to in vss. 9 and 33. 
 Luke is saying that not only the eleven apostles who 
 had been Jesus' close companions, but less intimately 
 related men as well, had been convinced of the resur- 
 rection, not easily, but absolutely. 
 
 Not here for the first time does this larger company 
 appear in Luke's pages; it was already present in 
 Galilee. To it belong the mysterious Seventy (x:i), 
 who appear and disappear so abruptly, whose number 
 is the number of the nations, who are not called "apos- 
 tles, " and yet are "sent out" precisely as the Twelve 
 are, with the same commission, and perform the same 
 work (x: 17). Such a larger group, indeed, "compan- 
 ied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in 
 and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of 
 John," says Peter in Acts i: 21. The "us" of this 
 utterance means primarily the Eleven; the company 
 present, about a hundred and twenty "brothers," 
 two of whom are named, Joseph Justus and Matthias 
 (vss. 15 and 23), belongs to the larger group. These 
 men, too, are qualified to become "witnesses with us 
 of his resurrection," and any one of the number, as the 
 lot might fall, might be "numbered with the eleven 
 apostles" (vss. 22 and 26). They must, therefore, 
 have seen the risen Master, must have heard his teach- 
 ings, companying with the Eleven "unto the day that 
 he was received up from us" (vs. 22). Verse 13 would 
 seem to indicate that Luke does not conceive them as 
 gathered with the eleven (vs. 6) at the final ascension, 
 and the occasion "when he was received up from us" 
 (vs. 22) refers, like the close parallel in vss. 1 f., to the 
 first ascension, where the larger group was present 
 (Luke xxiv: 33, 50 f.). The parallel to Acts i: 6-9 in 
 
Outside the City 307 
 
 Mat. xxviii: 16 ff. has also only the Eleven present. 1 
 But this larger company of disciples is present on the 
 third day when the Lord is taken up, and on the day of 
 Pentecost its members share in the outpouring of the 
 Spirit and its manifestations (ii: 1-4). 2 
 
 Here we have one of Luke's prime apologetic mo- 
 tives, the presentation as the original group of wit- 
 nesses to the faith, the nucleus of the Christian church, 
 of not merely "the Twelve Apostles," whose tradi- 
 tional standing he would indeed do nothing to de- 
 preciate, but of a considerably larger group of men and 
 women, who can give authority and stability to the 
 nascent movement. The Twelve Luke reveres as 
 highly as does any evangelist, but he is sadly conscious 
 that of any activity on the part of most of these men he 
 and the church of his time are totally ignorant. How 
 gladly would he have written "The Acts of the Twelve 
 Apostles"; what he does write is "The Acts of the 
 Apostles Peter and Paul." There is the chronicling 
 of the death of James Zebedasi (xii : 2) ; there is entirely 
 contentless mention ("and John") of John's name 
 eight times; but aside from these two brothers and 
 Peter, "the Twelve" do not appear in the pages of 
 Luke's history. 3 Instead, the great apostle whose 
 exploits form the bulk of the book's material is Paul ; 
 with him are associated Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy, 
 Aquila, and Priscilla, and a goodly number more, all 
 flying back and forth, up and down the Mediterranean 
 world, busily weaving at the growing fabric of the 
 Christian church. And just there lies the explanation 
 
 1 Cf. infra, p. 362. * Cf. Brandt, p. 377- 
 
 3 After the list of names in i: 13. Of course such a general 
 reference as vi : 2 is not excluded. 
 
308 The Resurrection 
 
 of Luke's limitation. These are the men who actually- 
 had made the church which Luke knew; these are 
 "the foundation of the apostles and prophets" upon 
 which the holy temple has risen. 1 Where are Andrew 
 and Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, and 
 James of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas of 
 James? Luke does not know, precisely as you and I do 
 not know. They did not make the church, at least, 
 the church of which Luke was a member, which has 
 persisted to our time. 2 Luke, precisely like ourselves 
 to-day, looks up at "the Twelve" as an august fixed, 
 but unknown, quantity; he cites their names with ven- 
 eration, but they are not, save Peter and the sons of 
 Zebedee, personalities to him. The church in which he 
 and the excellent Theophilus have their religious home 
 is a structure reared in the extra-Palestinian world by 
 other hands than theirs. 
 
 We have here, in short, Luke's fundamental thesis, 
 a thesis which the history of the church and its actual 
 status in his time forced upon him, that the Christian 
 gospel, coming into the world, uses Palestine and Juda- 
 ism only as a point of departure, as a vantage-point 
 from which to "get a good start" for its triumphal 
 course in the world. Messiah is born as a Jew, he 
 gives his teachings to Jews, he collects Jewish disciples, 
 to be sure, but this connection is only temporary, the 
 securing of a foothold in the world. The gospel meets 
 no real response in Judaism, it makes no conquest there. 
 "He came unto his own, and his own received him 
 
 'The contrast of Eph. ii: 20 with I. Cor, iii: 10 f. at once 
 dates both Acts and Ephesians. 
 
 ' We must, indeed, not forget Matthew's great service in col- 
 lecting the X67«» toO Iijcrou. 
 
Outside the City 309 
 
 not." The sons of the kingdom had the good news 
 offered them, but they rejected it; then, clean from 
 their blood, it turned to the outer world. Luke, 
 through the mouth of Paul and Barnabas, speaks out 
 boldly and declares to the Jewish race, '"It was neces- 
 sary that the word of Godjshould first be spoken to you. 
 Seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves un- 
 worthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 
 For so hath the Lord commanded us, I have set thee 
 for a- light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for 
 salvation unto the uttermost part of the earth. . . . 
 Be it known therefore unto you, that this salvation of 
 God is sent unto the Gentiles : they will also hear.' . . . 
 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and 
 glorified the word of God, and as many as were or- 
 dained to eternal life believed. And the word of 
 the Lord was spread abroad." (Acts xiii: 46-48, 
 xxviii: 28). 
 
 That may not be a literally correct report of the 
 words of Paul and Barnabas; it is an absolutely correct 
 report of the course of the gospel in the first half -cen- 
 tury of its life. This is easily the most striking fact 
 in the whole history of Christianity, quite as much so 
 for us as for Luke. That the Messiah should come, 
 the fulfilment of an age-long hope of Israel that was 
 absolutely national in its origin and significance, that 
 he should be born a Jew, live a Jew, and die a Jew, 
 never leave Palestine or attempt to transcend its 
 horizons, should preach to Jews, and leave his work in 
 the hands of a group of Jewish disciples, and yet within 
 half a century his movement should be a world-religion, 
 uprooted from Palestine, divorced from all connection 
 with Judaism, and that the transfer should have been 
 
310 The Resurrection 
 
 made by Jews, — this is one of the supreme marvels 
 of history. Only familiarity prevents our perpetual 
 wonder. Luke devoutly, inevitably, sees in it the 
 divine ordering, the Lord's doing, marvellous in our 
 eyes, and who shall fail to agree? This great fact 
 absolutely dominates Luke's consciousness, and all his 
 thought of the gospel and its career in the world. It 
 shapes his whole presentation, from the stories of 
 Jesus' angel-heralded birth 1 to the triumphant point 
 where, Paul having been carried to the world's capital 
 as a result of the Jews' vain spite, the gospel, in his 
 person, definitely and forever turns from them to the 
 nations of the world. That is the grand climax of the 
 marvellous process Luke writes to describe; there 
 sounds most clearly the note to which the whole work 
 has been attuned. 2 
 
 But all Luke's prior narrative has been dominated 
 and shaped by the same thought, and not least the 
 account of the resurrection and the experiences con- 
 sequent upon it. The connection must be established 
 between those primitive experiences in which the 
 church was born and the line of development which led 
 to the church Luke knows. The experiences of the 
 Eleven, especially of the Ten (without Peter), 3 even- 
 
 1 Cf., e.g., the Nunc Dimittis, ii: 29-32: "Mine eyes saw thy 
 Salvation which thou didst prepare before the face of all the 
 peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and a glory of thy 
 people Israel. " 
 
 2 Thus are answered all questions as to the "abrupt ending" of 
 Acts. 
 
 3 Of course Peter also was most influential in the forming of the 
 Palestinian church, but Luke counts him on the other side. It 
 is only because he opens the way to the Gentile mission that Peter 
 figures in Acts at all. As important only for the Jewish church, 
 
Outside the City 311 
 
 tuated in the building of the Jewish-Christian church 
 of Palestine, which is fading from Luke's horizon. Its 
 path of development has ended in a cul de sac, so far 
 as his vision reaches. It did its work and had its day, 
 which Luke is not concerned to depreciate, but for the 
 apprehension of the great Church, it has ceased to 
 be. 
 
 There must be a true apostolic succession from the 
 risen Master to Luke's church. There must be an- 
 other company of witnesses, whose authority and 
 connection with the events must be as unquestioned 
 as those of the Twelve. Hence the Seventy, num- 
 bered as the nations of the world, who are sent by the 
 Master "before his face into every city and place whither 
 he himself was going to come." Hence "all the rest" 
 who, with the Eleven, hear the women's report of the 
 empty tomb (vs. 9) and that of the disciples from Em- 
 maus (vs. 33) , who share in the visit from the Master 
 himself, hear his instructions, receive his parting bless- 
 ing, behold his ascension, receive the outpouring of 
 his spirit, become his witnesses and the builders of his 
 church. They too must see Jesus risen and have 
 special instruction from his lips, and this they do in 
 the persons of Cleopas and his companion. 
 
 These men receive what is perhaps the first appear- 
 ance; at least it precedes that to the Eleven: its only 
 competitor for the first place is the appearance to 
 Peter, too firmly fixed in the tradition as the first to 
 be placed definitely later. Luke, indeed, has no con- 
 
 he would have failed like Andrew, or at most had the place of 
 James or John. Acts has no real "characters" except those 
 significant for the Gentile mission. Cf. Stephen, or Philip! 
 
312 The Resurrection 
 
 cern to subordinate Peter, since for him Peter belongs 
 not with his ten colleagues to the Jewish group which 
 came to naught, but to the group of apostles who built 
 the world-church. Peter shares with Paul the honour 
 of having transplanted the young gospel into the new 
 soil; indeed, he takes the initiative in the process (Acts 
 x). Luke never forgets the amazing fact that the 
 severance of Christianity from Judaism was accom- 
 plished by men who were Jews, and Barnabas and his 
 colleagues from Cyprus and Cyrene are at the work be- 
 fore they summon Paul (Acts xi: 19-26). But Luke 
 knows that, none the less, it was not the appearance 
 to Peter which had prime significance for the great 
 church; it was the appearance to Paul, of which he 
 cannot make enough, relating it with great elaboration 
 and emphasis of detail three times over (chs. ix, xxii, 
 xxvi) . Peter's vision of the sheet (x : 1 — xi : 1 7) , related 
 twice in extreme detail, is really more significant in 
 Luke's story and for his purposes than Peter's vision 
 of Jesus risen, on which he bestows two words (Luke 
 xxiv:34). 
 
 In the literal sense, of course, Luke's presentation 
 does not correctly represent the facts; in the large sense 
 it perfectly represents the fact. It was not the experi- 
 ences and activities of the Ten that shaped the church 
 of the century's end ; it was the experiences and activi- 
 ties of Paul and Barnabas and Timothy and Silas, of 
 Apollos, Aquila and Priscilla and their like. Luke's 
 construction is precisely upheld here by the witness 
 of Paul. The Christian proclamation, as handed 
 down by the earliest disciples to Paul, was: "he ap- 
 peared to Cephas, then to the Twelve." But that 
 was not all the story. "Then he appeared to above 
 
Outside the City 313 
 
 five hundred brethren at once, then to James, then to 
 all the apostles, last of all to me. " Paul gives the his- 
 toric fact of experiences which connected a large num- 
 ber of brethren and apostles with the resurrection and 
 the inception of the church. Luke gives a construc- 
 tion of this fact in a narrative whose details are shaped 
 by apologetic and legendary considerations, but which 
 sets forth the same truth. The five hundred brethren 
 did not merely see the Master and go their way, any 
 more than did all the apostles, or Paul himself. They 
 became, of course, a strong element in the growing life 
 of the Christian movement. Luke, then, though he 
 may know nothing of the experience of the five hund- 
 red, has good support for his hundred and twenty 
 brethren and the "others" whom he pictures company- 
 ing with the Eleven. 
 
 We have made an extended excursus into Luke's 
 purposes in order that we might understand the story 
 of the Emmaus disciples. In their persons the 
 larger group of Jesus' followers receives the appearance 
 of the Master, and is given instruction from his lips. 
 Living connection of this larger fellowship with the 
 living Head is established, not mediated through the 
 Twelve. Earlier in time than the appearance to the 
 Eleven, that to these men is more kindly and more inti- 
 mate, though in both the Master's teaching is in sub- 
 stance the same. The story as it stands is Luke's 
 creation; he has no written source for it, and no oral 
 tradition of its details. The traditions and conceptions 
 of his environment furnish the suggestions for his 
 narrative, which he constructs in order to present in 
 complete and intelligible fashion an important truth of 
 the church's life. 
 
314 The Resurrection 
 
 "And behold two of them" 1 — the antecedent of 
 theaikuvis found in the subject of tqxijtouv in vs. ii; 
 it is correlative with the gcutwv of that verse — "on 
 that very day" — for this appearance must be early, 
 and on the significant third day — "were going to a 
 village distant sixty stadia from Jerusalem, whose name 
 was Emmaus. " The identification of this village has 
 furnished an insoluble problem for all exegetes from 
 Eusebius down. The question is unimportant; since 
 the incident is not historic, there is no decisive reason 
 why the village should be. If an actually existent 
 village of the name is meant, el Kubeibeh, about 
 sixty-three stadia, or seven miles, west-northwest 
 of Jerusalem, seems to be the most likely of proposed 
 sites. 2 
 
 "And they were conversing with one another con- 
 cerning all these happenings. And it came to pass, 
 as they conversed and discussed, Jesus himself, ap- 
 proaching, was going along with them. And their eyes 
 were held not to recognise him." Here we have that 
 other apologetic motive of Luke, the lack of belief at 
 the first sight of Jesus. It must be emphasised, yet it 
 must be explained, and the explanation here is pre- 
 
 1 So the Seventy, a part of this same circle, go out by twos 
 (x: I)- 
 
 2 SoPlummer.adfoc; Baedeker's Palastina und Syrien, 3d. ed., 
 1891, p. 18; H. Zschokke: Das N. T. Emmaus, 1865. Most others 
 prefer Kuloniyeh, about thirty-five stadia, or four miles, from the 
 city. SoKeim, p. 555 (Eng.tr., p. 306); C. E. Caspari: Chronologi- 
 cal and Geog. Introd.to the Life of Christ, Eng. tr., 1876, p. 242; 
 Arnold Meyer, p. 133; Lake, pp. 99 f. Cf. Merx, ad he. Voigt, 
 pp. 75, 1 13, thinks Emmaus is no town, but the ancient "Fountain 
 of the Sun," En-Shemesh (Josh, xv.7, xviii: 17), where he places 
 an inn. 
 
Outside the City 315 
 
 cisely what it is, for example, in ix: 45 ; the divine ac- 
 tion prevents their perception. 
 
 "And he said to them, What are these words which 
 you exchange with one another in walking? And they 
 came to a halt, with gloomy faces. 1 And one of them, 
 by name Cleopas, 2 said unto him, Art thou the only 
 one sojourning in Jerusalem and not acquainted with 
 what has taken place in it in these days? And he 
 said to them, What? And they said to him, The 
 things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who became a 
 prophet powerful in work and word in the sight of 
 God and all the people; how our chief priests and rulers 
 delivered him up to the condemnation of death, and 
 crucified him. " This is one of the numerous passages 
 in which Luke declares directly that it was the Jews 
 who had really murdered Jesus. The necessities of 
 controversy have led him to make this point too promi- 
 nent, and to view Pilate in too friendly a light, but the 
 essential fact remains. The whole narrative of the 
 trial and passion Luke has rewritten from this point 
 of view, 3 but Mark makes the fact equally plain. 
 
 1 For the variant readings xal iare <Ticv8pmr6i, and simply 
 aKvOptmbi, cf. Teschendorf, and against the i<TT&87)<rav reading, 
 especially Fr. Field: Notes on the Translation of the N. T., 
 1899, p. 81, and Merx, ad loc. The Syriac (both Sinaitic and 
 Curetonian texts) has: "What are these words you speak being 
 sad," both Trepnrarovvres and kaTi.Q-r\<rav being unrepresented. 
 
 3 This is a pure Greek name, the short form of K\e6irarpos, and 
 as such has significance for Luke. It has nothing to do with the 
 Aramaic Clopas of John xix: 25. So Holtzmann and Plummer, 
 against Zahn et al. What Brandt, p. 379, suggests as to the sym- 
 bolic value of this name is nonsense. Less so, Pfleiderer, p. 468. 
 
 3 This is the standing phraseology of Acts, e.g., ii:23,36;iii: I3f., 
 17; iv: 10 f.; v: 30; vii: 51-53. etc - 
 
316 The Resurrection 
 
 " But we were hoping that he was the one who was to 
 ransom Israel. But furthermore, with all this, it is 
 now the third day since these things took place." 1 
 Here the disciples are remembering the predictions of 
 Jesus' resurrection, which they ought logically to 
 quote; the allusion is unintelligible to a stranger with- 
 out explanation. "But also certain women of our 
 number amazed us; having been at dawn to the 
 grave" — we miss an antecedent reference to the 
 burial, nor is it stated whether o.p6ptva£ signifies 
 "to-day at dawn" or "yesterday" — "and not hav- 
 ing found the body, they came saying that also they 
 had seen a vision of angels, who affirmed him to 
 be alive. And some of those with us went off to the 
 tomb and found it to be as the women said, but him 
 they did not see. " Here again we miss the antecedent 
 notice to which this last item refers, and the omission 
 is indeed strange, but not so strange as the failure of 
 any antecedent for the (3<p0T) SE^wvt of vs. 34. It has, 
 indeed, been suggested that vss. 22-24 are an interpola- 
 tion, like vs. 12, on the basis of the Johannine story. 2 
 In truth the axuOpwrcof would be more in point if the 
 complaint ended with vs. 21, and the following rebuke 
 would be more natural. But there is no manuscript 
 authority for omitting the verses, and vs. 22, in par- 
 ticular, has every internal indication of genuineness. 
 Vs. 13 plainly implies that the two men were of the 
 company that heard the women's report. 
 
 "And he said to them, unintelligent and slow in 
 
 1 The construction here is obscure, but the sense is clear. Cf. 
 the commentaries. 
 
 ' Wellhausen, ad Luke xxiv: 34 f. J. Weiss: Schriflen des 
 N. T., vol. i., p. 483, would excise vs. 24. 
 
Outside the City 317 
 
 heart to believe in all that the prophets spoke. Was it 
 not necessary that Messiah suffer these things and 
 enter into his glory?" A defence of the passion lies 
 in these words, but no allusion to the resurrection, save 
 as "enter into his glory" is a general expression for the 
 passage from death into the heavenly life. "And be- 
 ginning from Moses and from all the prophets he 
 interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things 
 concerning himself." Here is the guarantee that the 
 gospel of the founders of the great church is authentic 
 and true to the Scriptures in which it was foretold, de- 
 spite every Jewish-Christian claim to the contrary. 
 Here is a claim kindred to Paul's boast, "I make 
 known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which 
 was preached by me, that it is not after man. For 
 neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, 
 but it came through revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 
 i : 1 1 f .) . So the Emmaus disciples get their gospel and 
 its Scriptural basis directly from the risen Lord himself, 
 and not through any mediation of the Twelve. That 
 claim could have been made, surely was made, by 
 many besides Paul ; by the five hundred brethren, by 
 some part of "all the apostles. " Luke here makes it 
 for all these men in the persons of Cleopas and his 
 companion. 
 
 "And they drew near to the village where they were 
 going, and he made as though to go farther. And 
 they urged him, saying, Stay with us, because it is to- 
 wards evening, and already the day has declined. 1 
 And he entered in to stay with them. " Luke evi- 
 dently thinks of the two men as at home in Emmaus, 
 
 1 There is a possible influence here of the phraseology of Judges 
 six: 8 f. So Brandt, p. 365. 
 
318 The Resurrection 
 
 and of this as their dwelling, though in vs. 30 Jesus acts 
 as the house-master. "And it came to pass, when he 
 had reclined with them, taking the bread, he blessed, 
 and having broken, he was distributing to them. And 
 their eyes were opened and they recognised him; and 
 he vanished from them." Here the supernatural 
 influence by which their eyes had been holden is re- 
 moved, and they know who has been their teacher 
 and illuminator. It is implied that they would have 
 known Jesus had not the spell been laid upon their 
 eyes, that is, that they had had personal acquaintance 
 with him before his death. So definitely in Acts i : 2 1 f . 
 The way in which the spell was loosed is extremely 
 significant. It was the xlaaiq tou apxou which brought 
 recognition. It is not probable that Luke is here re- 
 flecting that these men, though not present at the 
 last supper, had frequently seen Jesus break bread at 
 common meals with his followers (Luke ix: 16). He 
 is intent on saying something less prosaic. Not only 
 had Jesus walked and talked with these two men, and 
 taught them the deeper things concerning himself, he 
 had celebrated with them the Eucharist, the dearest 
 sacrament of the Church. "The breaking of bread" 
 (vs. 35) became practically a technical term for the 
 Lord's Supper, and is so used by Luke again in Acts 
 ii : 42 , as is the phrase xXav (irbv) aprov in ii : 46, xx : 7 and 
 11, 1. Cor. x : 1 6. It is notable that the verb xXaw is not 
 used in the New Testament except in reference to the 
 bread of the Eucharist. 1 The nouns xXdajjia (used only 
 of the fragments remaining after the feeding of the 
 
 1 The language of Mark viii : 6 ff. plainly shows the agape as the 
 model for the story of the feeding of the multitude, and Acts 
 xxvii: 35 consciously reproduces the same eucharistic language. 
 
Outside the City 319 
 
 multitude in the desert) and xXduei; (only in Luke xxiv: 
 35 and Acts ii: 42) have the same limitation of usage 
 as their verb. 
 
 For the Christians of Luke's time, it was precisely 
 in the mystery of the Supper that the believers drew 
 closest to their Master and found his most intimate 
 presence revealed. Then, as at no other time, did 
 they apprehend his very bodily presence. Better than 
 all visions, a privilege which put them on an equality 
 with those who had companied with the Master in the 
 flesh, the Supper was the very opening of their inward 
 eyes, the revealing to their spirits of the object of their 
 adoring love. And this revelation, most intimate, 
 most deep, most tender, Cleopas and the other had 
 experienced. No higher, truer revelation could come 
 to any believer, any apostle, than this. The Master 
 had both taught them of his truth and ministered to 
 them of his sacred presence. So the great builder of 
 the world-church cries "Am I not an apostle? Have 
 I not seen Jesus our Lord? . . . Are they ministers 
 of Christ? ... I more ! . . . I will come to visions 
 and revelations of the Lord." But the humblest 
 member of that church may reply, "The bread which 
 we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? " 
 If to the founders he had appeared in vision, to every 
 believer he was known in the breaking of the bread. 
 The consciousness of the Church that on these two 
 means of revelation of the glorified Master her life was 
 founded and is perpetually renewed and continued, 
 Luke brings to exquisite expression in the story of 
 Emmaus. 
 
 "And they said one to another, Was not our heart 
 heavy as he was talking to us on the road, as he opened 
 
320 The Resurrection 
 
 to us the Scriptures?" The reading heavy is to be 
 preferred here to the usual burning, though xaiojiivi] 
 has the better attestation in the Greek MSS. The 
 Syriac (Sinaitic and Curetonian), supported by the 
 Sahidic and (in substance) by the Armenian, has heavy, 
 the Syriac words for heavy and for burning differing 
 only in the position of a dot. So also the Aramaic "Jipi, 
 yaqir, heavy, differs only slightly from Tp^, yaqid, 
 burning. The confusion, that is, occurred in an Ara- 
 maic or Syriac version, not in the Greek text. Yet 
 the Greek text is not without evidence of it. Codex 
 Bezaehas xexaXu^lvr), coopertum, and old-Latin MSS. 
 have excaecatum, optusum, exterminatum, blinded, 
 dulled, made senseless. The Syriac influence on the 
 Western text offers still an unsettled problem, and the 
 interrelations of readings here are difficult to unravel. ' 
 But the internal evidence is conclusive for some word 
 meaning heavy or dull as the original, probably either 
 ppaSeca or @apeta. The process by which almost all 
 our Greek MSS. came to offer xaio^evY) cannot be 
 traced here; perhaps it cannot be traced at all. But 
 the reference is plainly to vs. 25 and the Master's re- 
 proach "0 senseless and slow of heart to believe" 
 (JJpaSets Tfl xapBt'a tou ittaTsueiv), a reproach which the 
 two men are here simply repeating. " Oh, how stupid 
 we were, not to understand that it was he!" — that is 
 the clear and evident sense. "Our heart burning 
 within us" would indicate some premonition or sug- 
 gestion of the truth, which is quite opposed to the 
 
 1 C/., ad Zee, Teschendorf, W.-H.'s note, Plummer, Wellhausen, 
 and especially Merx. Also Agnes Smith Lewis: Translation of 
 the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, 1896, 
 ad loc. 
 
Outside the City 321 
 
 intent of the context. They heard his words of in- 
 struction as to Messiah and his way of entrance into 
 his glory, they understood his meaning, but not once 
 did it occur to them : this is He. They ask him to re- 
 main with them as an act of hospitality, never dream- 
 ing they are entertaining Messiah unawares. He is 
 not in any degree known to them until "the breaking 
 of the bread." "Their eyes were holden that they 
 should not know him" over the entire period covered 
 by verses 15 to 31, until "their eyes were opened." 
 How natural their self-reproachful repetition of the 
 Master's rebuke. Luke elsewhere has the phraseology : 
 the heart made heavy, dull. Cf. xxi: 34, ^xote ^apt]- 
 Owaiv at xapotac ujxwv. 
 
 Here is, in short, another statement of that slowness 
 to believe in the resurrection and Messianic exaltation 
 of Jesus, which is one of Luke's strongest apologetic 
 motives. There was some strange stupor over the 
 disciples' senses, as there had been at the great crises 
 of the Transfiguration and the agony in the garden 
 (ix: 32, xxii: 45 f.), when they were weighed down with 
 sleep. * And this torpor of their understandings had 
 not been mere stupidity on their part; it had been a 
 supernatural influence, a part of the divine plan for 
 assuring to the world beyond all shadow of doubt that 
 Jesus had been "declared to be the Son of God with 
 power, by the resurrection of the dead. " So in ix : 45, 
 the plain declaration of Messiah's passion "was con- 
 cealed from them, that they should not perceive it, " 
 so their eyes are holden and their hearts are slow, so 
 
 1 These two scenes have further parallelism for Luke, e.g., the 
 prayer of Jesus, ix: 28, xxii: 41. 
 31 
 
322 The Resurrection 
 
 the resurrection message is to them but the senseless 
 raving of half -mad women. 
 
 Especially important for Luke, and for all other 
 early Christian apologists, was the explanation of the 
 fact that, with the Old Testament and all its rich 
 Messianic prophecy before them, Jesus' earlier fol- 
 lowers had not seen in him the fulfilment of the pro- 
 mise. How clear it was to the apologists, e. g., to 
 Matthew, that even the most trivial details of Jesus' 
 experience fitted perfectly the prophetic picture ! This 
 generation of Christians was no longer conscious that 
 it was only after he had been "declared to be the Son 
 of God with power, by the resurrection of the dead," 
 that the process of adjustment between his career and 
 the Scriptures began. Not that any coincidence be- 
 tween the prophecies and what he did suggested his 
 Messiahship, but his Messiahship once established on 
 other grounds, the prophecies, of course, must conform. 
 It was the Resurrection which opened to them the 
 Scriptures, and beginning from Moses and all the pro- 
 phets interpreted the things concerning him, their Lord 
 and Christ. Of this fact no one of the evangelists was 
 fully conscious, yet it shines through their narratives 
 at more than one point. For example, in Mark ix: 9, 
 after the chosen three disciples have beheld Jesus 
 transfigured in celestial glory, with Moses and Elijah, 
 the Master charges them "that they should tell no man 
 what things they had seen, save when the Son of Man 
 should have risen from the dead." We may be sure 
 that this injunction was obeyed. Very significantly 
 the parallel in Luke (ix: 32) represents the disciples as 
 "weighed down with sleep" at this great moment; so 
 is explained their lack of entire comprehension. In 
 
Outside the City 323 
 
 many passages the same motive comes to expression. 
 John xx : 9 has it in clear wording, "As yet they knew 
 not the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. " 
 In xx : 20-23 ( = Luke xxiv: 41-49) they come to 
 know it. 
 
 "And arising 1 that very hour they returned to 
 Jerusalem" — apparently they had intended to remain 
 in Emmaus, that is, they were not members of the 
 group fixed in Jerusalem (vs. 49, Acts i: 4) — "and 
 found assembled the Eleven and those with them" — 
 note the constant presence of the larger group to re- 
 ceive this third witness to the resurrection — "saying, 
 Truly [ovtcix;, really] the Master arose and appeared 
 to Simon." The abrupt and unrelated insertion of 
 this latter clause into the context forms a point of diffi- 
 culty both for the text and the narrative. Codex 
 Bezae here offers one of its unique readings, having 
 Xlyovte? instead of Xlyovxa?, thus making the two 
 Emmaus disciples instead of the Jerusalem group an- 
 nounce the Master's rising and appearance to Simon. 2 
 This would seem to imply that Simon was the name of 
 the disciple who accompanied Cleopas. No other 
 MS. has this reading, but the Syriac (Sinaitic and Cure- 
 tonian) is not decisive as to the case of the participle, 
 and the same is true of some of the old-Latin MSS. 
 More striking, however, is the fact that Origen seven 
 different times gives the names of the two Emmaus 
 disciples as Simon and Cleopas. Simon is always 
 named first, and the names are brought in quite natur- 
 
 1 The Western insertion Xviroti/xtvoi, Iristes, contristati, after 
 ivcuTTdmes has all the context against it. 
 
 ' Loisy ii., pp. 766 f. and Wellhausen, Ev. Lucae, p. 140, favor 
 the reading of D. 
 
324 The Resurrection 
 
 ally, as if they were the well-known and commonly- 
 used designations, concerning which there was no 
 question. And twice Origen seems to indicate that 
 both names stood in the gospel account which he read. 
 So Iv tu x,axos Aouxav Be siayyeXfa) (Contra Celsum ii: 
 62) and YlypotxTat 8s Iv toi x.arra Aouxav (Contra Celsum 
 ii: 68). * Origen must have read a Greek text that 
 indicated Simon as the disciple unnamed in our text. 
 Whether his text authority was simply that of Xsyovts? 
 instead of XlyovTaq we cannot certainly tell. He does 
 not indicate what Simon he has in mind, though it is 
 most probable that it is Simon Peter. 2 If so, he must 
 have found his authority in the w<p8Y) 2£[xuvt of vs. 34, 
 the only occurrence of the name in this context. Un- 
 
 1 For all the references and complete discussion cf. Alfred Resch: 
 Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu Lukas {Texte u. Vnters., vol. x. 
 Part 2), 1895, pp. 770-782, and Agrapha (T. u. V., vol. v., part 
 4), 1889, pp. 423 f. Cf. also M. E. Bengel: Gnomon N. T., 3d. 
 ed., 1855, p. 297, note 1 (ad Luke xxiv: 18). 
 
 1 Arnold Meyer, p. 135, identifying the names Cleopas and 
 Clopas, suggests that Origen means Simon (Simeon) son of Clopas 
 who later became "bishop" of Jerusalem, as recounted by Hege- 
 sippus in Euseb., Ch. Hist., iii., 32 : 6, iv., 22 : 4. On him cf. Zahn: 
 Forschungen, part vi., pp. 235-243. For other suggestions (Na- 
 thanael, Luke) cf. the same work, pp. 350 f. Zahn (p. 352) is for 
 Simon of Jerusalem, with A. Meyer. Arthur Carr, in Expositor, 
 6th Series, vol. ix. (Feb., 1904), pp. 121 ff., argues for Luke. H. 
 Zimmermann, St. K., vol. lxxiv. (1901), p. 444, note 2, suggests 
 James; Volkmar, pp. 623 f., thinks Paul is intended. Volter, in 
 Prot. Monatshefte, vol. xv. (191 1), Heft 2, pp. 61-65, argues that 
 historically Simon Peter and Clopas saw Jesus as they sat at 
 supper at Emmaus in Galilee; Luke deliberately removed the 
 scene to Judea, erased Peter 's name, and changed Clopas to the 
 Greek form Cleopas. A. B. Grosart, in Expositor, series 4, vol. 
 iv., p. 109, asks if Cleopas's companion might possibly be his 
 wife. 
 
Outside the City 325 
 
 less quoting, Origen would naturally have used the 
 name Peter. 1 No other church father betrays a 
 knowledge of this tradition, but Codex S (No. 354 
 in the Vatican Library, written in 949) has as a 
 marginal note on Luke xxiv: 18, frn 6 \isza tou 
 KXeuici xopeu^evo? 2E(mov fy ou% 6 Ylhpoq dXX' 6 
 gtepoq. This is perhaps due to a knowledge of 
 Origen. 2 In any case, the agreement of Origen 
 with the peculiar reading of Codex D in this one 
 point and nowhere else would form a puzzle, as Zahn 
 urges, and Origen is so familiar with other texts and 
 MSS. that his acceptance of the peculiar reading would 
 be hard to explain. Probably some extra-canonical 
 tradition, perhaps due originally to an ambiguous 
 Syriac rendering, gave rise both to the Bezan read- 
 ing and to Origen's statements. Certain old-Latin 
 codices give in vs. 13 the names of the two disciples 
 as Cleopas and Ammaus, the latter being evidently 
 a mis-reading of the word Emmaus as the name of 
 a person instead of that of a place. 3 Ambrosius 
 thrice gives the names as Ammaon (once Amaon) 
 and Cleophas. 4 This Ammaon may be derived 
 from the Ammaus of the old- Latin MSS. (so Resch), 
 
 1 As he does, e.g., in Cont. Cels. i. : 62, 63; ii. : 1, 2, 15, 34, 39, 45, 
 64, etc. In ii. : 65 it is Ktj0Ss 6 n^rpos, where he is quoting Paul's 
 list in I. Cor. 15, and explains Paul's name Kij^aj by his own 
 i nfrpos. So in ii. : I Art 21/uora rip KaXoinevov Ilirpov is quoted 
 from Acts x: 5. 
 
 'Zahn, loc. cit., seems to contradict himself, saying on p. 352 
 "unabhangig von Origenes, " with a reference to a note on p. 350 
 which says "wohl aus Origenes." Cf. Cyril of Alexandria's 
 Commentary on Luke, ad loc. 
 
 3 References in Resch, loc. cit., pp. 769 f., Zahn, p. 351. 
 
 * References in Resch, p. 777, Zahn, p. 351. 
 
326 The Resurrection 
 
 or, less probably, corrupted from the Sf(xwv of Origen 
 (so Zahn and Rohrbach). 1 
 
 There does not, then, seem sufficient textual evi- 
 dence for putting the words ovru; rtfipfrq v..t.\. into the 
 mouth of the Two rather than that of the Eleven, or 
 for making Peter one of the Two. Luke's context 
 clearly reckons him to the Eleven, otherwise there 
 were no eleven, but only ten. "The Twelve" might 
 have stood here as a technical designation of the group, 
 irrespective of the presence or absence of every mem- 
 ber, but never "the Eleven." Resch complains that 
 the Greek construction e5pov iq0po(afj(ivou<; tou? evSsxgc 
 xoa tou? auv auTOiq XeyovTa? is " unertraglich hart," and 
 it is indeed awkward. But would uxeuTps^av . . . 
 xal supov . . . Xeyovce? be less so? And can we 
 imagine the two disciples saying, "He appeared to 
 Simon," instead of "He appeared to m"? j As a 
 matter of fact, w<p0T) is not at all the word they would 
 have used, or Luke would have used, to describe the 
 recent intercourse of Jesus with them. He did not 
 "appear," which word has a connotation of sudden- 
 ness and brevity, but came up behind them as they 
 walked, became the companion of their journey, held 
 long discourse with them, went into their house, and 
 joined them in their evening meal. 
 
 No, wip8i] Dt'^wvi is a bit of the primitive tradition of 
 
 1 Zahn, p. 351 (cf. part iv., p. 313); Rohrbach: Schluss, p. 60. 
 Almost as easily could the Si/iww of vs. 34 be corrupted from an 
 original v/uvl 
 
 2 Resch, p. 780, thinks both said Svras 177^017 6 icipios, and 
 then Cleopas, remembering Peter's need and the angel's word 
 ical 7-45 IIA-pip (which, however, Luke expunges!) added xal iKpOri 
 
 XtfJUOVl, 
 
Outside the City 327 
 
 "appearances" of the Master in glory. The abrupt- 
 ness and brevity of its mention here have always been a 
 matter of criticism for the commentators. Though 
 this is the first and most important appearance, it gets 
 but the scantest notice, as a second-hand report, with 
 no word of description, no detail of time or place or 
 circumstance. The explanation is not far to seek. 
 The only appearance to disciples of which tradition 
 has given Luke any description is that to the Eleven. 
 The first intercourse with the risen Master which he 
 describes, the one which he gives at greatest length, 
 with greatest care, with most evidence of personal 
 interest, is that enjoyed by the Emmaus disciples, 
 outside the circle of the Twelve. Yet the tradition 
 gave him the bare fact that the first appearance came 
 to Peter. Peter, too, is one of Luke's heroes; he, as 
 well as Paul and the others, helps to carry the gospel 
 out of Judaism into the world. Luke has no interest 
 whatever in suppressing the appearance to Peter, but 
 he knows nothing to say about it; he can preserve its 
 chronological priority only by having the Eleven an- 
 nounce it to the Two, before the latter make their 
 report. If we ask when, where, under what circum- 
 stances the appearance came to Peter, Luke knows no 
 more than do we. He had to insert the statement at 
 this point, and had absolutely no details; naturally 
 enough the Greek is not entirely smooth. 
 
 It is clearly impossible that Luke is meaning, from 
 vs. 13 on, to describe the appearance to Peter of which 
 a tradition he cannot ignore assures him, and yet al- 
 ludes to Peter's presence only in the Suo of vs. 13 and 
 the plural numbers, Peter's companion being named 
 and alone speaking. Verse 35 also makes absolutely 
 
328 The Resurrection 
 
 clear that the Svtw? ^yepBr) x.t.X. is the glad cry with 
 which the Two are greeted, not an awkward anticipa- 
 tion of the (xutoI sij-qfoiivTO to: ev xfj 6Sw x.t.X. On the 
 contrary assumption, the ociko£ would have no force 
 and ought to be deleted; indeed, the whole context 
 would demand alteration. Natural as it is to suppose 
 that Luke must have related at some length the appear- 
 ance to the pillar-apostle, Simon Peter, he does not do 
 so, and that simply because he cannot. Verse 34 indi- 
 cates not only the measure of his immediate personal 
 concern in Peter and the "outside disciples," respect- 
 ively, but also the measure of his knowledge of the ex- 
 periences which gave them, respectively, their call and 
 consecration to the apostolic ministry. Of Peter he 
 repeats two traditional words; of the others he writes 
 twenty-three verses. 
 
 Finally, there may be brief mention of another solu- 
 tion of the difficulty of vs. 34. Merx argues, on the 
 basis of the Sinaitic Syriac text, that vss. 34 to 36 are 
 interpolated, the original text reading "... found 
 the Eleven gathered together and them that were with 
 them, and he appeared, and they were terrified and af- 
 frighted," etc. This exceedingly awkward and abrupt 
 reading, omitting all report to the Eleven by the Two, 
 is quite impossible as the original. The view was sug- 
 gested by a scribal error by which "and he appeared" 
 is inadvertently inserted between "with them" and 
 "saying" (vs. 33), thus forming a duplicate to the 
 entrance of Jesus in vs. 36. * The Curetonian text 
 is the equivalent of our Greek. 
 
 ' Merx, ad lot. (pp. 520-523, 533-535). On the scribal error cf. 
 F. C. Burkitt: Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, 1904, vol. i., notes ad 
 
Outside the City 329 
 
 So ends the Emmaus episode. It is not a record of 
 historical happenings ; it is Luke's construction. z But 
 what it expresses is historical fact, namely, that others 
 besides the Twelve had visions of the risen Jesus, 
 that the Christian movement which eventuated in the 
 world-church of the second century did not go out 
 altogether, or chiefly, from the twelve disciples. Acts 
 makes that important fact clear; but we commonly do 
 not date sufficiently early the participation of this 
 larger group in the work. We vaguely think of it 
 as beginning with Paul's conversion, some five years 
 after Jesus' death. That is largely due to Luke's own 
 presentation, in the earlier chapters of Acts, for Luke, 
 though he is very certain of the fact, lacks definite 
 data for its demonstration. We must carry back this 
 wider sphere of apostolic activity into the time im- 
 mediately after Jesus' death, as Luke correctly, if 
 vaguely, does. The matter needs more attention than 
 it has had, and would repay careful study. Might we 
 not hope, for example, for some light on the founda- 
 tion of the church at Rome, and some explanation of 
 the fact that this church needs, in the year 59, a de- 
 Luke xxiv: 33 and ix: 12. Lake (pp. 101-103), finding itincredible 
 "that St. Luke, probably the most literary of the evangelists, 
 would have left this disconnected reference to an event which is 
 not described in the gospel," resolves to have the unnecessary 
 " courage of despair, and think that St. Luke himself did not 
 write" the words ko.1 &<j>6t) 21/umi. 
 
 1 On the origin and meaning of the Emmaus story, cf. Brandt, 
 pp. 362-365; Pfleiderer, p. 468; Schmiedel, col. 4075; Arnold 
 Meyer, pp. 131-136; Lake, pp. 218 f. Brandt here shows the 
 worst excesses of the Tubingen method. Arnold Meyer and Lake 
 posit some real experience of disciples near Jerusalem, related 
 later to the Galilean disciples. 
 
330 The Resurrection 
 
 tailed justification of the freedom of Christianity from 
 Judaism? 
 
 At any rate, we are not without more definitely his- 
 torical data than Luke offers. Paul's allusion to 
 "Andronicus and Junias my kinsmen and my fellow- 
 prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also 
 have been in Christ before me" (Rom. xvi: 7), e. g., 
 may give food for thought. Here are two men, dis- 
 tinguished (km<rq[>.oi) among the company of apostles, 
 who are absolutely unknown except for this casual al- 
 lusion, and yet whose Christian life and activity began 
 prior to Paul's. 1 How many other such must there 
 not have been! The list of names in Romans xvi. sug- 
 gests many questions; what, e. g., of those four other 
 kinsmen of Paul, Herodion and Lucius and Jason and 
 Sosipater? One cannot help being reminded at this 
 point of another definite statement of Paul's, "then he 
 appeared to all the apostles." 
 
 Paul cites the appearances to Peter and to the 
 Twelve from the primitive xifauy^a, and then adds 
 appearances to many outside this traditional group, 
 
 1 Riggenbach, p. 9, suggests that these two men may have been 
 among the Five Hundred. So already M. E. Bengel: Gnomon 
 N. T., 3d ed., 1855, p. 662. Origen (Comm. in Rom., book x., 
 21) places them among the Seventy. The latter group included 
 also, says Eusebius {Ch. Hist., i., 12: 1-3), Barnabas, Sosthenes 
 (I. Cor. i: 1), Matthias and Joseph Barsabbas (Acts i: 23), and 
 Thaddeus, whom Mark (iii: 18) places among the Twelve. All 
 these men, save Sosthenes, are ranked in the N. T. as apostles, 
 and therefore as recipients of visions of the risen Master. Nor is 
 there any reason to deny the apostolic name to Sosthenes, though 
 Paul calls him only a "brother"; he is certainly not merely the 
 amanuensis. Cf. Van Manen, art. "Sosthenes" in Encyc. Biblica, 
 vol. iv. 
 
Outside the City 331 
 
 appearances which lie entirely outside the gospel ac- 
 counts, except that of Luke. So to five hundred men 
 at one time, and this very early, succeeding the ap- 
 pearance to the Twelve, and preceding that to James. 
 What must not these five hundred and more men have 
 done for the spread of the new faith! 1 James sees his 
 glorified brother and becomes an apostle, then, in 
 turn, all the apostles are called by the heavenly vision 
 to their work. These do not include "the Twelve" 
 but are a distinct and multifold larger number. The 
 list really begins with James, and ends with Paul him- 
 self, both of whom are apostles, but only as are Junias 
 and Andronicus and all the rest. After Peter and the 
 Twelve and the Five Hundred have seen the Master, 
 in other words, — and that means very shortly after 
 Jesus' death — begins a series of "appearances" to a 
 great number of men, beginning with James, a series 
 that was not entirely complete when Paul was writing. 
 To James, to all the apostles, to me. 
 
 The if&xa^ significantly fails with to!? &%ovz6\qi<; 
 itaatv, and must not be supplied in thought, as is com- 
 monly done. Rather, "as often as a man was called to 
 missionary service, it was done by means of a Christo- 
 phany." 2 Only so could one be an apostle, "numbered 
 with the Eleven apostles" which means to "become 
 a witness with us of the resurrection" (Acts i: 22). 
 The apostolic call is almost synonymous with a seeing 
 of the Master; "Am I not an apostle? Have I not 
 seen Jesus our Lord?" (I. Cor. ix: 1). Each of the 
 
 ■W. Seufert: Vrsprung und Bedeutung des Apostolates, 1887, 
 p. 46, well points out that in Paul's sense, and the real sense, the 
 500 are "apostles." 
 
 ' Von Dobschutz, p. 35. 
 
332 The Resurrection 
 
 long list of apostles must make the same claim. "Then 
 to all the apostles, " says Paul. Luke simply gives us, 
 in the Emmaus story, the beginning and the typical ex- 
 pression of this greater and more prolonged revelation. 
 Origen correctly understands the relation of Luke's 
 presentation to Paul's brief list, when he cites thus the 
 substance of Paul's words: "And subsequently he ap- 
 peared to all the other apostles besides [xapd, "along- 
 side"] the Twelve, perhaps to the Seventy" (Contra 
 Celsum, ii., 65). * 
 
 1 Portions of the discussion of this chapter were published by 
 the present writer in The Biblical World, April, 1910, "The 
 Emmaus Disciples and the Purposes of Luke. " 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THEN TO THE TWELVE 
 
 WE continue Luke's narrative from xxiv: 35. 
 "And they [aikof emphatic] were relating the 
 things on the road and how he was made known to 
 them in the breaking of the bread. And as they were 
 saying these things, he himself stood [eutr) aorist, 
 came and stood, appeared standing] in their midst." 
 This is the "appearance" of Jesus "to the Twelve" 
 promised by the angel (Mk. xvi : 7) , chronicled by Mat- 
 thew (xxviii: 17 ff.), and attested as a fixed part of the 
 Christian preaching by Paul (I. Cor. xv: 5). To be 
 sure, in Luke's account, it comes not to "the Twelve" 
 alone, but to "them that were with them" as well, 
 including Cleopas and his companion. With Peter, 
 the company thus includes three men who have al- 
 ready seen the risen Master, and the entire group al- 
 ready believes in his resurrection. The ovraq ifrlpSi] 6 
 xupioq is the expression of their common conviction. 
 
 All the more astonishing, therefore, is the statement 
 of the following verse, 1 "And being terrified and fright- 
 ened they were thinking to behold a spirit. " xveupa 
 is replaced by y&victa[>.<z in Codex Bezae, thus correctly 
 
 1 Kal X£y« airoU 'Etp^vrj V"" is lacking in the Western text, 
 and is omitted by Teschendorf and B. Weiss (double-bracketed 
 by W.-H.) as an interpolation from John xx: 19. 
 
 333 
 
334 The Resurrection 
 
 rendering Luke's meaning of "ghost." How is it 
 possible that a group of men, all of whom believe Jesus 
 risen, three of whom have seen him within a few hours, 
 can, upon his appearance, be terrified and believe 
 that what they see is but a phantom? That they 
 really did not believe that it was he in person is made 
 perfectly clear by Jesus' words of rebuke and the "still 
 disbelieved" of vs. 41. The situation seems an im- 
 possible one. * It looks as if xxiv : 36 ff . were originally 
 meant to chronicle a first appearance, and ought to 
 follow immediately after vs. 11. This arrangement 
 would precisely parallel that of Matthew, and would 
 relieve all appearance of contradiction. That such 
 was the original arrangement has been well argued by 
 Brandt, and is regarded as probable by many. 2 
 Brandt supposes the narrative to have been originally 
 completed without vss. 13-35, which Luke later in- 
 serted, in his desire to present the appearance to "out- 
 side" disciples. The text would favour this view, and 
 the following degree of truth, at any rate, there is in 
 it. The Emmaus episode is an entirely separate ele- 
 ment, without points of connection with the rest of the 
 account. It comes out whole without disturbing the 
 context; it has a specific point which it makes very 
 clearly, and it is Luke's own construction. Being so 
 separate from the rest, it does indeed not fit smoothly 
 into its place. The older tradition of an appearance 
 to the Twelve as the first (aside from the half-forgotten 
 one to Peter) cannot easily be adjusted to the Em- 
 maus story. There is awkwardness and contradiction. 
 
 1 So, e.g., Beyschlag, p. 440. 
 
 3 Brandt, p. 376. So also B. W. Bacon, Expositor, March, 1909, 
 P- 255- 
 
Then to the Twelve 335 
 
 But Luke's apologetic motive and purpose explain it. 
 The disciples' doubt and slowness to believe are so 
 important to his construction that the adjustment to 
 the preceding is not attempted. 1 
 
 This doubt-motif we must here follow a little far- 
 ther. Its genesis we have already considered, 2 and 
 have observed that it always occurs in conjunction 
 with the "Jerusalem tradition" and the insistence on 
 the physical definition of the resurrection. This con- 
 nection shows it to be a late element in the tradition, 
 as, on other grounds also, it is clearly seen to be. 
 There was no doubt, or failure to believe, on the part of 
 those to whom came the original "appearances" of 
 Jesus. 3 Even in the case of Paul, to whom the ap- 
 pearance came as to an enemy and a stranger, with 
 every prepossession against its validity, conviction was 
 immediate. So it was in the case of all the others; so 
 it was with Peter. The Lord himself appeared; where 
 is there room for doubt, for argument, for laboured 
 proof? The spiritual manifestation comes with 
 heavenly and compelling power to the spirit, and 
 carries immediate and unshakable conviction. Only 
 when it becomes important, even necessary, for the 
 apologetic that the disciples should not at first believe, 
 is violence done to historic and psychological verity, 
 and a strange veil thrown over their understandings. 
 Luke's insight is correct; the thing is unnatural. The 
 truth, however plainly spoken, is supernaturally con- 
 cealed from them, their eyes are holden, their hearts 
 
 1 Mere, loc. tit., pp. 533 f., meets the difficulty by his excision of 
 vss. 34-36. 
 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 280-282. 
 
 * Cf. Arnold Meyer, pp. 206 f. 
 
336 The Resurrection 
 
 made dull. A spiritual vision is in all ages its own at- 
 testation to the spirit to which it comes ; but for the 
 renewal of life and activity in a body once dead and 
 buried there must needs be physical evidence. How 
 strange to Peter and Paul would be the statement 
 (Acts i: 3) that to his apostles Jesus "presented him- 
 self as living after his passion by many sure proofs" 
 (te5c,[jMf]p(ot<;), or the utterance ascribed to Peter him- 
 self (Acts x : 40) that the Master manifested himself, 
 "not to all the people, but unto witnesses selected 
 beforehand by God, namely us, who ate together and 
 drank together with him after he rose from the dead"! 
 That is the kind of evidence that is important for 
 Luke, so important that it is allowed to create in his 
 narrative contradictory situations, which he is power- 
 less to set right. A strong statement demands strong 
 proofs; strong proofs are for the overcoming of strong 
 doubts; strong doubts arise over strong statements; 
 so runs the circle of apology. Very prominent in 
 Luke, in the Fourth Gospel this doubt of the disciples 
 is limited to one typical instance; Thomas doubts for 
 them all (xx: 24-29), the others are glad when they 
 see the Lord. The " holden " eyes of the Emmaus dis- 
 ciples have their analogue in the failure of Mary Mag- 
 dalene to recognise Jesus, supposing him to be the 
 gardener (xx: 14-16), and in the disciples' similar lack 
 of recognition when they see him on the shore of the 
 lake (xxi: 4 ff.). 1 We have already seen how this 
 
 1 Like most apologetic arguments, this consideration raises a 
 difficulty worse than the one it would relieve. If Jesus' friends, 
 who had parted from him on the Friday, found him so changed 
 on the Sunday that they did not recognise him, "how could they 
 know, or how can we know, that the person assumed to be Jesus 
 
Then to the Twelve 337 
 
 motif introduced a disturbing and irrational phrase into 
 Matt, xxviii: 17. 1 More strongly does it exhibit its 
 power in the passage given by the Textus Receptus to 
 complete the mutilated last chapter of Mark (xvi: 
 9-20). 
 
 At this passage we must look somewhat more 
 closely. It is a homily on the disciples' disbelief, pure 
 and simple; that is its text and its one theme. 2 It re- 
 produces elements from the narratives of Luke and 
 John, precisely those elements in precisely those gos- 
 pels which develop the doubt-motive, but it carries 
 this motive to a far greater extreme. The disciples 
 disbelieved the report of Mary Magdalene, they dis- 
 believed the report of the Emmaus disciples (to whom 
 Jesus had appeared "in another form"), and when the 
 Master comes to them "he upbraids them with their 
 unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed 
 not them which had seen him after he was risen." His 
 instructions as to their future apostolic work are in 
 substance only the condemnation of those who fail to 
 believe, the blessing of those who believe. Into the 
 detailed criticism of this extra-canonical fragment we 
 cannot here enter. Manuscript evidence long ago 
 made certain what a mere reading of the passage is 
 enough to demonstrate, that it is no part of the original 
 text of Mark. 3 An Armenian codex written in the 
 
 was actually their risen Lord?" W. R. Greg, The Creed of 
 Christendom, 5th ed., 1877, Introduction, p. xxxii. 
 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 279-282 f. 
 
 ' Cf. Volkmar, p. 639; Latham, pp. 202 f. 
 
 3 All that can be said for its originality may be found in John 
 W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, 1871; George Sal- 
 mon, Introduction to the N. T., 6th ed., 1892, pp. 144-151; J. P. 
 Van Kasteren, in Revue Bibligue Internationale, vol. xi. (1902), 
 
33& The Resurrection 
 
 year 986, discovered by Mr. F. C. Conybeare in 1890, 
 attributes this passage to "Ariston the presbyter," 
 by which name is in all probability meant the Aristion 
 mentioned byPapias (inEusebius' Church History, Hi., 
 39) as one of his sources of information concerning the 
 mission of Jesus. 1 This identification is now com- 
 monly adopted, and nothing can be urged against it. 
 
 Much discussion has been given to Jerome's quota- 
 tion of a passage after vs. 14, which none of our MSS. 
 have hitherto offered. It reads as follows: "Et illi 
 satisfaciebant dicentes: Saeculum istud iniquitatis et 
 incredulitatis sub Satana est, qui non sinit per immun- 
 dos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem. Idcirco 
 iam nunc revela iustitiam tuam. " 2 Jerome seems to 
 
 pp. 240-255. Cf. Zahn, Einleitung, vol. ii., pp. 237 f., and Ge- 
 schichte des Kanons, vol. ii., pp. 910 ff. The latter discussion of 
 Zahn is the completest yet published, and leaves little to be said. 
 Other valuable treatments are found in Tischendorf and W.-H.; 
 in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible, article "Gospel of Mark," 
 by S. D. F. Salmond; in Resch, Paralleltexte, part i., 1893 (T. u. U., 
 vol. x., part i.), pp. 449-456; Schmiedel, cols. 4050 and 4053; 
 Arnold Meyer, pp. 59-64; and the commentaries of Meyer-Weiss, 
 Gould et al. 
 
 1 Conybeare published his discovery in the Expositor, Oct., 1893 
 (4th Series, vol. viii.), pp. 241-254, with a further article in the same 
 journal, Dec, 1895 (5th Series, vol. ii.), pp. 401-421. Cf. Zahn in 
 Theol. Literaturblatt, 1893, No. 51; Harnack, in Theol. Literatur- 
 zeitung, 1893.N0.23; Rohrbach: Schluss, pp. 1-23. Resch, loc.cit., 
 argues for authorship by Ariston of Pella, suggested earlier by 
 Prof. Sanday (Conybeare, 1893, P- 2 43) ; c f- Schmiedel, cols. 4053 f. 
 The date of Aristion 's writing probably falls in the latter part of 
 the first half of the second century. F. H. Chase, The Syriac 
 Element in Codex Bezae, 1893, pp. 150-157, argues for a some- 
 what earlier date. 
 
 2 Jerome, Contra Pelagianos, ii., 15, in Migne, vol. xxiii., cols. 
 55o i. 
 
Then to the Twelve 339 
 
 feel it quite possible that his opponent may question 
 the authority of this citation ("cui si contradicitis") 
 clearly because it belongs to that doubtful last section 
 of Mark. On another occasion he repeats what Euse- 
 bius had written about this section, that it "in raris 
 fertur evangeliis, omnibus Grascias libris pene hoc 
 capitulum in fine non habentibus, praesertim cum di- 
 versa atque contraria Evangelistis caeteris narrare 
 videatur. " z But here he is concerned to make the 
 most of all the evidence he can find to support his con- 
 tention, and therefore describes the passage as being 
 "in quibusdam exemplaribus, et maxime in Grsecis 
 codicibus. " That this statement refers to the whole 
 "false conclusion" (vss. 9-20) of Mark, and not merely 
 to the words which his quotation has in excess of our 
 common text, 2 is clear from the fact that he begins his 
 citation with vs. 14 of our common text. Jerome really 
 knew very few MSS. with the "false conclusion," and 
 certain of these had the text in its longer form. 
 
 Strangely enough, until very recently there has been 
 no other trace of this longer text, but we now have a 
 single Greek manuscript which gives Jerome's reading, 
 a manuscript which conceivably lay before Jerome, 
 though it is more probably later. 3 This is the already 
 famous Freer manuscript, bought by Mr. Charles L. 
 Freer of Detroit from a dealer in Cairo in 1907, and now 
 
 1 Epistola cxx., ad Hedibiam, ch. v. (apud Migne, vol. xxii., col. 
 987), quoted from Eusebius, Quaestiones ad Marinum. Cf. Bur- 
 gon, loo. tit., pp. 42-45, 53; W.-H., Notes, p. 33. 
 
 2 So it is commonly understood; cf. C. R. Gregory, Das Freer 
 Logion, 1908, p. 27. 
 
 3 Grenfell dates it not later than the 5th century, perhaps in 
 the 4th. Sanders and Goodspeed think the 5th or 6th. Gregory, 
 loc. tit., p. 19. 
 
340 The Resurrection 
 
 in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. 1 The 
 MS. contains the four gospels in Greek, and the text of 
 Mark xvi. gives not only vss. 9-20, but between vss. 
 14 and 15 the passage cited by Jerome with its con- 
 tinuation in a reply of Jesus to the disciples' excusing of 
 themselves, in all eighty-eight words. There are errors 
 of orthography in the text and some slight emendations 
 are necessary, but in general the reading is clear and 
 agrees with Jerome's citation. A literal translation is 
 as follows. "And they excused themselves, saying: 
 This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, 
 who does not allow the things that are unclean by the 
 spirits to apprehend the true power of God. There- 
 fore reveal thy righteousness now, they were saying to 
 Messiah. And Messiah said unto them: The limit 
 of the years of the authority of Satan has been fulfilled, 
 but other terrible things draw near. And for them 
 who sinned I was delivered unto death, that they 
 might return to the truth and might no longer sin, 
 that they might inherit the glory of righteousness, 
 spiritual and incorruptible in the heaven. But going 
 into all the world ..." etc. There is perhaps no 
 a priori reason why this passage may not have been 
 written by Aristion ; until we have a critical edition of 
 the entire Freer gospel text we shall not be in a position 
 to judge. But at present it seems wiser, with Gregory, 
 to regard it as a gloss. 2 There would seem to be no 
 
 1 Of the large and growing literature on this MS. the completest 
 treatment is C. R. Gregory, Das Freer Logion, Leipzig, 1908. 
 
 ' Cf. H. Koch, "Der Erweiterte Markusschluss und die 
 Kleinasiatischen Presbyter," in Biblische Zeitschrift, 1908 (vol. 
 vi.), pp. 266-278. E. J. Goodspeed, in Biblical World, 1908 (p. 
 224), calls the passage a gloss from an apocryphal gospel or 
 second-century oral tradition. 
 
Then to the Twelve 341 
 
 reason why it should be expunged from all versions and 
 from all Greek MSS. except one or two, so far as we 
 know. And the text of vs. 15 has to be altered by the 
 omission of xal elxev afoot? and the substitution of 
 iXkix, to permit the insertion. The style and thought 
 are hardly consonant with those of Aristion's context, 
 though this argument cannot be pressed. It is on the 
 whole more probable that an excuse for the disciples' 
 unbelief would be added than that it should be ex- 
 punged, especially since the entire section is concerned 
 to emphasise this unbelief so strongly. Still, we must 
 for the present leave open the possibility that the pas- 
 sage is a genuine part of Aristion's homily. 1 
 
 In any case the Aristion passage is only part of a 
 context originally more extended, as its abrupt be- 
 ginning shows, and what it may or may not once have 
 contained we cannot now tell. What it is concerned 
 with, whether or no the Freer addition belongs to it, 
 is very plain. From Luke and from John the stater 
 ment of the disciples' doubt and disbelief has been 
 taken and given exaggerated emphasis. And the dis- 
 belief is confined to the Eleven; nothing of Mary Mag- 
 dalene's initial hesitancy in recognising Jesus, nothing 
 of the "slowness of heart" of the Emmaus disciples. 
 Nothing of the larger company present to share their 
 
 1 Knowing only the Jerome citation, Schmiedel, col. 4053, re- 
 gards it as a gloss, but Rohrbach: Schluss, pp. 21 f., argues for its 
 genuineness, as does J. B. Van Kasteren, in Revue Bibligue Inter- 
 nationale, vol. xi. (1902), pp. 250-253. Von Soden (Chrisiliche 
 Welt, 1908, cols. 484-486) and Harnack (Theol. Lit. Zeitung, 1908, 
 cols. 168-170), discussing the Freer MS., regard the addition as 
 belonging to the original document of Aristion, but never to the 
 Mark-ending drawn from that document. This is the most 
 probable conjecture. 
 
342 The Resurrection 
 
 incredulity and their rebuke "because they believed 
 not them which had seen him after he was risen"; 
 these latter, who saw, plainly did believe. Salvation 
 is conditioned on belief, damnation on unbelief . Signs 
 are promised to "follow them that believe" (vs. 17), 
 which promise is fulfilled by the event (vs. 20). In 
 all this is seen the verification of the words of Arnold 
 Meyer, "It was a later time, no longer standing in the 
 first faith, but itself attacked by doubts, which first 
 spoke of doubts on the part of the disciples." 1 
 
 The next step in the growing emphasis on the dis- 
 ciples' doubt and disbelief is offered by a Coptic gospel- 
 fragment found in a MS. of the fourth or fifth century, 
 discovered at Akhmim in Egypt. 2 Harnack dates the 
 writing of which this MS. preserves a part between 150 
 and 180 a.d., that is, not many years after Aristion 
 writes. If the latter offers a homily on unbelief, what 
 shall we say of his successor? The apologetic need of 
 the time stands out very clearly. The most significant 
 portion of the fragment runs as follows. "Mary, 
 Martha and Mary Magdalene go to the grave to anoint 
 the body. When they find the grave empty they are 
 troubled, and weep. The Lord appears to them and 
 says : Why do ye weep ? Cease to weep ; I am he whom 
 
 1 Arnold Meyer, p. 201. On the general point, cf. pp. 197-202, 
 206 f.; also the valuable discussion by F. H. Foster, Amer. Jour. 
 Theol., vol. xii. (July, 1908), pp. 386-391. 
 
 3 First published by Carl Schmidt in Sitzungsberichte d. Konig- 
 lichen Preussischen Akademie d. Wissenschaften, 1895, pp. 705- 
 711. Valuable treatment by Harnack, "Ein jungst entdeckter 
 Auferstehungsbericht," in Theologische Studien B. Weiss Darge- 
 bracht, 1897, pp. 1-8. Cf. also Schmiedel, col. 4048; Hennecke, 
 Apok., pp. 38 f.; Arnold Meyer, pp. 81-84, and Ior further trace 
 of the same work, Jour. Theol. Stud., Oct., 1910, pp. 55 f. 
 
Then to the Twelve 343 
 
 ye seek. But let one of you go to your brethren and 
 say: Come, the Master is risen from the dead. Mar- 
 tha came and told it to us. We said to her : What have 
 we to do with thee, woman? He who died is buried 
 and it is impossible that he should be alive. We did 
 not believe her that the Redeemer had risen from the 
 dead. Then she returned to the Lord and said to him : 
 No one among them has believed me that thou art 
 alive. He said : Let another of you go to them and tell 
 it them once again. Mary went and repeated it to us 
 again, and we did not believe her. She returned to 
 the Lord and she also told him. Then the Lord said 
 to Mary and her other sisters : Let us go to them. And 
 he came and found us within and called us out. But 
 we thought that it was a spectre, and did not believe 
 that it was the Lord. Then he said to us : Come and 
 . . . thou, Peter, who thrice hast denied, dost thou 
 now also deny? We went up to him, doubting in our 
 hearts that it might not be he. Then he said to us: 
 Why do ye still doubt and are unbelieving? I am he 
 who spake to you of my flesh and my death and my 
 resurrection, that ye may believe that it is I. Peter, 
 put your finger into the nail-prints of my hands. 
 Thou, Thomas, put thy finger into the lance-thrust of 
 my side. And thou, Andrew, touch my feet, so thou 
 seest that they ... to those of earth. For it is 
 written in the prophet, Fancies of dreams ... on 
 earth. We answered him: We have in truth recog- 
 nised that ... in flesh. And we threw ourselves 
 upon our faces, and confessed our sins, that we have 
 been unbelieving." 1 
 
 1 English rendering of the German version given by Harnack 
 and repeated by Hennecke and Arnold Meyer. 
 
344 The Resurrection 
 
 Comment on this text is unnecessary. It only 
 writes large what the scribe who added oi 8e kUa-zaaav 
 in Mat. xxviii: 17 wrote small. In both cases, in all 
 cases, the disciples' doubt is apologetic and unhistoric. 
 "The first group of heroes was no band of doubters, 
 'double-minded men, unstable in all their ways.' 
 Such men would never have 'received anything of the 
 Lord,' least of all the resurrection-faith." 1 Without 
 antecedent faith, the blessed vision would never have 
 come; unless met by faith, it would never have come 
 again. 
 
 We must now return to the appearance of Jesus to 
 the Eleven, our consideration of which was interrupted 
 by our excursus concerning the doubt-motif. 2 The 
 verses which follow Luke xxiv: 37 are the further de- 
 velopment of this same motive, the statement, made 
 as bald and absolute as possible, of the actual physical 
 bodily presence. The rebuke of the disciples, the 
 exhibition of members of "flesh and bone," the eviden- 
 tial eating, are all here. Here is the supremest anti- 
 thesis to all that Paul meant by Jesus' resurrection 3 ; 
 here is every shred of historicity lost in the urgency of 
 the apologetic need. It is a curious turn of history 
 that has made the passage which had most worth for 
 the apologists of the first and second centuries most 
 embarrassing and unusable for those of the nineteenth 
 and twentieth. Most instructive and interesting is a 
 study of the treatment of vss. 39 and 43 in the English 
 commentaries and treatises. How vastly easier would 
 be the task of the modern defender of the faith if his 
 colleague of eighteen hundred years ago had not re- 
 sorted to such powerful weapons, which have now 
 
 • Arnold Meyer, p. 201. > Supra, p. 335. > C/.I. Cor.vi: 13! 
 
Then to the Twelve 345 
 
 ceased to be weapons of defence and have become, 
 instead, part of the store to be defended. 1 
 
 All modern theories of a body glorified or in process 
 of glorification, or in any way other than the physical 
 body which had been buried, contradict Luke's urgent 
 intention here as completely as does the vision-theory 
 itself. "Why are ye alarmed, and why do doubts 
 arise in your heart? See my hands and my feet, that it 
 is I myself. Take hold of me and see, because a spirit 
 has not flesh and bones as you observe me having." 
 The "flesh and bones," instead of the more familiar 
 "flesh and blood, " serves to give crasser expression to 
 the materiality of the body. Luke intends us to un- 
 derstand that the disciples actually did grasp Jesus' 
 limbs and body, and felt the massive resistance of 
 flesh and bones (x.<x0uq Ifjtl Oswpecrs s^ovca). The 
 statement of vs. 40, "And having said this, he showed 
 them his hands and his feet," is awkward in sense 
 (they must feel, not be shown), unnecessary, and on 
 the evidence of the MSS. is an interpolation, evidently 
 based on John xx: 20. 2 
 
 There is an interesting variant of vs. 39 in Ignatius's 
 epistle to the Smyrnseans, chapter three. "When He 
 came to Peter and his company, He said to them, Lay 
 hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon 
 without body. And straightway they touched Him 
 
 1 This change of attitude is very dearly seen, for example, in 
 Milligan, pp. 240 f., notes 4 and 6. 
 
 a Omitted in the Western text and the Syriac (both Sin. and 
 Cur. Plummer, p. 569, ad loc, is in error as to the Syr. Sin. Cf. 
 Burkitt, Evangelion Da Mepharreshe, 1904, vol. i., ad loc). Omit- 
 ted by Tischendorf and Weiss, double-bracketed by W.-H. Merx, 
 ad loc, argues that, though not in Syr. Sin., it is original. 
 
346 The Resurrection 
 
 and they believed. " x Jerome says this text was taken 
 by Ignatius from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
 of which it is difficult to feel certain, since Origen as- 
 cribes the words to the Petri Doctrina, and Eusebius 
 says he is quite ignorant of Ignatius 's source for them, 
 although both knew the Gospel of the Hebrews. 2 
 
 "And as they still disbelieved from joy and won- 
 dered, he said to them: Have you here something to 
 eat? And they gave to him a piece of broiled fish, and 
 taking it, he ate it before their eyes (Ivtixtov auirwv)." 
 The eating is, of course, purely evidential, and it evi- 
 dences a body with teeth to chew, a throat to swallow, 
 a stomach to retain; in other words, a normal physical 
 body. Luke means this in the comphtest sense, that 
 the processes of eating and digestion went on precisely 
 as before. The disciples' senses might be deceived, 
 but the mastication, swallowing, and retention of food 
 are conclusive. 
 
 This whole scene, vss. 37-43, is Luke's creation; not 
 his conscious invention, for he is of course certain that 
 he is setting forth the truth. Tradition, growing to 
 meet the needs of controversy, supplies the data to 
 which he here gives orderly narrative form. What he 
 really set out to describe was the appearance of Jesus 
 to the Eleven, the parallel to Mat. xxviii : 17-20. The 
 tradition, as it came to him, did not definitely fix the 
 scene of that appearance, though it was clear to Mat- 
 thew that it belonged to Galilee. Beyond fixing the 
 occurrence in Jerusalem, Luke does not define the place 
 
 1 Translation by Bishop Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 
 part ii., 2d ed., vol. ii., 1889, pp. 567 f. 
 
 3 Jerome, Be Viris Illust., ch. xvi. Cf. Lightfoot's note, loc. cit., 
 pp. 294-296. 
 
Then to the Twelve 347 
 
 more closely, but since the Eleven are gathered to- 
 gether in a place where it is possible to secure a piece 
 of cooked fish, he probably thinks of the scene as 
 indoors, perhaps at the disciples' place of lodging. 1 
 Matthew, for excellent reasons, locates the scene upon 
 a mountain, and the same reasons operate in the 
 case of Luke. For at the end of the scene Jesus leads 
 the disciples out "over against Bethany," i.e., to the 
 Mount of Olives. For Luke, as for Matthew, the 
 Master needs the mount from which to take his flight 
 to heaven; it is only an unimportant difference in detail 
 that in Matthew the disciples gather on the mountain 
 prior to the "appearance," and the whole scene takes 
 place there, while in Luke the meeting and the appear- 
 ance are in the city, and the company walks out to the 
 mountain for the closing scene. 
 
 There are four problems to be considered in con- 
 nection with Luke's account of this appearance to the 
 Eleven; first, its content; second, its place; third, its 
 time; fourth, the parting of Jesus. First, then, as to 
 its content. It is in substance the same content as 
 that presented by Matthew — full revelation of the 
 risen Jesus as the glorified Messiah and fulfilment of 
 the prophecies, the apostolic commission to preach 
 him as such to the world, an assurance of his abiding 
 presence. As a matter of literal fact, this was pre- 
 cisely what the "appearance" had meant and had in- 
 volved for the disciples; the story of the growing 
 church had verified that, and it was hardly possible 
 for either Matthew or Luke to represent it otherwise. 
 But each presents it in his own way, independent, not 
 only of the other, but of any common source. Indeed, 
 
 1 So John xx: 19 understands Luke to mean. 
 
348 The Resurrection 
 
 neither has any written source, but constructs the 
 scene for himself. Matthew gives the declaration 
 that Messiah has been exalted to his supreme place of 
 power, has entered upon his kingship ; Luke, parallel- 
 ing the scene on the way to Emmaus, emphasises the 
 Messianic light thrown on Scripture. Both give the 
 apostolic commission to evangelise the nations. The 
 abiding presence is expressed with more intimacy in 
 Matthew; in Luke it takes the form of the indwelling 
 of the Spirit, which is, of course, true to the church's 
 history during the preceding decades, and true to 
 Paul's profoundest conviction. Both conceive the 
 scene as a kind of apostolic ordination and a solemn 
 farewell, and both think of it as followed by a "de- 
 parture" of Jesus from earth to heaven. 1 This is not 
 said by Matthew, but is in his thought ; by Luke it is 
 clearly said. 
 
 Now precisely the same construction appears again 
 in Luke's history, in Acts i: 6-12. There we have 
 Jesus and the disciples assembled at a place at first 
 (vs. 6) undefined, but later (vs. 12) fixed as the 
 Mount of Olives; there follow the promise of the 
 Spirit's presence and the apostolic commission to all 
 the world, and the scene closes with the Master's 
 "taking up" in a cloud. The substance is the same; 
 that the wording is so largely different simply indi- 
 cates that the author has no written source, but offers 
 independent composition. He does not consciously 
 duplicate, but he has one form of thought, one mental 
 picture, from the material of which he constructs 
 two passages, one to describe an event of the third 
 day, the other of the forty-third. The passage in 
 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 282 f. 
 
Then to the Twelve 349 
 
 Acts is more closely akin to the parallel in Mat. xxviii: 
 16-20 than is that in Luke's gospel, for reasons which 
 will subsequently appear. 1 
 
 It is worth while to note the parallels between 
 Luke's two accounts. In the first place, the position 
 "over against Bethany," where he parted from them 
 (Luke xxiv: 50 f.) is plainly equivalent to "the mount 
 called Olivet ' ' where ' ' he was taken up " (Acts i : 1 2 , 9) . 2 
 Any hesitancy on this point is set at rest by Luke 
 himself, who in xix: 29 f. explains that when Jesus 
 was on the Mount of Olives, he was "over against" 
 Bethany. Plainly the road from Jericho to Jerusalem 
 passed over the great hill, for after mounting the ass 
 at a point on the mount over against Bethany he comes 
 (xix: 37) to "the descent of the Mount of Olives." 
 This point, where Jesus receives the plaudits of the 
 multitude, is precisely the point Luke thinks of as 
 the scene of his farewell to his disciples, on both occa- 
 sions which he pictures. The specific note of place in 
 xix: 37, in addition to that of vss. 29 f., is peculiar to 
 Luke; the spot is noteworthy for him. Further, Acts 
 i: 4-8, "he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, 
 but to wait for the promise of the Father ... ye 
 shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit ... ye shall 
 receive power when the Holy Spirit is come upon you, " 
 has its parallel in Luke xxiv: 49, "I send forth the 
 promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the 
 city until ye be clothed with power from on high." 
 The bidding (Acts i: 8), "Ye shall be my witnesses, 
 both in Jerusalem and Samaria, and to the utter- 
 most parts of the earth, " is only slightly different from 
 Luke xxiv: 47 f., " . . . should be preached in his 
 
 1 Cf. infra, pp. 361 f. ' So Bauer, p. 278- 
 
35° The Resurrection 
 
 name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 
 Ye are witnesses of these things." 
 
 The framework, then, is the same; the place also is 
 the same, the mountain. Reasons for placing the 
 scene upon a mountain we have seen in discussing 
 Matthew's parallel. Matthew thinks of the mountain 
 in Galilee where the great Sermon was delivered; Luke 
 necessarily thinks of a mountain near Jerusalem, which 
 can only be the Mount of Olives. An interesting 
 apocryphal parallel, which shows the influence of all 
 three synoptic writers, as well as of Aristion, is found 
 in the fourth-century "Acts of Pilate." There we 
 read, "And Phinees a priest and Adas a teacher and 
 Haggai a Levite came down from Galilee to Jerusalem, 
 and said to the rulers of the synagogue and the priests 
 and the Levites : We saw Jesus and his disciples sitting 
 on the mountain called Mamilch; and he said to his 
 disciples, Go into all the world, etc. (the words of Aris- 
 tion, Mark xvi: 15-18, with slight variation). And 
 while Jesus was speaking to his disciples, we saw him 
 taken up to heaven." 1 This simply combines the 
 "mountain-appearance" of Matthew with the apos- 
 tolic commission in Aristion's form and the "ascen- 
 sion " of Luke. The combination of the three elements 
 
 1 Ch. xiv., in the longer Greek recension. Translation by Alex. 
 Walker, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. viii., 1886, p. 422. Cf. 
 Zahn, Gesch. d. Kanons, vol. ii., p.937. The mountain appears in 
 various MSS. as Malek, Mophek, Mambre, Mabrech. 
 
 Another apocryphal parallel is apparently offered by the Coptic 
 gospel-fragment (perhaps of the late second century) edited by A. 
 Jacoby, Ein neues Evangelien-fragment, 1900, and discussed by 
 C. Schmidt in the Gbttinger Gelehrter Anzeiger, 1900, No. 6, pp. 
 481-506. " On the mountain . . . he endued us with the power 
 of our apostleship. " 
 
Then to the Twelve 351 
 
 is nowhere so clearly expressed in canonical sources; 
 Matthew, who has the mountain most clearly, has 
 no direct allusion to the ascension, Luke's gospel ob- 
 scures both mountain and ascension somewhat, Acts 
 has the three more clearly together. So, as is especi- 
 ally clear from the repetition of the report in chapter 
 xvi, the canonical Acts of the Apostles most influences 
 the author of the Acta Pilati. But his account shows 
 how the three canonical versions were understood, pre- 
 cisely as their authors meant them to be understood. 
 Aristion witnesses to the same thing, save that in his 
 version the mountain is not explicitly mentioned. But 
 it is presupposed in his "was taken up into heaven"; 
 no one thought, or could think, of Jesus' ascension 
 taking place from a house, or a street, or a valley, or 
 from any place except a mountain. Least of all could 
 Aristion think otherwise, who is here using Luke's 
 gospel narrative and is familiar with the Acts account. 
 The mountain is in his mind as the setting of the scene, 
 even if he does not put it into his words. x 
 
 It is interesting that the Acta Pilati version follows 
 Matthew in locating the mountain-appearance and the 
 ascension in Galilee. 2 A shorter Greek recension, 
 evidently later, attempts to do honour to Luke, and to 
 Paul as well, by making the words of the three men 
 from Galilee read as follows. "Jesus, whom you cruci- 
 fied, we have seen in Galilee with his eleven disciples 
 upon the Mount of Olives, teaching them and saying, 
 Go into all the world and proclaim the good news; and 
 
 1 Bauer, p. 278, takes Mark xvi: 19 to mean ascension from the 
 upper room. 
 
 2 It is possible that Tertullian (Apol. 21) means to assign the 
 ascension to Galilee. Cf. infra, p. 437, and Bauer, p. 278. 
 
352 The Resurrection 
 
 whosoever will believe and be baptised shall be saved, 
 but whosoever will not believe shall be condemned. 
 And having thus spoken, he went up into heaven. 
 And both we and many others of the five hundred be- 
 sides were looking on." 1 
 
 So much for the place of the appearance to the 
 Eleven. So far as this appearance is related at all, it 
 gives the revelation of Jesus as Messiah and the apos- 
 tolic commission of the disciples, and it closes with an 
 "ascension," for which reason the scene is conceived 
 as taking place upon a mountain. Matthew thinks 
 of a Galilean peak, Luke of the Mount of Olives, 
 Aristion and the author of the Acts of Pilate simply 
 recombine elements from the canonical writers. Luke 
 uses the scene twice, once for an event of the resur- 
 rection day, once for an event forty days later. And 
 this brings us to the third question, that of the time 
 of the occurrence. 
 
 It is common to interpret Luke xxiv: 50 f. as de- 
 scribing the same scene as Acts i : 4-1 1 , which at once 
 raises a chronological problem. When Luke is read 
 by itself, its language naturally suggests that all the 
 events of the twenty-fourth chapter belong on the 
 same day. Its language taken by itself cannot easily 
 mean anything else, and if the first three verses of the 
 book of Acts had not been written, it would never have 
 been taken to mean anything else. But these verses 
 were written, and by the same Luke, and therefore, 
 
 1 A. N. Fathers, vol. viii., p. 432. Similarly, to make agree- 
 ment with Luke, one MS. of the longer recension has the reading, 
 after Jesus' words, elra etSoixev airrbv neTe\86i>ra ds rb 6pos twv 
 tXaiiiv Kal i.va\i)<i>ehTa els rbv oipavSv. Cf. Teschendorf : Evangelia 
 Apocrypha, 2nd ed., 1876, p. 260, note ad loc. 
 
Then to the Twelve 353 
 
 however violent a procedure it may seem, we must in- 
 sert a notice "Here elapses forty days ' ' between Luke's 
 verses 43 and 44, or 49 and 50. l The alternative is to 
 assume that Luke altered his opinion as to the date, 
 owing to new information received after the gospel was 
 written and published. 2 The latter view is commonly 
 adopted by the freer critics, the former is the favour- 
 ite with the harmonists and apologists. Both are 
 equally wrong, and both are in a measure right. It is 
 true that Luke does not so completely contradict and 
 correct himself as some of the critics suppose; it is 
 also true that all the events of chapter xxiv he means to 
 place on one day. There is an ascension at the end of 
 the gospel, there is an ascension at the beginning of 
 Acts; the two are described in similar terms, yet they 
 are two separate occasions, forty days apart. 
 
 The place where Luke has confused and contradicted 
 his chronology is elsewhere ; it is in his insertion of the 
 Emmaus story, which, if we reflect upon the account 
 critically, makes the scenes which follow it impossible 
 or at least improbable. When the Three reach Em- 
 maus, the day has already declined and it is toward 
 evening. Then follow the preparations for the meal, 
 the breaking of the bread, the recognition, and the 
 hasty return to Jerusalem. It is manifestly unfair to 
 interpret xpb; eaiclpocv (not 6tylav) lartv xal xlxXaev -rjSi) 
 (already) -^ ^Ipa as meaning anything else than the 
 time about sunset. 3 The meal is plainly the supper, 
 
 1 So B. Weiss and Plummer, ad loc; Orr, p. 193, and many. 
 
 a So, among others, Brandt, pp. 370-374; Wendt (Meyer- 
 Wendt), Apostelgeschichte, 1899, ad Acts i: I ff.; Schmiedel, col. 
 4059; Lake, p. 114; Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 127-129. 
 
 3 Lake, p. 109, suggests that it means "three hours before sun- 
 23 
 
354 The Resurrection 
 
 or evening meal, and is not eaten at three o'clock in 
 the afternoon, nor can we easily allow less than two 
 hours for the return from Emmaus to Jerusalem. In 
 brief, we could not well place the ascension much be- 
 fore midnight. But surely Luke does not conceive this 
 great event as occurring in the darkness of night ! And 
 this becomes the chief argument of those who separate 
 vss. 50-53 by forty days from vss. 1-43. To this the 
 reply is at hand. Luke certainly does not think of 
 Jesus ascending in the darkness of midnight, but just 
 as certainly he does not think of him ascending by 
 broad daylight, in the sight of every passer-by on the 
 frequented highway leading out to Bethany. Is this 
 more congruous? Are we to suppose that Luke de- 
 liberately pictures Jesus walking through the streets 
 of Jerusalem from the house where he met with his 
 disciples, "leading them out" through the gate, a 
 group of a dozen men, and one of them a notorious 
 recently-executed criminal, and before all the world, on 
 a public thoroughfare, ascending bodily into the sky? 
 If we ask that his pictures be congruous and visualis- 
 able for us we shall get little satisfaction. Luke is not 
 visualising at all; he does not ask, or think, whether it 
 is light or dark; the hour by the clock is wholly irrele- 
 vant. He is expressing a great and important truth, 
 and this reckoning of the hours from the Emmaus 
 supper on, so natural for us, lies wholly outside his 
 consciousness. The whole Emmaus incident will not, 
 indeed, fit historically into the framework of the rest 
 
 set, " and gets the disciples back to Jerusalem in forty minutes. 
 At such speed the other events could not merely be finished "be- 
 fore nightfall, " as he suggests, but all would be over by four p.m. 
 
Then to the Twelve 355 
 
 of the chapter, but we utterly misconceive Luke when 
 we think of him as calculating the time of day and 
 anxious for chronological verisimilitude. The late- 
 ness of the hour, therefore, is not the slightest argument 
 against the continuity of events from the beginning 
 to the end of chapter twenty-four. 
 
 Indeed that such continuity is in Luke's thought 
 is clear from all his phraseology. 1 On the third day 
 Jesus rose from the dead, revealed himself to his dis- 
 ciples, and ascended into heaven, the ascension being 
 but the completion of the resurrection. To be sure, 
 according to the Jewish reckoning, "the third day" 
 has ended at sunset; it might just include the scene 
 at Emmaus, but not the appearance to the Eleven nor 
 the ascension. But it has just been pointed out that 
 the Emmaus story has no real inner connection with the 
 rest of the narrative, and without it no sunset is 
 indicated. The reference to sunset there, indeed, has 
 no chronological motive, but is conditioned by the 
 allusion to the Eucharist, which demands an evening 
 meal. After writing vs. 29, Luke did not keep re- 
 minding himself that it was now the fourth day for the 
 Jews, and indeed, himself a Gentile, and not here 
 bound to any written source (as he was in xxiii : 54) , he 
 may very easily be thinking in terms of the Roman 
 day, beginning at midnight. 
 
 In all this the important point is that Luke does 
 not think of the resurrection and the ascension as sepa- 
 rated by more than a period of hours. They are for 
 him, as they are in reality, parts of one process. 2 Re- 
 
 1 Cf. Lake, pp. 108 f. 
 
 ' Cf. the fine treatment of this point in Beyschlag, pp. 477-481. 
 Also Paul Lobstein, "Der evangelische Heilsglaube an die Aufer- 
 
356 The Resurrection 
 
 surrection is the passage from Hades to Heaven. Con- 
 ceived by Luke as involving the reanimation of the 
 buried body, it is only natural that he should think 
 of this body as lingering for a little before com- 
 pleting its "rising, " to communicate with the disciples. 
 In any case, the tradition assured him of such "ap- 
 pearances." But Jesus cannot long delay; on the 
 same day he must "rise" in the full sense into his 
 place of glory in heaven. Earth is, as it were, a halt- 
 ing-place midway in his ascension; the first stage is 
 from Hades to earth (and Luke conceives earth as 
 literally above Hades) ; the second from earth to heaven. 
 The universe is a three-storied structure ; the abode of 
 God, to which Jesus goes, is "in the highest " (Iv fi^to-cols 
 ii: 14, xix: 38). \ "Resurrection" is not for Jesus, any 
 more than for men who "are accounted worthy to at- 
 tain to the resurrection from the dead" (xx: 35), 
 simply a return to the "second story," but rather 
 the complete passage from the lowest to the highest. 
 The "ascension, "that is, follows immediately upon the 
 resurrection as its completion. It belongs to the 
 third day, standing at the beginning, not at the end, 
 of the "forty days." 
 
 But Luke is very far from supposing that after the 
 resurrection is complete and Jesus has "entered into his 
 glory," he reveals himself no more, that henceforward 
 his followers have only memories on which to feed their 
 hopes. On the contrary he knows very well that the 
 heavens were opened and Stephen saw the glorified 
 Master standing at God's right hand (Acts vii: 56), 
 
 stehung J. C," in Zeitschrift fur Theol. u. Kirche, vol. ii. (1892), 
 p. 363, and Cheyne, Bible Problems and the New Material for 
 their Solution, 1904, pp. 114 f. 
 
Then to the Twelve 357 
 
 that to Saul, on the way to Damascus, came the vision 
 and the call of the Messiah whose followers Saul was 
 on his way to persecute. But more especially does 
 he know, or think that he knows, that for a period of 
 forty days after the resurrection there came frequently 
 such revelations of the Master to his disciples. These 
 revelations he conceives after the analogy of the ap- 
 pearances before the ascension, when the body tarried 
 on earth to greet those who most loved the Lord. The 
 appearances to Stephen or to Saul did not in the least 
 lend themselves as models for these earlier appearances. 
 What the disciples most of all needed from the risen 
 Master was instruction, clear demonstration of his 
 Messiahship, the adjustment of the Scripture prophe- 
 cies to the event, express bidding as to the apostolic 
 mission on which they were to enter — where, what, and 
 how they were to preach. That is the obvious need, 
 that is the thing that occurs at once to Luke, whose 
 interest lies in the spread of the Christian movement. 
 That was the content of Jesus' communication to the 
 Emmaus disciples and to the Eleven, on the third day. 
 Just that he must continue to give them for a longer 
 period, coming down from heaven, abiding with them, 
 conversing, teaching, explaining, in sweet companion- 
 ship eating and drinking with them, as in the old days. 
 Not mere "appearances" to convince that he is risen, 
 but blessed visitations. After each such coming, 
 there is of course a corresponding going; Jesus does not 
 lodge in Jerusalem, spend the night there. He comes 
 to them, and goes again into heaven. And the period 
 of this instruction is naturally put at forty days, a 
 number full of significance in the Jewish tradition. 
 Forty days was the Law being given to Moses, and in 
 
358 The Resurrection 
 
 forty days was it given anew to the people through 
 Ezra, according to the influential apocalypse we call 
 "Fourth Ezra," after which period Ezra likewise 
 ascended to heaven. 1 
 
 That the "appearances" continued after the "as- 
 cension" we may be as sure as was Luke. A study of 
 the biographies of the saints of the church will show 
 us that they have never ceased. 2 That they were 
 especially numerous in the first days is also most prob- 
 able, but to Luke's precise number forty we need not 
 feel in any degree bound. In any case, this is meant 
 only as the period of most frequent manifestations, 
 and of those in which Jesus actually came down and 
 held protracted intercourse with his friends; "appear- 
 ances" continued to be vouchsafed. 
 
 Now after each of his visits during those days, 
 the glorified Master returned into heaven; that is, he 
 "ascended." The ascension of Luke xxiv: 51 is the 
 first ascension, the one which completes the resurrec- 
 tion and takes Jesus into his place of glory at God's 
 right hand. It is the same as that understood after 
 Mat. xxviii: 20. The ascension of Acts i: 9 is the last 
 ascension ; the last, that is, of this series of comings and 
 goings. Of these the second is in its description neces- 
 sarily the analogue of the first, for it is but a repetition 
 of the same act; Luke has no other scheme for his de- 
 
 1 Cf. Brandt, p. 372. The passage in our English Apocrypha is 
 Second Esdras xiv: 23-48, but the last verse in the English (after 
 the Latin) version is mutilated, and should go on to chronicle 
 how Ezra was "caught away, and was taken up into the place of 
 such as were like him. " So the Syriac version, with the Arabic, 
 Armenian, and Ethiopic. 
 
 * Cf. Arnold Meyer, pp. 217-272. 
 
Then to the Twelve 359 
 
 scription. If we ask which of these is intrinsically the 
 more important, the answer is not easy. The one is 
 distinguished as the first and fundamental ascension; 
 the other as the last, the end of habitual intercourse 
 between the Master and his friends, the farewell. The 
 latter Luke depicts at greater length; the former but 
 completes the act begun when the body came from the 
 tomb. But if we ask which of the two had more funda- 
 mental significance for the early church, which was 
 the ascension, par eminence, the answer is not doubtful. 
 It was the first ascension, the one which formed the 
 concluding act of the resurrection on the third day. 
 For this there is clear New Testament evidence, evi- 
 dence which at the same time proves beyond all doubt 
 that the event of Luke xxiv: 50 f. is intended as an 
 ascension, and as taking place on the same day as the 
 events of the earlier part of the chapter. 
 
 Luke himself is the first witness. Luke ix: 51, 
 "when the days of his taking up were being accom- 
 plished" suggests very strongly that at the end of the 
 narrative the ' ' taking up " is to be chronicled. And in 
 Acts i: 1-3 the earlier volume, the gospel, is distinctly 
 said to contain the account of "all that Jesus began 
 both to do and to teach, until the day in which — hav- 
 ing given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the 
 apostles whom he had chosen — he was taken up. To 
 whom also he showed himself living after his passion, 
 with many proofs, through forty days, being seen by 
 them," etc. I A glance at the Greek text is sufficient to 
 show that ol? v.a\ itaplaTiqcrev eauibv is subsequent in time 
 to the preceding aorist avsX^tpGr). It is an act of un- 
 justifiable violence to all grammatical and syntactical 
 
 1 So i: 22 is a reference to the third day, not to the forty- third. 
 
360 The Resurrection 
 
 probability to insert the whole of vs. 3, beginning with 
 its also (xai), before the preceding "was taken up." 
 The violence becomes intolerable whenit isproposed, as 
 commonly, to insert the entire passage vss. 3-8 before 
 the iveX^cpOi), which would then be but repeated in the 
 !i:i5p0Y] of vs. 9. Starting from the fixed idea: there 
 was but one ascension, therefore Luke xxiv: 51 and 
 Acts i: 9 describe the same scene, both texts have been 
 tortured into a meaning they cannot bear, which would 
 never have been suggested save for the desire to har- 
 monise Luke and Acts with each other and with a 
 dogma of the apologist. Let each text speak for itself, 
 and the meaning is perfectly clear. The %al of Acts i : 3 
 introduces events additional and subsequent to those 
 of vs. 2 ; the y.exa. xb xa8etv depends primarily on t^wvta 
 ("alive though he had died")- 1 The present parti- 
 ciples (dTcxavdfjLsvo?, Xlywv, auvaXt^6fjLevo<;) depict the con- 
 tinued activities of the forty-day period, the aorist 
 xapYfrysiXsv specifying one element in the recurrent sea- 
 sons of intercourse. The aorist participle (suvsX8<5vTe<;) 
 of vs. 6 brings us to a specific occasion of that period; 
 the slxev of vs. 7 and the sixcov of vs. 9 keep the same oc- 
 casion before us, and mark it as the closing experience 
 oftheperiod. Just as clearly is i^? iQ^epa? . . . &veXi]fJt.<p6Y] 
 (vs. 2) the third day and the opening occasion of the 
 period. Not only here in Acts, but in the gospel nar- 
 rative as well, does Luke indicate precisely the same 
 thing, xxiv: 26 gives the words of Jesus to the Em- 
 maus disciples, " Ought not the Messiah to suffer these 
 things and to (not: rise from the dead, but:) enter into 
 his glory?" Resurrection and ascension are one pro- 
 
 1 Cf. Rev. i: 18, A fuv , . . koI iyevd/xr/r veicpbs /col Idoi fuc 
 
Then to the Twelve 361 
 
 cess, a process as yet incomplete when the words are 
 spoken. I 
 
 So in Mat. xxviii: 18, when discussing Matthew's ac- 
 count, we raised the question whether he meant to in- 
 dicate that the disciples reached Galilee in time to see 
 the Master still on the third day. If so, the appear- 
 ance to the Eleven related by him would be that before 
 the first ascension. It seemed very doubtful that such 
 was his intention, and the wording ISi50tq [j.ot %aaa ityudct 
 seems to make this doubt a certainty. The time is 
 after the first ascension when Jesus entered into his 
 glory, took his seat at God's right hand, received the 
 supreme name and the Messianic power. ISo6r] points 
 to a definite past occasion, not to one immediately im- 
 pending. The scene is the parallel to that of Acts i: 6-9, 
 to which, indeed, it approximates closely in form. In 
 both the mountain is directly mentioned; both have 
 
 1 Cf. Beyschlag, p. 479, also Meyer-Weiss, ad loc. The words 
 ?ti &v aiv i/iip of Luke xxiv: 44 might be taken strictly to posit 
 the ascension as already past, accomplished in the act of resur- 
 rection itself, before any appearance to Peter, to the Emmaus- 
 pilgrims or to the disciples, xxiv: 26 might be read in agreement 
 with this view. Then vs. 34 would mean: "The Lord arose and 
 ascended to heaven and from heaven appeared to Simon." So 
 he would come from heaven to the Emmaus-pilgrims, to the gath- 
 ering in Jerusalem (xxiv: 36), and xxiv: 51 would have no more 
 significance than the &^>avros iyhero dx' airrwp after the break- 
 ing of bread at Emmaus (xxiv: 31). This is the view of B. 
 Weiss (Meyer-Weiss ad Luke xxiv: 44) and Korff (p. 79), and is 
 perhaps not impossible. But in view of Luke's emphasis on the 
 revival of the buried body it seems more probable that he would 
 describe some appearances of it prior to ascension, and the scene 
 xxiv: 50-53 has apparently more significance for him than this 
 interpretation allows. "Yet being with you" may easily mean 
 "before my death." 
 
362 The Resurrection 
 
 the apostolic commission more definitely than has 
 Luke xxiv; both think of the scene as witnessed by the 
 Eleven only (so Acts i: 13), whereas Luke xxiv: 33, 50 
 thinks of a larger group. The omission of any direct 
 statement of the ascension by Matthew is now ex- 
 plainable. This is not the ascension, that is, the first; 
 it is only the going away of Jesus, the disappearance 
 after the appearance. It has no special significance or 
 importance. In Acts, also, the author is describing 
 not a phenomenon unique, unlike any that had pre- 
 ceded it, but rather the last solemn departure of a 
 series. Its finality, not its uniqueness, gives it its 
 importance. 1 
 
 The author of the Fourth Gospel, who is most akin 
 to Luke in his narrative here, clearly understands 
 Luke to mean the (first) ascension to take place on the 
 resurrection day. The newly risen Lord says to Mary 
 Magdalene (John xx: 17), "Touch me not, for I am 
 not yet ascended unto the Father; but go unto my 
 brethren and say to them, I ascend (ava^afvu I am 
 ascending) unto my Father and your Father, and my 
 
 1 There is no difference in kind, but only of significance, be- 
 tween atrbs S,(pai>Tos iytvero air' ain&v (at Emmaus, xxiv: 31), Suhril 
 &tt' airr&v (by Bethany xxiv: 51), and brfipBq (on the mount, 
 Acts, i: 9). The curious mediaeval identification of the Gali- 
 lee of the resurrection story with a peak on the Mount of 
 Olives strangely enough brought with it the correct identification 
 of the scene in Mat. xxviii: 16 ff. with that in Acts i: 6-12. Cj. 
 Zahn in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, vol. xiv. (1903), p. 775- 
 The same combination is seen in the Acta Pilati, and there the 
 shorter Greek recension, to make the combination possible, trans- 
 ports the Mount of Olives to Galilee, the precise opposite of the 
 mediaeval means to the same end. Cf. supra pp. 350-352, and 
 Zahn, loc. cit., p. 787. 
 
Then to the Twelve 363 
 
 God and your God. " The ascension John thinks as 
 following immediately, and the appearance on the 
 evening of the same day (vss. 19-23) is a return of 
 Jesus from heaven. He brings with him the gift of 
 the Holy Spirit (vs. 22), sent from the Father, a gift 
 which was to be consequent on his return to the Father 
 and his glorification (xiv: 16-19, 25-28, xv:26, xvi: 7, 
 and especially vii: 39). I 
 
 We cannot, of course, tell what Mark may have once 
 said about the ascension. It is probable, indeed, that he 
 said nothing about it, but took it for granted as a part 
 of the resurrection. This is the more likely since the 
 interruption of the resurrection process by the revival 
 and delay of the body on earth appears in such an un- 
 developed form with him. For Paul, at an even more 
 primitive stage of thought, there is no "ascension," 
 as a separate act. The uprising (avajxaatq, iy epat? ) 
 was for him a single process, a passing from Hades to 
 Heaven uninterrupted by any halt for physical mani- 
 festations at the half-way stage of earth. It was only 
 the emphasis on the material nature of the resurrection, 
 on the revival of the buried body, that ever separated 
 the iviotaots into two stages : the first, from Hades up 
 to Earth; then, after a brief halt, the second, from 
 Earth up to Heaven. No such interruption ever[came 
 into Paul's thought; in his list of "appearances" he 
 hints at absolutely no distinction between those com- 
 ing before an "ascension" and those succeeding. For 
 him, all the appearances, from Peter's to his own, are 
 from heaven; they succeed the uprising in its com- 
 pletest sense. Rom. viii: 34 is clear; it is wholly un- 
 justifiable to interpolate between "raised from the 
 
 1 Cf. Brandt, p. 349. 
 
364 The Resurrection 
 
 dead" and "who is at the right hand of God" a sepa- 
 rate act of which Paul nowhere betrays any conscious- 
 ness. So, even more definitely, the Pseudo-Paul of 
 Eph. i : 20, with its parallel as to the followers of Jesus 
 in ii: 5 f. For this writer a separate "ascension" for 
 Jesus was as little necessary as for himself and his 
 friends after death. Eph. iv: 8-10 has indeed a re- 
 ference to an "ascension" (ocvaJJa? dq uijio?), but the 
 phraseology is carefully chosen to explain definitely 
 that this is an elevation from the lowest Stage of the 
 universe to the highest, from the xairuirepa fjilp-r] ttji; ytjs 
 to the uiJjo;, uxepdva) xdvrwv tuv oupavwv. An "ascension" 
 whose starting-place is so carefully defined as Hades is 
 not the act described in Acts i: 9, but the ivcfoTaat? of 
 which Paul speaks. Precisely the same conception is 
 found in the epistle to the Hebrews (i: 3; x: 12; xii: 2 
 and the avoq-aTftov lx vexpwv of xiii: 20), and in I. Peter 
 (iii: 21 f.). 
 
 There is, indeed, in the whole New Testament only 
 this one presentation; the ascension which brought 
 Jesus to his exalted station in heaven, gave him the 
 glorified body and the Messianic power, was either 
 identical with the resurrection, or at least a part of it, 
 following upon the same day. In Mark the angel's 
 il)Yep9i) includes the whole process; Jesus' appearance 
 in Galilee will be a return from heaven in exalted glory. 
 In Matthew the ascension and glorification are pre- 
 supposed, as prior to the only appearance of which 
 Matthew shows knowledge. In John, only Mary 
 Magdalene catches sight of the risen Master ere yet he 
 has gone into the heavens. In Luke the case is no 
 otherwise, save that the tarrying on earth before as- 
 cension is prolonged for a period of hours and in this 
 
Then to the Twelve 365 
 
 intermediate interval there are manifestations to 
 more people. Acts ii: 32 f. vouches plainly for this 
 conception, as, indeed, does the whole passage ii : 22-35. 
 For Luke too, that is, the ascension on resurrection day 
 (Luke xxiv: 50 f.) is the ascension; the one forty days 
 later, for which he can but make use of much the same 
 phraseology, is described with seemingly more empha- 
 sis only because it is the last of the series, the farewell 
 of the Master to his beloved friends. 1 
 
 Outside the New Testament there is much evidence 
 for the same view. It is stated in so many words in 
 the epistle of Barnabas (xv: 9). "We keep the eighth 
 day ... in which Jesus both rose from the dead and 
 having appeared, went up into the heavens" (sv ^ %a\ 
 6'Ii)5o0qdveaT-f) lx,vexpa>vxal<pavepti)8ei<;avip-r) efsoupavous). 
 The ascension, that is, is Sunday. The final ascension 
 described in Acts i, if forty days after the first, would 
 occur on Friday, the day of Jesus' death, which may 
 possibly have had some pragmatic value in the tra- 
 dition. 2 The Gospel of Peter, also, places the ascen- 
 sion before any appearance to Jesus' friends. Indeed, 
 Peter has two ascensions, as Luke has, and both are 
 over before the dawn of Sunday. As Jesus utters 
 his expiring cry on the cross, aveXifaGu]. "And on the 
 night when the Lord's Day was drawing on" the 
 guards "see three men coming forth from the tomb, 
 two of them supporting the other, and a cross following 
 
 "Aristion's appendix to Mark (xvi: 9, 19) has precisely the 
 same picture as Luke, of the ascension at the end of the third 
 day. 
 
 J This dating counts forty days after the resurrection Sunday; 
 Lake, p. 114, counting Sunday as the first of the forty, reckons 
 the last ascension as on Thursday. 
 
366 The Resurrection 
 
 them; and the head of the two reached to heaven, but 
 that of Him who was led by them overpassed the 
 heavens. " At dawn the angel declares to the women, 
 "He is risen and gone thither from whence he was 
 sent." 1 
 
 This double ascension in the Gospel of Peter may 
 be the source of a statement by Schahrastani, an 
 Arabic writer of the twelfth century (1086-1153), who 
 in the course of a notice concerning the Gnostics of 
 Syria, has the following about Jesus. "But after he 
 was killed and crucified, he came down and appeared 
 to Simon Cephas, and he spoke with him and handed 
 over to him the authority; then he left the world and 
 ascended to heaven." 2 Here Jesus comes down to ap- 
 pear to Peter; i. e., his resurrection took him into 
 heaven, in agreement with the primitive conception. 
 A similar presentation is that of the curious interpola- 
 tion before Mark xvi : 4 in the old-Latin MS. Bobbiensis 
 (Codex k). "Suddenly, however, at the third hour, 
 darkness came on by day throughout the whole world, 
 and angels came down from heaven, and rising (sur- 
 gentes) in the brightness of the living God went up 
 (ascenderunt) with him, and forthwith it was light." 
 This suggests the account of Pseudo-Peter, and clearly 
 says that Jesus, emerging from the tomb, ascended 
 with the angels to heaven; an antecedent is thus 
 furnished for the angel's ^yep6T] (xvi: 6). 
 
 In the apocalyptic ' ' Ascension of Isaiah ' ' there is the 
 same conception in clear expression. "When he hath 
 
 1 Translation from Swete's edition. 
 
 2 From the German trans, of Theodor Haarbrucker, cited by 
 Harnack, in Gesch. d. altchristlichen Lit., vol. L, p. 10, and by 
 Rohrbach, Schluss, p. 33 ; Berichte, pp. 54 f . 
 
Then to the Twelve 367 
 
 plundered the angel of death, He will ascend [*. e., from 
 Hades] on the third day and then many of the right- 
 eous will ascend with him . . . when he has ascen- 
 ded into the seventh heaven." And again, "From 
 the angels of death Thou wilt ascend to Thy place . . . 
 in glory wilt Thou ascend and sit on My right Hand. " 
 Similarly "they will teach all the nations and every 
 tongue of the resurrection of the Beloved, and those 
 who believed in His cross will be saved, and in His 
 ascension.[but the original Ethiopic word is resurrection] 
 into the seventh heaven whence He came." In this 
 latter passage "resurrection" and "rising into the 
 seventh heaven whence he came" are equivalent. 
 These passages Professor Charles dates at the close 
 of the first century, that is, roughly contemporary 
 with Matthew, Luke, and John. They cannot in any 
 case be later than the second century. 1 The apology 
 of Aristides, also, written before 150, says simply 
 "after three days he arose and ascended to heaven." 2 
 When it is added that in Clement of Rome, Hermas, 
 Polycarp, Ignatius, and the Didache there is no mention 
 of the ascension, and that "Justin, Irenasus, and Ter- 
 tullian continue to regard both events as two parts of 
 one act," 3 we cannot help agreeing that it is "the 
 
 'The passages are ix: 16-18, x:i4, iii: 16-18, as trans, by 
 Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, 1900. For the dating, cf. 
 Introd., pp. xliv f. 
 
 a Ed. by J. Rendel Harris (2d ed., 1893, in Texts and Studies, 
 vol. i.), p. 37. 
 
 3 Schmiedel, col. 4061. The above discussion owes much to 
 Schmiedel's treatment (col. 4059-4061). Ignatius, ad Smyrnceos, 
 3, takes Acts x: 41 (we ate and drank with him) of a period after 
 ascension (cf. infra, p. 582). It may be added that Origen, 
 Contra Celsum, ii., 65, writes as if " the appearance to the 
 
368 The Resurrection 
 
 standpoint of all the testimony available from the apos- 
 tolic and post-apostolic age, that the ascension was 
 conceived to have occurred at the beginning, not the end 
 of appearances to the disciples. "' 
 
 The article from which this statement is quoted 
 presents the evidence for it in conclusive fashion, and 
 with all its positions save one we may at once agree. 
 But Professor Bacon is hardly true to the plain intent 
 of Luke's language when he supposes the whole ac- 
 count of Acts i : 4-9 to belong to " the third day, " to be 
 the same scene as Luke xxiv: 36-51, and therefore to be 
 inserted before the aveXv^?^ of vs. 2. Verse 3, in his 
 view, is "interjected parenthetically, " as a general sum- 
 mary of events which also (xal) took place subsequently 
 to the event of vs. 2, but also subsequently to the events 
 of vss. 4-13. The statement of this latter clause is 
 entirely opposed to the Greek text, in which the par- 
 ticiples and verbs of vss. 4 ff. cannot possibly indicate 
 a time prior to the IvustXa^evo? aytk-q^j^-q of vs. 2. 
 The auvaXi£,(5[i,evo<; of vs. 4 is plainly co-ordinate with the 
 dxt«vd(j.evo<; an d the Xiyw of vs. 3. The position of vs. 
 3 is also conclusive against the placing of the following 
 verses before it in time; it would then belong in con- 
 nection with vs. 14. Verses 14 and 15 plainly intro- 
 duce us to a time after the expiration of the forty days, 
 and the proposal to insert this period after vs. 13 is as 
 violent as the one to insert it before Luke xxiv: 50. 
 The recognition that Acts i : 9 depicts not the ascension, 
 Twelve" came after the choice of Matthias, which (Acts i: 26) 
 was subsequent to the ascension, and that the Acts of John, like 
 those of Peter, picture an ascension directly from the cross. 
 (Texts and Studies, vol. v., p. 22.) 
 
 '. B. W. Bacon, in the Expositor, March, 1909, p. 261. This 
 article appeared when most of the above was already written. 
 
Then to the Twelve 369 
 
 the first, but an ascension, the last, would make the 
 whole matter clear. 
 
 "Each appearance ended with an ascension" is 
 Schmiedel's terse phrasing of the critical solvent of all 
 the difficulties, * or, in words written more than three- 
 score years earlier, "Christus mehrere Male, und zwar 
 nach jeder einzelnen Erscheinung an die Junger zum 
 Himmel sich erhoben habe, manchmal so, dass er ihn- 
 en nur entschwand, manchmal vor ihren Augen 
 sichtbar sich erhebend, so dass die Himmelfahrt am 
 vierzigsten Tage nur darum so bedeutend hervortritt, 
 weil mit ihr die regelmassigen Erscheinungen und 
 Mittheilungen an die Junger aufhorten." These 
 words are quoted at length, in the original, to call at- 
 tention to the article in which they occur. After most 
 of the above discussion was complete, the present 
 writer's attention was called to the article through a 
 contemptuous reference by H. A. W. Meyer, alluding 
 to the "anti-Scriptural view of a repeated ascension" 
 set forth by Gottfried Kinkel (a Privat-dozent at Bonn) 
 in the Studien und Kritiken for 1841, pages 597 ff. a 
 The article, when read, proved to be anything but 
 
 1 Schmiedel, col. 4061. Similarly H. Zimmermann, Si. K., vol. 
 lxxiv. (1901), pp. 441 f., note. 
 
 * " Historisch-kritische Untersuchung uber Christi Himmel- 
 fahrt. " It is interesting to note that Professor Nitzsch, one of 
 the editors, prefaces the article with an apology for printing any- 
 thing so " auffallend. " Keim, pp. 618 f. (Eng. tr., pp. 379 f.), 
 alludes to the "crude and ludicrous" hypothesis of two or more 
 ascensions, and in a foot-note cites Kinkel. The article, trans- 
 lated into English by Prof. B. B. Edwards of Andover Theologi- 
 cal Seminary, appeared in the first issue of the Bibliotheca Sacra, 
 vol.i., 1844, pp. 152 ff. Thereupon Kinkel's view was adopted and 
 elaborated upon by George Bush, Professor of Hebrew in New 
 '4 
 
370 The Resurrection 
 
 "schriftwidrig." With great critical acumen and 
 vigour of treatment, it sets forth the actual intent of 
 the New Testament statements we have passed in re- 
 view above, with other evidence from extracanonical 
 sources. 1 Kinkel's judgment as to the historicity of 
 one or another statement cannot always be shared by 
 modern scholars, but his article deserves the attention 
 of all students of the resurrection and ascension nar- 
 ratives. In the main its conclusions agree with those 
 here set forth. 
 
 We must., then, consider Luke xxiv: 50 f., and not 
 Acts i : 9, as the Biblical account of the ascension. The 
 church in its century-long celebration of Ascension Day 
 forty days after Easter is committing a chronological 
 error, and going contrary to the plain intent of the 
 New Testament writers and to Christian thought at 
 least to the end of the post-apostolic age. A glance at 
 Luke's phraseology may offer a final confirmation to 
 the view. "And he led them out to a point (su?) op- 
 posite Bethany." If the ascension is not to follow, 
 why are the disciples led out to this spot on the Mount 
 
 York City University, in his learned and interesting book Anas- 
 tasis, 2d. ed., 1845, pp. 156-162. 
 
 J. A. Brennecke: Bibliscker Beweis, 1819, pp. 8 f., cites an 
 anonymous work, "Beweis dass der Menschensohn, unser Herr 
 und Heiland Jesus Christus, zu dreyen unterschiedenen Malen 
 gen Himmel gefahren sey, " no place, 1766. 
 
 The learned and eccentric William Whiston published in 1709, 
 as No. 6 of Sermons and Essays Upon Several Subjects, a paper 
 " Upon the Several Ascensions of Christ." Perhaps another edi- 
 tion of the same material is his "Dissertation to Prove that our 
 Saviour Ascended into Heaven on the Evening after His 
 Resurrection," which is known to me only by name. 
 
 1 The citation from Arnobius, Adv. Gentes i., 46, seems not to 
 have quite the force which Kinkel (pp. 631 f.) would give it. 
 
Then to the Twelve 371 
 
 of Olives? If Jesus is simply to vanish, yet remaining 
 on earth, as he did after he broke the bread at Emmaus, 
 why could he not vanish from the room where he met 
 his disciples? This solemn procession to a height a 
 Sabbath day's journey from the city (Acts i: 12), fol- 
 lowed by a solemn farewell blessing, has no motive or 
 significance whatever except as a prelude to the ascen- 
 sion. "And lifting up his hands, he blessed them. 
 And it came to pass, as he blessed them he was parted 
 from them, and was gradually carried up (avaplpeTo im- 
 perfect, to prolong the sight of his vanishing body and 
 cover the time of the •jcpooxuv^javte?) into the 
 heaven. " The latter clause %a\ aveipepexo tic, -zbv oupav<5v 
 is double-bracketed by Westcott-Hort, omitted by 
 Tischendorf and B. Weiss. The Western text is with- 
 out the clause, and the Bezan codex has here the sup- 
 port of the Sinaitic r MS., but all other Greek MSS. 
 have it, as do the other Syriac versions (in substance), 
 as well as the Egyptian (Sahidic, Coptic, Ethiopic) and 
 Armenian, with some of the Latin MSS. It is com- 
 monly urged that the words are an interpolation on 
 the basis of Acts i: 9, 1 to which may be replied that 
 they do not in the least reproduce the phraseology of 
 that verse. It is said that there is no conceivable 
 ground for omitting the words, if genuine, 2 to which 
 Professor Bacon replies, "except the desire to avoid 
 contradiction with Acts." 3 This is in truth the mo- 
 
 ' So, e.g., Meyer-Weiss, and, in substance, W.-H.; Plummer; 
 Wellhausen; J. Weiss, Schriften des N. T., ad he; Loisy, ii., p. 778. 
 
 ' So Meyer- Weiss, Plummer. 
 
 3 Expositor, March, 1909, p. 256. Aristion's ending of Mark 
 is based on Luke xxiv, and vouches (xvi: 19) for the ascension in 
 xxiv: 51. 
 
372 The Resurrection 
 
 tive which led to the omission of the words in the West- 
 ern text. The scribes saw more clearly than some 
 modern exegetes that Luke xxiv: 50 £. pictures a 
 scene of the third day, and since the episode of Acts i: 9 
 is so distinctly dated forty days later, the words which 
 seemed to identify the closing scene of the gospel with 
 "the ascension" must be suppressed. Here too the 
 dogma: only one ascension, has wrought harm to 
 the records. Even if the words were interpolated, the 
 interpolator would have precisely caught the intent 
 of Luke, who means ascension here, just as certainly 
 whether these words are his or no. This he himself 
 plainly says, in describing his gospel as extending to 
 the day when Jesus was taken up (Acts i: i). 1 
 
 "And they, having worshipped him, returned to 
 Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the 
 temple praising God." The phrase xpoaxuvqaavTes 
 aik<5v is omitted by almost exactly the same set of 
 witnesses as omit xal aveipspeTO d<; tbv oupaviv, and 
 like the latter phrase, is probably genuine. Its con- 
 tent is not specific or striking enough to lead to its 
 interpolation, as is sometimes suggested, from Mat. 
 xxviii: 17. Those who omitted the "ascension" 
 phrase omitted this as well, possibly thinking that 
 "worship" was paid to the risen Lord only after his 
 exaltation, not during the forty days. 2 In any case 
 this operation on the text shows that those responsible 
 
 "For retaining the words, cf. Merx, loc. cit., pp. 544 f.; 
 Schmiedel, col. 4060 (top); Bauer, p. 275; G. Salmon: Some 
 Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the N. T., 1897, pp. 94-98. 
 
 "The worship of Mat. xxviii: 17 is after the first ascension, 
 and John xx: 17 forbids it earlier. Cf. Volter, p. 23. Bauer, p. 
 529, regards the words as interpolated. 
 
Then to the Twelve 373 
 
 for it understood the gospel passage to describe the 
 ascension, and resorted to this means to bring about 
 harmony with Acts. And so, the Messiah having 
 risen to his heavenly seat of power, the Gospel of 
 Luke comes to its fitting end. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 THE FORTY DAYS 
 
 LUKE'S gospel closes with the picture of the dis- 
 ciples returning joyfully into the city at the end 
 of the great resurrection day, there to give expression 
 to their gratitude and reverence in constant worship 
 at the sacred shrine of their people. Precisely at this 
 point Acts i: 3 takes up the narrative, i: 1 f. being the 
 summary of the entire gospel to xxiv: 53. Luke now 
 gives us scenes from the next forty days; alternating 
 with the hours of devotion in the temple are seasons 
 of communion with the exalted Master. To them he 
 presents himself, appearing during two-score days, 
 speaking the mysteries of the kingdom and the duties 
 of the apostolate, promising the gift of the Spirit as a 
 gracious power guiding and fructifying their activities. 
 The word auvaXi^o^evoq at the beginning of vs. 4 
 offers a problem. Does it mean "assembling with 
 (them)" or "eating with (them) "? The word by itself 
 might conceivably have either meaning and we are 
 left to contextual evidence. The present participle 
 properly signifies "as he was engaged in the activity" 
 described by the verb. That Jesus spoke the following 
 words " while he was assembling with them " is scarcely 
 sense; all must hear the bidding, or it is in vain; there- 
 fore all must be assembled when it is given. But this 
 
 374 
 
The Forty Days 375 
 
 would demand (juvaXia0ei<;. The present participle 
 could not possibly have that force. Moreover, suva- 
 X£Cea8at in the sense of "assemble" is very awkward 
 when used of one person; the English rendering "being 
 assembled together with them" offends alike against 
 grammar and congruity. The activity going on when 
 Jesus gives the bidding is, then, not assembling, but 
 eating. This makes perfect sense: as they ate, he bade 
 them, etc. The Vulgate has convescens; the Syriac, 
 Armenian, Sahidic, Ethiopic, and Coptic versions have 
 the same reading. So Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophy- 
 lact, and many of the fathers understood the word. 
 Augustine takes it in a somewhat more general sense; 
 "cum conversaretur cum eis, " "quomodo conversatus 
 est cum illis," "quomodo conversatus sit cum illis" 
 are his three reproductions of the word. 1 
 
 If one asks for the objection to the reading "eating," 
 the usual answer is that the word is rarely found in 
 Greek authors in this sense. But the translators of 
 the ancient versions, or men like Jerome and Chrysos- 
 tom, may be trusted as to the usage of Greek words. 
 The idea that at these meetings of Jesus with his dis- 
 ciples during the forty days he ate with them, sat down 
 to common meals, is a very definite and important idea 
 for Luke. In Acts x: 41 Peter declares that the risen 
 Jesus "became manifest, not to all the people, but to 
 witnesses chosen beforehand by God, to us, who ate 
 and drank with him after he rose from the dead." It 
 is natural to suppose that this is not an isolated allu- 
 sion, that if Luke really knew of such eating together 
 prior to the last ascension, he would mention it in its 
 
 1 Cf. Teschendorf, adloc. Brandt, p. 371, has " Verkehr haben," 
 with Augustine. 
 
376 The Resurrection 
 
 proper place, especially since he is so concerned to 
 make the most of the physical identity of the risen 
 body, and introduces the evidential eating of broiled 
 fish in the gospel account. There is, then, a presump- 
 tion in favour of an antecedent for x: 41, an anteced- 
 ent which can only be the auvaXc^(5(Aevo? of i: 4. This 
 presumption becomes practically a certainty when we 
 observe that precisely the same verb, in the same form 
 (xap^YYetXev), "he charged," follows the allusion to 
 eating in both contexts. "Eating with them he 
 charged them" = "we ate and drank with him and 
 he charged us. " In either case it is not probable that 
 Luke thinks of but a single such occasion, so that only 
 once did Jesus eat with his disciples and, while at table, 
 give them a charge. The content of the charge in the 
 two contexts is not precisely the same. In x : 42 it is to 
 preach Jesus as Messiah ; in i : 4 f . it is to remain in Jeru- 
 salem for the baptism of the Spirit. We are at once 
 reminded of a third occasion described by Luke, where 
 Jesus partakes of food and gives charge to his disciples. 
 It is in the gospel, xxiv: 36 ff. Here the word irapay- 
 Y^XXu is not used, but elrcev (vs. 44) in this context is its 
 equivalent, and the content of the charge is simply a 
 union of the charges in Acts x: 42 and i: 4f. The repro- 
 duction of Luke xxiv: 45-48 in Acts x: 39-43 is extra- 
 ordinarily close, even to details of expression; equally 
 closely is the following verse (49) repeated in Acts i : 4. 
 Since Luke himself thus joins together these two pas- 
 sages, let not commentators put them asunder. The 
 very fact that the evangelist models the scenes of 
 Acts i: 1-12 on the scheme of the gospel, xxiv: 36-53, is 
 of itself convincing evidence for the repetition of the 
 eating of the gospel story in the later account. The 
 
The Forty Days 377 
 
 elements of the outline are the same — Jesus' appear- 
 ance (eccr): TrapeaTY]aev), the infallible proofs (hands 
 and feet, flesh and bone: Tex^piot?), the eating, 
 the charge, the ascension. Again, not that Luke has 
 in mind the same scene, but that he uses the same 
 scheme for the several scenes. The element of the 
 eating can hardly fail in the Acts account, since 
 the others are all present, and we are thus forced by 
 every consideration to give <juvaXi£6(Aevo<; this force. r 
 
 When Holtztnann urges against this interpretation 
 that "the continuation shows that we are here not in a 
 dining-room, but on the Mount of Olives," 2 he erron- 
 eously takes vss. 4-1 r as referring to a single scene, on 
 the last of the forty days. This makes auvaXt^^evo? 
 (present) not only co-ordinate, but synonymous, with 
 <ruveX06vTe? (aorist, vs. 6) , the latter word, indeed, the 
 mere repetition of the former. The line ought to be 
 drawn after vs. 5, and auvaXt^o^svo? taken as co-ordi- 
 nate with the other presents dxtavd^evos and Xeywv, as 
 depicting the course of events during the forty days. 
 Luke's precise point is to present those days as a time 
 
 1 For the translation "eating," cf. H. H. Wendt (Meyer-Wendt, 
 8th ed., 1899), ad loc; B. Weiss, Das N. T. (Handausgabe), 2d 
 ed., vol. iii., 1892, ad loc; H. A. W. Meyer, 4th ed., 1870, ad loc. 
 Contra, R. J. Knowling, "Acts of the Apostles" (in Expositor's 
 Greek Test., vol. ii., 1900), ad loc; R. Knopf, in Schriften des 
 N. T., vol. i., ad loc; Schmiedel, col. 4073, note 2 ; Brandt, p. 371, 
 and refi. there cited; F. Field, Notes on the Trans, of the N. T., 
 1899, ad loc. Voigt, pp. 98 f., has the reconciling view that in the 
 source used by Luke the word was used in the sense " assembling, " 
 but that Luke understands it in the sense "eating together." 
 The latter, at least, is certain. On the general significance of 
 Jesus' eating in the tradition, cf. Arnold Meyer, pp. 207-211. 
 
 2 Holtzmann, H. C, ad loc. 
 
378 The Resurrection 
 
 of most intimate fellowship and solemn converse, as 
 well as to present their experiences as testifying to the 
 physical identity of the risen body. Fellowship in the 
 flesh is what he is urgent to convey. In Acts i : 4 the 
 fellowship idea is in the foreground; in Luke xxiv: 42 f. 
 the evidential idea; in Acts x: 41 the two are well bal- 
 anced. So in some of the versions and fathers appears 
 an interpolation after Luke xxiv: 43, "and the rest he 
 gave to them," thus making this context also witness 
 to the double idea. 
 
 In the scene at Emmaus the same motive appears, 
 there combined with the Lord's Supper motive. There 
 is reason to think that in Luke's mind these com- 
 mon meals of Jesus with the disciples during the forty 
 days were conceived, more or less distinctly, on the 
 model of the later Agape-Eucharist. They may, in- 
 deed, have served in his thought as the first Agapse, 
 of which those of the later church were but the contin- 
 uation, with the substitution of the consecrated ele- 
 ments for the living Presence that had glorified those 
 primitive feasts of love. 1 At any rate, Acts ii: 46 f. 
 plainly takes up the language of Luke xxiv: 52 f., and 
 indicates that at this time (subsequent to Pentecost) 
 the disciples' manner of life was but a continuation of 
 what it had been during the forty days. There is the 
 gladness of heart and the praise of God, the hours of 
 worship in the temple alternating with house-to-house 
 gatherings, at which the distinctive thing was "the 
 breaking of bread . ' ' Just so it was a few weeks earlier, 
 thinks Luke, only that he who then broke the bread 
 
 'This suggestion, with its relation to Luke xxii: 18, needs a 
 development it cannot here receive. 
 
The Forty Days 379 
 
 and gave to them was the Master himself, whose place 
 must now be taken by another. 
 
 If one sets down in succession Luke xxiv: 52 f., its 
 analogue Acts i: 14, then ii: 42, then ii: 46, one will 
 have Luke's general picture of the life of the earliest 
 Christian group from the day of resurrection on. It is 
 worth noting how the phraseology binds these verses 
 together. 
 
 "With great joy were continually in the temple 
 praising God." 1 
 
 "With one accord continued steadfastly in prayer." 
 
 "Continued steadfastly in the . . . breaking of 
 bread and the prayers." 
 
 " Day by day continuing steadfastly with one accord 
 in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they did 
 take their food with gladness and singleness of heart, 
 praising God." 
 
 It is especially noteworthy how the last passage 
 takes up the phrases of the first ; ' ' day by day " = " con- 
 tinually"; "in the temple"; "with gladness of heart" 
 = "with great joy"; "praising God." 
 
 Every element of the first passage is duplicated in the 
 last, which adds to these the elements of the two inter- 
 mediate passages, "continuing steadfastly with one 
 accord" and "breaking bread," and adds, besides, a 
 special reference to the taking of food. 
 
 It is impossible to believe that Luke had not the 
 thought of common meals of Jesus with his followers 
 
 1 Read alvovvres with Teschendorf and W.-H., margin. The 
 creeping in of ci\oyovrrcs from its use twice in the immediately 
 preceding verses is more probable than the creeping in of alvovvres 
 from so remote a point as Acts ii: 47. Cf. the textual witness in 
 Teschendorf. 
 
380 The Resurrection 
 
 during those forty days, at which the breaking of the 
 bread was the culminating feature. The Emmaus 
 episode is but the first of such occasions, the scene that 
 followed it in Jerusalem is the second (obscured, in- 
 deed, by Luke) , and there followed many more. Luke 
 apparently thinks of these as evening meals, after the 
 analogy of the original supper; so the Emmaus meal 
 and the one later in Jerusalem. The same motive is 
 met again in John xxi: 9 ff., with Eucharistic sugges- 
 tions. It is Jesus who is the Master of the feast, who 
 prepares all and passes the bread and the fish to his 
 disciples. The meal here is a morning one; so the 
 Eucharist was being transferred to the early morning 
 hour in the first half of the second century. The evi- 
 dential element is entirely lacking in this account; it is 
 not distinctly said that Jesus himself ate. The em- 
 phasis is on the Eucharistic fellowship, or communion. z 
 The fish appears, as in Luke, as the distinctive element 
 of the meal. 2 The tracing of the connection of these 
 post-resurrection agapag of Jesus and his friends, at 
 which fish is eaten, with the stories of the feeding of 
 the multitude with five loaves and two fishes, which 
 are also modelled closely upon the original Lord's 
 Supper and the later agapae, would lead us too far 
 afield. John vi : 30-59 explains the miraculous feeding 
 as a symbol of the Eucharist, and so the earliest Christ- 
 
 1 This is perhaps the source of the interpolation ra! t4 iviKonrb 
 itwKev airrois into Luke xxiv: 43, though Acts x: 41 might also be 
 suggestive. The reading Tepura-d/mTa for iiriKonri in one MS. 
 offering this interpolation suggests the feeding in the desert. 
 
 ' Beyschlag, p. 442, suggests a Galilean original for the nar- 
 rative, even in Luke xxiv, since fish is a characteristic food in 
 Galilee, less so in Jerusalem. 
 
The Forty Days 381 
 
 ians understood it, as is evidenced by the phraseology 
 in which each evangelist records it, and by the early 
 paintings in the Roman Catacombs which represent 
 the Supper as consisting of five loaves and two fishes. 
 Most notable is the great second-century fresco in the 
 Capella Greca of the catacomb of Santa Priscilla, Wil- 
 pert's Fraclio Panis. 1 And one may feel sure, that 
 the fish of Luke xxiv and John xxi is not without re- 
 lation also to the wide-spread symbol of Christ in the 
 early church, in the figure and name of a fish. 2 Jesus 
 was thought of as lyb&s not merely because "some in- 
 genious Christian discovered that the initial letters of 
 the titles of our Lord — 'Iijaous Xpiuxb? ©sou Yib? Swr-rjp 
 — formed the word fyOu? (fish)." 3 In the catacomb 
 pictures the fish is on the altar or table as one of the 
 consecrated elements, taking the place of the wine, 
 the very blood of Christ. Somehow the partaking of 
 the fish was the partaking of him. Here is a depart- 
 ment of Christian origins that needs fuller investiga- 
 tion, but it cannot be pursued further here. 
 
 The extracanonical declarations of the eating of 
 the risen Jesus are substantially developments of the 
 episode in Luke xxiv and, like it, follow the evidential 
 purpose. So Ignatius, writing to the Christians of 
 Smyrna, is concerned to oppose with vigour the docetic 
 heresy, and after the quotation from the Gospel of the 
 
 1 These pictures are well described and reproduced in the easily 
 accessible book of Walter Lowrie, Monuments of the Early Church, 
 1901, pp. 223-232. Cf. Kalthoff, Christusproblem, 2d ed., 1903, 
 p. 46, for a correct insight here. 
 
 ' For this cf. Lowrie, pp. 232-236. 
 
 3 A. C. Headlam, in Authority and Archeology (ed. by D. G. 
 Hogarth), 1899, p. 418. 
 
382 The Resurrection 
 
 Hebrews, already noted, 1 goes on, "After the resur- 
 rection he ate and drank with them as fleshly, although 
 spiritually made one with the Father." 2 The Greek 
 text here reproduces the words of Acts x: 41, in free 
 quotation, which shows that Ignatius understood that 
 passage to refer to a period after the ascension, when 
 Jesus was already ^vufiivos tu icaTpt. Justin Martyr 
 also, in his work De Resurrectione, argues for the 
 resurrection of the flesh from the example of Jesus, as 
 follows. " And when they were by every kind of proof 
 persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they 
 asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still 
 more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen 
 bodily; and he did eat honeycomb and fish." 3 
 
 We return to Acts i : 4. "And eating with them, he 
 gave them charge not to depart from Jerusalem, but 
 to await the promise of the Father 'which you heard 
 of me. Because John baptised with water, but you in 
 holy spirit shall be baptised after not many days.' 
 Therefore, having come together they were questioning 
 him, saying, ' Master, at this time do you restore the 
 Kingdom to Israel?' He said to them, ' It is not yours 
 to know times or seasons which the Father put in his 
 own authority, but you shall receive power when the 
 holy spirit has come upon you, and you shall be my 
 witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, 
 
 1 Supra, p. 345. * Ad Smymaeos, 3. 
 
 * " De Resurrectione " 9. Trans, by Marcus Dods, in Ante- 
 Nicene Fathers, vol. i., 1885 (American Ed.), p. 298. The work 
 is not certainly Justin's, but is at least contemporary. Cf. 
 Harnack, Chronologie, pp. 508-510. In view of the above con- 
 siderations, it is not necessary to assume, as Arnold Meyer does 
 (pp. 163, 168, 211, 214) that the appearance to the Ten came 
 when they were eating a meal together. 
 
The Forty Days 383 
 
 and unto the uttermost part of earth. ' " These words, 
 modelled on those of Luke xxiv: 47-49, give the apos- 
 tolic commission for the evangelisation of the world. 
 The time of the parousia is distinctly declared unknown 
 by mortals, and a missionary program is outlined 
 which is not limited by the prospect of its near ap- 
 proach. Plainly the early expectation of the Master's 
 return before they should "have gone through the 
 cities of Israel" is growing dim; history has given it the 
 lie, and the Church is preparing for the conquest of a 
 world which shall endure at any rate long enough to be 
 conquered. 
 
 There is a significant omission of Galilee in the 
 missionary scheme. Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria — 
 then out into the world. And this corresponds pre- 
 cisely to Luke's treatment in the body of his book. 
 Chapters i to vii keep the church in Jerusalem; chapter 
 viii pictures, much more concisely, the extension into 
 Judea and Samaria; ix: 1 leaps to Damascus, ix: 30 to 
 Tarsus. Chapter x converts Gentiles at Caesarea; xi: 
 19 carries the gospel to Phoenicia, Cyprus, Antioch 
 ("only to Jews") ; with the foundation of the Antioch 
 church comes the definite mission to Gentiles (xi: 20), 
 and from that city Paul begins the "first missionary 
 journey " into Asia Minor. 
 
 Similarly in Acts xv: 3 there is the curious avoidance 
 of the mention of Galilee ; the delegates could not easily 
 go from Antioch to Jerusalem "through both Phoeni- 
 cia and Samaria, " without touching Galilee, xxvi : 20, 
 again, repeats the missionary program of i: 8, with the 
 omission of Samaria. It is "Jerusalem, and through- 
 out all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles." 
 Only thrice is Galilee mentioned in the book of Acts; 
 
384 The Resurrection 
 
 two of these allusions (x: 37, xiii:3i) refer simply to 
 Jesus' activity there. In the second of these it is sig- 
 nificant that the disciples are described, not as those 
 who had been in Galilee with Jesus, but as those who 
 had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. 1 Only 
 in the third passage (ix: 31) is there the most casual 
 reference to a Christian movement in Galilee: "The 
 church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria 
 had peace." 2 Clearly Luke had no information as 
 to missionary work in Galilee or concerning any 
 church there at the time at which he writes. Our 
 sources are too meagre to tell us just what was the 
 state of things there at the end of the century, but 
 there must have been ground for this limitation of 
 Luke's horizon. 
 
 The first allusion to a Christian church in Galilee 
 (aside from Acts ix : 31) after the death of Jesus is com- 
 monly found in a passage quoted from Hegesippus by 
 Eusebius 3 concerning two grandsons of Jesus' brother 
 Jude. These men were Christians and "ruled the 
 churches, because they were witnesses and were also 
 relatives of the Lord. ' ' They are described as brought 
 before Domitian from their home on a small farm, but 
 the location of this farm is nowhere indicated. It is 
 only inference that places it in Galilee, or indeed in 
 Palestine at all, because Galilee was in Jesus' time, 
 
 1 Cf. Baldensperger, p. 32, note 38. 
 
 ' It is perhaps not absolutely certain that ko.1 Ta\i\alas is origi- 
 nal in ix: 31. Blass brackets it as an interpolation, on the ground 
 of its omission everywhere else in Acts, and by Chrysostom and 
 Cassiodorus. So H. P. Forbes, International Handbooks to the 
 N. T., vol. iv., 1907, p. 38, and O. Zurhellen, Die Heimat des 
 Vierten Evangeliums, 1909, p. 57, note 4. 
 
 3 Church History, iii., 20. 
 
The Forty Days 385 
 
 some threescore years before, the youthful home of 
 their grandfather. When we remember the shifting 
 of population during the devastating Jewish war, and 
 the flight of the Christians to Pella, we may be per- 
 mitted to doubt if these men still lived on ancestral 
 acres in Galilee. Nor is it probable that two small 
 farmers in so remote a province would have attracted 
 sufficient attention to be accused before the emperor 
 and brought all the way to Rome to be questioned 
 by him in person. Indeed, the whole incident lacks 
 verisimilitude; a similar proceeding is related of Ves- 
 pasian and of Trajan (Euseb., iii., 12 and 32), and 
 even Weizsacker, who quotes it in this connection, 
 calls it a "quite untrustworthy legend." 1 
 
 And so, though the Christian church was born in 
 Galilee, and its first missionary activity was carried 
 on there, no trace of any lasting result has come down 
 to us, nor any explanation of the fact. If we knew the 
 truth, we should have an additional reason for Luke's 
 placing at Jerusalem the appearances of Jesus out of 
 which grew the church, a reason also why the Fourth 
 Evangelist confines Jesus' ministr}' so largely to Judea, 
 with but few and brief excursions into Galilee. That 
 is history, but history of the last decades of the cen- 
 tury, not of the years 29 and 30. It is a strange fact, 
 and its explanation would make a strange story, that 
 the scene of Jesus' life and work, the place where he 
 actually did the deeds and spoke the words that regene- 
 
 1 Weizsacker, p. 2. Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung 
 des Christentums, 2d ed., 1906, vol. ii., pp. 77-96, can offer only 
 faint and conjectural indications of Christianity in Galilee before 
 325. What is the first certain patristic reference to a church 
 there? 
 35 
 
386 The Resurrection 
 
 rated the world, where he came back in visions to his 
 disciples and consecrated them to the mission which, 
 beginning there, made the Christian church, should, a 
 few decades later, play no part at all in the story of the 
 movement. Even the gospels which record Jesus' 
 appearances in Galilee do so only to put into his mouth 
 the command that the disciples go out unto the nations 
 of the world (Mat. xxviii: 19; John xxi). Their ec- 
 clesiastical horizon has precisely the same limitation 
 as has Luke's. We can only note the fact, and hope 
 that further research will make its causes clear. 
 
 "And having said this, while they looked on he was 
 lifted up, and a cloud enfolded him from their eyes. 
 And as they were gazing into the sky while he departed, 
 behold two men were standing by them in white gar- 
 ments, who also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand 
 looking into the sky? This Jesus who was taken up 
 from you into heaven thus shall come as you beheld 
 him going into heaven. Then they returned into Jeru- 
 salem." The two men in white garments are ap- 
 parently the same two men in dazzling apparel who 
 stood by the tomb to give the resurrection message 
 to the women (Luke xxiv: 4). The details of the as- 
 cension, especially the being borne upon the cloud, are, 
 as the two men's announcement indicates, suggested 
 by the Danielic picture used by Jesus for the parousia. 1 
 As he shall come, so he departs. 2 
 
 1 Dan. vii : 1 3 ; Mark xi v : 62 . (So in Mark xiii : 2 6 = Luke xxi : 
 27; Luke here changes h ve<pt\ais to iv ve<ji{\-Q.) Cf. I Thess. iv: 17. 
 
 2 Cf. Arnold Meyer, p. 57. There is an interesting parallel to 
 the ascension in the account of Moses' translation given by Jo- 
 sephus, Antiquities, iv., 8: 48. Attention has been called to it 
 by Max Krenkel, Josephus und Luhas, 1894, pp. 148 ff.; Holtz- 
 
The Forty Days 387 
 
 Such is Luke's testimony concerning the resurrection 
 of Jesus as the great foundation fact on which the de- 
 veloping church rests. He offers many new elements 
 in the narrative, all of which are unhistorical, save in 
 the larger sense that they truly express the experiences 
 of the church in the first seven decades of its life. But 
 the primitive tradition Luke has not entirely obscured. 
 He preserves the priority and the importance of the 
 appearance to Peter. Though so briefly and awk- 
 wardly stated (xxiv: 34), the very fact that Luke must 
 state it, though it fitted so ill into his context, shows 
 how firmly fixed and how important was this tradition. 
 Further testimony as to its fundamental importance is 
 given in Luke xxii : 3 1 f . " Simon, Simon, behold, Satan 
 asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat ; but 
 I made supplication for you, that your faith should not 
 fail: and do you, when once you have turned again, es- 
 tablish your brethren, " a passage peculiar to this evan- 
 gelist. Peter's faith was rescued, ere it entirely failed, 
 by the appearance of his risen Master, and he, in turn, 
 ministered strength to his brother disciples. From 
 his relating of his own vision and conviction, faith 
 and certainty, and so the vision itself, are mediated 
 to the others. 1 This plain meaning of xxii: 32 is 
 plainly expressed in xxiv: 34. When the Emmaus dis- 
 ciples reach Jerusalem, they are met by the group of 
 the Eleven crying joyfully, "The Lord is really risen; 
 
 mann, H. C, ad loc; Pfleiderer, p. 474; Supernatural Religion, 
 p. 846. It ought not to be used, however, to imply dependence 
 of Luke on Josephus. 
 
 1 That is precisely what Mat. xvi : 18 means. Cf. supra, pp. 283 
 f. and Schmiedel, col. 4085. On Luke xxii: 32 in this connection 
 cf. Kreyenbuhl, in Z. N. T. W., 1908, pp. 266 f. 
 
388 The Resurrection 
 
 he appeared to Simon." Though they wholly dis- 
 believed the women, they believe now, because of 
 Peter's experience. Their faith is restored, though 
 they themselves have not yet seen the risen Master. 
 But that blessed privilege is soon theirs. "As they 
 spake these things, he himself stood in the midst of 
 them. " The absolute historic fact that Peter's vision, 
 reported to the others, recalled them to a faith and an 
 expectation which was a condition of their own not 
 long delayed vision, so graphically expressed here, 
 Luke has somewhat obscured by his apologetic re- 
 introduction of the disciples' doubt (vs. 37). Here he 
 is unhistoric, in every sense, and only the exigencies 
 of controversy would have led him so to offend 
 against reality. 
 
 Luke preserves, secondly, the appearance to the 
 Eleven, the other element of the earliest tradition. 
 This appearance he mislocates, misdates, divides into 
 a series, and otherwise misconceives in detail, but its 
 essential significance he has preserved and emphasised, 
 and all his misconceptions of the actual historic detail 
 are the expression of certain truths of the Church's 
 growing life. And finally, Luke keeps the earliest 
 departure of the story from historic fact, the angelic 
 appearance and announcement to the women at the 
 sepulchre. This he makes much of, in its relation to 
 his apologetic interests, but he is true to Mark, as 
 the uninterpolated Matthew is, in ascribing the first 
 appearances to the disciples, not to the women. 
 
BOOK FIVE 
 
 THE WITNESS OF JOHN AND OTHERS 
 
 CHAPTER XIII 
 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 THE resurrection-narrative in the Fourth Gospel 
 can be considered only in connection with the 
 whole problem of the origin and character of that gos- 
 pel. What is true of the gospel as a whole is true of 
 this element of its presentation. The Fourth Gospel 
 is the work of an anonymous highly gifted Christian, 
 probably belonging to Asia Minor, writing in the first 
 half, probably in the first quarter, of the second cen- 
 tury. He knows and uses all three synoptics, so far 
 as they fit his purpose. But that purpose is not the 
 chronicling of the facts of Jesus' biography. Clement 
 of Alexandria had the correct apprehension of the 
 matter seventeen centuries ago. "Last of all, John, 
 perceiving that the external facts [tot <JCi)[AGmx<4, the 
 bodily, or literal, elements] had been made plain in the 
 Gospel [i. e., the synoptic account] being urged by his 
 friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spirit- 
 ual Gospel. " r As the synoptic history gives the body 
 
 1 Quoted from Clement's lost Hypotyposes by Euseb., Ch. Hist., 
 vi., 14. Trans, by McGiffert, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 
 2d series, vol. i., 1890, p. 261. 
 
 389 
 
390 The Resurrection 
 
 of Jesus' mission to the first century, so the Fourth 
 Gospel gives its spirit, as the author conceived it. 
 Not what Jesus literally said and did is he concerned 
 to set forth — why repeat the Synoptics? — but the 
 larger significance and result of the Master's work, 
 what he has been doing and saying in and through his 
 church in these near a hundred years. The Jesus of 
 this presentation is not the "bodily" Jesus the Gali- 
 lean rabbi, but the "spiritual" Christ the incarnated 
 word of God, who is the centre of the proclamation of 
 the second-century Gentile church. These things are 
 written that men may believe; they are the church's 
 defence of its Lord. They are shaped by the needs of 
 the propaganda, by the exigencies of the controversy. 
 The Fourth Gospel is a great sermon on the theme: 
 What is the large and permanent significance of Jesus? 
 The question finds a true answer, the answer which the 
 history of the first Christian century gave. If that 
 title did not already belong to the double work of 
 "Luke," the Fourth Gospel might well be called the 
 first great apology of the Christian church. The apolo- 
 getic tendencies of the Gospel of Luke are found again 
 here, for the most part in more advanced form; the 
 controversies of the time are mirrored even more 
 clearly. The author, himself deeply imbued with the 
 essential principles of Gnosticism, here battles against 
 the Gnostic movement as it becomes a heresy. ' If one 
 seeks a true expression of how the message of Jesus, as 
 embodied in the Church, had related itself to its first- 
 
 1 Of all treatments of the intent and significance of the Fourth 
 Gospel, the one which shows clearest and truest comprehension 
 of the work is E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, Us Purpose and 
 Theology, 2d. ed., 1910. 
 
The Fourth Gospel 391 
 
 century environment, and especially to the religious 
 life of one of its most gifted representatives, this gos- 
 pel furnishes it. But if one seeks to know Christ after 
 the flesh, and wishes ia aw^axtxa of his earthly career, 
 "John" does not know him so; he can only refer the 
 inquirer to the synoptics. He makes no claim to 
 satisfy these inquiries. 
 
 Of the synoptists, as indicated above, it is Luke who 
 is "John's" nearest of kin. Between the gospels of 
 these two men there exists a curious relation, which is 
 one of the most puzzling of unsolved New Testament 
 problems. In the resurrection-narratives this re- 
 lationship is especially marked. The elements of the 
 Johannine story are almost without exception elements 
 already presented by Luke, though they are developed 
 here in more pronounced pragmatic fashion. None 
 of the elements of the Johannine story is historic. 
 That question is settled with the true apprehension of 
 the gospel as a whole, but the study of the narrative 
 itself would also make its unhistorical character clear. 
 Like Luke, this gospel (without chapter xxi, which is 
 a supplement, to be considered later) presents the 
 "Jerusalem tradition," without allusion to any other. 
 The reasons which caused Luke to set forth this view 
 were operative also in the case of John. The invariable 
 accompaniments of that stage of the tradition reappear 
 here — the emphatic declaration of the physical iden- 
 tity of risen body with buried corpse, and the initial 
 doubt of the disciples. There is little to be learned 
 from the account of John that our study of Luke has 
 not already taught us; we may, therefore, comment 
 on this narrative somewhat briefly. 
 
 To begin with the burial (xix:38), Joseph of Arima- 
 
392 The Resurrection 
 
 thea has now become "a disciple of Jesus (but se- 
 cretly, for fear of the Jews) . " The beginnings of this 
 process of canonising the orthodox Sanhedrist we saw 
 in Matthew and Luke, and considered its motives. 
 Without delay or difficulty Joseph secures from Pilate 
 the body; in its interment he is assisted by a creation 
 of the fourth evangelist, also a secret disciple and a 
 Sanhedrist, who brings a hundred pounds of gums and 
 spices. The enormous quantity, incredible in reality, 
 is simply the expression of the evangelist's insatiable de- 
 votion; it is the parallel to the clean cloth, Joseph's own 
 tomb, new, where never man had yet lain. A precise 
 analogue is the gold, frankincense, and myrrh offered 
 by the Magi to the infant Jesus (Mat. ii: n f.). So 
 the regular and formal process of wrapping the body 
 in linen bandages, with spices, "as the custom of the 
 Jews is to bury, " will say that this is no hasty, care- 
 less burial, but a sepulture carried out with all the 
 lavish care and attention to customary detail that 
 devotion can furnish. How so elaborate a process 
 could be completed in the scant time at hand (vs. 42), 
 the evangelist of course does not ask. 
 
 The following details, the pleasant garden (instead 
 of a bare hillside of deserted graves) and the new tomb 
 where no one had yet lain (this from Luke xxiii: 53), 
 follow the same tendency to enrich and dignify the 
 burial and to repeat synoptic statements. The choice 
 of the near tomb owing to the approach of Sabbath 
 correctly understands Mark xv : 42. Sabbath is 
 passed over without a word. Sunday morning while 
 it is yet dark, Mary Magdalene (as to whose presence 
 there Mark, Matthew, and Luke were agreed) comes 
 to the tomb and sees the stone removed, as in Mark. 
 
The Fourth Gospel 393 
 
 Without making any investigation she flies to two of 
 the disciples (not to the Eleven) and announces that 
 Jesus' body has been removed, inferring this, appar- 
 ently, from the displacement of the stone. Her "we 
 know" is a reminiscence of the synoptic mention of 
 other women. The two disciples, Peter and the mys- 
 terious Beloved Disciple, who never appears except 
 as Peter's foil, believing her story, start running to the 
 tomb. The Nine, as yet, know nothing of all this. 
 The effective balancing of Peter and the Beloved 
 Disciple, a striking motif of this writer, leaves, as al- 
 ways, the advantage with the latter. He believed, 
 though he did not see the Lord, though he saw only 
 the abandoned grave-cloths which Peter also saw. 1 
 Peter, first to enter in and see the cloths, did not be- 
 lieve. This is clear from the express notice that the 
 other did believe. The two men have equal evidence, 
 equal opportunity, yet Peter does not believe until, 
 with the others, he sees the Master (xx : 20). The 
 other is the one man of all the apostolic group to whom 
 xx : 29 applies ; he it is who believed when as yet he 
 had not seen. The disciples knew not the Script- 
 ure prophecies of Messiah's resurrection; without 
 any such suggestion the Beloved Disciple believed, 
 while Peter waited to be convinced by the Lord's 
 appearing. This visit of the two disciples to the 
 tomb is simply the explication of Luke xxiv: 24, 
 where merely t£vs? are spoken of. John's debt to 
 Luke for this loan was repaid by the scribe who in- 
 
 1 Korff, pp. 84 f., turns this verse into nonsense by rendering 
 "believed that the corpse was removed." Despite "Augustine, 
 Erasmus, Luther, and many others, " this reading has no signifi- 
 cance. Peter surely believed so much! 
 
394 The Resurrection 
 
 terpolated Luke xxiv: 12 on the basis of this passage 
 in John. 
 
 Meantime Mary has returned and stands weeping 
 by the grave ; looking in, she sees two angels in white 
 (from Luke xxiv: 4) sitting at the head and the foot of 
 the place where the body had been. Their place or 
 purpose in the narrative it is difficult to see. They 
 ask Mary why she weeps, and she tells them 1 ; then 
 they disappear from the scene without even a reply. 
 The only possible purpose they serve is to act as a sort 
 of guard of honour over the body's resting-place, yet, 
 as the body is no longer there, this is unnecessary. 
 They were not there shortly before, when Peter and his 
 companion were in the tomb; John has brought them 
 on the scene too late to play any real part in the action. 
 They are simply brought over from the synoptic tra- 
 dition, in its Lucan form, and, deprived of their origi- 
 nal office as messengers, are superfluous and awkward. 
 The meaningless question they ask is asked again 
 by Jesus himself a moment later, and the message 
 they were originally brought from heaven to give 
 he takes also from their lips. The scene between 
 Jesus and Mary is delicately conceived and written; 
 only the rationalism that insisted upon its being taken 
 as a transcript of fact has made it necessary to apply 
 to it the processes of criticism. We have already seen 
 how the evangelist understands and clearly expresses 
 the primitive conception of the ascension, to which 
 
 1 Lake, p. 146, curiously says, "She gave no answer. " This is 
 only one of several loose or inaccurate sentences which slightly 
 mar a most excellent book. E.g. " Mark gives no motive, " etc. , on 
 p. 171, and "though they did not, according to Mark," etc., on 
 p. 247, might have been more carefully expressed. 
 
The Fourth Gospel 395 
 
 here alone, in his account, is there any allusion. He 
 paraphrases Mark's language, in the message to the 
 disciples, and correctly reproduces the thought behind 
 Mark's words. There the angel had said: "He goes 
 before you into Galilee," but Mark was too near the 
 primitive conception to "assume that Jesus made the 
 journeyfromthe sepulchre to Galilee by way of earth." * 
 Rather Jesus' resurrection had taken him into heaven, 
 and from heaven would he come to his disciples in 
 Galilee. Over the adjustment of this view to the fact 
 of the empty tomb, Mark does not yet reflect. John 
 says what Mark presupposes; "I ascend to my Father 
 and your Father, to my God and your God." This 
 appearance of Jesus to Mary, with his repetition of the 
 message which the synoptists ascribe to the angels, 
 (as of the angels' question), led to the interpolation of 
 Mat. xxviii : 9 f . Only in the Fourth Gospel was there 
 originally any statement of an appearance to the 
 women, or of any appearance prior to those to disciples. 
 This specifically Johannine element, entirely unhis- 
 torical, is only a developed duplicate of the appearance 
 of the angels. Decisive against it is the fact that it 
 first appears in that gospel which is not only the latest, 
 but whose content is not concerned with the chron- 
 icling of history. Paul and the synoptists absolutely 
 ignore it; Luke xxiv: 23 expressly excludes it, and the 
 whole intention of the narrative is against it. The 
 women are to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, they 
 are not themselves bidden to go, and the promise of 
 seeing Jesus is for the disciples alone. The whole 
 point of the narrative would be broken if some one else 
 saw him first. This appearance at the grave is further 
 1 Schmiedel, col. 4061. Cf. Upodyeiv airbv in Mat. xiv: 22. 
 
396 The Resurrection 
 
 marked as legendary by the fact that it is not Peter, or 
 any of the apostles, about whom there were fixed tra- 
 ditions, but only a single unknown woman, entirely 
 without place in the later story of the church, who sees 
 him there. 1 The absolute priority of the appearance 
 to Peter may be obscured by the fourth evangelist; he 
 is not able to deny it effectively. 
 
 Mary Magdalene comes and tells the disciples (a 
 vigorous correction of Mark), though the evangelist 
 omits to tell us how her news was received. It is not 
 said that they believed at once; conviction must come 
 at the appearance and the word of the Master himself. 
 On the other hand, nothing is said of their hesitancy 
 or skepticism, of which Luke makes so much. This 
 does not mean that the doubt-motif is less important 
 for John; he makes as much of it as does Luke. But 
 he does not attribute it to all the disciples; rather he 
 singles out one and makes him doubt for the group. 
 It is psychologically and dramatically a more effective 
 way than Luke's of expressing what both alike wish 
 to bring out. The whole apostolic company is not set 
 in the unfavourable light, while the concentration of 
 the skepticism in an individual allows its sharper 
 statement and sharper rebuke. 
 
 The appearance to the disciples that Sunday evening 
 (vss. 19-23) is suggested by Luke. John correctly 
 understands Luke xxiv: 33 f. to picture an evening 
 scene; that "the doors were shut for fear of the Jews" 
 is a characteristic Johannine expansion serving to in- 
 crease the wonder of Jesus' appearance in their midst. 
 It must not be taken to show that John, after all, does 
 not have such a decided idea of the material nature of 
 
 1 Cf. Pfleiderer, p. 3. 
 
The Fourth Gospel 397 
 
 the risen body. His point is precisely in the vigorous 
 emphasis of both these things side by side; were the 
 body not fleshly, the passing through closed doors were 
 no miracle; were the doors not fast shut, the entrance 
 of a fleshly body were not so inexplicable. The intent 
 of the passage is quite defeated by those commentators 
 who insist that the doors were merely closed, not 
 locked (would closed doors keep out "the Jews "?) , and 
 were silently opened by Jesus himself, or another, to al- 
 low his entrance. * The showing of his hands and side 
 demonstrates the identity of his risen body with that 
 which had suffered on the cross 2 ; the disciples, seeing 
 that it is the Lord, convinced every one, are glad (the 
 "joy" of Luke xxiv: 41), thus fulfilling the promise of 
 xvi: 22, "I will see you again, and your heart shall re- 
 joice." Of the eleven disciples, Thomas was absent, 
 the Beloved Disciple already believed: Peter and 
 his eight colleagues are those who here believe. The 
 apostolic commission, given in varying form by Mat- 
 thew and by Luke as, what it in truth was, the essential 
 content of this "appearance, " is given by John in brief 
 fashion, and in characteristic form. Luke's emphasis 
 on the consecrating baptism of the Spirit, promised by 
 the risen Master (Acts i: 5, 8, Luke xxiv: 49), is taken 
 up by John, but with an important change. It is not 
 now postponed until Pentecost, but given immediately 
 by Jesus himself, and it conveys full apostolic ordina- 
 tion and the power of ecclesiastical mediation between 
 men's sins and their God. 
 
 1 Cf. references in H. A. W. Meyer ad he. (5th ed., 1869, less 
 full in Meyer-Weiss, 9th ed., 1902), and especially Edward 
 Robinson, in Biblioiheca Sacra, 1845, pp. 182 f., 300. 
 
 •On the basis of this verse, Luke xxiv: 40 was interpolated. 
 
398 The Resurrection 
 
 In the Thomas incident, the disciple who has been 
 selected to bear the entire burden of incredulity brings 
 his skepticism to vivid expression. "Except I shall 
 see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand 
 into his side, I will not believe. ' ' The repetition of the 
 scene, eight days later, unknown to any other source, 
 is simply a duplication of the first appearance, and 
 furnishes a powerful and effective piece of apologetic. 
 
 The Thomases of the second century must in truth 
 have been greatly impressed by this striking episode, 
 and the confession "My Lord and my God" must 
 often have followed the closing of John's great book. 
 Its last words, coming as they do just after the 
 scene with Thomas, are extraordinarily impressive. 
 "Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence 
 of the disciples, which are not written in this book: 
 but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus 
 is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, ye 
 may have life in his name. " No one of the synoptics, 
 however true to the actual events, could compare with 
 this book of "John" in compelling and converting 
 power among the readers of the first centuries. In the 
 opposition to false interpretations, in the answering of 
 criticisms, objections, and anxious queries, in the strong 
 insistent presentation of a divine Man as the arbiter of 
 all human destinies, the book possessed unique power. 
 Its author knew supremely how to meet the critical 
 situation of his time ; we may never estimate what the 
 Christian church owes to this nameless master. 1 
 
 1 During the ante-Nicene period, "the literary use of the resur- 
 rection-narratives of the Gospels of John and Luke exceed those 
 of Mark and Matthew in the proportion of one to ten. " Staudt, 
 p. 87. So rapidly and completely was history replaced by apology. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 THE FINAL WITNESS 
 
 THERE remains a further New Testament nar- 
 rative dealing with the resurrection, that of the 
 "appearance" by the sea of Galilee, given in John xxi. 
 This chapter has long been recognised by critics to be 
 what the text itself so plainly indicates, a supplement 
 to the gospel, which comes to such a perfect close with 
 xx : 3 1 . It is added apparently not any great period of 
 time after the publication of the gospel, not by the 
 author himself, but by a group of men who are inter- 
 ested in sending the gospel into the world under 
 apostolic auspices (xxi: 24). I The Johannine type of 
 thought and of language is fairly well reproduced, and 
 most of the chapter is specifically the creation of the 
 writer, or writers, for whom that conception is regu- 
 lative. The delicate balancing of Peter and the Be- 
 loved Disciple is here more pronounced than ever, and 
 the threefold apostolic charge given to Peter, where 
 the question, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?" 
 thrice repeated, poignantly recalls the threefold 
 denial, " I am not of this man's disciples," is finely 
 conceived. 2 
 
 1 On the origin of John xxi and its relation to the gospel, see any 
 N. T. Introduction, especially Zahn's full treatment, also Keim, 
 PP- 561-563 (Eng. tr., pp. 313 f.). 
 
 2 Cf. Edersheim, vol. ii., pp. 649 f.; Voigt, p. 103; Wellhausen, 
 
 399 
 
400 The Resurrection 
 
 What makes the chapter important for our discus- 
 sion is that it takes account of the earlier tradition 
 (which we have called "Galilean"), which is entirely- 
 ignored by the author of the gospel. Here we are 
 brought back to the angel's message in Mark, " Go tell 
 his disciples and Peter, He goes before you into Galilee: 
 there shall ye see him, " and find related its fulfilment. 
 Nowhere else in the gospels is there so specific a rela- 
 tion of the event which Mark was plainly meaning to 
 recount when he wrote those words. For Peter, the 
 scene meant, specifically, rehabilitation, forgiveness 
 and reconsecration after his shameful denial, renewal 
 of faith and courage, baptism with the apostolic call 
 and consciousness and spirit. That is, of course, what 
 Peter's vision of his risen Master actually did mean; 
 Mark and John xxi are perfectly correct in their un- 
 derstanding. The very great specific importance of 
 Peter's experience as the first "appearance," which 
 brought to the others faith and the conditions for 
 similar experiences, is not so clearly conceived in John 
 xxi. Something of the priority lingers, but it is all re- 
 lated to the contrast with the Beloved Disciple. The 
 authors of the chapter are plainly concerned to make 
 use of this primitive tradition, as too fixed and too im- 
 portant to be passed over entirely, and as susceptible 
 of being turned to excellent account for their own pur- 
 pose. The author of the gospel knew the tradition as 
 
 Ev. Johannis, p. 98 ; Loofs, p. 34. The latter well suggests that the 
 phrase "Lovest thou me more than these? " is intentionally chosen 
 with reference to Peter's boasted superior fidelity (Mk. xiv: 29). 
 Kalthoff, Das Christus-Problem, 2d ed., 1903, p. 51, finds Peter 
 here the representative of the ecclesiastical claims of the Roman 
 congregation. 
 
The Final Witness 401 
 
 well as they did, but it did not seem to him necessary 
 or profitable to use it. He knows, indeed, of many 
 other signs which he might have used with as good 
 effect as those which he has treated : sovereign over all 
 existing material, he selects as he will. Other scenes, 
 since he was bound by no limitations of conformity 
 to historic fact, would have served his purpose equally 
 well, when manipulated by his wonderful creative 
 skill. The material he might have used, and did not, 
 troubles the authors of chapter xxi more than it did 
 himself; some of it they add in this chapter, to the 
 rest of it they allude in the fine hyperbole of vs. 25. 
 
 It is natural to conjecture that for the element of 
 " Galilean " tradition here added, the authors had some 
 written source, and that, further, this source was the 
 lost end of Mark, the content of which it, more nearly 
 than any other N. T. passage, reproduces. This 
 plausible suggestion we have already considered and 
 have found unlikely in the highest degree. 1 John xxi 
 reproduces the tradition of the same event which Mark 
 originally related at the end of his gospel, but the pas- 
 sage in Mark never lay before the later writer. Now 
 precisely this same tradition appears in another synop- 
 tic passage, as yet unconsidered, Luke v: 1-11. 2 Here 
 we may find a source for John xxi. Here are the 
 disciples, Peter and the sons of Zebedee and others 
 unnamed, who have toiled all night and have taken 
 nothing. Jesus tells them where to let down their nets, 
 and obeying his command, they take a great multitude 
 of fishes, so as to threaten breakage of the nets. The 
 event produces a great effect on the disciples, espec- 
 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 166-169. 
 
 3 So Beyschlag recognises, in Stud. u. Krit., 1899, p. 523. 
 26 
 
402 The Resurrection 
 
 ially on Peter. That this is the substance of the 
 episode of John xxi: 1-14 is plain. Each evangelist 
 combines the scene with other details, additions, and 
 emendations ; each uses it in his own way, for his own 
 purposes. The difference of chronological setting is 
 enough to show that the two are not depending on a 
 common written source. Certainly Luke would not 
 have placed the scene in its present order in his 
 narrative, had he been using a source that plainly 
 described it as a post-resurrection " appearance. " Nei- 
 ther Luke nor John xxi, then, reproduces in detail the 
 scene as Mark portrayed it ; the scene itself is enough 
 to show that Mark cannot have so heard the story 
 from Peter. The tradition, as it lingered in the mem- 
 ory of some who may once have read the original Mark, 
 or as it was handed down by word of mouth from the 
 first, was much more general and undetailed. The 
 story in its present form, with the great draught of 
 fishes, is Luke's own creation, and the reproduction of 
 these details in John xxi simply shows use of Luke v. * 
 
 The genesis of the narrative in Luke's form is not 
 far to seek. In the thought of the church of his 
 time the twelve "disciples" were twelve "apostles." 
 The mission which they had carried on after Jesus' 
 death had been the characteristic activity of their 
 lives; those years quite outweighed the scant thirteen 
 or fourteen months they had spent as Jesus' personal 
 attendants in Galilee. The call by the lakeside to be- 
 come his disciples really had in it the larger call to go 
 into all the world as his apostles. Little as those 
 fishermen knew it when they left their nets and fol- 
 lowed him, they in that moment became fishers of 
 
 1 Cf. the excellent treatment in Brandt, pp. 401-408. 
 
The Final Witness 403 
 
 nations and of peoples, and entered on the spiritual 
 conquest of the world. That was all crystal-clear 
 in the perspective of the decades at the end of the 
 century, and it shapes Luke's presentation here. 
 
 Precisely the same thing happened in the case of the 
 Twelve as in the case of Jesus ; the rank and office which 
 became theirs after the resurrection was carried back 
 into the beginning of their part in the story. Exactly 
 in degree as Jesus the prophet of Nazareth became 
 Messiah, his disciples became his apostles. 1 Mark 
 still retains something of the fact that the conscious- 
 ness of his Messiahship came to Jesus only gradually 
 and late, and that it was not announced publicly until 
 just before his death. Each succeeding gospel carries 
 the Messianic consciousness and claim farther back, 
 and constructs the whole succeeding narrative in its 
 light. So, finally, in the Fourth Gospel, the point is 
 reached at which the book of Genesis begins, back of 
 which it is impossible to go. 'Ev apyjh the person who on 
 earth was known as Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah- 
 Logos, and from his first appearance on earth he is so 
 known and so ever proclaims himself. This messiani- 
 sation of Jesus' earthly life is not wholly avoided 
 by Mark, and so for him also, the conception of the 
 Twelve as apostles is at times anticipated. What they 
 became after they saw their glorified Master in Galilee 
 they are inevitably thought of as being a year before 
 when they were with him amid the same scenes. So 
 the phrase "fishers of men" (Mark i: 17) has this 
 
 1 The Twelve are called apostles in Mk. iii: 14 ( = Mt. x: 2 =Lk. 
 vi:i3)andvi: 3o(=Lk. ix: 10); further in Lk. xvii: 5, xxii:l4, 
 xxiv: 10. The only other occurrences of the word (not used of the 
 Twelve) in the gospels are in Lk. xi: 49 and John xiii: 16. 
 
404 The Resurrection 
 
 larger significance ; it was not a Logia-word of Jesus, 
 but Mark's absolutely correct expression of what Jesus' 
 simple call "Come ye after me" had meant in the 
 lives of those two fishermen. Mark has the apostolic 
 age behind him ; how could he help reflecting the truth? 
 So the pre-eminence of Peter among his colleagues, ex- 
 pressed in frequent phrases like "Simon and those 
 with him " (i: 36), is true to the situation of the years 
 of the infant church rather than to that of the group 
 at Capernaum in the years 29 and 30. So notably the 
 phrase "whom also he named apostles" in iii: 14, if it 
 be genuine; 1 in any case the words kizol-qaev SciSsxa 
 . . . Yva ontoareXXfl autou? xTjpuaastv say the same 
 thing. The picture of the preaching activity of the 
 Twelve in Galilee (Mk. vi: 7-13) is coloured somewhat 
 by the memory of what they had done after Jesus' 
 death, and in Matthew and Luke it has been wholly 
 remodelled on the later pattern. Mk. x: 28-31 is a 
 passage of great significance in the light of the later 
 decades ; its meaning is wholly lost when it is forced to 
 apply literally to the Galilean months. An important 
 supplement to the story of the apostolic age is fur- 
 nished by the passage x : 35-40. As clearly as Acts xii : 2 
 declares the martyr-death of James, does Mark x : 39 
 that of John. Mark, writing circa 70 a.d., looked back 
 at the fulfilment of the prophecy which he here records 
 as the solemn utterance of the Master. 2 It is almost 
 
 1 Cf. W. H. for, and Teschendorf against, the words. 
 
 5 The question as to the validity of Irenseus' opinion concerning 
 the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is set at rest by this verse, 
 quite apart from the testimony of Papias. This despite the 
 contrary contention of F. Spitta, in Z. N. T. W., vol. xi. (1910), 
 Heft i., pp. 39-58. 
 
The Final Witness 405 
 
 superfluous to point out how the experiences of the 
 Twelve "prophesied" in the synoptic "Apocalypse" 
 (ch. xiii., especially vss. 9-13) are ex eventu delineations 
 of what had been terribly true. Here the enlarge- 
 ments of the material by Matthew and Luke are very 
 instructive. 
 
 In general, then, even in Mark the disciples are from 
 the first viewed more or less in the light of their later 
 apostolic activity; the other gospels carry this ten- 
 dency very much farther. There was an instructive 
 instance in Matthew (xxviii: 16), where the apostolic 
 commission that came with the "appearance" after 
 Jesus' death was placed on the same mountain where 
 Jesus had originally given them appointment. The 
 later call to apostleship was conceived after the ana- 
 logy of the earlier call to discipleship. 1 It seems most 
 probable that the first appearance of this mountain 
 (Mark iii: 13) is due, in the last analysis, to the same 
 analogy. Abruptly and pointlessly introduced, with- 
 out antecedent of any kind, yet with the definite 
 article, signifying "the (well-known) mountain," it 
 necessarily has some antecedent in Mark's thought. 
 It is wholly without significance for this passage. No- 
 thing is done on the mountain that could not much 
 more easily have been done below. The whole phras- 
 ing is awkward: Jesus goes up into the mountain and 
 calls to himself whom he himself would. Literally it 
 would seem that the calling is done after Jesus goes 
 into the mountain, and since this cannot mean that 
 standing on the hilltop he called down to the multi- 
 tudes below asking certain chosen individuals to come 
 up to him, we must conceive the multitude as going 
 
 « Cf. supra, pp. 275-279. 
 
4-06 The Resurrection 
 
 with him into the mountain. Then out of the crowd he 
 calls certain by name to come to his side, until he 
 has a group of twelve men standing by him, apart from 
 the main assemblage. Is that really the picture? 
 Why go into the mountain for this scene? And is 
 dtxTQ^Gov the proper verb to indicate the stepping out of 
 the ranks of the crowd over to Jesus' side? Does not 
 the abrupt "and he cometh into a house" of vs. 20, 
 without any previous coming down from the mountain, 
 the entire lack of connection between vss. 13-19 and 
 their context on either side, argue that this passage 
 is a separate item of tradition that has come to Mark 
 and is here inserted with no consciousness of its origi- 
 nal setting? What of the little boat, for example, in 
 vs. 9? It is long for it to wait until iv: 1. Were the 
 disciples really not chosen until the time of iii: 14? 
 What then of "Simon and those with him," of i: 36? 
 What of the "disciples" of ii: 15 f., 18 f., 23, iii: 7, 9? 
 Did not, as a matter of fact, the Twelve come to Jesus 
 in the more gradual, simple way described in i: 16-20, 
 ii: 14 f.? What was done for Peter and Andrew in iii: 
 14 that was not done for them in i: 17? Was there, 
 indeed, any further, more formal "appointing" until 
 the day when he "appeared to the Twelve" in Galilee, 
 an appearance placed by the pragmatism of the oldest 
 tradition on a mountain? 1 Is not the £71:15X6 ov of 
 Mark iii: 13 the parallel of the !iropeij6T]aav of Mat. 
 xxviii: 16? If the tradition placed the apostolic 
 charge upon a mountain and tended to confuse that 
 call with the earlier attachment of these men to Jesus 
 as disciples, is not Mark also carrying back the later 
 
 1 Cf . W. Seuf ert, Der Ur sprung und die Bedeutung des A postolats, 
 1887, pp. 31 f. 
 
The Final Witness 407 
 
 event with its setting into the earlier scenes? The ante- 
 cedent for the mountain in his thought would then 
 be the well-known mountain where tradition placed 
 the apostolic appointment; the original connection of 
 this with a post-resurrection "appearance " is no longer 
 clear to Mark. So might be explained the lack of 
 any contextual connection for the passage, so the awk- 
 wardness of the situation, so the drc-qXOov. Finally, is 
 it merely a coincidence that this passage, an apostolic 
 appointment of the Twelve upon a mountain, followed 
 by a list of the twelve names, is closely duplicated by 
 Acts i : 6-13 — again the mountain, the apostolic charge, 
 the list of names — , the account of the "appearance" 
 and "ascension" of Jesus before the disciples? If 
 these questions suggest an answer which gives the true 
 origin of the mountain of Mark iii: 13, we would have a 
 process like the following. Mark borrows it from the 
 tradition of the post-resurrection scene, where it is 
 original, as the only congruous setting for that scene. 
 Matthew (v: 1), who perhaps also has Sinai in mind, as 
 the mount where the law was given "to them of old 
 time," and Luke (vi: 12) borrow it from Mark iii: 13, 
 and so create the famous "Sermon on the Mount." 
 Matthew again borrows it for the "appearance" in 
 Galilee (xxviii : 16), thus unconsciously completing 
 the circle and restoring the mountain to its original 
 connection. 
 
 However this may be, the confusion in tradition be- 
 tween the apostolic commission and the call to dis- 
 cipleship beyond all doubt shaped the story of the 
 wonderful draught of fishes in Luke v. Luke is here 
 giving the parallel to Mark i: 16-20, the call of Peter 
 and Andrew and of the two sons of Zebedee. He has 
 
408 The Resurrection 
 
 not given the episode in its Markan order, between 
 the beginning of Jesus' work and his visit to Caper- 
 naum, but inserts in that place the story of Jesus' 
 preaching in Nazareth. This story he has quite re- 
 written, in the light of the material of the book of Acts, 
 from its original form in Mark vi : 1-6, so that it stands 
 at the beginning of the story of the origins of Chris- 
 tianity as text and summary of the whole presentation. 
 He came unto his own and his own received him not, 
 therefore must the gospel turn to the Gentiles, is its 
 burden. Luke prefaces his version of the story of the 
 disciples' call with the incident of Mark i: 35-38, to 
 which, by re-wording, he gives the same new signifi- 
 cance as to the Nazareth scene. Whereas in Mark 
 Jesus leaves the house and the city before dawn that 
 he may have opportunity to teach in other towns 
 besides Capernaum, in Luke he declares to the Jewish 
 multitudes who beg him not to go from them, "I must 
 preach the gospel of the Kingdom of God to the other 
 cities also, for therefore was I sent. " And then Luke 
 lets Jesus illustrate this purpose of spreading the gos- 
 pel more widely by going out of Galilee into the syna- 
 gogues of Judea, 1 thus deliberately altering Mark's 
 statement of Galilee. What Luke thus does here in 
 one phrase the Fourth Gospel does in its entire pre- 
 sentation. The gospel is going away from Galilee; in 
 
 t'lovSalas, the reading of W.-H. and Weiss, against Teschendorf, 
 is surely the original here, as the more difficult and the better 
 attested (the reading also of Syr. Sin.). TaXikalas is a correc- 
 tion to fit the context and Mark i: 39. Cf. Merx ad loc. and 
 especially F. Spitta, Strcilfragen der Geschichte Jesu, 1907, pp. 
 14-21. Holtzmann, Wellhausen, Zahn, J. Weiss, ad loc, decide 
 also for 'lovSalas. 
 
The Final Witness 409 
 
 the book of Acts it is entirely gone, Galilee is no longer 
 a field for Christian missions (i: 8). First to Judea, 
 then to Samaria, then out into the world. 1 
 
 Now, with chapter v, Luke comes to his account of 
 the call of the four disciples. But in accordance with 
 the purpose he has been following from the beginning 
 of his book, he conceives this calling "(quite correctly) 
 as a call to the evangelisation of the world. All that 
 was implicit in the call, all that seven decades of his- 
 tory had developed out of it, Luke here puts into it. 
 Luke knew the old tradition of the apostolic commis- 
 sion; it becomes for him here regulative for the earlier 
 call. That apostolic commission had come first and 
 foremost to Peter, had come to him when he was over- 
 come with sin and shame and had recalled him to him- 
 self. It had meant for him consecration to a mission 
 whose results embraced the world. It had meant also 
 the contagion of the same experience to his colleagues, 
 to Andrew his brother, to James and John and the rest. 
 All this tradition Luke uses here to give importance 
 and significance to the original call of these disciples. 
 Since Mark's closing passage is lost, Luke has no writ- 
 ten source for this, has nothing that defines it as be- 
 longing to the post-resurrection period, as being the 
 same material which he uses in Luke xxiv and Acts i. 
 
 The original tradition probably connected the ap- 
 pearance to Peter with his return to his fishing activity; 
 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 383-386. On the whole point, very valuable 
 is Baldensperger, pp. 29-33. The legend in Matthew and Luke 
 that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, contrary to the his- 
 torical fact of his birth in Nazareth of Galilee, is a part of this 
 same apologetic process, and is not due only to the desire to fulfil 
 Micah v: 2 (Baldensperger, p. 33, note 40). 
 
410 The Resurrection 
 
 at any rate, that setting is given by Mark i: 16. The 
 immediate setting Luke takes from Mark iv : I ; with 
 vs. 4 he comes to his more personal interest. Al- 
 though Jesus had gone into the boat merely to have 
 an opportunity to preach to the crowd, he now says to 
 Peter, "Put out into the deep water and let ye down 
 your nets (yjzk&aone to: Six/rua G^wv) for a catch," as 
 if they had entered the boat for fishing. The sud- 
 den appearance of the plural indicates that others be- 
 sides Peter are in mind. Peter's answer is, "Master, 
 through a whole night having toiled, we caught no- 
 thing, but at your word I will let down the nets." The 
 result is amazing. "Having done this, they enclosed 
 a great multitude of fishes, and their nets were being 
 torn. And they beckoned to their partners in the 
 other boat to come and help them . And they came and 
 they filled both the boats, so that they were sinking. 
 And Simon Peter 1 fell on his knees before Jesus saying : 
 Depart from me, Master, for I am a sinful man." 
 
 This latter utterance is very curious. What is there 
 in the remarkable catch of fishes to overwhelm Peter 
 with the sense of his own sinfulness? And wherein 
 does this sinfulness consist? He has done nothing 
 wrong; he has obeyed Jesus' suggestion unquestion- 
 ingly, though all his fisherman's judgment is against 
 its success. The commentators are here in straits. 
 Most remarkable is the fact that the sense of sin comes 
 over Peter at this particular instance. What is there 
 about getting the nets full of fish to make the fortunate 
 fisherman feel guilty? Surely this is not the first time 
 Peter and his companions had filled their nets ; the in- 
 cident is not so extraordinary, at any rate, not miracu- 
 
 ' The only occurrence of the double name in Luke. 
 
The Final Witness 411 
 
 lous. We read of conditions to-day, "The density of 
 the shoals of fish in the Lake of Galilee can scarcely 
 be conceived by those who have not witnessed them. 
 They sometimes cover an acre or more on the surface 
 in one dense mass." 1 "One species often appears in 
 dense masses which blacken the surface of the water, 
 the individual fish being packed so closely together 
 that on one occasion a single shot from a revolver killed 
 three." 2 What simpler, then, than to enclose a net- 
 ful? At least this incident should cease to be classed 
 among the gospel miracles! 
 
 But even granting that the event were a miracle, we 
 are no clearer why it should develop Peter's sense of 
 sin. We have here, it is plain, an element from the 
 tradition of Peter's vision of Jesus after the resurrec- 
 tion, when, as the figure of the Master stood before 
 him, his own great sin was the one thing that filled his 
 consciousness. He could not endure that the pure 
 presence of him he had denied should be sullied by 
 proximity to his own unworthy self. "Depart from 
 me, Master, for I am a sinner." The situation is as 
 psychologically true as the other is psychologically 
 meaningless. Luke is not conscious of the original 
 significance of this element in the tradition which has 
 come to him ; he can only explain it of the amazement 
 at the great catch (vs. 9). But though this amaze- 
 ment is said to be shared by the sons of Zebedee, no 
 conviction of sin is attributed to them. It was only 
 Peter of the group that had sinned and now writhed 
 
 1 Quoted from Tristram, by Plummer ad loc. 
 
 * Capt. Wilson, The Recovery of Jerusalem, 1871, p. 341. F. 
 Field, Notes, etc., 1899, ad loc, cites from Greek writers two 
 ancient accounts of great hauls of fish. 
 
412 The Resurrection 
 
 in an agony of shame; the situation is clearly that of 
 the days following Jesus' death. Jesus' answer to 
 Peter is also psychologically true to the original 
 situation, "Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt be 
 capturing men" (avBpwxoui; eq) ^w-fpcov). Here Luke 
 has gone back to the original connection in Mark, but 
 Mark's language (itoiifca) u[a«<; ysveaSat oiXeet? <£v0p<ox<i)v) 
 he has significantly changed. The neutral Homeric 
 word akeel<; (literally: men of the salt, SX?, as we say: 
 an old salt) was not pregnant enough for his use. 
 "Thou shalt be one who captures men alive" is what 
 he wishes to say, and says. He is summing up Peter's 
 apostolic career in the word ^wfpwv. 
 
 And it is Peter's apostolic career which shapes the 
 scene of vss. 4-10, which lies outside anything which 
 Luke's source Mark gave him. Perhaps Mark's 
 words "I will make you fishers of men" suggest a 
 contrasted picture of fishing for fish, but it is also prob- 
 able that the tradition of Peter's vision and apostolic 
 commission told that it came to him while fishing. It 
 is not at all unlikely that this was the fact and that 
 Mark once so related it. Peter must have been doing 
 something at the time; why not fishing, since this was 
 his business? So John xxi and the Gospel of Peter 
 reproduce the tradition. But this fishing of Peter, 
 which is so suggestive of his later missionary activity, 
 which even Mark makes the figure by which to de- 
 scribe what Peter was to be and to do as a result of 
 this call, has naturally great significance. It must be 
 made very clearly to express the meaning it really con- 
 tains. How shall it symbolise Peter's work as a fisher 
 of men? How else than by picturing his actual apos- 
 tolic career? In Peter's boat Jesus first addresses the 
 
The Final Witness 413 
 
 Jewish multitude near the shore; then the boat and 
 its heavenly passenger go out into the deep, far from 
 shore. There is no longer any audience of people to 
 be addressed; the figure changes, there are fish to be 
 caught. Out in the open sea let down your nets (not 
 now Peter alone, but the others also; xatk&aane plural). 
 Peter's natural judgment would be against this at- 
 tempt; nothing is to be caught there, he thinks. And 
 this personal judgment of Peter, here set in the fewest 
 words, Luke has written at great length in Acts x : 9 ff . 
 There, too, despite his own preconceived opinion, at 
 the Master's word Peter let down his nets in the great 
 deep of the Gentile populations, away from the 
 friendly shore of the Law. And there, too, in the per- 
 sons of Cornelius and the great hosts of Gentiles who 
 followed his leading into the Christian church, there 
 was a stupendous capture in the nets of the gospel. 
 Indeed, the numbers drawn in from the Gentile world 
 soon completely overwhelmed the few primitive Jewish 
 believers, becoming first the majority, then almost the 
 entirety, of the Church. Well may Luke write of 
 Peter, "He was amazed, and all that were with him, at 
 the catch of fish which they had taken, and so were also 
 James and John, sons of Zebedee, which were partners 
 with Simon, " as we may read again inActs x: 45, xi : 18, 
 xv:3. 
 
 This, then, is the origin of the passage. Luke is hon- 
 estly attempting to put into the original call of the 
 disciples, especially the call of Peter and Andrew, to be- 
 come fishers of men, what he so clearly and truly saw to 
 have been actually implicit in it. With this descrip- 
 tion of the first call, so understood, he combines ele- 
 ments from the tradition of Peter's later call, which 
 
414 The Resurrection 
 
 meant his rehabilitation, and, more specifically, his 
 commission as apostle. 1 
 
 That the author of the Fourth Gospel knew and used 
 all the synoptics, Luke being most influential, we may 
 consider as certain. 2 That the same is true of the 
 authors of John xxi we may be as sure. With the 
 sovereign independence of treatment showed by the 
 Johannine writers, differences of detail and of phrase- 
 ology are no counter-argument here. John xxi uses 
 Luke v as suggestion for some of its material, but 
 develops the tradition of the Galilean appearance 
 quite independently of the setting in Luke. 3 In 
 Luke's story, there were named only the four disciples 
 of Mark i: 16-20, the two brother-pairs. John xxi has 
 Simon Peter (so called in Luke only in the passage we 
 are discussing), the two sons of Zebedee (never named 
 in the Fourth Gospel proper), Thomas and Nathanael 
 (of some note in the Johannine narrative) , and two dis- 
 ciples unnamed. One of the latter might be identi- 
 
 1 The symbolic significance of Luke's story was argued by R. A. 
 Lipsius in the first issue of the Jahrbiicher filr Prot. Theol. (vol. i., 
 !875, pp. 185-192) to which discussion the above treatment owes 
 much. Lipsius, however, does not see any influence here of the 
 post-resurrection "appearance" to Peter, and therefore mis- 
 takenly interprets Peter's sin of his hesitation to let down the 
 nets. As a matter of fact, he does not hesitate at all. Lipsius 
 also sees in the "partners in the other boat" of vs. 7 an allusion 
 to Paul and his missionary companions. But Luke means by 
 them James and John (vs. 10), and so brings the connection with 
 Mark i: 19 f. Cf. further Holtzmarm, H. C, ad loc. 
 
 3 Yet cf. Harnack, Lukas der Artzt, p. 160. 
 
 3 So Brandt, p. 401 ; Wellhausen ad Luke v:i ff. Contra, Rohr- 
 bach, Berichte, pp. 58-62; Harnack, Lukas der Artzt. pp. 158 f. 
 Cf. Hans Schmidt, Stud. u. Krit., 1907, pp. 497-506. Loofs, p. 35, 
 reverses the correct relation between Luke v and John xxi. 
 
The Final Witness 415 
 
 fied with Andrew. The analogy between the earlier 
 and later calls of Peter (and the others) may be ap- 
 plied in either of two ways. Luke v combines the two to 
 describe the earlier call ; John xxi, to describe the later 
 call. The latter account draws freely from Luke's 
 narrative for its embellishment. The tradition of the 
 appearance to Peter after he had returned to his fisher- 
 life in Galilee, with the significance and result of 
 that appearance, gives the starting-point and the ob- 
 ject to be presented. Luke v is drawn upon for details 
 of the setting, the authors feeling correctly that here 
 is a presentation of precisely the same theme. But the 
 Lucan story (xxiv: 42 f.) of Jesus eating broiled fish in 
 the company of his disciples, and in general the rich 
 complex of conceptions concerning the risen Lord's 
 eating with his own, as it was related to the Agape and 
 the Eucharist, is of influence here also. In that tradi- 
 tion, fish was always a central element, though bread 
 was usually associated with it. In the Emmaus scene, 
 it is bread alone, and the Eucharistic reference is 
 pointed by the emphasis on the breaking of the loaf. 
 In the scene with the Eleven (Luke xxiv: 41-43), it is 
 fish alone ; in the miraculous feedings in the desert it is 
 both. In each case, the Agape motif is clearly notice- 
 able, shaping the details and the phraseology. Here 
 the fish made the common point of meeting for the two 
 traditions, and allowed them to be made into one story. 
 The disciples make a great catch of fish, at the bidding 
 of an unknown man; by this they recognise him 
 as the Lord. They share a meal of fish and bread 
 with him; in this also he is made known to them 1 . 
 
 1 Hans Schmidt, in Stud. u. Krit., 1907, pp. 497-506, has an in- 
 teresting and suggestive separation of these two elements of the 
 
41 6 The Resurrection 
 
 The two elements are not perfectly fused, and 
 there is much specifically "Johannine" detail, es- 
 pecially in the balancing of Peter and the Beloved 
 Disciple. 
 
 A close analysis would reveal many minor points 
 of contact with the sources. For example, the ques- 
 tion of Jesus, called from the shore to the disciples 
 in the boat, "Children, have you aught to eat?", is 
 hardly the question one expects under the circum- 
 stances. "Have you caught anything?" or the like, 
 is the natural question, npoaipaytov is something to eat 
 with bread, as a relish, as we moderns take preserves or 
 sauces, and, at any rate in Galilee, would most com- 
 monly be represented by dried fish. But to ask, 
 "Have you a bit of fish, to go with my bread? " implies 
 on the part of the questioner a desire to eat. The 
 question, irrelevant enough here, is simply a reproduc- 
 tion of Luke xxiv 141, "Have ye here anything to eat? " 
 (I^ste Tt ^puai[j.ov IvSdos). So Peter's casting himself 
 into the sea to go to Jesus is a detail from the similar 
 scene in Mat. xiv: 29, a scene which has other slight 
 points of attachment to the narrative of John xxi. 1 
 These points of attachment are, indeed, not enough to 
 entitle the story of Peter's walking on the sea to the 
 heading "The Oldest Report of the Resurrection, " as 
 
 story into two distinct passages taken from the original end of 
 Mark. Cf. his reconstruction of the latter (on the basis of Gosp. 
 Pet., Luke v, and John xxi), pp. 508-511. Two traditions are 
 here combined, but not two written passages. 
 
 1 It may be noted that Peter's walking on the sea, in Mat. xiv, 
 is part of a narrative which goes along with the feeding of the 
 multitude with bread and fish. Compare also Mat. xiv : 26 with 
 Luke xxiv : 37 f. 
 
The Final Witness 417 
 
 Professor Kreyenbuhl of Zurich has recently very 
 vigorously argued. 1 
 
 The numberof the fishes, one hundred and fifty-three, 
 possibly, or probably, had some rustic significance 
 for the writers ; what it was is not discoverable by us 
 to-day. It has been a fruitful field for the speculations 
 of commentators. 2 "And for all there were so many, 
 the net was not rent," is suggested by "the nets were 
 breaking" of Luke v: 6. The item that had no signifi- 
 cance for Luke except as expressing the greatness of 
 the haul, becomes symbolic of the unrent church when 
 used by the later writers. 3 " This is now the third time 
 that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after that 
 he was risen from the dead " is the editorial comment of 
 those who added chapter xxi to the completed gospel. 
 The original scene which we have here an attempt to 
 portray was, of course, the first "appearance," and 
 traces of this fact still cling to the narrative, as is often 
 pointed out. There is nothing in the scene itself 
 
 1 J. Kreyenbuhl, " Der Alteste Auferstehungsbericht und seine 
 Varianten," in Zeilschrift fur N. T. Wissenschaft, 1908, pp.257 ff- 
 Along with much that is fantastic, the article contains many im- 
 portant observations. The same position is taken by O. Schmied- 
 el, Hauptprobleme, pp. 81 f., and B. W. Bacon, The Founding of 
 the Church, 1909, p. 44, note. Cf. also A. Plummer, Exegetical 
 Comm. on the Gospel of S. Matthew, 1910, p. 427, who notes the 
 parallel of Mat. xiv: 31, 33 (elsrl {Sltrrcuras; irpotremJnjirai' airf) 
 with xxviii: 17. Only in these two passages do the disciples "wor- 
 ship" Jesus. Further Loisy, i., p. 942, and K. Kohler in Jewish 
 Encyc, vol. vii., p. 169. 
 
 3 See the " additional note " in B. F. Westcott, " St. John's Gos- 
 pel" {The Bible Commentary), 1904, pp. 306 f.; Keirn, p. 564 
 (Eng.tr., p. 316); Brandt, pp. 405 f.; E. Schwartz, Uber den 
 Tod d. Sbhne Zebedaei, 1904, pp. 50 f. 
 
 J Cf. Holtzmann, H. C, ad Luke v: 6. 
 
418 The Resurrection 
 
 which indicates that any of these disciples had seen the 
 risen Lord before. But the authors, having in mind 
 the two appearances to the disciples recorded in John 
 xx, enumerate this as the third. The appearance to 
 Mary Magdalene is, of course, not to the disciples. It 
 is possible, also, that this appearance is conceived as 
 during the rising, not subsequent to it. In John xx 
 there is no declaration TQYepSi] from the angels or 
 another; the first such statement is Jesus' own word, 
 in the present tense (ava(kivo), xx: 17). Ascension 
 is practically the equivalent of resurrection; it is at 
 least the concluding and decisive part of the process. 
 The ecclesiastical usage of centuries has so stamped 
 technical significances upon these words that we make 
 a difference between them enormously wider than any 
 Greek writer or reader could feel between dvc^aan; and 
 divaaTaut?. 1 
 
 The position of xxi : 14 is a little curious. The 
 natural place for a comment of this sort is at the end 
 of the scene, not in its midst, according to the analogy 
 of ii : 1 1 , iv : 54. The reason for the introduction of the 
 comment at this point is, however, obvious. This is 
 the end of the material which the authors are draw- 
 ing from the tradition, either oral or written. Tradi- 
 tion told how in the draught of fishes, in the breaking 
 of bread, Jesus had been manifested to his disciples, 
 and that tradition is now recounted. As to what fol- 
 lows, it is purely and simply the creation of the authors, 
 in which the apostolic charge to Peter is used for a final 
 expression of his relation to the Beloved Disciple. 
 Peter's martyrdom is plainly "prophesied," and the 
 
 1 Or, indeed, iyepva, though the latter word is used only in 
 Mat. xxvii: 53. 
 
The Final Witness 419 
 
 Beloved Disciple's death is as plainly the motive of the 
 concluding part of the scene. Into these Johannine 
 subtleties we cannot enter. With vs. 13, as the authors 
 rightly felt and stated, we come to the end of the 
 material that has any relation to the resurrection of 
 Jesus. 1 
 
 But one more New Testament passage demands our 
 notice. It has recently been suggested by a number of 
 scholars that the transfiguration of Jesus upon the 
 mountain is, in its origin, the "appearance" of the 
 risen and glorified Jesus to Peter, perhaps including 
 the appearance to the Twelve. 2 Wellhausen is clearly 
 right, at least, in declaring the " Verklarungsgeschichte 
 . . . eine Unterstreichung und himmlische Be- 
 glaubigung des Petrusbekenntnisses, " as Bacon had 
 earlier shown at length. 3 It but repeats the scene 
 at Cassarea Philippi in more vivid form. Primarily 
 Peter, secondarily the others, apprehend their Master 
 as the Messiah. In the one case it is the intuition, the 
 insight of the apostle to whom flesh and blood had not 
 
 1 Voigt, pp. 101-103, argues that the "Lovest thou me?" scene 
 is a description of the original "appearance " to Peter, though it is 
 erroneously placed here after the shore-breakfast, belonging his- 
 torically after John xx : 10. Peter and John leave their lodgings 
 for a walk on the Mt. of Olives; John falls behind and the Master 
 appears to Peter, who, looking back at the distant John, asks 
 "What shall this man do?" 
 
 'Holtzmann, H. C, p. 86; Wellhausen, Ev. Marci, p. 77; 
 Kreyenbuhl, Z.N. T. W., vol. ix. (1908), pp.258 f.,277-279; Loisy, 
 vol. ii., pp. 39 f.; B. W.Bacon, Am. Jour. Theol., vol. vi. (1902), pp. 
 258-265; Beginnings of Gospel Story, 1909, p. 122; K. Kohler, 
 Jewish, Encyc, vol. vii., 1907, p. 169. 
 
 3 Wellhausen, Ev. Marci, p. 70; Bacon, Am. Jour. Theol., 1902, 
 pp. 236 ff. 
 
420 The Resurrection 
 
 revealed it, in the other, it is a vision of the glorified 
 Master in the shining body of his heavenly life, accom- 
 panied by his two witnesses Moses and Elijah. This 
 heavenly glory becomes his only after his death and 
 resurrection into the heavenly places. The Jesus 
 whom Peter, James, and John see on the mountain is 
 not Jesus as he is, or ever has been at that time, but as 
 he is to be after "his decease which he is about to ac- 
 complish at Jerusalem" (Luke ix: 31). In this sense, 
 the narrative is of a post-resurrection episode, though 
 that is not its primary significance. 
 
 What we have here is, in reality, one more witness 
 to the curious double aspect borne, in the gospels, by 
 Jesus' Messiahship and all elements connected with it. 
 Jesus the Galilean prophet dreamed that he was one 
 day to be Messiah, that after his death he was to rise 
 from Sheol into the heavenly places and be endowed 
 with the Messianic glory and power. Thus as the 
 Danielic Son of Man, he should come on the clouds of 
 heaven to do Messiah's work and set up the Kingdom. 
 He is not Messiah while he lives, he becomes so only 
 after his death, through his resurrection. 1 So Paul 
 and the earliest Christians conceive the Messiahship, 
 in precise agreement with Jesus. But the generation 
 passed, and the Parousia failed. As men become in- 
 creasingly certain that Jesus is not coming again as Son 
 of Man — at least till the far-off end of time — they 
 
 1 This is gradually being recognised as the true solution of the 
 "Messiasgeheimniss in den Evangelien. " Cf. C. Piepenbring i 
 Jisus Historique, 1909, p. 168. "Jesu n'a jamais cru etre, de 
 son vivant deja, le Messie, effectif et present, mais seulement le 
 Messie futur, de meme qu'il n'a jamais considere 1 le royaume de 
 Dieu comme vraiment present. " 
 
The Final Witness 421 
 
 begin to feel that if Jesus is to be Messiah at all, he 
 must, however difficult the adjustment, have been 
 Messiah during his earthly life. And so the earthly- 
 life as Galilean rabbi and prophet becomes Messianised. 
 The experiences of the Christians and of the gospel 
 in the first century are carried back into the story of 
 his life. He becomes Messiah then and there, and the 
 wonder-deeds of Messiah are ascribed to him. His 
 disciples sharing his simple life in Galilee become apos- 
 tles carrying his gospel to the world, heard before 
 governors and kings; his message itself becomes the 
 proclamation of the growing church. 1 Experiences and 
 convictions of the later Christians, rites and observ- 
 ances of the later church, are carried back into the 
 narrative of his intercourse with his disciples. The 
 gospels are not merely gospels, but church histories 
 of the first century as well. John's gospel gives no 
 longer the account of what Jesus and the Twelve did 
 before the crucifixion, but of what the Logos-Messiah 
 and his "friends" did after it. 2 But even in the syn- 
 optics the original event is often seen in the light of 
 the later experience, the ultimate working out of what 
 was implicit in the event. 3 
 
 At Csesarea Philippi Peter recognised that his 
 Master was no other than he who was to be Messiah. 
 It is a sort of premature anticipatory recognition of the 
 Messiahship. In the "appearance" which comes to 
 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 402-405. 
 
 2 Cf. W. Van Manen, Die Unechtheit des Romerbriefes, 1906, 
 p. 230. "Johannes oft Geschichte des Christentums schreibt, 
 wahrend er soheinbar nur Worte Jesu und Erzahlungen uber sein 
 Leben mitteilt. " 
 
 3 This is well put by Baldensperger, pp. 26 f . 
 
422 The Resurrection 
 
 him after Jesus' death Peter recognises that Jesus is 
 Messiah, now, already exalted at the right hand of God, 
 endowed with power and the glory of the spirit-body, 
 given the name that is above every name. These 
 two Messianic recognitions on the part of Peter (the 
 same thing is true in the case of the ten disciples) 
 blend to form the transfiguration story. Its actual 
 content is precisely the same as that of the scene at 
 Caesarea Philippi ; but now it is the glorified Messiah of 
 the heavenly life who is manifested. 1 The revelation 
 is not made by flesh and blood; the Father himself 
 gives divine attestation to the Son of his love, and the 
 Law and the Prophets, in the persons of Moses and 
 Elijah, who also had escaped Sheol and were in the 
 heavenly world, hold converse with him. This revela- 
 tion, too, comes to the disciples on a high mountain; 
 it is "the mountain where Jesus had appointed them" 
 (Mat. xxviii: 16). 2 The cloud overshadowing them, 
 out of which comes the attesting voice, is the Schechina- 
 cloud which enshrouds the divine presence, the cloud 
 which receives Jesus out of his disciples' sight at the 
 ascension (Acts i: 9). The latter scene is the parallel 
 to that of Mat. xxviii : 16 f . where the cloud might like- 
 wise have appeared. 
 
 There is therefore a close relationship between the 
 tradition of the "appearance" of the risen Jesus to 
 Peter and to the Ten and the transfiguration narrative. 
 This is clear, further, from Mark ix: 9 f., with its sig- 
 nificant command that this occurrence should not be 
 told until after Jesus' resurrection, and its allusion to 
 
 1 So Volkmar, p. 240. Cf. Pfleiderer, pp. 690 f. 
 a So Pfleiderer, p. 601 ; Wellhausen, Ev. Marci, p. 75. It is 
 "the holy mountain" of II Pet. i: 18. 
 
The Final Witness 423 
 
 the disciples' lack of understanding as to what "rising 
 from the dead" might mean. In truth the event, in 
 its fulness, did not occur until after Jesus had risen, 
 when the disciples knew from their Master himself, 
 what it meant to rise from the dead. But the prime 
 significance of the transfiguration is the recognition of 
 Jesus as the Messiah, rather than as risen from the 
 dead. Yet the two things go together; he became 
 Messiah in fact when he rose from the dead, and the 
 resurrection was the attestation to the disciples that he 
 was in truth the Anointed One of God, as he had 
 claimed. It is but a matter of emphasis. 1 
 
 Finally, we may notice here certain of the extra- 
 canonical passages bearing on Jesus' resurrection, in 
 addition to those of which mention has already been 
 made. The "Gospel of Peter" has been considered, 
 and one statement from the "Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews. " The latter work, dating from early in the 
 second century, is notable further as having the only 
 other notice of the "appearance" to James, recorded 
 by Paul (I. Cor. xv: 7). The passage reads, "But the 
 Lord, when he had given his linen cloth (sindonem 
 a(vSova) to the servant 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 the Lord 
 had drunk the cup, until he should see him risen from 
 them that sleep. " And again, after a little, " Bring, " 
 
 1 The details of the transfiguration-story are used in the open- 
 ing part of the extant fragment of the Revelatio Petri. Bacon (Am. 
 Jour. TheoL, 1902, p. 259) and M. R. James (The Gospel According 
 to Peter and the Revelation of Peter, 2d. ed., 1892, p. 254), think 
 that the scene in the latter is placed subsequent to the resurrec- 
 tion, but there is no sure indication of this in the text. 
 
424 The Resurrection 
 
 says the Lord, "a table and bread. " And immediately 
 is added," He took up bread and blessed and broke and 
 gave to James the Just and said to him: My brother, 
 eat your bread, because the Son of Man has risen from 
 them that sleep." 1 The Latin MSS. of Jerome read 
 biberat calicem Domini "he had drunk the Lord's cup, " 
 but the Greek translation has 6 xupio?, and ancient 
 quotations, as well as the context itself, make it clear 
 that James's oath is represented as dating from Jesus' 
 death, not from the Lord's Supper, at which James 
 was not present. 2 
 
 There seems to be here only a development of the 
 tradition so briefly set down by Paul, with no detail 
 that can be adjudged historic. The gospel narrative 
 leaves James with the judgment on his lips that his 
 brother is beside himself and must be put in restraint 
 (Mark iii: 20 f., 31-35). We next meet him as an 
 apostle, occupying a leading position in the Jerusalem 
 church (Gal. i: 19, ii: 9-12; Acts xii: 17, xv: 13). Just 
 how early he became a member of the Christian group 
 we cannot tell (Acts i : 14 cannot be used as evidence) ; 
 it was at any rate before the year 38 (Gal. i: 19), prob- 
 
 1 Quoted by Jerome from the "Evangelium quod appellator 
 'secundum Hebraeos, '" in his De Vir. III., chap. ii. The 
 lacuna are apparently unimportant. 
 
 3 So J. B. Lightfoot, Epistle to the Galatians, 2d ed., (Andover, 
 Mass., 1870), p. no; Rudolf Handmann: " Das Hebraer-Evangel- 
 ium" (T.u.U. vol. v., part iii), 1888, pp. 79-82; Brandt, pp. 392 f.; 
 Rohrbach, Berichte, p. 73; Harnack, Chronologie, p. 650, note 1. 
 For the reading Domini, E. B. Nicholson, Gospel Ace. to the He- 
 brews, 1879, pp. 66-68; Schmiedel, cols. 4045 f.; Zahn, Gesch. d. 
 Kan., ii., pp. 700 f.; Forschungen, vi., p. 277; Arn. Meyer in Hen- 
 necke's Handbuch, pp. 34 f.; P. W. Schmidt, Die Geschichte Jesu, 
 ii., 1904, pp. no f.; Bauer, p. 164. 
 
The Final Witness 425 
 
 ably not long after Jesus' death. That he had ' ' seen ' ' 
 the risen Jesus is the fitting explanation, indeed the 
 only explanation, of his being an apostle. But that 
 he believed in his brother's Messianic mission before 
 Jesus' death is quite unlikely; quite impossible is it that 
 he should have sworn to fast till he should see Jesus 
 risen from the dead. It was doubtless his "vision" 
 that converted him, as was the case with Paul, and 
 even if his conversion had preceded, none of the dis- 
 ciples expected Jesus to rise from the dead in the sense 
 here indicated. The giving of the grave-cloth to the 
 priest's servant — apparently the man who lost his ear 
 (Mark xiv: 47), called Malchus in John xviii: 10, is the 
 person intended — seems to imply that this servant was 
 sharing the watch at the tomb, and is to show the 
 cloth to his masters as an indubitable proof that Jesus 
 has risen. 1 In the breaking, blessing, and eating 
 bread, the Eucharist motif is again apparent, but the 
 evidential purpose of the bread is also not wholly ab- 
 sent. Brandt supposes the other resurrection-frag- 
 ment ascribed by Jerome to the Gospel of the Hebrews 2 
 to belong to this same connection, fitting into the 
 lacuna indicated by the "rursusque post paululum" 
 and "statimque additur." 3 This is a possible con- 
 struction, and would emphasise the evidential purpose 
 still more strongly. The allusion to the dead as dor- 
 mientes instead of morti is a reflection of Pauline usage. 
 In the Syriac Didascalia, a work of the third century, 
 
 1 Cf. Arnold Meyer, p. 64. This episode would make the first 
 appearance, not to followers, but to an unbeliever. It is the oldest 
 allusion to an appearance to any one save Jesus' followers. Mat. 
 does not say that the guard saw Jesus, though Ev. Petri does. 
 
 2 Cf. supra, pp. 345 f. 3 Brandt, pp. 393 f. 
 
426 The Resurrection 
 
 we read, "During the night before the dawn of the 
 first day of the week Jesus appeared to Mary Mag- 
 dalene 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 ; more- 
 over he said to us while he was instructing us : Where- 
 fore do ye fast on my account in these days, and why is 
 it needful for me that ye chasten yourselves?" 1 The 
 fasting and the mention of Levi in this connection 
 appear also in the Gospel of Peter, though details are 
 not alike. 
 
 The Diatessaron of Tatian seems to have had a 
 statement that Jesus appeared to his disciples in 
 Capernaum. At least Ephraem Syrus, commenting 
 on the gospel according to the Diatessaron, writes, 
 " Consolationem ergo, quag prius iam disposita erat, 
 in effectibus nobis dedit per resurrectionem suam, 
 et cum discipulos suos in Capharnaum, urbe con- 
 sola tionis, congregasset." 2 This, thinks Zahn, is a 
 " Specialisirung von Galilaa"; at any rate, it vouches 
 for the "Galilean tradition," and as Capernaum was 
 the home of several of the disciples, it may easily have 
 been the actual scene of the "appearance." 
 
 So may end our examination of the witness for Jesus' 
 resurrection. It is a long way from Paul's "He arose 
 ... he appeared," to the earthquake and angels, 
 
 ■ Cf. H. Achelis and J. Flemming, Die Syrische Didaskalia 
 vhersetzt u. erklart, 1904, p. 107. Above trans, from Schmiedel, 
 col. 4049. Cf. Arnold Meyer, p. 76. 
 
 2 Latin trans, of the Armenian version of Ephrsem, in G. Mos. 
 inger, Evangelii Concordanlis Exposilio, etc., Venice, 1876, pp. 
 272 f. Cf. Zahn, Forschungen, vol. i. (Tatian's Diatessaron), pp. 
 218 f.; Rohrbach, Schluss, pp. 50 f.; Berichte, pp. 67-72. 
 
The Final Witness 427 
 
 the bread and the fish, the flesh and bone, of the later 
 writers. But it is a way the logic of the situation com- 
 pelled the church to travel, and to travel it after the 
 church will let us see, as no other course will, the inner 
 and outer conflicts of those formative years. 1 
 
 « J. Weiss, Schrifien des N. T., vol. i., p. 41, gives an excellent 
 brief popular sketch of the growth of the tradition. Cf. also Ar- 
 nold Meyer, pp. 171 f. An Ethiopic apocryphal fragment now 
 in England chronicles an appearance to Pilate. Cf. Clemen, in 
 Stud. u. Kr., 1894, p. 759. 
 
BOOK SIX 
 
 RESULTS 
 
 CHAPTER XV ' 
 
 TIME AND PLACE 
 
 THE following table gives an oversight of the 
 chief elements in the accounts we have been 
 considering. 
 
 i. Appearance to Peter (with others? while fishing?). 
 
 2. Appearance to the Eleven (in Capernaum?) with 
 their apostolic commission. 
 
 3. Angel- vision to women. 
 
 4. Visit of disciples to tomb. 
 
 5. Proof of bodily identity, offering body to sight 
 and touch. 
 
 6. Emmaus incident. 
 
 7. Appearance of Jesus to women. 
 
 John xxi 
 
 1. Attested by 
 
 Paul 
 
 Mark 
 
 
 Luke 
 
 
 2. 
 
 Paul 
 
 Mark 1 
 
 Mat. 
 
 Luke 
 
 John 
 
 3. 
 
 
 Mark 
 
 Mat. 
 
 Luke 
 
 John 
 
 4. " , " 
 
 
 
 
 Luke 
 
 John 
 
 5. 
 
 
 
 
 Luke 
 
 John 
 
 6. " 
 
 
 
 
 Luke 
 
 
 7. " 
 
 
 
 
 
 John 
 
 1 "There shall ye see him" is Mark's witness to the fact that 
 the Ten, as well as Peter, saw the risen Jesus in Galilee. Whether 
 Mark described this appearance separately from that to Peter is 
 not wholly clear. 
 
 428 
 
Paul attests i. 
 
 2. 
 
 Mark 
 
 " i. 
 
 2. 
 
 Mat. 
 
 it 
 
 2. 
 
 Luke 
 
 " i. 
 
 2. 
 
 John 
 
 a 
 
 2. 
 
 Johnxxi 
 
 " i. 
 
 
 Time and Place 429 
 
 3- 
 
 3- 
 
 3- 4- 5- 6. 
 
 3- 4- 5- 7- 
 
 Paul posits two initial appearances, that to Peter 
 and that to "the Twelve." These two, the first of 
 which meant the rehabilitation of Peter and his dedica- 
 tion to apostolic activity, the second of which assured 
 the Ten that Jesus lived and sent them out to be his 
 messengers, have a fixed place in the tradition and a 
 sure basis in historic fact. But they alone, of the 
 incidents of the gospel narrative, have such fixed place 
 and sure historic basis. For they alone occur in the 
 proclamation of Paul, as part of that body of truth of 
 which he was spokesman, as were the other apostles of 
 • his time. Fundamental elements in his preaching, 
 of whose truth he was persuaded by the personal 
 testimony of the recipients of these "appearances," 
 his gospel and his Christian life stand or fall with them. 
 Further, the various accounts which attest them are 
 independent of each other. How different is the case 
 with the other elements of the above table. None of 
 them forms any part of the apostolic proclamation, 
 nor is ever so much as suggested in any Pauline letter. 
 The appearance of angels to women at the empty tomb 
 meets us only after the chief apostles (if not all) are 
 dead, and Jerusalem is laid waste. It is reproduced 
 by succeeding writers, all of whom are dependent on 
 Mark, with no independent testimony, however they 
 vary the details of the wonder-story. The number 
 and names of the women change, as do the number and 
 
430 The Resurrection 
 
 position of the angels and the wording of their mes- 
 sage ; so the exact errand of the women and their sub- 
 sequent action. But these are only variations of a 
 literary sort on the story as presented by Mark. 
 
 So far as a critical study of the gospel tradition goes, 
 then, historic fact can be predicated only of the two 
 appearances which Paul cites at the beginning of his 
 list. Both these took place in Galilee; both meant for 
 their recipients the consecration to a definite life- 
 career as missionaries of the Messiah. The other four 
 "appearances" cited by Paul lie outside the limits of 
 the gospel narrative; to no one of them is there any 
 adequate reason for denying historicity. The appear- 
 ance to five hundred brethren at one time cannot be 
 questioned even by the psychologist, 1 and Paul surely 
 does not make it an element in his preaching, while 
 most of the five hundred are still living, while Peter 
 and others of the Twelve are active and well known, • 
 without being sure of his ground. It has been argued 
 with some plausibility that the Pentecost scene of 
 Acts ii: 1-4 is a traditional expression of this appear- 
 ance. 2 It would then offer a parallel to the giving 
 
 'For striking parallels, cf. Schmiedel, col. 4083, also H. C, vol. 
 ii. , parti., 2nd ed., 1892, pp. 188 f.; Supernatural Religion, pp. 881 f. 
 Cf. Hausrath, Jesus und die N. T. Sckriftsteller, 1909, vol. i., 
 p. 107. Further, a paper by the Rev. A. T. Fryer, "Psycho- 
 logical Aspects of the Welsh Revival," 1904-5, in the Proceed- 
 ings of the S. P. R., vol. xix., 1907, should be noted. 
 
 ' So, e.g., A. Hausrath, History of N. T. Times. The Time of 
 the Apostles, Eng. tr., vol. ii., 1895, pp. 116-119; Jesus und die 
 N. T. Sckriftsteller, 1909, vol. i., pp. 107, no; Steck, Galaterbrief, 
 1888, pp. 185 f.; Pfleiderer, pp. 10, 478 f.; Lake, pp. 202-205; 
 Wernle, p. 37; Wellhausen, Ev. Joh., p. 94; and especially von 
 Dobschutz, pp. 33-39. Contra, Schmiedel, col. 4057 6. Perhaps 
 
Time and Place 431 
 
 of the spirit at the appearance to "the Twelve" in 
 John xx : 22. Whether there actually was any such 
 lingering of the tradition in Luke's mind here must 
 remain forever uncertain; its possibility may be 
 granted. 
 
 There follows the appearance and the apostolic call 
 to James and to each of the apostles, one by one. T It 
 is noteworthy how constantly these two things are co- 
 ordinated, the vision of the risen Lord, and the com- 
 mission as his apostle. Every appearance noted by 
 Paul, beginning with Peter's and ending with his own, 
 made an apostle, a missionary of the new faith, out of 
 its recipient. 2 "Am I not an apostle? Have I not 
 seen Jesus our Lord?" We may safely make this a 
 criterion of the historicity of the recorded appearances ; 
 those which are actually historic made missionaries. 
 That this is true concerning the five hundred there is no 
 occasion to doubt, but again Mary Magdalene (John 
 
 a real connection of the Pentecost scene with Paul's "above 500 
 brethren" is suggested by the anonymous author of Resurrectio 
 Christi, 1909, pp. 9, 56, 59. The reference is to the Ethiopic Acts 
 of Peter, and the passage is found (in English) in E. A. Wallis 
 Budge, Contending of the Apostles, vol. ii., 1901, pp. 476 f., where 
 we read that the outsiders who witnessed the Pentecost miracle of 
 tongues were more than 700, of whom "more than 500 " were " men 
 of the Hebrews" {cf. Acts ii 15). Budge's translation was made 
 from a 17th cent, manuscript, but the material is old. It may be 
 worth noting that in Acta Pilati, B, xii: 2, the guard placed at the 
 tomb, who witness the descent of the angel and the attendant 
 phenomena, are "five hundred soldiers." 
 
 'Arnold Meyer, p. 177, quite erroneously says, "All the 
 apostles were, according to Paul, together at the last appearance," 
 and so (pp. 170 f.) he would identify this appearance with the 
 Pentecost scene. Voigt, p. 28, falls into the same error. 
 
 * Cf. Voigt, pp. 38J. 
 
43 2 The Resurrection 
 
 xx : 14) is definitely excluded. Last of all the apostolic 
 company cited, Paul is called to his glorious life-work 
 by the vision of the Master. Details of that experi- 
 ence we may not inquire ; but that he saw and was con- 
 quered, it is the task of his remaining years to testify. 
 The lax aT0V ^avxcov does not mean that after the call of 
 Paul Jesus did not, and could not, appear again. It 
 is practically a "finally," or "last of the present list 
 of apostles so called." Paul's own experience makes a 
 fitting close to the series he is citing, and the feeling 
 of self-debasement so forcibly expressed in oxncepst 
 i(p IxTpu^a'ci is also largely responsible for the 'iayatw 
 icivTwv. "For I am the least of the apostles" (vs. 9) 
 supports this sense of vs. 8. 1 
 
 As to the time and place of the appearances Paul 
 says nothing. The first two, according to the oldest 
 testimony, took place in Galilee ; that to Peter perhaps 
 while he was engaged in his fisher's work on the lake, 
 that to the others probably in or near Capernaum. 
 The first appearance can hardly have come as early as 
 the third day, for, as we have seen, it is practically im- 
 possible that the disciples could reach their homes, es- 
 pecially in view of the intervening Sabbath, as early 
 as Sunday. 2 But it must have come soon after Peter's 
 return to Galilee, while the impression of the catas- 
 trophe, and of his own weakness, was still strong 
 upon him. The appearance to the other ten almost 
 certainly followed hard on Peter's relation to them 
 
 1 Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum ii : 65, who in this connection 
 says, "probably the iXaxurrordpifi [of Eph. iii : 8] is equivalent 
 to the i/<Tpi!>iMTi." 
 
 * Cf. supra, p. 258. Cf. Beyschlag, Stud. u. Krit., 1899, p. 510. 
 Contra, Schmiedel, col. 4068. 
 
Time and Place 433 
 
 of his experience, and the kindling of their hope and 
 expectancy. * 
 
 Theappearance to James occurred, in all probability, 
 also in Galilee, where he was at home. We do not 
 read that he attended the fatal Passover at Jerusalem, 
 nor, if he were there, would his stay naturally be pro- 
 longed beyond the limits of the feast. The apocry- 
 phal notice in the Gospel of the Hebrews is of no help 
 here. The five hundred who together saw the risen 
 Lord must also be sought in Galilee; only there could 
 so large a number of Jesus' adherents have been gath- 
 ered in the period immediately succeeding his death. 2 
 This appearance must have come rather early, as it 
 precedes that to James; and inevitably the experience 
 of "the Twelve" would prepare the way among the 
 enthusiastic adherents of the prophet of Nazareth for 
 a similar manifestation to the larger number. Even 
 if Luke should be thinking, in the Pentecost story, of 
 the Five Hundred, yet neither his date nor his location 
 has the slightest historical value. They are a part 
 of the pragmatism of his purpose. The separate ap- 
 pearances to the apostles we cannot, of course, localise 
 or date; with them we leave the limits of Galilee and 
 the circle of Jesus' first followers. They fill the four 
 
 1 Cf. Voigt, p. 26. 
 
 2 See this well argued by Keim, p. 534 (Eng. tr., p. 282), and 
 Korff, p. 107. Kreyenbuhl, in Z. N.T.W. vol. ix. (1908), pp. 275- 
 277 places this appearance in Jerusalem, and (pp. 277-279) iden- 
 tifies it with the transfiguration scene. " Perhaps it was ' Pente- 
 cost. ' " Bacon, Founding of the Church, 1909, p. 54, also places 
 this scene in Jerusalem and at Pentecost. Voigt, pp. 32-34, has 
 a regular progression in the appearances, those to Peter and the 
 Twelve in Jerusalem, that to the five hundred on the way to 
 Galilee, the others in Galilee. 
 
434 The Resurrection 
 
 or five years succeeding the Master's death; and finally, 
 in the year 35, according to the most probable chrono- 
 logy of the apostolic age, he appeared to Paul also, an 
 experience which the apostle himself (Gal. ii: 17) justi- 
 fies Luke in placing at or near the city of Damascus. 1 
 Galilee, then, is the scene, not only of Jesus' mission, 
 but of the birth of his church, of the first mission of his 
 followers. Jerusalem comes into his story only as the 
 scene of the last five days of his life, and of his martyr- 
 death. The Christian mission there was not the origi- 
 nal foundation, but an offshoot of the enthusiastic 
 movement in the northern province. That the dis- 
 ciples (with the probable exception of the traitor 
 Judas) fled to Galilee after their Master's arrest and 
 speedy death is put beyond question by Mark xiv: 27 
 (xvi : 7) and the whole of the earliest tradition, which 
 is explainable on no other theory. 2 Not even Luke's 
 express denial gives the slightest ground for doubting 
 the fact, or for Beyschlag's epigram, that this flight of 
 the disciples is "weiter nichts als die Flucht der Kritik 
 vor der in Jerusalem vorhandenen Grabesinstanz." 3 
 
 1 On the chronology of the appearances cf. Arnold Meyer, pp. 
 172-178. Making that "to all the apostles" a single incident, he 
 places it, with that to the 500, not long before Paul's conversion, 
 and in Jerusalem, as the largest of the congregations. The visions 
 of Peter and "the Twelve" come soon after Jesus' death, and so 
 only these get into the gospel narrative, as connected with the 
 story of his earthly career. For a criticism of Meyer's chronology 
 here, for the most part well taken, cf. Korff, pp. 205 f. 
 
 3 C/.the plain statements of Justin, A pol.,\., $o;Trypho, 53, 106. 
 
 aBeyschlag, p. 439. Cf. also Korff, pp. 94-101, where the 
 judgment is expressed that the flight to Galilee is "eine unruhm- 
 liche Erfindung der kritischen Theologie, die ihren geschicht- 
 lichen Sinn durchaus nicht zur Ehre gereicht." 
 
Time and Place 435 
 
 Mark was of another opinion. Though Jesus came 
 from his grave in Jerusalem, though his disciples are 
 there, where a meeting could take place at once, simply 
 and easily, yet he must depart for Galilee, his disciples 
 must be bidden by an angel's voice to follow him, for 
 only there, so fixed and strong is the tradition, can they 
 see him. The very fact that as soon as the empty 
 tomb makes its appearance in the narrative, it is only 
 certain women who come into any relation with it, the 
 disciples nowhere appearing, shows clearly that for 
 the earliest tradition the disciples were not conceived 
 as still in the city after Jesus' death. 1 Unless Galilee 
 had actually been the scene of the experiences, no one, 
 at the time when the gospels were written, could or would 
 possibly have invented these allusions. The whole 
 tendency of the tradition was away from Galilee, to- 
 ward Jerusalem. 2 
 
 It is commonly taken for granted, on the basis of the 
 first chapter of Acts, that the eleven disciples were to 
 be found in Jerusalem at any rate within a month after 
 Jesus' death, and this is held to give ground for the 
 possibility, or probability, of appearances there. But 
 in truth we are quite unable to state how soon any 
 of the disciples returned from Galilee to Jerusalem; the 
 book of Acts is by no means sufficient authority for be- 
 lieving that they were gathered there as early as the day 
 of Pentecost, fifty days after Jesus' death. For the 
 book of Acts asserts that they did not leave Jerusalem 
 at all; its witness to their presence there is no more 
 
 1 Cf. Keim.pp. 533~535 (Eng. tr., pp. 281-284); Brandt.p. 316; 
 Arnold Meyer, p. 114; Schmiedel, col. 4071. 
 
 ' Cf. supra, pp. 383-386, also Clemen, p. 204, Arnold Meyer, 
 p. 129. 
 
436 The Resurrection 
 
 valid as to the fiftieth day than as to the third. 1 The 
 natural thing would be that these Galilean peasants 
 and fishers should remain in their own neighbourhood, 
 carrying on Jesus' work in precisely the environment 
 where he had himself laboured. In Galilee, where the 
 Master has friends and followers, where his person is 
 known and his message familiar, we naturally expect 
 his disciples to proclaim the wonderful attestation to 
 the truth of his every utterance. Only after a some- 
 what extended period, when the disciples have become 
 adjusted to the new situation, when they have come to 
 realise what a responsibility is laid upon them, to 
 what high commission the rest of their lives must be 
 consecrated, only when the mission is organised with 
 some definiteness, and the field of labour in some fash- 
 ion apportioned among their number, do they begin 
 the propaganda in the capital city. It is probably at 
 least a period of months. During this time there is the 
 rapid spreading of the great news among the people of 
 Galilee who had heard Jesus with sympathy, there is 
 the assembling of the five hundred brethren and their 
 "vision," there is the conversion of James and doubt- 
 less of the rest of Jesus' family, there is propaganda of 
 an ecstatic, swift sort, unorganised, without fixed plan 
 or purpose, as the twelve disciples are growing into 
 apostles. It is as Tacitus said; "repressaque in prav 
 sens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat . . . per 
 Judeam." 3 This "repression for the present" is 
 simply the period of quiet succeeding Jesus' death, be- 
 fore the propaganda breaks into publicity again in 
 Jerusalem and other centres. 
 
 1 Cf. Arnold Meyer, p. 121. 
 
 a Annals, xv., 44. Cf. Weizsaker, p. 1. Martineau, p. 374. 
 
Time and Place 437 
 
 The length of this period, while the disciples are 
 collecting their forces and preparing for the continu- 
 ance of their Master's work we cannot, then, define. 
 Tertullian asserts that Jesus spent forty days with his 
 disciples in Galilee, before his ascension; i. e., he con- 
 ceives the forty days of Acts i : 3 as spent in Galilee, 
 despite Luke's plain statement to the contrary. 1 
 Just this statement seems not to occur elsewhere, and 
 there is no evidence that the Gnostic lengthening of 
 the period between resurrection and ascension to a 
 year and a half 2 meant to assign this time to Galilee. 
 
 The truth no doubt is that this Galilean period was 
 not sharply limited by a simultaneous migration of the 
 entire apostolic group to Jerusalem, leaving Galilee 
 wholly without leadership. There is no evidence 
 whatever of the presence of the entire Eleven in Jeru- 
 salem at one time at any period. To be sure, the 
 vague and often legendary narratives in the first half 
 of the book of Acts assume that "the apostles," as a 
 fixed group, are there, and have been there, since be- 
 fore Jesus' death. Even the persecution, which sets 
 every one else fleeing (viii : i) does not move them from 
 the city. But this is not history ; it is an assumption of 
 the author. When it comes to concrete personalities, 
 
 * Apologeticum, ch. xxi. ."Cum discipulis autem quibusdam 
 apud Galileam, Judaaas regionem, ad quadraginta [the Fulda MS. 
 reads quinquaginta] dies egit docens eos quae docerent. " 
 
 2 Eighteen months, according to Irenasus, Adv. Hcsr. i., 3: 2 ( 
 xxx., 14; 545 days, according to Ascensio Isaias ix : 16 (Ethiopic 
 text). The opening words of Pistis Sophia refer to a period eleven 
 years after the resurrection; another year elapses before the final 
 ascension. So the Second Book of Jeu 43 counts twelve years. 
 Cf. C. Schmidt in T. U., vol. viii., 1892, Heft 1-2, pp. 196, 438-440, 
 and Bauer, p. 266. 
 
438 The Resurrection 
 
 no one of the Eleven appears individually, as doing or 
 saying anything whatever, except Peter "and John," 
 his silent partner. Now just these two, and no others, 
 Paul cites as being in Jerusalem in the year 52, when 
 he goes up for the "apostolic council" (Gal. ii: 9). 
 With them is James, Jesus' brother, not of the Eleven. 
 So in Luke's account of this council (Acts xv), only 
 these two men, Peter and James, are mentioned by 
 name, or take any actual part in the proceedings. 
 "The apostles and elders and the whole church" form 
 only the silent and passive background for the picture. 
 
 As early as the year 38, on the occasion of Paul's 
 first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, he found 
 Peter there, " but other of the apostles saw I none, save 
 James the Lord's brother. Now touching the things 
 which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not." 
 (Gal. i : 19 f.). There is, therefore, no evidence that 
 the entire Eleven settled in Jerusalem; the only posi- 
 tive evidence is for Peter and John, with no certain 
 indication how much earlier than the year 38 they were 
 to be found there. Speaking strictly, there is no good 
 evidence for John before the year 52, and Paul's ex- 
 pression icTopijaai Kiq<pav (Gal. i : 18) might be used 
 against the view that Peter had been in the city at 
 the time of Paul's activity as a persecutor. But this 
 would probably be to claim too much. 
 
 We may, however, be sure that some of the Eleven, 
 perhaps most of them, continued to work in Galilee. 
 Luke rightly feels that only an express command of 
 their Master would cause them to abandon that field 
 which had been closest to his own heart, and take up 
 work elsewhere. It may not be without significance 
 that eight of the Eleven disappear from history after 
 
Time and Place 439 
 
 Jesus' death, precisely as Galilee does. Luke is unable 
 to give even a single incident in the further activity of 
 any save Peter "and John, " and of James Zebedee he 
 can record only that he was martyred, a martyrdom 
 which Mark x : 39 shows a well-known element of the 
 tradition. Do the eight disciples disappear because 
 they remain in that part of the Christian mission-field 
 over which, for Luke, a veil is drawn? It seems at 
 least worth noting that Jesus' home and the scene of 
 his mission disappears at the same time with the ma- 
 jority of his personal disciples. Whether or no this 
 is more than a coincidence, we are not without positive 
 record of the Galilean activity of disciples. Weizsacker 
 has pointed oub the obvious relation of the discourse in 
 Matthew x to this period; where Jesus' words cease to 
 be instruction for the present situation and become 
 prophecy for the future, where Matthew (in part paral- 
 leled by Luke) enlarges upon the simpler wording of 
 Mark, especially in vss. 17-42, we have graphic pic- 
 tures of the Galilean propaganda. 1 Verse 23, for 
 example, "When they persecute you in this town, flee 
 to the next; for verily I tell you you shall not finish the 
 towns of Israel till the Son of Man be come," is the 
 voice of the church, though not the voice of the same 
 church which wrote xxviii : 19, "Go ye therefore and 
 make disciples of all the nations." A more careful 
 study of Matthew x and similar synoptic passages 
 would undoubtedly make a needed contribution to our 
 knowledge of the earliest church. 
 
 Here, however, it is important only to see clearly 
 that the "appearances" of the risen Jesus came to the 
 disciples in Galilee, who thereupon began the propa- 
 
 1 Weizsacker, pp. 24-27. Cf. Arnold Meyer, pp. 121 f. 
 
440 The Resurrection 
 
 ganda and there founded the Christian church, not in 
 Jerusalem. One may not, of course, assert that no 
 appearances came to the disciples or others at a later 
 time, in the capital city also. Some scholars who place 
 the earliest visions in Galilee, think that subsequent 
 appearances in Jerusalem may have given basis for 
 the "Jerusalem tradition" of Luke and John, more 
 particularly for the Emmaus incident. 1 This is un- 
 likely, if only for the reason that the origin of this form 
 of the tradition is sufficiently obvious apart from such 
 suggestion. In any case, it is very certain that none 
 of the recorded appearances belong to Jerusalem. 
 
 1 So Clemen, pp. 206 f.; Arnold Meyer, pp. 130, 134-136 (c/. p. 
 41); Lake, pp. 218 f. Korff, pp. 106-108, thinks the appearances 
 to Peter and the Twelve were at Jerusalem, those to the 500, to 
 James, to all the apostles (conceived as <Sfl-a£) following in Gali- 
 lee, after the disciples return thither. Schwartzkopf, pp. 113-115, 
 argues also for Jerusalem as the scene of the earliest appearances. 
 The mediaeval harmonistic combination, which located Galilee 
 on one of the peaks of the Mount of Olives, and so made a con- 
 venient grouping of sacred sites, no longer needs discussion. Ar- 
 gued in recent years by R. Hofmann, Resch, Lepsius, and others, 
 this resolution of the contradiction between the "Galilean" and 
 the "Jerusalem" traditions has received a final refutation at the 
 hands of Theodor Zahn, in his article " Der Auferstandene Jesus 
 in Galilaa," in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, vol. xiv. (1903) pp. 
 770-808. Cf. also Arnold Meyer, pp. 95-101. The most recent 
 attempt of Resch (Das Galilaa bet Jerusalem, 1910) to rehabilitate 
 this theory, has in no wise altered the case. 
 
CHAPTER XVI 
 
 JESUS THE MESSIAH 
 
 IN attempting finally a brief reconstruction of the 
 original situation, we must first of all make clear 
 to ourselves that antecedent to the experiences which 
 attested Jesus' resurrection to his disciples was their 
 faith in him and in his promise that he would rise from 
 the dead on the third day. That such a conviction was 
 his, and that he shared it with his disciples there is 
 not only no reason to doubt, but every reason to be- 
 lieve, as the necessary corollary of the entire situation. 
 Jesus believes that he shall rise from the dead because 
 he believes he is to be Messiah. The two convictions 
 are part of one great overmastering self-consciousness 
 which we must understand if we are to understand 
 Jesus at all. At a point in his ministry which we can- 
 not determine with exactness he becomes convinced 
 that in and through him God is to realise his Kingdom, 
 and fulfil the prophetic dreams of centuries. The 
 day and the hour when he shall be called to stand forth 
 endowed with power from on high, as the anointed of 
 God and agent of the divine will, he does not know. 
 Just how he is to appear and begin his Messianic work 
 he knows not, nor does he ask. He awaits his Father's 
 good time, and meanwhile goes about doing good and 
 telling the glad tidings of the Father-love, striving to 
 
 441 
 
442 The Resurrection 
 
 make men ready to receive the Kingdom when it shall 
 come. 
 
 He is met with enmity by the leaders of his people's 
 life. They hate him as an upstart and a destroyer of 
 old sanctities; they hate him as the sworn foe of their 
 religious and ecclesiastical regime. It becomes clear 
 to him that their enmity will end ere long in his death; 
 the alternative of giving up or of modifying his word 
 does not so much as occur to him. But his firm faith 
 in his destiny does not falter. God has chosen him to 
 be Messiah, and God's plan shall not fail, despite all 
 that men can do. His exaltation to Messianic power 
 and the bringing in of the Kingdom he has up to this 
 point, of course, expected within the limits of earth-life, 
 before he should die, if he were at all to die. Now that 
 death must be reckoned with as a near possibility, 
 without a falter or a break in his sublime confidence he 
 looks across the gulf arid sees himself appearing as 
 Messiah from a heavenly life beyond. Men may kill 
 him, but God will not let him remain in death; his 
 Father will raise him up from among the dead, grant 
 him to anticipate the rest of the departed, that he may 
 return to accomplish the tasklaid upon him. Inthelight 
 of this conviction he reads the words of Daniel vii : 13 
 as having special reference to himself. He is to be the 
 Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven. Death 
 must release its hold upon him; the third day shall see 
 him risen, ready to return in glory. 
 
 As yet he has said no word of his own dream of his 
 destiny to any living soul. It had not the slightest 
 place in his public preaching ; not even had he breathed 
 it in secret to his disciples. But now it must be shared 
 with the Twelve, not to be repeated by them, but only 
 
Jesus the Messiah 443 
 
 under the charge of strictest secrecy. Jesus never 
 means his own identity with Messiah to be proclaimed 
 on earth; not till the clouds of heaven bear witness to 
 the startled world is it to be known. The secret 
 which he now shares with his disciples is his entire 
 secret. Not only is their Master the Messiah-elect, 
 but, harder still to hear, it is appointed that he is to 
 suffer, and so to enter into his glory. The path by 
 which Jesus the rabbi of Nazareth is to attain the 
 glory of Messiah's throne leads through the valley of 
 the shadow of death, through shame and agony, 
 through Sheol itself, and then up, up, to the heavens 
 and the right hand of the Majesty on high. Scarcely 
 once does Jesus speak of his death without adding the 
 conviction that robs death of all its victory, that he 
 shall at once, "within three days," escape from the 
 gates of the underworld to the life with God. Death 
 and resurrection belong together, as inseparable parts 
 of that process by which he is to pass from his present 
 humble station to that eminence from which he shall 
 come in glory. 
 
 Their Master's Messiahship, his certain death on 
 earth, his resurrection on the third day, his fulfilment 
 of Daniel's prophecy of the coming of the Son of Man, 
 his parousia in glory, all this the disciples learn. Dur- 
 ing the last weeks of his life, Jesus seems to have done 
 little else than to instil this series of ideas into the 
 minds of his disciples, with frequent repetition and 
 much explanation, in order that the catastrophe may 
 not sweep them away and make shipwreck of their 
 faith. It is his great concern to render their faith so 
 deep and strong that it will survive the sharp testing 
 of the tragedy that is coming — that when all his work 
 
444 The Resurrection 
 
 has ended in utter disaster, in defeat and death, they 
 may still, in the succeeding days, believe in him as they 
 now do, may love him, trust him, be confident that 
 he has risen and is above in glory, may cherish the 
 conviction that the kingdom is at hand and look 
 confidently for Messiah's appearing, not as a figure 
 strange and terrible, but as those who wait and watch 
 for the coming of a familiar friend. No one knew so 
 well as Jesus how weak were his disciples, and how 
 overwhelming the coming catastrophe, how fierce its 
 test. On Peter, keen, rash, intuitive, vacillating 
 Peter, he builds his chief hope. "Simon, Simon, I 
 have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not!" If 
 Simon's faith does not stand the shock, he may well 
 despair of the rest ; if Simon comes to himself when the 
 shock is over, he may strengthen his brethren. 
 
 The sequel showed how wisely and well Jesus had 
 laboured in those last days, and how thoroughly he 
 knew the nature of Peter. The shock of the catastro- 
 phe proved indeed terrible. They all forsook him and 
 fled, and most of all, after the traitor, did Peter seem 
 to lose all faith and all manhood. But the lesson had 
 sunk too deep into their souls to fail of its effect; ere 
 many days had passed Jesus appeared to Peter, then 
 to the Twelve. It was the strength of the impression 
 made by the intercourse of those last weeks which 
 made it possible for Peter to experience this vision of 
 his risen Master and to renew his faith, this time beyond 
 possibility of further faltering, and to spread the con- 
 tagion of that renewed faith to his ten companions. 
 
 The promises of his resurrection spoken by Jesus 
 during those weeks are given in somewhat stereotyped 
 form by our evangelists. Before considering them in 
 
Jesus the Messiah 445 
 
 any detail, two general remarks must be made. It is 
 obvious, in the first place, that Jesus is here not saying 
 anything whatever about the fate of his body after 
 death. He is not claiming that his body, after he has 
 been put to death, is going to be placed in a tomb, and 
 on the third day is going to come to life, come out of the 
 tomb and renew intercourse with his followers. No- 
 thing of the sort is in his words; the common assump- 
 tion that this is what he promised is simply a reading of 
 the details of the subsequent stories of Matthew, Luke, 
 and John back into his simple word : I shall rise again. 
 The resurrection of which he here speaks is equivalent 
 to ascension ; it is his escape from Sheol, his passage to 
 heaven. * It has absolutely no concern with grave or 
 corpse, anyallusion to which fails utterly in his words. 
 Not only was no such meaning in his intent, no such 
 meaning was for an instant attached to his words by 
 the disciples who heard them, as the whole subsequent 
 narrative makes clear. The recognition of this simple 
 fact will at once remove a host of difficulties which 
 loom large before every apologist. 
 
 In the second place, Jesus promised only that he 
 would rise; he did not promise that, after his resur- 
 rection, he would appear to his disciples, or that they 
 were to have any outward proof that he had risen. 
 They must believe that because they believe him; it is 
 an act of faith, a part of their faith in him. There is 
 no particle of indication that Jesus expected, still less 
 intended, to appear to his disciples after he had 
 escaped from Sheol. Neither he or they thought to 
 
 1 Cf. Maurenbrecher, pp. 55 f. "Einen anderen Sinn hat ja das 
 Wort Auferstehung in bezug auf den Christus . . . niemals 
 gehabt. " 
 
446 The Resurrection 
 
 see each other again until the parousia. This consid- 
 eration, like) the preceding one, is the solution of a 
 whole series of difficulties. 1 
 
 Keeping these two considerations in mind, if we 
 look at the passages in which Jesus promises his resur- 
 rection on the third day we shall find no reason to 
 criticise their substance. To be sure, the evangelist, 
 rendering into Greek the tradition of Jesus' Aramaic 
 utterances, does not reproduce verbatim a remark made 
 in privacy to the disciples, but that Jesus, in foretelling 
 his death, foretold also his escape from that death "on 
 the third day, " is certain. The passages Mark x: 38, 
 x: 45, xiv: 8, xiv: 21-25, x i y: 2 7""3 X > x i y: 34-42, with 
 their parallels, show Jesus approaching the hour of his 
 death with open eyes. The specific declarations of 
 resurrection are given in Mark viii : 3 1 , ix : 9-1 3 , ix : 3 1 , 
 x : 33 f ., with their parallels. There is no supernatural 
 prevision here indicated. Such a phrase as "rejected 
 by the elders ana the chief priests and the scribes" 
 means only "condemned by the Sanhedrin, " and that 
 the leaders of Judaism were his enemies to the death 
 had long been clear . 2 That Jesus spoke of his death as 
 crucifixion does not appear in Mark; Matthew has in- 
 serted it in his parallel (xx: 18) to the passage where 
 Mark also (x : 33 f .) shows clearest evidence of the ad- 
 dition of ex eventu details to the original saying. But 
 there is nothing unlikely in the supposition that Jesus 
 should expect his death to be by the cross; if carried 
 out at all by legal process, it must be by the Romans, 
 and crucifixion was the common form of execution for 
 provincials and criminals not possessing Roman citi- 
 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 197 f. ' Cf. e.g., Mark iii: 6, iii: 22, vii: 1-6. 
 
Jesus the Messiah 447 
 
 zenship. 1 In the pages of Josephus we see Jews 
 crucified by thousands during Jesus' time. Why 
 should he not have so spoken? With as much mi- 
 raculous prevision would an aristocrat in France 
 during the Revolution have expected death by the 
 guillotine. Yet it is not certain that Jesus did so 
 speak. Certain only is that he looked forward to 
 death and speedy resurrection from death. The con- 
 tention, perhaps most clearly expressed by Pfleiderer, 2 
 that Jesus neither expected nor predicted death, 
 but went to Jerusalem hoping for an earthly Mes- 
 sianic triumph, not only rests on an arbitrary re- 
 jection of the gospel testimony, but renders the whole 
 gospel story inexplicable. 
 
 More widely shared and at first sight more persua- 
 sive is the contention that Jesus cannot have so plainly 
 predicted his resurrection on the third day as the gos- 
 pels declare. The whole account of the behaviour 
 of the disciples at the time of Jesus' death and immedi- 
 ately after, it is urged, shows that they cannot have 
 expected him to rise from the dead on the Sunday, and 
 that therefore he cannot have so foretold, at least with 
 anything like the explicitness of the gospel passages. 
 Either these gospel sayings are wholly ex eventu and 
 unhistorical, or they originally had a different form 
 and signified only "the speedy triumph of his cause," 
 
 1 Cf. Allen, ad Mat. x: 38 and xx: 19, and compare Mark viii: 34. 
 
 3 O. Pfleiderer, " Jesus' Foreknowledge of His Sufferings and 
 Death," in New Wodd,Sept., 1899, pp.431 ff. So, earlier, Holsten, 
 pp. 150 ff., and others. Cf. Keim, vol. ii., 1871, pp. 554 f. (Eng. 
 tr., vol. iv., pp. 271 f.). The critique of these predictions of Jesus, 
 like so much modem criticism, was anticipated by Celsus. Cf. 
 Origen, Contra Celsum, ii: 13-20, 44, 54 f. 
 
448 The Resurrection 
 
 or the like. * At Jesus' arrest the disciples forsake him 
 and flee; none of them appears in the vicinity of the 
 grave on the third day, as if having even a suspicion 
 that the buried Master is to rise. The women go to 
 anoint the body, they plainly do not expect that it is 
 to rise; earlier, indeed, Nicodemus and Joseph have 
 accomplished the anointing. When the grave is found 
 empty, the women are amazed; their report to the dis- 
 ciples is met with incredulity. Even the appearances 
 of Jesus meet at first this same incredulity, or provoke 
 fear or consternation. No one betrays the least con- 
 sciousness that what is happening is just what Jesus 
 had repeatedly told them would happen, most recently 
 only four days before. Luke xxiv: 25, " foolish men, 
 
 1 So, e.g., Pfleiderer, in the article just cited and Vrchristen- 
 tum, pp. 359 f., 676 f.; Rohrbach, Berichte, p. 7; A. Reville, in 
 New World, Sept., 1894, pp. 502, 513, and more briefly, J. de 
 N., vol. ii., p. 214; Arnold Meyer, pp. 306, 308, 181 f.; Lake, pp. 
 256-259; Maurenbrecher, p. 118 f. The English reader will find 
 a very full demonstration of the case against these predictions 
 (taken as implying bodily resurrection) in the anonymous book 
 The Four Gospels as Historical Records, 1895, pp. 367-370. The 
 general view goes back to Reimarus, and is fully developed 
 by Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1st ed., vol. ii., 1836, pp. 324-341. For the 
 genuineness of the utterances, cf. Keim, vol. ii., 1871, pp. 555-558 
 (Eng. tr., vol. iv., pp. 268-274); O. Holtzmann, p. 388; von Dob- 
 schutz, p. 13; Korff, pp. 232-234. 
 
 Schwartzkopf, in his book dealing with these prophecies, ar- 
 gues for their genuineness, but thinks Jesus expected to pass into 
 Heaven immediately after death, and used the three days 
 figuratively of the brief time to elapse before the parousia. 
 Holtzmann: N. T.'Theol., vol. i., pp. 305-309, thinks the three- 
 day reference ex eventu, and gives further references to literature. 
 Schmiedel, col. 4067, thinks that Jesus "may very well, at one 
 time or another, have expressed himself in some such sense." 
 It is possible to be more definite. 
 
Jesus the Messiah 449 
 
 and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets 
 have spoken!" is justly quoted as indicating that the 
 disciples might have known from prophecy, but not 
 from Jesus' own words, what was to come to pass. 
 
 We have already seen that many of these incidents 
 are unhistorical, but there remains at least the com- 
 plete despair and dispersion of the disciples, and their 
 return to their Galilean homes without a thought of 
 tarrying to see whether their Master might not come 
 to life on the Sunday. It is absolutely clear, from 
 every point of view, that they were not expecting any 
 such event, any further phenomenon connected with 
 the body and the grave. But it is equally clear that 
 they had no reason to expect any such phenomenon, 
 that nothing in Jesus' predictions had been meant by 
 him, or understood by them, as promising anything 
 which had to do with body or grave, which could be 
 apprehended by ear or eye, which had spacial relations 
 to Jerusalem or any spot of earth. What he had 
 promised was a phenomenon entirely withdrawn from 
 the sphere of sense, a transaction behind the veil. 1 
 The behaviour of the disciples is therefore perfectly 
 natural. As a matter of fact, any declaration by Jesus 
 that his body would rise from its tomb on the third day, 
 or any such expectation on the part of the disciples or 
 others, is rendered entirely impossible by the con- 
 sideration that such expectation necessarily assumes 
 the burial of his body. But burial was precisely the 
 one thing which could not have been foreseen or taken 
 
 1 Cf. McGiffert, Apostolic Age, Revised Ed., 1900, p.37, note 2. 
 The point is rarely clearly recognised by exegetes, though defi- 
 nitely set forth by H. H. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, part ii., 1890, 
 pp. 542-544. (Eng. tr., vol. ii., 1892, pp. 266-268). 
 29 
 
45° The Resurrection 
 
 for granted, which was of all things most unlikely. 
 For the bodies of the crucified were commonly left 
 upon the cross, or, at best, thrown into a common pit. 
 That Jesus' body found burial was an unusual piece 
 of fortune, dependent on the combination of two in- 
 calculable factors, the piety (and courage) of Joseph 
 of Arimathea and the clemency of Pilate. Had Jesus 
 meant that his body would rise from burial, he must 
 have charged the disciples to take care that it found 
 burial; had they expected such rising, they must of 
 their own initiative have provided the burial. It is 
 noteworthy that in Jesus' predictions of his resurrec- 
 tion there is no slightest allusion to burial or the grave, l 
 not even in Mark x : 33 f . and parallels, where details 
 have most ex eventu amplification. In every case the 
 reference to rising follows directly upon that to dying. 
 It is always resurrection from death, never from the 
 grave. 2 
 
 The evangelists, indeed, since they conceive of the 
 resurrection as concerning the buried body, conceive 
 Jesus' promises of resurrection as having the same refer- 
 ence, though no one of them puts into his words this 
 reference, as they might so easily have done quite 
 without consciousness of having changed Jesus' original 
 intent. 3 They are therefore confronted by the same 
 dilemma which meets modern critics: How could the 
 
 1 The word in Mark xiv: 8, of the anointing of his body before- 
 hand its rbv iirra.<pui<Tfi6v, is Jesus ' only allusion to his burial. Here 
 it has no connection with resurrection. 
 
 2 On Jesus' own idea of his resurrection, cf. Schweitzer, pp. 361- 
 363- 
 
 3 This is conclusive evidence that the "predictions" are authen- 
 tic, not ex eventu constructions. 
 
Jesus the Messiah 451 
 
 disciples have heard these plain predictions and yet 
 have so utterly ignored them in their subsequent action? 
 The evangelists' answer is characteristic and simple. 
 The disciples did not understand; there was some 
 strange torpor over their understandings when this 
 matter was spoken of, so that it made no impression 
 on their minds. Only later, after the resurrection had 
 been attested by the "appearances," did they recall 
 these plain predictions of the Master. This motif is 
 most clearly developed in Luke (c/. ix: 45, xviii: 34, 
 xxiv:6f., 16). As we have seen, it is one of his chief 
 apologetic elements, but the other evangelists share 
 it in their degree. 1 It ought not to be necessary 
 to point out that this is in no sense history, but only 
 apologetic dogma, that no disciples, no human beings, 
 were ever actually the victims of such extraordinary 
 psychological vagaries. The notion may be pardoned 
 to the evangelists, less easily so to modern scholars. 
 Yet most present-day apologetes and some of the more 
 critical investigators adopt this explanation of the 
 evangelists. The reason is simply that if the empty 
 grave is accepted as historical, and Jesus and his ear- 
 liest followers are conceived as contemplating a resur- 
 rection having to do with the buried body, the only 
 alternatives are to declare Jesus' predictions of resur- 
 rection unhistorical or to make the disciples into the 
 most extraordinarily stupid and forgetful of mortals. 
 The former procedure is perhaps the more com- 
 mon among critical scholars, but the latter is very 
 frequent. 2 
 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 321-323, and add to the references there given 
 Mark ix: 10, 32. 
 
 ' So, e.g., Edersheim, vol. ii., p. 624; Korff, p. 19. 
 
452 The Resurrection 
 
 Closely related to this element of the narrative is 
 the statement of the bewilderment and terror that fell 
 upon the first recipients of the experiences attesting 
 Jesus' resurrection. So the women (Mark xvi: 5, 8) are 
 amazed at the angel and his message; trembling and 
 astonishment came upon them. In Mat. xxviii: 5, 8 
 they fear, so in Luke xxiv: 5, while in Luke xxiv: 37, 41 
 the disciples are terrified and affrighted and suppose 
 that they are seeing a spirit ("a ghost"); they dis- 
 believe for joy, and wonder. As a matter of fact, this 
 is precisely what must have happened when to Peter 
 and to the others came suddenly, unexpectedly, the 
 "appearances" of their dead Master, which he had 
 never by so much as a word predicted. Of course 
 they were at first terrified and affrighted, and thought 
 they saw a ghost, though in a moment their fear turns 
 to a great joy and an unshakable faith. In truth the 
 tg6\xo<; and Ixmaau; of Mark xvi: 8 are much better 
 words to describe the disciples' first emotions than the 
 xT0K)8evT£<; xal 6^90^01 of Luke xxiv: 37. Where these 
 emotions are attributed to the women it is simply the 
 literary transference to them of what really was felt 
 by the disciples. The women, who see only a young 
 man in white, who repeats to them Jesus' own promise, 
 have no ground for "trembling and ecstasy," which 
 are not the same, it should be noted, with the y6$oz 
 of lipofouvTO yap. That was fear of consequences. 
 
 To his disciples, then, Jesus entrusts his secret, his 
 assurance that he is to be Messiah, but must reach his 
 throne of power by way of the cross and the under- 
 world, from which, on the third day, he should escape, 
 victorious, to the heavenly places. His disciples hear, 
 and understand, and believe; or rather, they cannot 
 
Jesus the Messiah 453 
 
 quite believe that God will let his Messiah suffer shame 
 and death. Every day they look to see another aspect 
 of things begin to replace these gloomy forebodings, 
 theirs is not yet their Master's faith in the Via Dolor- 
 osa as the divinely appointed path to Messiah's 
 glory. "Be it far from thee, Master; this shall never 
 be to thee ' ' (Mat. xvi : 22) . " They supposed that the 
 Kingdom of God was immediately to appear" (Luke 
 xix: 11). They go with Jesus to Jerusalem to the 
 great feast; the triumphal entry into the city, when the 
 Master is hailed by a jubilant crowd as the prophet 
 who comes in Jahweh's name, the herald of the King- 
 dom, 1 only feeds their hopes. But the following days 
 are undecisive; no Messianic claim is made, and the 
 crisis is all too plainly drawing near, judas's waver- 
 ing faith in his Master's destiny cannot stand the test ; 
 his traitor- voice breaks the command that they should 
 tell no man that Jesus is Messiah, and makes immedi- 
 ate and sure the fate his Master had foretold. No 
 longer need the Sanhedrists put skilfully devised catch- 
 questions to Jesus, or send out spies, "that they might 
 take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the 
 rule and to the authority of the governor" (Luke xx: 
 20). They have a valid accusation, which will bring 
 without delay his condemnation and execution by the 
 Roman power. On the night before Passover Jesus 
 is seized by a band of men sent out by the Sanhedrists 
 and led away a prisoner. The swift and complete tri- 
 umph of the enemy carries the eleven disciples away in 
 sudden panic. They all forsake him and flee, and 
 while they are cowering in terrified concealment about 
 
 1 Not as Messiah, as the account of Mark and the whole course 
 of events makes certain. 
 
454 The Resurrection 
 
 the city, Peter sick with shame and self-abasement, the 
 Messiah is done to death. None of his own are by him ; 
 only certain women are beholding from afar. By mid- 
 afternoon Jesus has breathed his last; before sunset 
 Joseph has laid him in a hasty grave. The good coun- 
 cillor, having done his pious duty, passes out of history. 
 The body lies where he has placed it, until time and 
 nature have done their work. Years pass, and war 
 devastates the site; body and grave alike are dust. 
 
 But what of the disciples? In fear and despair, in 
 grief and shame, they flee when the holy day is past, 
 to their old homes in Galilee, to their old labours by 
 the sea. Their courage and faith are sadly shattered. 
 To be sure, Jesus had told them before it came to pass, 
 but they were not able to face his prediction squarely, 
 for their obstinate hope that the glory of the Messianic 
 appearance would anticipate the death all signs fore- 
 boded. Their faith is not fully gone, indeed. They 
 could recall the Master's promise that he would rise, 
 but how are they to be sure he has done so? He may 
 have risen from the dead, he may be even now above 
 in the heavenly world, but they have no assurance of it, 
 save their apparently unjustified faith in him, to which 
 they desperately cling. They have but to wait as 
 hopefully as they may, and see if he returns to resume 
 his interrupted work. In this frame of mind the old 
 Galilean life is taken up, and if nothing more had hap- 
 pened, their faith and hope would not have long sur- 
 vived, and the Christian movement would have died 
 at birth. * 
 
 But something further happened. It is the declaration 
 of Paul's gospel-message: "He appeared to Cephas, 
 
 1 See this strongly put by Keim, p. 605 (Eng. tr., p. 364). 
 
Jesus the Messiah 455 
 
 then to the Twelve. " The first effect of these appear- 
 ances upon their recipients was sheer amazement and 
 even terror, a wonder and a solemn fear. For he had 
 only foretold that he would rise, not that he would ap- 
 pear. But when he burst through the veil, and they 
 saw before them him who had perished on the crqss in 
 Jerusalem, thus giving them gratuitous and certain 
 proof of the truth of what he had claimed as to his 
 resurrection and 'his future Messianic career — then 
 trembling and awe indeed fell on them. We cannot 
 picture too solemnly such a scene. Until this attes- 
 tation came, their faith might indeed waver; they had 
 only his bare word to rely on, and he was dead, lost 
 to sight and sense. To keep faith, in the face of the 
 dark reality, was hard; their despondency and "stum- 
 bling" are understandable. And into this mood came 
 suddenly, unprepared-for, like a lightning-flash, the 
 "appearances." Their importance cannot easily be 
 overstated; they meant the supreme and certain attest- 
 ation of all that Jesus had ever claimed and the assur- 
 ance of fulfilment for every hope associated with his 
 name. Even if the disciples could have believed that 
 Jesus was risen and living in the heavenly world 
 above, yet surely without the proof offered by the 
 "appearances," their proclamation of the fact and of 
 all the momentous consequences that hung upon it, 
 would have made little impression on the world. We 
 can understand the central place the preaching of the 
 resurrection occupies in all the early missionary procla- 
 mation, and can divine what a power it was in the 
 propaganda. Any complete concordance, under the 
 word " resurrection, " will give us impressive data here. 
 But we must never forget the wholly gratuitous char- 
 
456 The Resurrection 
 
 acter of these appearances; they were never promised 
 and were surely as unexpected by the living Jesus as by 
 those to whom they came. And the fact that the dis- 
 ciples' first feeling of amazement and terror was im- 
 mediately swallowed up in the glad faith that their 
 dear. Master is alive forevermore, their heavenly friend 
 and God's Messiah, is "the perfect tribute" to the 
 marvellous impression his living personality had made 
 on them. 
 
 This is, after all, the great miracle, the impress of 
 Jesus' personality on his disciples. It was so deep and 
 strong, in a word, that they saw him after he had died. 
 This is the real secret of the "appearances." What- 
 ever psychology may have to say here, ' it is clear that 
 without this tremendous personal impression in the 
 souls of these eleven men Jesus would not, could not, 
 have appeared. That these eleven saw him after his 
 death, and that the twelfth, in despair, hanged himself, 
 is a powerful witness to the strength of that impression. 2 
 The impression itself was, indeed, not consciously re- 
 ceived by the disciples at the time of their intercourse 
 with Jesus ; only in the after days did it begin to exer- 
 cise its full power upon them. 3 But it made the " ap- 
 pearances" possible; it made possible for them the 
 faith that he could not be holden of death, that in him 
 the Psalm- word had come true: "Thou wilt not leave 
 my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one 
 to see corruption. " Him they could believe when he 
 said: " In three days I shall rise again. " Another, let 
 
 1 Cf. supra, pp. 55-57- 
 
 2 Cf. William Mackintosh, Natural History of the Christian 
 Religion, 1894, p. 282. 
 
 3 Brandt, p. 494, carries this much too far. 
 
Jesus the Messiah 457 
 
 us say John the Baptist, they would not have believed 
 had he made this great claim never so confidently and 
 forcibly, nor would visions of such another have come 
 to lighten the disciples' hour of gloom. Jesus had im- 
 pressed himself upon them more powerfully and deeply 
 than they themselves knew, so deeply that after temp- 
 orary desertion of him, loss of faith, despair, that im- 
 pression could reassert itself so strongly as to give them 
 absolute assurance of his present life, even give them 
 sight of him in his glorious body; so powerfully as to 
 cause their spirits to spring elastic into a faith and 
 assurance and devotion far surpassing anything they 
 had known while he was with them in the flesh. His 
 present glorious life becomes more real, more influen- 
 tial, more near and dear, than all their days and weeks 
 with him in Galilee. Now does Peter's boast become 
 earnest: "If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. 
 And in like manner also said they all," vowing to 
 their risen Master undivided service and loyalty unto 
 death. T 
 
 All criticism, all study, must bring out in ever stronger 
 relief this great witness to the supreme personality 
 of Jesus. For a man by his gifts of soul, by what he 
 was, to produce this great conviction of his immediate 
 victory over death, how much grander and truer a 
 thing is this than a conviction based on the crude ma- 
 terial sensible evidences of a corpse revived, of wounded 
 hands and feet that are touched and felt, of a body that 
 eats and drinks and walks and talks. Because thou 
 hast seen hast thou believed? Blessed are they that 
 have not seen, and yet have believed. An evil and 
 adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and there 
 
 1 Cf. Wernle, p. 82. 
 
458 The Resurrection 
 
 shall no sign be given to it save the sign of Jonah the 
 prophet. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the 
 judgment with this generation and shall condemn it, 
 for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and be- 
 hold, a greater than Jonah is here. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 WHAT IS FAITH IN THE RESURRECTION? 
 
 [An Address Given September 24, 1908, at the Opening of the 
 Sixty-fifth Year of the Meadville Theological School.] 1 
 
 " T BELIEVE in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, 
 i who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the 
 Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was cruci- 
 fied, dead and buried. The third day he rose again 
 from the dead, he ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on 
 the right hand of God the Father Almighty." It is 
 about these statements of the Apostles' Creed that the 
 conflict between certain two schools of historical study 
 rages with least apparent prospect of peace. For the 
 combatants are not on the same field; one party fights 
 as it were in the air, the other on the solid ground, and 
 the blows of each doughty warrior entirely miss his 
 antagonist. On the one hand, alleged facts of history, 
 events which either did or did not happen, at a certain 
 time of day and in a certain geographical location, 
 which you or I could have seen or apprehended by our 
 normal senses had we been in that place at that time, 
 are made the subject of faith and of dogmatic asser- 
 tion. They are to be believed as dogmatic dicta, in- 
 dependently of historical investigation. Of course it 
 
 1 Reprinted from the Quarterly Bulletin of the School, vol. iv., 
 No. 2. 
 
 459 
 
460 The Resurrection 
 
 is held by this school that historic research, were no 
 obstacles in its path, would fully demonstrate the 
 actual occurrence of the alleged facts; but historic 
 research can never fully penetrate into these remote 
 events, and the ordinary believer has neither time nor 
 capability to pursue it, were its results never so sure. 
 The Church's way is simpler: to be absolutely inde- 
 pendent of all historic proof; in short, to transplant 
 these stated happenings from the field of history to 
 that of dogma. Faith, not history, is to tell us what 
 events were transpiring in one or another Palestinian 
 town on a certain day of a certain year of the first 
 century; history can say what was going on in Rome 
 or Athens or Alexandria that same day and hour. As 
 to the half-dozen Palestinian happenings in question, 
 history is denied the right to speak, that is, to speak 
 the deciding word. Where her testimony reiterates 
 the statement of faith, she is indeed gladly heard, 
 but the word of faith becomes no stronger thereby. It 
 rests secure above the fear of history's gainsaying or 
 the need of history's attestation. 
 
 It is easy for the antagonists of this view to see its 
 surpassing error, but in combating it they are often like 
 one beating the air. And not infrequently, blinded by 
 excess of zeal, they insensibly fall into the same error, 
 not only calling upon history for a certainty in these 
 matters which it can never give, but fain to establish 
 the truth or error of certain properly dogmatic state- 
 ments by the application of historic criteria. The 
 two points of view are seldom kept sufficiently distinct; 
 certainly in the creedal passage above, statements 
 properly historic are curiously mingled with others 
 properly dogmatic, yet they all commonly receive the 
 
Appendix 461 
 
 same treatment, devoutly asserted together as the 
 faith of the worshipper, and by scholars maintained 
 or refuted alike by the dogmatic method or the 
 historic. 
 
 The physiological conditions attending the birth of 
 any human child are matters of history and experience ; 
 and even though history does not have explicit or re- 
 liable data in respect to a certain given case, yet faith 
 is in no conceivable instance justified in asserting, 
 independently of history, conditions that contradict 
 general human experience. It may, indeed, be urged 
 that in the specific case of Jesus' birth, the assertion 
 that human paternity was lacking is not independent 
 of history, but is the statement made by the only his- 
 tories of the event known to us, the accounts of Mat- 
 thew and Luke. And yet any one who is familiar 
 with the apologetic of the present day knows that the 
 virgin birth is less and less defended by appeal to the 
 integrity and infallibility of the gospel record, more 
 and more from dogmatic and theological considera- 
 tions that thus and no otherwise it behooved the Son 
 of God to enter the world. This change of emphasis is 
 well expressed by Dr. Charles A. Briggs. x " When you 
 begin with a divine person and ask how that divine 
 person was to become man and be conceived in the 
 womb of a woman, biology has no information what- 
 ever to give us.* * * It is a mystery of dogmatic fact, 
 for which we require sufficient evidence. That evi- 
 dence is given by those best qualified to know, in the 
 gospels ; and it is sustained by the proprieties of the 
 case, for it is evident that in no other way than by the con- 
 
 1 " The Virgin Birth of Our Lord." American Journal of The- 
 ology, April, 1908, p. 204. 
 
462 The Resurrection 
 
 ception by a virgin could God become really incarnate." 1 
 Clearly the "sufficient evidence" of the gospels would 
 not be sufficient to establish the fact for Dr. Briggs, 
 unsustained by dogmatic propriety. I suppose no one 
 would now seriously urge that, apart from dogmatic 
 considerations, we have in Matthew and Luke histori- 
 cal evidence sufficient in quantity and cogency, or 
 sufficiently well authenticated, to prove the stupendous 
 miracle in question. Where one believes that Jesus 
 had no father simply because Matthew and Luke say 
 so, we have, of course, properly speaking, not faith 
 in the Virgin Birth at all, but only faith in Biblical in- 
 fallibility. And this, in turn, is dogma, independent 
 of history. 
 
 Again, history may fix the name of the Roman offi- 
 cial set over a particular district at a particular time, 
 may demonstrate the fact and manner of a certain 
 criminal execution, with the death and burial of the 
 victim; but surely with these things as historic hap- 
 penings faith has nothing to do. History is free to 
 affirm or to deny their occurrence according to its 
 own laws. Faith may, with entire propriety, concern 
 herself with the interpretation or religious evaluation 
 of these facts, with their relation to God and to the 
 souls of men — in short, with such of their aspects or 
 elements as lie outside the field of sensible historic 
 occurrence. But with their occurrence or non-occur- 
 rence she has no more concern than with the battle 
 of Waterloo. 
 
 The experiences of the human soul after death are, 
 
 1 Italics mine. Cf- also the papers appended to Professor Orr's 
 "Virgin Birth of Our Lord, " 1907, most of which evince the same 
 emphasis, though building, of course, on the gospel records. 
 
Appendix 463 
 
 again, proper subjects of faith. It is true that many 
 who have applied themselves to one or another form 
 of psychic research hope to throw open to us the world 
 beyond bodily death, and make its experiences matters 
 of history and sensible perception, even as those of our 
 present life; but as yet what lies beyond must be re- 
 garded as a bourne from which no traveller returns, 
 whose entire content transcends our historic know- 
 ledge. Faith, then, can predicate of one soul, or of all 
 souls, a rising out of death on the third day, or at any 
 point of time which has a value for faith, a transition 
 into heaven, a union with God. Heaven itself, and 
 God, are objects of faith, not of historic or sensible 
 perception; and the fixing of the relations of the soul 
 to them lies within the full right of that same faith. 
 
 If this is what the creed means by its assertion con- 
 cerning Jesus, "the third day he rose again from the 
 dead," it is a legitimate confession of faith, and the 
 historian has no right of question. But the church has 
 always insisted, since the creed was formulated, that 
 this is not what is meant ; that the statement is no con- 
 fession of faith at all, but a narration of certain hap- 
 penings on the outskirts of the city of Jerusalem at 
 certain hours of certain days in the spring of the year 
 30 of our era, happenings attested in the normal 
 manner to the senses of certain men and women 
 who were present. So, very explicitly, the late sylla- 
 bus Lamentabili Sane Exitu, Sections 36 and 37. This 
 contention that we have here no confession of faith, 
 but a bit of historic narrative, is properly a contention 
 that the statements have no place at all in a creed, but 
 this the church has never been willing to see. I re- 
 peat, it is the church that has insisted that the 
 
464 The Resurrection 
 
 " resurrection " spoken of by the creed is not the spirit- 
 ual experience of which faith has the exclusive right 
 to speak, but an external, visible, audible, localised 
 and dated event of history. The church thereby, 
 however strenuously she may deny it, gives to his- 
 tory full right to apply its criteria and promises to 
 abide by its decision. Despite her disclaimers, she 
 deliberately leaves to history the answering of the 
 question: is the resurrection a reality? avowing herself 
 content to receive from a source outside herself her 
 certainty on this cardinal point. To be sure she is not 
 thus content. She does, as a matter of fact, involve 
 herself in a complete contradiction, insisting that what 
 she has just declared to be an event of history shall be 
 accepted by faith, and refusing to hear history's an- 
 swer to her question unless that answer but repeat the 
 conviction she has already reached by processes other 
 than those of history. Logically the church should 
 confess : if historical investigation answers no concern- 
 ing the occurrence of the external event, then is Christ 
 not risen and our faith is vain. 
 
 The confusion of objects of faith with objects of 
 sense leads to this fundamental mistake of method, but 
 more fatal are the results incurred by putting in such 
 jeopardy the precious conviction of our own resur- 
 rection, which, again, the church makes absolutely de- 
 pendent on the reality of this one test case. We might 
 here lift the curtain on the tragedy of many souls. 
 The insistence of the church that the creed is dealing 
 with an event in the history of the first century a.d. has 
 forced no small number of devout men and women, 
 very properly attempting to fix the actuality of this 
 event by the criteria of external history, to renounce 
 
Appendix 465 
 
 the faith. It is the church that has thus forced them to 
 the conviction: there is no resurrection, and has not 
 infrequently made them of all men most miserable. 
 
 That amazing piece of sensational fiction When It 
 Was Dark has just come in my way. It would not 
 deserve mention save that it bears upon its cover a com- 
 mendation in the words of "the Bishop of London, 
 preaching at Westminster Abbey, " words which in the 
 extremest fashion urge that the resurrection is not a 
 matter of faith, but of history, and so properly liable 
 to the contingencies of historic demonstration. 1 The 
 church could choose no more effective or rapid way 
 than this to destroy among her people faith in the 
 resurrection. For every one influenced by such a 
 publication to accept its author's belief, a hundred are 
 convinced by every public school, college, and univer- 
 sity, by every newspaper and review, by every work 
 of science or of history, that phenomena such as the 
 reviving of a corpse, its subsequent activity and exhi- 
 bition of miraculous irreconcilable properties, do not 
 belong to the sober record of facts. And further, in 
 so far as these hundred think, they are being convinced 
 that even if these phenomena could be demonstrated 
 as having actually occurred, they have no bearing on 
 faith. They can prove nothing worth proving. Faith 
 has the same concern with them as happenings, as 
 
 1 Cf. also Morgan Dix, in the Homiletic Review, April, 1909, p. 
 310. Similarly Professor Edouard Guder of Bern (Die Tatsach- 
 lichkeit der Auferstehung Christi, Bern, 1862, pp. 7 f.) urged that 
 the resurrection is not an article of the church's faith, any more 
 than is the battle of Laupen. Not: I believe he rose, but: It is 
 a fact that he rose, as it is a fact that Napoleon was defeated at 
 Waterloo. 
 
466 The Resurrection 
 
 with events in the history of Mohammed or of 
 Luther. * 
 
 The apologists do not commonly ask themselves 
 with sufficient definiteness just what depends on the 
 positions they are so strenuously maintaining. Much 
 more of their zeal than they realise is due to the 
 persistence of the impetus of the apologetic of a gen- 
 eration ago, whose chief effort was expended on the de- 
 fence of the Bible as an inerrant book, rather than on 
 that of the individual doctrines the book was supposed 
 to teach. Now that, theoretically at any rate, "be- 
 cause the Bible says so" is becoming less sufficient a 
 reason for believing one or another doctrine, and the 
 doctrines themselves, in their inner and outer relations, 
 are the real topics of discussion, we need to be sure, 
 not only on what basis we believe, but for what pur- 
 pose we believe. Suppose Jesus' body was revived, 
 and the other events happened as the gospels variously 
 relate; what of it? What consequences have these 
 strange phenomena on our faith in Jesus' spiritual 
 supremacy or in the immortality of the soul? If one 
 is not concerned with the inerrancy of the record, why 
 attempt to prove the phenomena at all? Why are 
 they precious? What does the bodily resurrection 
 with its accompanying physical marvels prove that is 
 not otherwise abundantly proven? Without raising 
 
 1 On the differentiation of facts of history from objects of faith, 
 with particular reference to the resurrection, cf. Schwartzkopff, 
 pp. 134 f., Steude's Einleitung, Edmond Stapfer: Jesus Christ, 
 Eng. tr., 1898, vol. ii., p. 94 (quotation from Lachelier), and vol. 
 iii., chap. 15, and especially P. Lobstein: "Der Evangelische 
 Heilsglaube an die Auferstehung Jesu Christi " (Zeitschrift fur 
 Theol. und Kirche, vol. ii., 1892), pp. 343-368, esp. 358-368. 
 
Appendix 467 
 
 the question as to the possibility or probability of the 
 phenomena, it is worth while to face clearly this ques- 
 tion of their value. If "the resurrection" be this ex- 
 ternal wonder alone, or this external wonder chiefly, is 
 it not largely robbed of its value? The reanimation of 
 a dead body by the soul that formerly inhabited it is 
 no unique phenomenon in the Biblical narrative. What 
 evidential value has it in the case of Jesus that it 
 lacks everywhere else? That souls do not become ex- 
 tinct at death but persist and may be recalled to their 
 earthly tenements are important facts if true, and any 
 evidence going to prove them is most important, but 
 does Jesus' reanimation prove them more than Laza- 
 rus', e. g., or that of the widow's son in Zarephath? It 
 is instructive as well as interesting to see how the equiv- 
 alent of this objection is met by so eminent a scholar as 
 Dr. Edward Robinson. 1 He first censures the objec- 
 tion as bearing "the character of a speculative con- 
 clusion set over against the clear and express testimony 
 of those who were appointed to be eye-witnesses of the 
 facts. The true method in such cases is, first, to make 
 ourselves acquainted with the facts; and then, if 
 difficulties arise in our minds, to find such explanations 
 of the facts as may, if possible, obviate these difficul- 
 ties. " And then, in order to give to Jesus' resurrec- 
 tion a unique significance and value, superior, e. g., to 
 that of Lazarus, he proceeds to include in the term's 
 meaning "the glorious concomitants and consequences 
 of that great fact, his ascension to Heaven and his 
 exaltation at the right hand of God. " If one must re- 
 sort to these concomitants to carry the values of the 
 
 ■ " The Nature of Our Lord's Resurrection Body." Bibliotheca 
 Sacra, May, 1845. Citation from pp. 305-308. 
 
468 The Resurrection 
 
 resurrection, the bodily phenomena are deprived of 
 that significance Dr. Robinson is labouring to give 
 them. He seems himself to feel a certain inadequacy 
 in his argument, for he closes it with another rebuke 
 to the objector. "It seems to me that it belongs not 
 to us to sit in judgment upon the wisdom of the di- 
 vine counsels; and then, because of the darkness of 
 our own minds, to call in question what we cannot 
 comprehend." 
 
 In similar fashion, consciously or unconsciously, 
 every defender of the physical resurrection is forced to 
 add to his definition some such concomitants and con- 
 sequences in order to give to the resurrection the sig- 
 nificance and uniqueness which he claims for it. Dr. 
 Robinson was arguing that the risen body was the 
 flesh and blood body that had been buried, without 
 change, hence his "concomitants" must be the great 
 factors of ascension and exaltation. Others, as West- 
 cott and Milligan, do not go so far afield from their 
 original definition, but argue that Jesus' body was by 
 the resurrection process transformed into the glorified 
 "spiritual body," and this difference in his body after 
 the third day becomes the concomitant which carries 
 the unique values of his resurrection. Olshausen 1 
 expresses this point of view with admirable clarity: 
 "This significance of the resurrection appears only 
 when we hold that the Saviour did not rise again with 
 the mortal body which he bore before his crucifixion. 
 Should we think, like many well-meaning persons, that 
 
 1 Hermann Olshausen: Biblical Commentary on the N. T., Eng. 
 trans, by A. C. Kendrick, N. Y., 1857, vol. iii., p. 109. (Biblischer 
 Commenlar iiber sbvmmtliche Sckriften des N. T., Zweiter Band, 
 dritte Auflage, 1838, pp. 548 f.) 
 
Appendix 469 
 
 the Saviour, when truly dead, was again quickened by 
 an act of divine omnipotence, without any transforma- 
 tion having taken place in his body, we fail to see in 
 what the importance of this fact consists. The raising 
 of Lazarus would in that case have been a precisely 
 similar event." In other words, it is impossible to 
 attach the values of the resurrection to its definition 
 as physical reanimation. 
 
 Again, we assert the resurrection from the dead as 
 our sure hope for all believers, ourselves included. Yet 
 the bodies of us all shall remain in the grave more than 
 three days, and we neither expect nor desire a quicken- 
 ing of our mortal bodies. Modern apologetic sets a 
 complete gulf between Jesus' resurrection and ours, 
 making the two absolutely different in kind. New 
 Testament apologetic was consistent here. A writer 
 who conceived a non-physical future for believers, con- 
 ceived also the Lord's resurrection in non-physical 
 terms, while those who depict the quickening of his 
 buried body, expected also the resurrection of their 
 flesh from the grave. To-day we know, as surely as 
 we know anything, that the lifeless clay disintegrates 
 into its elements, and has no connection with our risen 
 life. Must it have had necessary connection with his? 
 Does "resurrection" when used of Jesus denote a phe- 
 nomenon entirely different from that denoted by the 
 same word when used of others? And just in propor- 
 tion as Jesus' resurrection is made unique, is it not 
 robbed of its value? 1 Dr. Milligan 2 uses this considera- 
 tion very interestingly to support his contention that 
 
 1 So Hermann Lotze: Mikrokosmos, 4th ed., vol. iii., 1888, pp. 
 365 f. (Eng. tr., vol. ii., 1885, p. 480). 
 3 Milligan, pp. 18-22. 
 
470 The Resurrection 
 
 Jesus' resurrection-body was already glorified. " Our 
 Lord's resurrection is the type and model of our own. 
 * * * Whatever is told us of our own destiny must 
 have had its analogy in Him. * * * To think that 
 at any future time or in any future circumstances our 
 body may be one thing, while our Lord's body was, in 
 the same circumstances, a different thing, would be to 
 deprive the Incarnation of its meaning." But our 
 "spiritual bodies" must be compatible with the dis- 
 integration of our physical bodies; Jesus' (on Dr. Milli- 
 gan's theory) was not. And does Dr. Milligan expect 
 for us all in the heavenly world bodies of "flesh and 
 bone, "that can eat and drink — bodies, in short, such 
 as Luke and John ascribe to the risen Jesus ? l There is 
 confusion of thought here. While on the one hand, in 
 order to insure value to Jesus' physical resurrection, it 
 is necessary to secure its uniqueness by adding certain 
 concomitant characteristics, on the other hand the 
 very uniqueness thus secured is fatal to the value it 
 would guarantee. Kirsopp Lake 2 puts it succinctly: 
 "The empty tomb is for us doctrinally indefensible. " 
 At any rate, we need to be told more clearly just where- 
 in lies the value and significance of the physical defini- 
 tion of resurrection when used of Jesus, and why it 
 is so ardently defended — except it be to maintain the 
 inerrancy of the Scriptural narrative. 
 
 1 It may be noted that it is these two elements — the phrase 
 "flesh and bone, " used by Jesus, and the account of his eating — 
 that are Dr. Milligan's chief stumbling-blocks. Compare his 
 "frankly irrational" (Canon Henson) note 6 on the former, and 
 his despairing note 4 on the latter. " I neither know nor can offer 
 any satisfactory solution of this act of our Lord's eating. " 
 
 2 Lake, p. 253. 
 
Appendix 471 
 
 Surely it is clear that the real resurrection, the real 
 event which has meaning and importance for the soul's 
 life, is the rising of Jesus out of death into the spiritual 
 life with God. It is, in the vocabulary of the ancients, 
 the passage from Hades to Heaven. Here we see that, 
 granting the reanimation of the body, it is not yet fully 
 resurrection until that body has gone up into the skies. 
 It is an error in method, even on the traditional basis, 
 to consider the resurrection apart from the ascension ; 
 the process would halt midway, incomplete. The true 
 message of Easter is that Jesus passed out of death into 
 life. That his spirit, as it were in passing, stopped to 
 reanimate the discarded body for a period of days, 
 must be, from any point of view, a secondary and un- 
 essential feature. History may pronounce as it will 
 on this phenomenon of the reanimated body; it can 
 have nothing to say, affirmatively or negatively, as to 
 the essential resurrection. And in the latter lie all the 
 values of faith, all that makes the word resurrection 
 precious, indeed all the word's true meaning. 
 
 It is difficult to see how a contrary opinion can be 
 maintained, or how the reanimated body can be re- 
 garded as an essential part of the definition of the word. 
 All the values attributable to the physical reanimation 
 episode must be, in one form or another, merely eviden- 
 tial; all the incidents of that episode simply ways of 
 proving to dull hearts that the real resurrection has oc- 
 curred. 1 This episode is, then, secondary; it is not 
 the resurrection, not an element necessary to the com- 
 plete definition of resurrection, not, strictly speaking, 
 part of the resurrection at all, but an addendum, as it 
 
 1 This is clearly recognised and urged by Robinson : Bibliotheca 
 Sacra, May, 1845, p. 308 f. 
 
472 The Resurrection 
 
 were, something performed by Jesus after his resur- 
 rection, and in addition to it. Even the evangelists 
 do not justify popular theology in defining the resur- 
 rection as the "coming to life" of Jesus' body and its 
 emergence from the tomb. It is notable that the 
 latter phenomenon is never described or distinctly as- 
 serted in the New Testament, being sometimes curi- 
 ously evaded (as in Matthew xxviii: 2-5). 
 
 The evangelists' presentation is everywhere con- 
 fused, composite, but it is easy to see that for them too 
 the real resurrection is the escape of the Master's great 
 soul from death into the heavenly life. "He is alive! 
 Thou didst not leave his soul in Hades!" is the heart 
 of what they mean. To this simpler faith they had of 
 course to adjust the tradition of external events at- 
 testing its truth, but there can be no question as to 
 what was the ultimate fact they were zealous to prove. 
 The same thing is even more true, of course, of the 
 disciples themselves; they distinguished clearly be- 
 tween the real fact about Jesus' continued life and the 
 experiences which attested that fact to them. 
 
 It will be urged, to be sure, that conservative Chris- 
 tian apologetic also clearly makes this distinction, and 
 does not mean to say that the resurrection was the 
 "coming to life" of Jesus' body and nothing more. 
 And yet one has only to read any one of the frequent 
 discussions from the apologetic side to see that this is, 
 after all, the substance of what is meant. The polemic 
 against those who "deny our Lord's resurrection" is 
 merely against those who deny or doubt the reanima- 
 tion of the body and its subsequent activity. To be- 
 lieve with all one's heart and soul in what I have called 
 above the real resurrection does not make one the 
 
Appendix 473 
 
 whit less a "denier" in the estimation of these writers. 
 The thesis they one and all defend is that the body- 
 actually came from the grave, with the accompanying 
 physical phenomena. The arguments they answer are 
 arguments directed against these elements, not against 
 the actual resurrection or against the spiritual experi- 
 ences of the disciples which attested to them a spiritual 
 fact. Admirably typical of the apologetic I am de- 
 scribing is the work recently published by Professor 
 James Orr 1 of Glasgow. Everywhere it exhibits this 
 practical identification of the "resurrection" with the 
 episode of the revived body. Even more explicit is 
 Principal Fairbairn 2 of Mansfield College, who writes: 
 "If Christ be not risen our faith is vain. If it be 
 proved that no living Christ ever issued from the tomb 
 of Joseph, then that tomb becomes the grave, not of a 
 man but of a religion. " Plainly Dr. Fairbairn means 
 this sentence of his to be equivalent in content to St. 
 Paul's. So John Kennedy, 3 in one of the most vigor- 
 ous and impassioned defences of the traditional posi- 
 tion, gives at the outset this clear definition: "By the 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ we mean * * * that the 
 body which was taken down from the cross lifeless, 
 and was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, was 
 restored to life. * * * It is of this material or bodily 
 rising again that we say: it is an historical fact." 
 
 It would greatly tend to clarity if all writers on the 
 subject would thus distinctly state just what is the 
 " resurrection " they are to discuss. As a rule they do 
 
 1 James Orr: The Resurrection of Jesus, 1908. 
 ' A. M. Fairbairn: Studies in the Life of Christ, 1899, p. 332. 
 3 John Kennedy: The Resurrection of Jesus an Historical 
 Fact, 1895, pp. 9, 11. 
 
474 The Resurrection 
 
 not, but the matter they actually discuss is the physi- 
 cal phenomenon of the revived body. Of recent wri- 
 ters, the one who has most clearly seen and emphasised 
 this distinction between the two definitions of the 
 word "resurrection," is Canon Henson. 1 Let me 
 quote his words at some length : " Is the resurrection of 
 Christ a fact of history? The answer will be perhaps 
 'Yes' or 'No' according to the definition of 'resurrec- 
 tion, which we accept. That Jesus Christ, who was 
 crucified under Pontius Pilate, survived death in no 
 impoverished ghostly state, but in the fulness of per- 
 sonal life, enfranchised from terrestrial limitations, 
 and that he made his presence known to his dis- 
 ciples by convincing evidences, cannot successfully 
 be disputed. Christianity itself attests with ever- 
 increasing authority the resurrection of the Divine 
 Founder, whose personal influence within the church 
 has been continuously shown by many infallible 
 proofs, and is being shown still in the experience of 
 believers. It needs but to read the New Testa- 
 ment in order to see that the fact of Christ's resurrec- 
 tion dominated the whole horizon of the earliest 
 Christian church. It is implied in all the original 
 institutions of the Christian society — the Apostolic 
 Ministry, the Sacraments, the Lord's Day. It has 
 remained the core of the Christian religion ever 
 since, and never more apparently than at the present 
 time. No language could be excessive to describe the 
 
 1 H. Hensley Henson: " The Resurrection of Jesus Christ." 
 Hibbert Journal, vol. ii., p. 476. Citation from p. 483. This 
 thoughtful and courageous article is a notable exception to what 
 I have said above about the confused position of the church to- 
 wards faith and history as grounds of belief in the creedal articles. 
 
Appendix 475 
 
 importance of this conviction, that Christ is living in 
 the fulness of personal life. Now history can give to 
 that conviction all the support which the nature of 
 the case permits; it can certify the primitiveness, uni- 
 versality, and moral force of the Christian belief. It 
 can trace the effects in a hundred directions on the life, 
 literature, and institutions of mankind. Beyond that 
 it cannot advance. Must more be insisted on in the in- 
 terests of the Christian religion? Is more really needed 
 in order that Christians in the future as in the past may 
 hold fast to the truth of Christ's resurrection?" 
 
 It is clear that Canon Henson, according to his own 
 definition, earnestly holds fast to the truth of Christ's 
 resurrection, but it is equally clear that, according to 
 the definition which dominates Dr. Orr's book, for ex- 
 ample, he is an unbeliever in the resurrection. The 
 one man pleads for the recognition of a spiritual fact, 
 the other for the recognition of a material fact. The 
 "resurrection" of Canon Henson's faith is proved, so 
 far as it is susceptible of proof, by the testimony of 
 faith and Christian experience. "The resurrection" 
 of Dr. Orr's treatment is to be proved, if at all, by the 
 testimony of half a dozen discrepant documents, none 
 by eye-witnesses and all written years after the alleged 
 events. But in Canon Henson's sense, all the proofs 
 urged by Dr. Orr are not proofs of the resurrection at 
 all, but of something else. Even if cogent, they have 
 proved the wrong thing; the real point is not touched. 
 In the very nature of the case, the physical phenomena 
 are of possible value only as evidences that the real 
 resurrection has taken place. If one thoroughly be- 
 lieves this, as Canon Henson does, without the offered 
 proofs, why must he be asked, against his reason, to 
 
476 The Resurrection 
 
 accept the proofs — unless it be simply "because the 
 Bib!e says so"? 
 
 Even in the gospels the physical phenomena are 
 clearly offered from this evidential standpoint. Ar- 
 nold Meyer 1 has clearly seen this. "The bodily resur- 
 rection of Jesus had originally no separate significance 
 for the Christians, but was considered simply as a 
 means of proof for the actuality of the resurrection." 
 Why did Jesus show hands and feet? Why did he 
 eat the broiled fish? Why the repeated appearances? 
 Because the disciples disbelieved the essential fact 
 of the resurrection even after repeated assurances. 2 
 The story of doubting Thomas is typical here, and the 
 rebuke he met is full of significance: "Because thou 
 hast seen me hast thou believed? Blessed are they 
 that have not seen and have believed." 
 
 One has only to try to imagine the sequence of 
 events if the disciples had believed Jesus' oft-repeated 
 promise that he would rise again the third day, had 
 been perfectly certain that after the third day he was 
 alive again, even though they did not see him. Had 
 they thus believed in the resurrection because they 
 believed in Jesus (as Canon Henson would have men 
 do still) it is clear that the details of the story of 
 those forty days would be far less materialistic than 
 they now are. How many of the "appearances," 
 in their present form at least, would fall out of the 
 narrative? Surely Christians of to-day who hold 
 
 1 Arnold Meyer, p. 203. 
 
 3 The cumulative skepticism on the part of the disciples and 
 the corresponding insistence on the materiality of the "appear- 
 ances" in the later apocryphal accounts are very significant in 
 this connection. 
 
Appendix 477 
 
 antecedently the resurrection-faith need not be con- 
 strained to accept as proofs of that which to them 
 needs no proving external happenings which are 
 wholly incapable of proving it. The tale of these 
 happenings utterly fails to meet the soul's demand. 
 It can prove at most only that the dead body came 
 to life; it cannot possibly prove anything more. It 
 tells us only of events inside the sensible realm, of 
 what men have seen and heard, in the material 
 world. But faith cries out to be assured of some- 
 thing beyond the sensible realm, of something which 
 cannot be known through the physical senses, of a 
 spiritual reality which eye hath not seen and ear hath 
 not heard. The demand for such a spiritual reality to 
 feed the hungering soul is met with a stone, with a 
 story of certain happenings entirely within the limits 
 of the physical world, things seen and heard by certain 
 Jewish men and women, which would have been seen 
 and heard by you and me had we been on the scene. 
 The church's vehement insistence is that we are quite 
 wrong when we would identify the reality we seek with 
 a spiritual event, which went on behind the veil, in a 
 world not sensible and material. 
 
 Surely this is a sad lowering of standpoint since the 
 apostolic proclamation of the risen Lord as the central 
 element in the religious experience of the believer. 
 The church, indeed, does still claim that religious ex- 
 perience adds to the testimony of gospel history its 
 perpetual witness to the resurrection, but most often 
 such utterance is still based on the material definition 
 of "resurrection," and religious experience is claimed 
 to testify to the events at the tomb, to the angels, the 
 earthquake and the guard, to the body as it comes 
 
478 The Resurrection 
 
 forth and walks and talks and eats. It ought to be 
 superfluous, but unfortunately it is not, to point out, 
 as Professor Lake 1 does, that it is "a confusion of 
 thought when men say that spiritual experience can 
 guarantee the historical fact of the Resurrection of the 
 Lord. From the nature of the case it cannot possibly 
 proveanything about theevents of the history of Jesus. 
 It can, and does, throw light on the meaning of events 
 which are historically vouched for by other means; 
 but it cannot take the place of these means. * * * 
 Apart from that knowledge of history, it can never tell 
 even Christians anything about the story of his Death 
 and Resurrection." 
 
 And I cannot forbear to repeat also the words of 
 Dr. Inge, 2 cited by Professor Lake in this connection: 
 "The inner light can only testify to spiritual truths. 
 It always speaks in the present tense ; it cannot guaran- 
 tee any historical event, past or future. It cannot 
 guarantee either the gospel history or a future judg- 
 ment. It can tell us that Christ is risen and that He 
 is alive for evermore, but not that He rose again the 
 third day." 
 
 Theinner light can testify only to spiritual truths; what 
 it assures us in our deepest religious experiences is that 
 Jesus lives, and that we shall live also. The necessary 
 deduction of the mind is that his spirit was not held 
 in the power of death, but rose into the fulness of a new 
 active personal life, amid other than terrestrial con- 
 ditions, even as also shall we. This, and this only, is 
 the resurrection, in its true meaning. Our appeal is 
 
 1 Lake, Introduction, p. 4. 
 
 2 William R. Inge: Christian Mysticism, Bampton Lectures, 
 1899, p. 326. 
 
Appendix 479 
 
 from the evangelist to the apostle. Luke says: "And 
 as they spake these things, he himself stood in the 
 midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto 
 you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and sup- 
 posed that they beheld a spirit. And he said unto 
 them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do reason- 
 ings arise in your heart? See my hands and my feet, 
 that it is I myself : handle me and see ; for a spirit hath 
 not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having. And 
 when he had said this, he showed them his hands 
 and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy, 
 and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any 
 thing to eat ? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish. 
 And he took it and did eat before them. " Paul says : 
 " Like as Christ was raised from the dead through the 
 glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness 
 of life. For if we have become united with him by the 
 likeness of his death, we shall be also by the likeness of 
 his resurrection. * * * If we died with Christ we 
 believe that we shall also live with him; knowing that 
 Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death 
 no more hath dominion over him. For the death that 
 he died, he died unto sin once for all: but the life that 
 he liveth, he liveth unto God. Even so reckon ye also 
 yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in 
 Christ Jesus." 
 
 What have these two passages to do one with the 
 other? 
 
LIST OF WORKS MOST FREQUENTLY CITED 
 
 (In the notes these works are cited as follows, commonly by the 
 author's name.) 
 
 Allen Willoughby C. Allen: The Gospel According 
 
 to St. Matthew (International Critical Com- 
 mentary), 1907. 
 
 Baldensperger W. Baldensperger: Urchristliche Apologie, 
 1909. 
 
 Bauer Walter Bauer: Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der 
 
 Neutestamentlichen Apokryphen, 1909. 
 
 Beyschlag Willibald Beyschlag: Das Leben Jesu, 4th 
 
 ed., 1902, vol. i. 
 
 Bousset W. Bousset: Die Religion des Judentums im 
 
 Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 2d ed., 1906. 
 
 Brandt W. Brandt: Die Evangelische Geschichte und 
 
 der Ursprung des Cbristentums, 1893. 
 
 Charles R- H. Charles: Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, 
 
 and Christian, 1899. 
 
 Clemen Carl Clemen: Paulus, 1904, vol. i. 
 
 Edersheim Alfred Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the 
 
 Messiah, 2d ed., 1884, vol. ii. 
 
 Haller W. Haller: Die Lehre von der Auferstehung 
 
 des Fleisches bis auf Tertullian, in Zeitschrift 
 fur Theologie und Kirche, 1892, pp. 274-342. 
 
 Harnack Adolf Harnack: Dogmengeschichte, 3d ed., 
 
 (Dogmenge- vol. i., 1894. 
 
 schichte) 
 
 Harnack Adolf Harnack: Geschichte der Altchristlichen 
 
 (Altch. Lit.) Literatur, vol. i., 1893. 
 
 Harnack Adolf Harnack: Die Chronologie der Alt- 
 
 (Chronologie) christlichen Literatur, vol. i., 1897. 
 
 31 481 
 
482 
 
 The Resurrection 
 
 Harnack 
 
 (Lukas d. Artzt) 
 
 Harnack 
 
 (Apostelge- 
 
 schichte) 
 
 Hennecke 
 
 (Apok.) 
 
 Hennecke 
 
 (Handbuch) 
 
 Holsten 
 
 Holtzmann 
 (N. T. Theol.) 
 Holtzmann 
 (H. C.) 
 Holtzmann 
 (H. C. Acta) 
 O. Holtzmann 
 Keim 
 
 Kennedy 
 
 Korff 
 
 Lake 
 
 Latham 
 
 Le Breton 
 
 Loisy 
 
 Loofs 
 
 Martineau 
 
 Maurenbrecher 
 
 Adolf Harnack: Lukas der Artzt, 1906. 
 Adolf Harnack: Die Apostelgeschichte, 1908. 
 
 Edgar Hennecke: Die Neutestamentlichen 
 
 Apokryphen, 1904. 
 Edgar Hennecke: Handbuch zu den Neutesta- 
 mentlichen Apokryphen, 1904. 
 Carl Holsten : Zum Evangelium des Petrus und 
 
 Paulus, 1868. 
 H. J. Holtzmann: Neutestamentliche Theolo- 
 
 gie, vols. i. and ii., 1897. 
 H. J. Holtzmann: Hand-Commentar: 
 
 synoptischen Evangelien, 3d ed., 1901. 
 H. J. Holtzmann: Hand-Commentar: 
 
 Apostelgeschichte, 3d ed., 1901. 
 Oskar Holtzmann: Das Leben Jesu, 1901 
 Theodor Keim: Die Geschichte Jesu 
 
 Nazara, vol. Hi., 1872. Eng. tr., vol 
 
 1883. 
 H. A. A. Kennedy: St. Paul's Conceptions of 
 
 the Last Things, 1904. 
 Theodor Korff: Die Auferstehung Christi und 
 
 die Radikale Theologie, 1908. 
 Kirsopp Lake: The Historical Evidence for 
 
 the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1907. 
 Henry Latham: The Risen Master. Seventh 
 
 Thousand, 1907. 
 Paul Le Breton: La Resurrection du Christ, 
 
 1908. 
 Alfred Loisy: Les Evangiles Synoptiques, vol: 
 
 i., 1907; vol. ii., 1908. 
 F. Loofs: Die Auferstehungsberichte und ihr 
 
 Wert, 3d ed., 1908. 
 James Martineau: The Seat of Authority in 
 
 Religion, 4th ed., 1898. 
 Max Maurenbrecher: Von Nazareth nach Gol- 
 gotha, 1909. 
 
 Die 
 
 Die 
 
 von 
 
 vi., 
 
Works Most Frequently Cited 483 
 
 Merx Adalbert Merx: Die vier Kanonischen Evange- 
 
 lien nach ihrem altesten bekannten Text. 
 Part ii., First Half (Matthew), 1902. Second 
 Half (Mark and Luke), 1905. 
 
 Arnold Meyer Arnold Meyer: Die Auferstehung Christi, 
 I905- 
 
 Meyer-Weiss H. A. W. Meyer's Kritischexegetisches Kom- 
 mentar uber das N. T. , 9th ed. Das Matthaus- 
 Evangelium, 1898; Das Marcus-Evangelium 
 und das Lukas-Evangelium, 1901; Das 
 Johannes-Evangelium, 1902. Edited by 
 Bernhard Weiss. 
 
 Milligan William Milligan: The Resurrection of our 
 
 Lord. The Croall Lecture for 1879-80. 6th 
 Thousand, 1894. 
 
 Orr James Orr: The Resurrection of Jesus, 1908. 
 
 Pfleiderer Otto Pfleiderer: Das Urchristentum, 2d ed., 
 
 vol. i., 1902. 
 
 Plummer Alfred Plummer: The Gospel According to St. 
 
 Luke (International Critical Commentary), 
 2d ed., 1896. 
 
 Reville Albert Reville: J£sus de Nazareth, 1897. Vols, 
 
 i. and ii. 
 
 Riggenbach E. Riggenbach: Die Auferstehung Jesu, 2d 
 
 ed., 1908. 
 
 Rohrbach Paul Rohrbach: Der Schluss des Markus- 
 
 (Schluss) Evangeliums, 1894. 
 
 Rohrbach Paul Rohrbach: Die Berichte uber die Aufer- 
 
 (Berichte) stehung Jesu Christi, 1898. 
 
 Schmidt Nathanael Schmidt: The Prophet of Nazareth, 
 
 I905- 
 O. Schmiedel Otto Schmiedel: Die Hauptprobleme der 
 
 Leben-Jesu Forschung, 2d ed., 1906. 
 Schmiedel P. W. Schmiedel: " Resurrection and Ascension 
 
 Narratives, " in Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. 
 
 iv., 1903. Quoted by column. 
 Schriften Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Ed. 
 
 des N. T. Johannes Weiss, vol. i., 1906., vol. ii., 
 
 1907. 
 
4§4 
 
 The Resurrection 
 
 Schwartzkopff 
 
 Schweitzer 
 Staudt 
 
 Steude 
 
 Supernatural 
 
 Religion 
 Teichmann 
 
 Thackeray 
 
 Tischendorf 
 
 Voigt 
 
 Volkmar 
 
 Volter 
 
 Volz 
 
 Von Dobschutz 
 
 Weizsacker 
 
 Wellhausen 
 (Ev. Marci) 
 Wellhausen 
 (Ev. Mat.) 
 Wellhausen 
 (Ev. Lucas) 
 Wellhausen 
 (Ev. Joh.) 
 Wernle 
 
 Paul Schwartzkopff: The Prophecies of Jesus 
 
 Christ Relating to His Death, Resurrection, 
 
 and Second Coming, Eng. tr., 1897. Cited 
 
 only from the English version. 
 
 A. Schweitzer: Von Reimarus zu Wrede, 1906. 
 
 Calvin K. Staudt: The Idea of the Resurrection 
 
 in the Ante-Nicene Period, 1909. 
 E. G. Steude- Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi, 
 
 2ded., 1893. 
 (Walter R. Cassels): Supernatural Religion, 
 
 Popular ed., 1902. 
 
 Ernst Teichmann: Die Paulinischen Vorstel- 
 
 lungen von Auferstehung und Gericht, 1896. 
 
 H. St. John Thackeray: The Relation of St. 
 
 Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, 1900. 
 
 Constantin Tischendorf: Novum Testamentum 
 
 Graece Editio Octava Critica- Major, 1869- 
 
 1872. 
 
 H. G. Voigt: Die Altesten Berichte iiber die 
 
 Auferstehung Jesu Christi, 1906. 
 Gustav Volkmar: Marcus und die Synopse der 
 
 Evangelien, 1876. 
 Daniel Volter: Die Entstehung des Glaubens 
 
 an die Auferstehung Jesu, 1910. 
 Paul Volz: Judische Eschatologie, 1903. 
 Ernst von Dobschutz: Ostern und Pfingsten, 
 
 1903. 
 Carl Weizsacker: Das Apostolische Zeitalter 
 
 der Christlichen Kirche. 2d ed., 1892. 
 J. Wellhausen: Das Evangelium Marci, 1903. 
 
 J. Wellhausen: Das Evangelium Matthaei, 1904. 
 
 J. Wellhausen: Das Evangelium Lucsa, 1904. 
 
 J. Wellhausen: Das Evangelium Johannis, 1908. 
 
 Die Anfange unserer Religion. 
 
 Paul Wernle: 
 2d ed., 1904 
 
Works Most Frequently Cited 485 
 
 W.-H. 
 
 Zahn 
 (Gesch.d.Kan.) 
 
 Zahn 
 (Forschungen) 
 
 Zahn 
 (Einleitung) 
 
 B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort: The New 
 Testament in the Original Greek. Edition 
 of 1898. 
 
 Theodor Zahn: Geschichte des neutestament- 
 lichen Kanons, vol. i., First Half, 1888. 
 Second Half 1889. Vol. ii., First Half, 1890. 
 Second Half 1892. 
 
 Theodor Zahn: Forschungen zur Geschichte 
 des neutestamentlichen Kanons. In six parts, 
 1881, 1883, 1884, 1891, 1893, 1900. 
 
 Theodor Zahn: Einleitung in das Neue Testa- 
 ment. 2d ed., 1900. Vols. i. and ii. 
 
INDEX 
 
 (Of the text only, not of the footnotes. References to pages.) 
 
 Acts of Pilate, 350-352 
 
 Adam, second, 128 f. 
 
 Ambrosius, 325 
 
 Angel inseparable from empty 
 grave, 187-195, 207 
 
 Apocalypse of Baruch, 91 f. 
 
 Apocalypse of Elijah, 20 
 
 Apology of Aristides, 367 
 
 Apparent death, theory of, 
 212-216 
 
 Appearances, nature of, 41-69; 
 reality of, 68 f.; place of, 
 430-440; date of, 432-434; 
 importance of, 455 f. 
 
 Aristion, 338 
 
 A scension of Isaiah, 366 f. 
 
 Ascension of Jesus, 350-373; 
 date of, 365; same as resur- 
 rection, 355 f., 363-368, 418, 
 
 471 
 
 Auditory phenomena with ap- 
 pearances, 48 f. 
 
 Augustine, 4, 375 
 
 B 
 
 Bacon, 367 f., 371, 419 
 Beyschlag, 42-44, 46 f., 
 
 108, 167 f., 172, 434 
 Bickell, 201 
 
 Body, final fate of Jesus', 
 Brandt, 158, 305, 334, 425 
 Breaking of bread, 318 f. 
 Briggs, 461 f. 
 Bunsen, 213 
 
 55, 
 
 454 
 
 Burial of Jesus, 37 f., 239-249, 
 296 f., 391 f. 
 
 Burial not necessary to resur- 
 rection, m-113 
 
 Catacombs, 381 
 Charles, 73 f., 91, 96, 367 
 Chrysostom, 375 
 Clement of Alexandria, 389 
 Clement of Rome, 367 
 Codex Bobbiensis, 366 
 Conybeare, 338 
 
 Coptic resurrection-fragment, 
 342-344 
 
 D 
 
 Diatessaron, 426 
 Didache, 367 
 Didaskalia, 425 f. 
 Dods, 211 
 
 Doubt-motive, 280-282, 302- 
 3°4. 335-344 
 
 E 
 
 'Ek peKpuv, 38 f. 
 
 Emmaus episode, 305-332, 353 
 f. 
 
 Empty grave legendary, 205- 
 237; natural explanations of, 
 212-225; origin of legend of, 
 
 233-235 
 Ephraem Syrus, 426 
 Epistle of Barnabas, 365 
 
 487 
 
488 
 
 Index 
 
 "Ethical resurrection, " 125 
 Eucharist-motive, 318 f., 378- 
 
 381,415 
 Eusebius, 339, 346, 384 f. 
 
 Fairbairn, 473 
 
 Faith and historic knowledge, 
 459-466 
 
 Fayoum fragment, 200 f . 
 
 Fish-symbol, 381 
 
 Five hundred, appearance to, 
 430 f., 433 
 
 Fourth Ezra, 358 
 
 Fourth Gospel, origin and char- 
 acter of, 389-391, 398; rela- 
 tion to Luke, 391 
 
 Freer MS., 339-341 
 
 Galilee, disappearance of, in 
 
 the tradition, 383-386, 408 f . ; 
 
 early mission in, 434-440 
 Gfrorer, 213 
 Gospel of the Hebrews, 346, 381 
 
 f., 423 f., 425, 433 
 Gospel of Peter, 169-179, 185 f., 
 
 200, 250, 365 f., 426 
 Gregory, 340 
 
 Guard at tomb, 254, 264-273 
 Gunkel, 25 
 
 H 
 
 Haller, 144 
 
 Harnack, 170-173, 342 
 
 Hase, 213 
 
 Hegesippus, 384 
 
 Henson, 474-476 
 
 Herder, 212 
 
 Hermas, 367 
 
 Holsten, 51, 55, 61 
 
 Holtzmann, H., 217 f., 377 
 
 Ignatius, 345 f., 367, 381 f. 
 
 Inge, 478 
 
 Intellectualism in Corinth, 80 f . 
 
 Irensus, 367 
 
 James, appearance to, 423- 
 
 425, 433 
 Jerome, 338-341, 346, 375, 
 
 424 f. 
 Jerusalem tradition," 281 f., 
 
 296 
 Jonah 27, 32 f. 
 Joseph of Arimathea, 240-243, 
 
 296 
 Josephus, 73, 109 f., 156, 241, 
 
 258, 447 
 Justin, 367, 382 
 
 K 
 
 Keim, 41, 43 f., 53-55, 60 f., 
 
 183 
 Kennedy, H. A. A., 103 f., 144 
 Kennedy, John, 473 
 Kinkel, 369 f. 
 Korff, 85 f. 
 
 Lake, 64 f., 91 f., 114, 191-194, 
 
 204, 263, 470, 478 
 Loofs, 159 
 Luke, 290; divergence from 
 
 Paul, 149, 479 
 
 M 
 
 Mark, 151, 236; lost end of 
 
 gospel of, 160-179 
 Martineau, 2, III 
 Matthew, gospel of, 238 f. 
 Merx, 250 f., 328 
 Messiahship of Jesus, 420 f., 
 
 441-444 
 Meyer, Arnold, 211, 476 
 Meyer, H. A. W., 369 
 Milligan, 41, 44, 468-470 
 Minokhirad, 21 f. 
 
Index 
 
 489 
 
 Mo'ed Katon, 19 
 
 Mountain where Jesus ap- 
 peared, 275 f., 282-284, 349" 
 352 
 
 Myers, 65 f. 
 
 O 
 
 Olshausen, 468 f. 
 Origen, 323-325, 332, 346 
 Orr, 67 f., 267 f., 473, 475 
 W>0ij, 41 f. 
 
 Papias, 151, 338 
 
 Paulus, 212 
 
 Petri Doclrina, 346 
 
 Pfleiderer, 56, no, 447 
 
 Pistis Sophia, 22 
 
 Polycarp, 367 
 
 Pre-existence of Messiah, 128 
 
 Prophecies of his resurrection, 
 Jesus', 444-452 
 
 Psalms of Solomon, 73 
 
 Psychic research and the ap- 
 pearances, 63-68 
 
 R 
 
 Reimarus, 225 
 
 ' ' Religionsgeschichtliche Me- 
 thode," 23-25 
 
 Renan, 51 
 
 Resch, 326 
 
 Rest of the Words of Baruch, 31 
 
 Resurrection defined, 76; 
 limited to righteous, 72-74; 
 not the same as immortality, 
 77-79; a Jewish conception, 
 79 f . ; not dependent on bur- 
 ial, in-113, 449 f. 
 
 Resurrection-body not buried 
 body, 82-94 
 
 Resurrection of Jesus not de- 
 scribed in N. T., 7, 289, 472; 
 how unique, 118-121, 467- 
 470; time of, 251-253, 269 
 
 Reville, 206, 219 
 
 Robinson, 467 f. 
 
 Rohrbach, 167, 170, 172, 225, 
 
 228, 326 
 Rolleston, 220 
 
 Salvation, Paul's conception 
 of, 125-136 
 
 Schahrastani, 366 
 
 Schleiermacher, 213 
 
 Schmiedel, 42, 48, 51-53, 55, 
 108-110, 114, 369, 395 
 
 Schwartzkopff, 224 f. 
 
 Scripture prophecy of third 
 day, 10-17, 3 2 -34 
 
 See the dominant word of the 
 earliest data, 49, 279 
 
 aufia defined, 94-96 
 
 Sources of material on the res- 
 urrection, 5 
 
 Stevens, 39 
 
 Strauss, 51 
 
 Stiilcken, 171 
 
 Swete, 171 
 
 Syllabus Lamentabili Sane 
 Exitu, 463 
 
 Table of appearances, 428 f. 
 
 Tacitus, 436 
 
 Tatian, 426 
 
 Teichmann, 104 
 
 "Telegram from heaven," 44 
 
 t, 54 
 
 Tertullian, 220 f., 367, 437 
 
 Thackeray, 91 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch, 30 
 
 Theophylact, 375 
 
 Third day, 10-35; originally 
 fixed by Jesus, 12-15; idioma- 
 tic use of, 18; Persian origin 
 of, 19-22; mythological ori- 
 gin of, 25-31; equivalent to 
 "after three days," 30 f.; not 
 date of first appearance, 34 
 
 i- 432 
 Toldoth Jeschu, 221-223 
 
490 
 
 Index 
 
 Tombs, Palestinian, 244 
 Transfiguration, 419-423 
 Tristram, 411 
 
 V 
 
 Values of bodily resurrection, 
 77, 466-470 
 
 Vendiddd, 20 
 
 Virgin birth, 461 f. 
 
 Vision defined, 45 f.; nature of 
 visions of Jesus, 46 f. 
 
 Vision-hypothesis, 51-62; and 
 psychology, 56 f . ; illegiti- 
 mate objections to, 56-61; 
 valid objection to, 61 f. 
 
 Volz, 90 
 
 Von Dobschutz, 225, 227, 331 
 
 Von Soden, no 
 
 W 
 
 Weizsacker, 385, 439 
 
 Wellhausen, 419 
 
 Wernle, 103 
 
 Westcott, 468 
 
 When It Was Dark, 465 
 
 Wilson, 411 
 
 Women at grave, episode of, 
 legendary, 186 f.; appear- 
 ance to, legendary, 262-264, 
 395 f., 429 f. 
 
 Yasht XXII, 20 f . 
 
 Z 
 Zahn, 325 f., 426 
 
CHIEF NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES 
 
 Matthew 
 
 10:17-42, 439; 14:29, 416; 
 16:18 f., 285 f.; 26:32, 199; 
 27:52 f., 109, 295; 27:57-61, 
 246-249; 27:62, 246; 27:62- 
 66; 28:4, 11-15, 264-273 
 28:1-8, 249-259; 28:1, 185 
 28:7, 199; 28:8-20, 164-166 
 28:9 f., 259-262, 395; 28:16- 
 20, 275-289; 28:17, 279-282, 
 344; 28:18, 361 f. 
 
 Mark 
 
 1:17, 403 f.; 3:13 f., 404-407; 
 6:7-13, 404; 9:9 f., 322, 
 422 f.; 10:28-40, 404; 12:24- 
 
 27. 73; 13:9-13, 405; 14:8, 
 234; 14:28, 195-201; 15:42- 
 47, 239-248; 16:1-8, 152- 
 237; 16:4, 186; 16:8, 159; 
 16:9-20, 337-342 
 
 Luke 
 
 4:42-44, 408; 5:1-11, 179, 401- 
 414; 8:2 f., 303; 9:44 f., 300 
 f-; 9:51. 359; 10:1-17, 306; 
 19:29-37. 349; 20:35 f., 74; 
 22:31 ff., 198, 387; 23:51, 
 242; 24:1-12, 291-305; 24: 
 
 6 f., 198; 24:10, 302 f.; 24:12, 
 304 f., 394; 24:13-34, 305- 
 332; 24:22-24, 316; 24:25, 
 448 f.; 24:26, 360; 24:32, 
 320 f.; 24:34, 323-328, 387 f.; 
 24:36 ff-» 334. 376; 24:40, 
 345; 24:41, 416; 24:47-49, 
 
 349; 24:50 f., 349, 352-373; 
 24:Si»37l f-J 24:52 f., 378 f. 
 
 John 
 
 6:30-59.380; 7:39, 363; 14:16- 
 28 > 363; 15:26, 363; 16:7, 
 363; 16:22, 397; 19:39 f., 
 185; 20:1-29, 392-398; 20: 
 17-23. 362 f.; 20:29, 393; 21: 
 1-14, 166-169, 178 f., 380, 
 399-419 
 
 Acts 
 
 i:i-ii, 359 f., 374-386; 1:3, 
 336; 1:4. 374-382; 1:4-12, 
 349; 1:6-13, 407; 1:14. 379; 
 1:21-26, 306; 2:1-4, 430 f.; 
 2:22-35, 365; 2:32, 209; 
 2:42-47. 378 f-; 3:iS. 209; 
 4:2, 209; 4:33, 209; 7:26, 
 41 f.; 9:4-6, 48; 9:31. 384; 
 10:1-11:17, 312; 10:9 ff., 
 413:10:40, 336; 10:41, 375f.; 
 12:1-12, 43 f.; 13:29, 243; 
 15:3. 383; 22:7-10, 48; 26: 
 14-18, 48; 26: 20, 383 
 
 Romans 
 
 1:4, 118, 139 f.; 3:10-12, 127; 
 3:16 f., 127 f.; 3:23, 127; 
 4:17, 140, 144; 4:24 f., 140; 
 5:10, 140, 142:5: 12-6:11, 
 88; 6:1-11,37 f., 140 f.; 6:4, 
 125; 6:6, 141:7:1, 130:7:1-6, 
 141 f.;8:3, 138 f.; 8:9, 142; 
 8:10 f., 88, 142 f.; 8:12 f., 
 145; 8:23, 104, 146; 8:29-39, 
 
 491 
 
492 
 
 Index 
 
 Romans — Continued 
 
 146; 8:34, 363 f.; 10:9-13, 
 147; 12:1, 104; 14:8 f., 143, 
 145 f.; 16:7,330 
 
 First Corinthians 
 
 6:12-20, 97; 6:14, 145; 6:19 f., 
 
 105; 9:1, 49. 137; I5:i-S4. 
 7-1 15; 15:8 f., 432 
 
 Second Corinthians 
 
 1:9, 143 f.; 4:14, 145; 5:1-10, 
 98-102:5:1 f., 89; 5:5, 146; 
 5:14-17, 88, 139; 13:4, 140 
 
 Galatians 
 
 1:1, 136; lnlf.,317; 1:12, 137; 
 
 1:15 f., 136 f.; 2:2, 48; 2:19- 
 21, 137; 3:1, 138; 3:27 f., 
 88; 5:16-25, 139; 3:24, 138; 
 6:14 f., 138 
 
 Efhesians 
 
 1:20, 2:5 f., 4:8-10, 364 
 
 Colossians 
 
 i:i-3:i7, 147; i:i3, 122, I39; 
 
 1:18, 71, 121; 1:22, 142; 
 
 3:1, 125; 3:1-4, 147 f., 3:9- 
 
 11, 88; 3:11, 147 
 
 Philippians 
 
 1:20-24, 102-104; 2: P> r 4°i 
 3:3-11, 88; 3:8-11, 148 f.; 
 3:10-14, 72; 3:10-21, 104; 
 3:11, 72, 96; 3:2of., 104 
 
 First Thessalonians 
 
 1:10, 117 f., 121 f.; 3:13, 123; 
 4:2-8, 98; 4:13-18, 73. 122- 
 124; 5:9 f., 122:5:23,98 
 
 Hebrews 
 
 1:3,10:12, 12:2,13:20,364 
 
 First Peter 
 
 3:21 f., 364