Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
I. Narratives examined (8s 2-16). 11. Determination of outward facfs 111. Explanation of facts (830-38).
Canonical Gospels ($ .A). (55 17-29). Nature of resurrection body of
Gospel of the Hebrews (I 4). Nature of the appcarances (0 17). Jesus (8.30).
Gospel of Peter (0 5). No words of the risen Jesus (5 18). Resurrection only of the Spirit of
Coptic account (0 6). Galilee the place (0 19). Jesus (0 3.1).
Extra-canonical details (P, 7). The sepulchre ($ zox). Objective visioqs (P, 32).
Conclusion of Mk. (0 SA). The third day (0 2s). Apparent death, and false rumours
I Cor. 15 1-11(#( 10-1s). Number of appearances ($ 23). of the resurrection of Jesus (5 33).
Accounts of ascension (# 16). Unhistorical elements due to ten- Subjective visions (P,s 34.38).
dency (55 24-29). Literature (0 39).
Biblical Texts, 222) : ' Suddenly, however, a t the third according to Harnack to the fifth or the sixth century;
hour, darkness came on bJ' day throughout the whole it relates to Joseph of Arimathza, and we are told that
world and angels came down from heaven and will rise its hero is expressly spoken of a s the first to whom Jesus
(read : and rising) in the brightness of the living God appeared. H e had been thrown into prison by the
went up with him, and forthwith it was light ' ( ' subito Jews for having begged the body of Jesus ( S B AbV, 1901,
autem ad horarn tertiam tenebrz dieifactzsunt per totum pp. 920-931,and, more fully, von Dobschiitz in Z . 5
orbem t e r r z et descenderunt de caelis angeli et surgent k-iychengesch. 23 1-27 [I~oz]).
(read : surgentes) in claritate vivi dei simul ascenderunt I n any event all these notices serve to show how
cum eo et continuo lux facta est'). This about the angels busily and in how reckless a manner the accounts of the
agrees with the Gospel of Peter (see above, 5 6 ) , except resurrection of Jesus continued to be handed on.
that there the event occurs during the night. whilst in T h e shorter conclusion of Mk. (that headed "AXXws
cod. k we are bidden think of it as preceded by an eclipse by U'H) contents itself with simply saying the opposite
and therefore as happening by day-at the third hour, in 8. IYIk.169-20,of the statement (that the women said
other words a t g A . M . nothing to anyone of what they had
It is, however, hard to believe that the interpolator actually seen and heard at the grave) in 1 6 8 ; but the longer
supposed that the women took some three hours (from sunrise) conclusion gives a variety of details.
to consider who should roll away the stone (16 2). Perhaps the ( u ) A brief summary of its most important points has
time datum is the result of a confusion. This would be all the
easier becaiise a darkness is elsewhere reported as having oc- been given already (see GOSPELS,5 138 g); but it will
curred at the crucifixion-although,to he sure, in the afternoon be necessary to examine more closely some of the current
from twelve till three (50 also in Gospel of Peter, 15, 22). views respecting it.
If we leave the darkness out of account and understand the Rohrbach (see below, 8 39), in his hypothesis based upon
third hour according to Roman and modern reckoning as certain indications of Harnack, gives his adhesion to the opinion
three o'clock in the morning, then the final clause 'continuo lux of Conyheare ( E x j o s . 18936, pp. 241-z54), that Mk. 16g.ao is the
facta est ' a rees with both texts of the Anu&&wu Pilati (A, g work of the presbyter Aristion. We shall discuss this thesis in
= R, 8, in %ischendorfs Evans AJ5ocr.P) 440, 447), according the form in which it has been adopted by Harnack ( A C L ii.
to which at this hour the sun rose, manifestly to mark the time [=Chron.] 1 695-700). In order to displace the genuine con-
of the resurrection.' So also agrees Lagarde's reconstruction clusion of Mk. (see below, 5 9) in favour of another which should
of the DidmhuZin, 5 14, which Resch ( T U X .3 756) quotes from be more in agreement with the other three gospels, and a t the
Bunsen's Annlectu Antenicenu, 2 313: that Jesus slept through- same time be the work of an authoritative person, the presbyters
out the Sabbath and for three hours over and above. One has of the Johannine circle in Asia Minor who brought together the
only to reckon the day in Roman fashion from midnight to four gospels into a unity took a memorandum by the presbyter
midnight. Aristion who, according to Papias had bees a personal disciple
(6) In the Dia'uskaEa (extant in Syriac), which came of Jesus (JOHX, SONOF Z E B E D E E , ' ~4).
into existence in the third century, based upon older (6) Harnack and Rohrbach, in order to maintain the
sources, we read (ed. Lagarde, 88 f:, according to literary independence of Aristion, find it necessary t o
Resch, T U X . 3761) that 'during the night before the deny that Mk. 169-20 is a mere excerpt from the canonical
dawn of the first day of the week Jesus appeared to gospels and other writings. I n this, however, they
Mary hlagdalene and Mary the daughter of James, and cannot but fail. T h e borrowing, indeed, is not made
in the morning of the first day of the week he entered the word for w o r d ; in point of fact, however, even the
house of Levi, and then he appeared also to us; more- smallest departure from the sources admits of explana-
over he said to us while he was instructing us : Where- tion on grounds that are obvious. Verse g is compounded
fore do ye fast on my account in these d a y s ? ' and so from Jn. 201 11-17 and Lk. 82 ; vn. 1.5from Jn. 2 0 1 8
on. Mention is made of Levi in the Gospel of Peter and Lk. 24 1.5; o. xz reproduces Lk. 24 13-32 and v.13a
also (above, 5 d ) , but in a wholly different connection. Lk. 243335. That the eleven did not believe the disciples
T h e fasting is also mentioned there (I 5 [f]).T b c from Emmaus (v.136) directly contradicts Lk. 2 4 3 4 it is
second Mary is called the daughter (not the mother) of trne ; but th:s is easily explicable from the view of the
James in S s also. author that unbelief was the invariable effect of the
( c ) According to K. Syr." Syr.hieros, Vg. etc., in accounts as to appearances of the risen Jesus-a view
Lk. 2 1 4 3 Jesus gives what is left from what he ate (i.~., which (v.14) he expressly puts into the mouth of Jesus
according to T R and AV, fish and an honeycomb) to himself. Thus it is by no means necessary to postulate
the disciples. an independent source; all that is needed is unity in
( d ) I n Tatian's Diatessaron Capernaum is named in the fundamental conception of the matter.
Mt. 28 16 instead of the mountain in Galilee. I n the (c) Zahn ( E i d § 52=2227-240) derives zw. 14-18 from
scene by the open sepulchre which Tatian gives after Aristion, but declines to do so alike in the case of ow.
Jn. Mary is named without any addition, and Ephrem 9-13 and in that of 19 f: In 14-16 he finds not mere
in his commentary understands this of Mary the mother compilation but actual narrative, and that without
of Jesus. This is indicated also by the fact that previ- dependence on the canonical gospels. I n reality, how-
ously she has been entrusted by the crucified Jesus in ever, o. 14 simply carries further what is found in Lk.
the words of Jn. 1926) to the beloved disciple. Never- 242538 Jn. 2 0 2 7 ; v. 15 is an adaptation of Mt. 2 8 1 9 t o
theless there may be a confusion here, as the Diatessaron Pauline and Catholic phraseology ( ' world ' [K6UpOS].
1 Apart from this reference we leave the AnuJ5h.PiZ. out of 'preach the gospel' [ K ~ ~ I ~ U C T ErbL VeGayy&ov], 'creature'
consideration as being a late and highly legendary work. [ K T ~ U L S ] and
), if baptism in the name of the Trinity is
4049 4050
RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
TABULAR VIEW O F LEADING PARTICULARS
P AUL MK. MT. MK. ;ow. HEB. ,OW. PET COPT. DID)
9-20
~
XVI.
- -
Watch soldiers .. oldiers oldiers anc
Jesus comes
.. I 'and servan! presbyter:
if priest ?)
n the
forth night; wit
2 angels ;
stone re-
moves itsel
Time when iter sun- evening be- Nefore sun- before sun- in the n the light
women come me fore rise rise morning) morning fore
Stone when heady re- is removed .heady re- already re- lready re- (already re.
women come moved by angel : moved moved moved moved)
earthquake
Angels when I I I
women come
Women : Mary
Magd.; M.
2 : Mary
Magd.; M.
6. Magd.; M. M?.gd.;
Joanna; M.
.. .. 6. Magd.
and her.
Mary,
Martha
m.)ofJame mother of of James : :ompanion M. Maid.
the less James and and others
md Joses); Joses
jalome she tells
Men he watchers (Peter?) Peter and
the beloved
.. .. he watchez
disciple
In sepulchre the angel .. nothing a the cloth: .. the angel nothing
6 the angels
See Jesus a t
sepulchre
he z women
touch Jesus
.. M. Magd.;
does not
he watchei the 3 womei
feet touch J.
See Jesus (at
sepulchre?)
.. .. 1 .. M. Magd. I. Mi
receives
Jesus'gar.
ment
E
:
of Ja
Angel's charge to senddir
ciples to
o send dis-
ciples to
..
Galilee Galilee
Jesus' charge
-
ditto
.. 1 to announci
asceusion
-
VOMEN'S REPORT : not made not made)
to whom (thedis- the 11 and a see a b v i
others b the (11)
he disciple! .. thedisciple!
twice
ciples)
disciples
result journey to unbelief unbelief .. unbelief
Galilee
- -
Peter Peter? .. lames ; Lei
bread for
him
2at Emmaur t(at Em-
OTHER supper maus)
le twelv he (11)dis the I I dis- the 11 wit1 the (IO) dis- he 11 ; 'eter with 'eter An- the 11)dis. he (I
ciples? ciples ; othe;s ; ciples ; others ; irew: Levi cihes ; disci
& others?:
closed
doors ;
APPEARANCES somedoubt; they doubt
Jesus shows hi lesus Jesus
OF 1 touched ;
eats [var.:
with discc.]
'wounds ;
(missionary nissionary
touched touched
1
command) command
Holy Spirit
JESUS given
ver sa, .. .. ..
TO .
arnes
IIthe
apostle!
..
:: 1 ..
:: the I I dis-
ciples;
closed
doors :
J. touched
7 disci lec; ..
James, see
above)
..
..
..
breaf and
fish for then
..
PLACE OF
APPEARANCES
-
(Galilee)
1
Galilee Jerusalem a Jerusalem
lastly
5 Sea of Gal.
lerusalem?) lerusalem?) ,ea of Gal. fJerusalem?)
..
I 1
ASCENSION t the
resur-
,ection)
._ (fiAevening first mom-
1 ACTS:
1 after4odays
ing
1
.t a meal
(on the 1st
evening?)
11 a at death
6 at the !e-
surrection
--
RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
not mentioned that becomes very intelligible after Cony- in the theory that the genuine conclusion of Mk. was
beare’s demolistration ( Z N T W , 1901,pp. 275-288 ; c p removed on account of its inconsistency
9. Lost
Hibb. Journ. I , p. 9 6 8 ) that even Eusebius down t o 325 conclusion with the other gospels, we are led to the
A . D . read nothing as to this in Mt. ( c p M INISTRY , 5 5 c ) . conjecture that what it stated must have
of lvlk. been all the more original in proportion
Verse 16 is the most elaborated dogmatic of the apostolic
a n d post-apostolic time (Acts 16 31 ; M INISTRY , 26). as the others are recent.
T h e casting-out of devils in v. 17 rests o n Mk. 6 7 1 3 Mt. ( a ) Harnack a n d Rohrbach suppose that the lost
10 I Lk. 9 I 10 17, the speaking with new tongues ( L e . , conclusion was what lay a t the foundation of the Gospel
languagesof foreign peop1es)on Acts 21-13 ( c p S PIRITUAL of Peter a n d Jn. 21.
GIFTS, 5 I O ) ; ’ they shall take u p serpents’ (v. 18) is What is said, they think, was to the effect that as the women
said nothing about what had occurred at the sepulchre (168) the
borrowed partly from Acts 28 3-6 a n d partly from the disciples went to Galilee-not at the command of Jesus but (as
express promise of Jesus in Lk. 10 19 ; the gift of healing in the Gospel of Peter) of their own motion and in deep depres-
of diseases by laying-on of hands from Acts 288. With- sion. Here Jesus appeared to a group of them by the !?ke as
out limitation to the method by imposition of hands such they were fishing (so far the Gospel of Peter) and rehabilitated
Peter who had been overwhelmed with a sense of his guilt in
a gift is already bestowed upon the apostles in Mt. 101 denying Jesus (cp Jn. 21 15-77). The saying of Jesus, on the
Lk. 9 I , and is exercised by them in Mk. 6 1 3 Lk. 96. other hand, about the beloved disciple (20.24) is an addition of
the author of Jii. 21. Apart from that saying Jn. 21 describes
The drinking of deadly poison with impunity is the only thing the first appearance of the risen Jesus, which is given as the
for which we have to look outside of the N T canon : but here third appearance (21 ‘4) only in order to bring Lk.and Jn. into
it is not Aristion that we encounter but the daughters of Philip, agreement. Rohrbach seeks to discover in the genuine con.
from whom Papias claims to have heard of such a thing in the clusion of Mk. also an appearance of Jesus to the eleven, and
case of Justus Harsabas (cp P HILIP , $3 4 ~ ) . To say the least, brings into connection with this the fragment in Ignatius spoken
then, W . 17J are quite as much a mere cataloguing abstract as of above (0 4c) which Rohrbach would fain detach from the
W . 9-13 are. Nor is the situation changed by the addition after Gospel of the Hebrews and claim for the genuine conclusion of
D. 14 which Jerome quotes in one place from Greek h‘ISS: ‘And Yk.
they apologised saying: this age of iniquity and unbelief is (d) Of such hypotheses we may admit everything that
under Satan, who by [his] impure spirits does not suffer the
true virtue of God to be apprehended; wherefore now reveal can be based upon M k . 1 6 7 . Even if the women, as
thy justice’ (et illi satisfaciehant [made amends, here meaning : we read in v. 8, kept silence as to the injunction of the
npologised] dicentes : saecnlnm istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis angel, it still remains the fact that, according to the view
sub Satana e5t. oui non sinit Der immnndos sniritus veram dei
apprehendi virtut‘em ; idcirco &m nunc revela ;ustitiam tuam).l of the author, it was the divine will that ’ t h e disciples
It is very easily explained as being a gloss.) a n d Peter ’ should go to Galilee a n d there see the risen
Jesus. T h a t the disciples should have fulfilled this in-
( d ) The conclusion of Mk. betrays n o acquaintance junction without being acquainted with it is explained
with Jn. 2 1 or t h e Gospel of Peter ; on the other hand
i n the Gospel of Peter hy the fact that the festival
we cannot say with confidence that the author had
had come to a n end ; according to GOSPELS, § 138 a ,
occasion to use them even had he known them. I n the
there is a quite different explanation. In any case it
Gospel of Peter (27) the disciples are spoken of as in
is clear that it cannot have been Mk.’s intention t o
Mk. 1610 as ‘ mourning a n d weeping’ ( r e v 6 o i k e s ~ a l
close his gospel at 1 6 8 ; he must have treated also the
K X U ~ O V T ~ S ) . But this collocation of words is quite Galilaean events for which he had prepared his readers.
current ( L k . 6 2 5 Jas.49 Rev. l S r r q r g ) , a n d the idea From t h e remarkable order ‘ his disciples and Peter ’
conveyed was an obvious one both from the situation
we must not conclnde that a n appearance to the disciples
itself and also as fulfilment of the prophecy in Jn. 1620,
was first related a n d then one to Peter ; for it is not
a n d thus is no proof of literary dependence.
said that his disciples and Peter will see him, but ‘ TelZ
( e ) There is thus no particular reason why we his disciples and Peter.‘ All we can conjecture with
should assign to a personal disciple of Jesus such as any confidence is that Peter in some way or other played
Arktion the authorship of so meagre an excerpt as a special part in the lost narrative.
Mk. 169-20 from which absolutely nothing new is to be ( c ) W h a t we find in Harnack and Rohrbach going
learned.
beyond this is quite untenable. T h a t the Gospel of
A marginal gloss-comparatively late it may he-in an Oxford Peter and Jn. 21 have no common source, results at the
MS. of Rufinus speaks of the story ahout Justus Barsahas in outset from the fact that the names of t h e apostles on
Eiis. HEiii. 399 (see above, c) as a communication from Aristion
(Ex&. 1893.6, p. 246). Should this happen to rest upon older the shore of t h e lake are not the same (cp 5 gd, n.)
tradition, it conceivably may have been what furnished the That Jn. 21 originally was a description of the first
occasion for attributing to Aristion first the allusion to the same appearance of the risen Jesus, is in itself not impossible ;
thing in Mk. 16 18 and afterwards erroneously the whole passage
m. 9-20. but there is nothing that directly indicates it.
v) Neither is there much greater probability in the conjecture The reserve of the disciples in particular (21 12) in virtue of
of Resch ( T U X 2450.456)
. that in Conyheare’s Armenian Manu- which none of them durst as; the Lord who he w& would he
script by the presbyter Ariston is meant the Jewish Christian a propriate not only at the first hut at any appehance. In
Ariston of Pella in Peraea, to whom the Dialogue between Jason t l e consumkately delicate ,ann& in which it is referred to in
and Papiscus is attributed. There is absolutely nothing specific- vv. 1 5 . ~ 7 ,Peter’s denial could have been alluded to at any other
ally Jewish-Christian in the conclusion of Mk. (see above 6 c). appearance besides the first, if the situation presented occasion
The other part of Reschs hypothesis-that it was this d r i b n for it ; and a rehabilitation of Peter which one cannot help
who at the same time gathered together the four gospels into expecting at the first appearance need not have carried with it
one whole-is quite inadmissible. Resch is able to make out a in the first instance, more than dis restoration to grace, not hi;
.”
ewish-Christian
‘ character for this grouping only insomuch as investiture with the office of leader of the church (cp $3 374.
It. is assigned the first place. This installation of Peter, however, is explained much more
Even apart, however, from the question about Ariston and readily by reference to a later ecclesiastical situation. The
Aristion the attempt to bring into close connection the composi- Fourth Gospel at its first publication had met with opposition,
tion of Mk. 16 9-zo and the grouping of the four gospels as sole and in the circles in which it had arisen it was perceived that it
canonical sources for the life of Jesus mnst be given up. would fail to meet with ecclesiastical recognition if the great
prominence given to the beloved disciple and the comparative
If, however, there be even merely an element of truth depreciation of Peter, which run through the entire book (see
SIMON PETER, $3 zz), were to be continued. It was determined,
therefore, to recognise in an appendix the authority of Peter to
1 Jer. coffir.Pelag. 2 15 ; ed. Vallarsi, 2 758,f Zahn (GescA. some extent (MINISTRV 36a). If this be so, however the
d.NTlichen Kanons, 2935-938 : Einl. $ 52, n. 7) defends the words ahout the abidiig importance of the beloved diiciple
is ‘substantia ... .
feading ‘sub Satana . . qui ’ given above ; the usual reading
qug.’
(21 20-24) as also about the death of Peter (21 x3J), wbicb would
certainly’be inappropriate at a first appearance, will be integral
3 Van Kasteren (Rw. 6i61. infernat. rqoa, 24?-25$ seeks parts, not merely inorganically attached additions. Yet once
to defend the authenticity of this appeAdix. e maintains he- more, the thought that Jesus instituted a substitute for the
sides, that the whole passage (I6 9-m)has been used in Her&, Last Supper (in 21 13 the reminiscence of this is quite manifest)
Sim. ix. 252 and even in Heb. 11-4 23-5. These arguments is not appropriate to a first appearance of Jesus, but must be
are missing h Burgon, Last Twd??eVerses OfMk. (1871), and regarded as the result of after reflection (see $3 q c ) .
rightly. They rest only on vague resemblances which would be
quite as capable of supporting the posteriority as the priority of ( d ) Hamack and Rohrbach become very specially
Mk. 16 9-20. if they necessarily implied literary acquaintance. involved in obscurities when they maintain that the
150 4053 4054
RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
genuine conclusion of Mk. with its first appearance of himself-as something which according to 21. 3 he has received
Jesus was at the same time in agreement with the (rrapihapov). Steck does not shrink from drawing this infer-
ence. In doing so, however, he does the writer an injustice.
account in I Cor. 155, and with that in Lk.2434, For when the writer wrote v. 3, his intention was to set forth
according to which Jesus appeared to Peter. The what he had received ; but he was surely not thereby precluded
expression of Paul, and in like manner that of Lk., from adding something of the same kind with regard to himself,
of which the readers would he able to see for themselves that he
unquestionably mean : to Peter alone. That, however, had not ‘received’ it. In like manner also he most not he
is exactly what Jn. 21 does not say, nor yet in all debarred from saying in v. 11, by way of r i m d , that he and
probability did the Gospel of Peter. the original apostles preach in the manner stated in the pre-
In Jn. 21 7 not only is Peter not the only one to recognise ceding context, although certainly v. gf: perhaps also v. 8,
esus : he is not even the first ; the first is the beloved disciple. do not form part of the preaching of the orikinal apostles.
K ohrhach has recourse to the conjecture that in the genuine
conclusion of Mk., a t the decisive scene, the recAgnition of esus
(d) Van hfanen (Puuius, 3, 1896,pp. 67-71) finds 16 1-11 out
of agreement with vv. 12-58 ; for in the former passage the hope
and the word of restitution, the other disciples apart from {eter of a future resurrection of the body is made to depend upon the
were either, like the disciples at Emmans whose ‘eyes were fact of the resiirrcction of Jesus, whilst in the latter it is held
holdeb ’ (Lk. 24 16), prevented by divine arrangement from recog- upon quite different grounds into which this fact does not enter.
nisiiig Jesus, or were not present at all, and that this Scene was It must be noted, however, that if a thing rests upon more
followed by another separate appearance to the eleven (above grounds than one, it is quite fitting that these should be set
a). Harnack t o judge by his silence, does not accept this, bu; forth separately. Besides, in point of fact, the resurrection of
in doing so daves it all the more unclear how far the appear- Jesus is returned to in v. 20 as having a bearing upon the
ance t o several disciples is t o be held the same as an appearance argument.
to Peter (alone). (e) Another point macle by Van hlanen is that ‘was seen’
(&+fhl)IS re eated in v. 6 but not in v. 56. That however really
( e ) If such an appearance cannot be assumed to have proves notRing against ‘either the genuineness’or the unity of
been contained in the lost conclusion of hfk. with cer- the section. The addition in v. 6 ‘of whom the greater part
tainty. the attempt must also be abandoned to invest remain until now but some are fallen asleep’ is found by Van
the passage with the nimbus which would attach to it if Manen too copio& in style after the curt expressions in m. 3-5 ;
and, moreover, he considers it to be brought in too late, since, if
it had really contained the full narrative of what Paul such an observation were to be made with reference to the 500,
and Lk. (2434)dismiss with a single word as the earliest it ought also t o have been mentioned with regard to the 12,
of the occurrences after the resurrection of Jesus. T h e whether they were still alive or not. But here again it niay be
replied that the Corinthians either knew or could have informed
lost conclusion in question may have been relatively themselves as t o the twelve, whilst the case was different with
more original than the canonical and extra-canonical the 500. As for ‘all the apostles’ (TOTS &our6hors rriow) in
accounts which have come clown to us ; but we cannot v. 7. to which Van Manen takes particular exce tion on the
safely venture to regard it as having been absolutely the Found that they are identical with the ‘ Peter a n a the twelve
in v. 5 , our reply must simply be that this is not the case ; see
first. MINISTRY 8 17.
If now it has been made out that the extra-canonical Pad’s designation of himself (159) as the least of the
accounts contain nothing of any consequence which apostles, is regarded by Van Manen as not in agreement with
his claim toapostolic rankandauthority(1 I 4 169 if: 11 16). Yet
Cor.15r-II goes beyond the canonical- except a solution of the apparent contradiction can be found in 15 I O :
(ultimately) the existeuce of an interval ‘not I but the grace of God.’ Besides, the slight a ainst Paul
c&&J:d. of more than eight days between the would’be unintelligible on the part of an admirer ofhis’in the
second century; it is intelligible only in the mouth of Paul
resurrection of Jesus and his first himself who elsewhere also shows himself as ready to humble
appearance (5 5 e)- and that the canonical gospels himseliin the sight of God as he is disinclined to do so before
are at irreconcilable variance with each other, we have men.
finally to turn to the narrative of Paul. It has fared (g)A further argument of Van Manen (p. 126) is that in
158-10 the life of the apostle is looked back upon as already
badly. Reirnarus and Lessing completely ignored it. completed. Yet Paul might also look back upon his life so far
T h e entire body of conservative theology denies it any as completed and say quite faifly, as he does say : I laboured
decisive importance, and the most advanced critical more abundantly than they all.
theology in rejecting all the Pauline epistles of course ( h ) In particular, no difficulty ought to be caused by
rejects this also. I t is very striking to observe, how- the words : ‘ last of all he appeared to me also.’ Paul
ever, how slight are the objections that can be brought could quite well have been aware that since the appear-
against it. Let us take, in the first place, those which ance of Jesus macle to himself, no other had been
are urged against the account in itself considered. reported. But of those which he himself, according
(u)Steck (Guiafer-6r. 1888, pp. 180-191)finds at the very to z Cor. 121-4 46, afterwards lived to experience, none
outset that the word ‘ k i k e known’ (yvopi<o : I Cor. 15 I ) approached to that of Damascus in fundamental import-
shows the writer to have been aware that he was making a a n c e ; thus he had all the more occasion to close his
statement which, at the time of his making it (according to
Steck in the 2nd cent.) was new. The answer is sim le. a series with it, because his first vision of the risen Jesus
Trite; can surely quite’easily say of a thing already Rndwn may itself have occurred a considerable time after the
I make known unto you,’ if he wishes to call attention to it as
something very weighty, or desires gently to reproach or rebuke
other appearances (I 36 [f]), and importance attached
his readers for not having kept it in mind. The remark holds to the number of distinct persons who had seen visions,
g6od here as well as in 12 3 Gal. 1 TI. rather than to the number of visions such persons
(6)According to 15 1 1 what precedes is given out alike by had had.
Paul and by the original apostles. Steck holds it to be
artificially composed to suit such a purpose ; the twelve would For the rest, Brandt (414f:) gives up as un-Padine only one
represent the narrower circle of disciples destined for the expression : ‘as unto the one born out of due season ( A u m p e i
mission to the Jews; the 500 that wider circle, hinted a t in 73 ; r r p & p a n ) , which he considers to have been borrowed by a
Lk.10 I, for the mission to the Gentiles. I n this case however, giossator from the Valentinian gnosis (cp Straatman, KnX Sfud.
we are constrained to ask why the author, who adording to overrCor.,vol. 2, Groningen, 1865, pp. 196-204). Yet nostringent
Steck had full scope for his fancy, should have chosen the necessity for this is apparent. It is true that the expression
number 500, not 7 0 ? And why does he cite James (surely a ( d m p o p a ) does not literally fit Paul, for it denotes an early birth,
Jewish Christian !) after, not before, the alleged representatives whereas he could more appropriately have been called a late
of the Gentile mission, and afterwards, over and above, ‘all the birth. There is some difficulty, therefore, in supposing that
apostles,’ whom no one can assert to have belonged distinctly Paul himself can have actually chosen this expression. To
to the Jewish-Christian or to the GentileChristian circle? meet this difficultywe may perhaps suppose that Paul is taking
( c ) Whether the original apostles included in their preaching up a phrase which had been used against him hy way of
also this, that Jesus had appeared to Paul may he regarded as reproach, because after all it has some applicability to his case.
questionable in view of their strained redtione with Paul. At This theory would also best explain the definite article (before
an earlier date, however, when the churches of Judiea Glorified ; x r p & p a r t ) , which is reproduced neither in AV nor in RV (‘ one
God in Paul (Gal. 123J) they certainly proclaimed it, since the born ’).
conversion of this most zealous opponent of Christianity cannot T h a t I Cor. 151-11is dependent on the Gospels has
but have seemed to them to be the greatest triumph of the new been pronounced impossible even by Steck, since it
religion. Accordingly, Paul might very well assume that they
were still doing so. Yet it must not by any means be positively cor. 15 I-TI contains appearances of Jesus which
affirmed that he says so; for from I Cor. 156 onwards the
11 bider than are not found there. It is only the
verbs no longer depend, as in W . 3’5, on ‘how that’ (h); the
sentences are all independent propositions. Otherwise we the Gospe,a. earlier date of I Cor. that Steck dis-
should be compelled to go so far as to say that Paul describes putes.
the contents of v. 8 also-that is, the appearance of Jesus t o (u) Steck rcgards it as certainly historical that the
4055 4056
first. news of the resurrection of Jesus was brought by himself excludes this in the most decisive manner. By
the women. In the omission of this point from I Cor. his careful enumeration with ‘then ... next .. .
he finds an artificial touch ; the more naive representa- next . . . then . . . lastly’ (&u ... tserm . .
.
tion is that of the Gospels. ..
t a e r ~ a. EZTU . .. ~ C T X ~ T O V155-8)
; he guarantees
Even if it he granted for the moment that the narrative about not only chronological order but also completeness,
the women at the sepulchre is historical, the attitude of con- The Only point which One can venture along with
servative theology itself shows that the priority of the gospels
by no means follows, for that theology attributes to the (41.5)to leave open, is whether Paul here is only
historical Paul, who wrote his epistles before the gospels were
13.
Cor.l6 : repeating a fixed number of appearances
composed, a deliberate silence about the women. If however according to 1 5 1 1 he ‘vas in the
the genuineness of the Pauline epistles cannot he kffectivel; number Of which habit of bringing forward everywhere, in
disputed from this point of view, the question whether Paul did
not wish to say anything ahout the women, or whether he did appearances* agreement with the original apostles, in
not know ahout them, remains quite open (cp 5 15). his preaching of the resurrection of Jesus.
(6) Steck conjectures further that matters in which Now it is not inconceivable that from such an enumeration
I cor. partially agrees with the ~ ~ had been~ this
~ or that~ appearancel to inconspicuous
~ , persons which seemed
list to he attested with absolute certainty 0; not to he of
drawn by both from a source, Thus the sufficientimportance, may have been excludid, just as we find
appearance to the 500 is perhaps a modification of the that of those received by Paul himself only the first is related
original account of what happened a t Pentecost. T h e (8 IO^). This concession, however in Ao way alter? the signific-
ance for Gospel criticism of the bauline account : for to this
461 4062
RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
various accounts one deduction which goes very deep : may be laid on the fact that there is no gospel in which
ls. No words no words were heard from the risen appearances to men (not women) are reported as having
heard. Jesus. ( u ) At first sight the hearing of been made both in Galilee and in Jerusalem ; for Jn. 21
words might appear not to be excluded is a n appendix by another hand.
by the simple was seen ’ (&$O?) of Paul. I t is to be It is only Mt. that, besides the appearance to the disciples in
noted, however, that where Paul speaks of having Galilee, knows of that made to the women on the ret& from
the sepulchre (2893); this however, will he regarded by very
received messages from heaven, he expressly specifies many as unhistorical, hein; absent from Mk. (which neverthe-
‘revelations ’ (daoxahdykrs)as well as ‘ visions ‘ (da~aaiar: less is in this section so closely followed by Mt.) and containing
z Cor. 1 2 1 - 4 ) , and where the distinction is employed it nothing more than a repetition of the injunction already given
by the angel to the women, to bid the disciples repair to Galilee.
is clear that spoken words come under the former not In any case the appearance comes from a separate source. If
the latter category. we leave Mt. 25 9 3 out of account it becomes perfectly clear that
( 6 ) As against this, appeal will doubtless be made to no one gospel from the first re orted appearances of the risen
the reports in Acts as to the appearances of Jesus to Jews in Galilee as well as in Jerusalem. The gospels in fact
fall exactly into two classes : Mk., Mt. and the Gospel of Peter
Paul on the journey to Damascus. Not successfully, are for Galilee ; Lk., Jn., and Mk. 16920 for Jerusalem, and
however ; they contradict one another so violently the Gospel of the Hebrews also does not indicate in any way
(see ACTS, 2 ) that it is difficult to imagine how it that it looks for James and Peter and Peter’s companions else-
where than in the place where it finds the servant of the high
could ever have been possible for a n author to take them priest (see above, 5 4 a , b), viz., in Jerusalem. It is only after;
u p into his book in their present forms, not to speak of wards that the writer of Jn. 21 sees fit to change this ‘either or
the impossibility of accepting them in points where they intoa ‘both, and’; soalsoMt., butwithoutadmittingan apiear-
are unsupported by the epistles of Paul. In these ance to any male disciples in Jerusalem.
epistles, there is not the slightest countenance for the If, however, Galilee and Jerusalem were at first
belief that Paul heard words, although he had the mvtually exclusive, both cannot rest upon equally valid
strongest motives for referring to them had he been tradition ; there must have been some reason why the
in a position to do so. It is on the appearance on the one locality was changed for the other.
journey to Damascus that he bases his claim. to have ( b ) Such a reason for transferring the appearances
been called to the apostolate by Jesus himself. T h e from Galilee to Jernsalem has been indicated in GOSPELS
claim was hotly denied by his opponents : it was to his (§ 138 a). Its force becomes all the greater when it is
interest, therefore, to bring forward everything that could realised how small has been the success of even the most
validly be adduced in its support. I n pressing it ( I Cor. distinguished critics in attempting to make out the
91,‘ A m I not an apostle?’) he assuredly would not opposite.
All that Loofs (see below, 39) has to say is (p. 25), ‘Those
have stopped short at the question, ‘ H a v e I not seen narrators who represent the whole life of Jesus, with the ex-
Jesus our L o r d ? ’ had he been in a position to go on ception of the last eight days, as having been passed in Galilee,
and ask, ‘ Has he not himself named me his apostle? ’ may have transferred to Galilee also the appearances of the risen
with such words engraven on his memory as those we Jesus, with regard to which they were very defectively informed ;
they may have done so all the more easily because the first
read in Acts 96 2210 or (above all) 2616-18. The persons of whom they had occasion to speak in connection with
analogy of the angelic appearances cited above ( 5 17c) the resurrection were women from Galilee.’ The question a t
thus no longer holds good. Words are heard from once presents itself: What has the circumstance that they he-
longed to Galilee to do with the present matter? They were in
angels ; no words were heard from Jesus. point offact in Jerusalem. What is the relevancy of the ohserva-
(e) What holds good of the appearance to Paul is true tion that the activity of Jesus, apart from the last eight days,
also (see § 17 u ) of the others of which we read. If, too, had been wholly in Galilee? His grave a t any rate w a s in
we apply a searching examination to the words which Jerusalem, and his disciples were also there, according to the
testimony of Mk., Mt., and the Gospel of Peter, at least. That
have been reported, it is precisely the most characteristic the present writer holds the statement as to the presence of the
of them that we shall find ourselves most irresistibly con- disciples a t Jerusalem to be unhistorical does not affect the argu-
strained to abandon. T h e request for food and the ment ; for the point is that Loofs regards precisely that state-
ment as historical. It is all the more necessary to ask: How
invitation to touch the wounds of the crucified Jesus does Loofs know that Mk. and Mt. were very defectively informed
(Lk. 2 4 3 9 4 1 Jn. 2027) are, as we have seen in 5 1 7 e , with regard to the appearances of the risen Jesus?
inadmissible. So also, as has been seen in 5 16e, the If this was indeed so, if Mk. and Mt. had to fall back
saying, I am not yet ascended unto the Father (2017). on their own powers of conjecture, where else were they
T h e power to forgive sins or to declare them unforgiven to look for appearances if not in Jerusalem where the
(2023) belongs to God alone, and cannot be handed grave, the women, and the disciples were? Thus the
over by Jesus to his disciples (see M INISTRY , 5 4). T h e tradition which induced them to place the appearances
doctrine that the passion of Jesus was necessary in virtue in Galilee must have been one of very great stability.
of a divine appointment is invariably brought forward B. Weiss (to pass over other names), in the interests of the
by Paul as the gospel that had been made manifest to Jerusalem tradition, doubts the historicity of the statement that
himself alone and must be laboriously maintained in the the women received from the angel the injunction to bid the
disciples proceed to Galilee, especially as this injunction is
face of its gainsayers ; how triumphantly would he not merely a reminiscence of Jesus words in Gethsemane, that after
have been able to meet them had he only heard the least he rose from the dead he would go before the disciples to Galilee
suggestion that the men of the primitive church had (Mk. 1428). So Leben JesrF) 2590 (ET 3 393). On p. 596 (ET
heard the same doctrine from the mouth of Jesus himself ~ w J )however,
, Weiss says that that command of the angel to the
women (to direct the disciples to go to Galilee) is only a reminis-
in the manner recorded in Lk. 2425-27 44-46 ! Once cence of the command of the same character which the risen
more, how could the original apostles have been able to Jesus himself lays upon Mary Magdalene, according to Mt. 25 91:
call themselves disciples of Jesus if, after having been (where, according to Weiss, only the second Mary is errone-
ously conjoined with Mary Magdalene rightly mentioned by the
sent out by him as missionaries to the Gentiles (Lk. eye-witness John [201f:11-IS]). Thus what Weiss holds to he
2 2 q J Mk. 16 16 and the canonical text of Mt. 28 rg), an error (the command to hid the disciples go to Galilee) must
they actually made it a stipulation at the council of be held (if the Jerusalem tradition is to he maintained) to have
got itself clothed in a very remarkable form : not only as an
Jerusalem (Gal. 29) that their activity was to be confined angelic word (Mt. 28 7 Mk. 16 7) hut also as a word of the risen
within the limits of Israel? As for the text of Mt. 28 19 Lord himself (Mt. 28 IO),in the account of an appearance that
on baptism and the trinitarian formula, see M INISTRY , is guaranteed by an eye-witness.
5 5 e, cp Hibb. /ourn.. Oct. 1902, pp. 102-108; and ( c ) In reality the error lies in quite another direction :
on Tn. 21 1 4 - 2 2 see above. 6 q c. in making Jesus appear at the sepulchre to the women,
i9. Galilee
the
An eq&lly important point is that
of the first appearances happened in
or Mary Magdalene, as the case may be. On the
account in Mt. see above (u). That of Jn., however,
the ~t Galilee. T h e most convincing reasons is open to just as serious objections, for its chief saying,
for this conclusion have already been ‘ I am not yet ascended unto the Father,’ rests on a
appearances’ summarised under G OSPELS (6 178 a). theory of the nature of the Holy Ghost that is peculiar
(a) In addition to what is said there special emchasis to the Fourth Gospel (I 16, c ) . If, however, Jn.’s
4063 4064
RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
is perhaps to be explained by the observation that the further considerations may be added.
recognition-scene becomes more dramatic when Jesus ( a ) T h e three points from which we have to start are
has no need to utter more than a single word : ' Mary.' the silence of Paul (as of the entire N T apart from
Cp, further, 5 2 5 , c. the Gospels ; see, especially, Acts 22g-32)-a silence
(d) In I Cor. 15 Paul mentions no place. The which would be wholly inexplicable were the story true
impr&able that James was in Jerusalem again so soon duction : lastly, if (aswe have seen) ;he first appearances
(see MINISTRY,§ 2 1 4 , or that he should have ex- of Jesus were in Galilee, the tidings of them must have
perienced the appearance of the risen Jesus at so late arrived at Jerusalem much too late to allow of examina-
a time that it might nevertheless be supposed that tion of the sepulchre with any satisfactory results. If a
James had already removed to Jerusalem (see below, body had been found it would have been too far advanced
[f
5 36 1). in decay to allow of identification ; if there were none,
The sealing and watching of the sepulchre (Mt. 2762-66 this could be accounted for very easily without postulat-
284 11-15) is now very generally given up even by those ing a resurrection.
20. watch at scholars who still hold by the resurrec- (6) T h e altempt to explain the evangelical reports
sepulchre tion narratives as a whole. ( u ) A s without assuming a resurrection is, however, the line
unhistorical. already pointed out above (5 n a ) , in taken by very many theologians also who hold by what
Alk. it is not only, as in Lk. and Jn.. is said as to the empty sepulchre and yet assume no
absent: it is absolutely excluded by the women's miracle. In the first place they postulate a removal of
question: they have no apprehensions about the the body by persons whose action had no connection
watch, only about the stone. ( 6 ) Again, it is ex- with the question of a resurrection.
ceedingly improbable that the Jews remembered any On account of the approach of the Sabbath (they hold) the
prophecy of Jesus that he was to rise again in three body had in any case to he laid in some grave or other, even
days (Mt. 27 63). According to the Gospels Jesus made perhaps without leave asked of the owner. I t was therefore,
necessary that it should be.removed afterwards t o .'more suit-
prophecies of the kind only to the innermost circle of able place: or the owner himself may have removed it. A
his disciples (Mk. 827 31 93oJ 1032-34 and 11). Indeed reminiscence of this is even discovered in Jn. 20 15. Or, if the
in Mk. and Lk. not even the women remember the sepulchre belonged to Jose h of Arimathsa, even he may not
have desired to have the bo$ of a stranger permanently occupy-
prophecy, otherwise they would not have set out to ing a place in the sepulchre of his family. On all these assump'
anoint the body. (c) Again, the explanation which the tions what strikes one is the promptitude with which the
high priests and elders suggest, according to Mt. 2813, transference must have been made. T o do so on the Sabbath
is untenable ; for if the soldiers w'ere asleep at the time before sundown was unlawful : yet very early next morning the
transference had already been effected (according to hlt. even
they could not testify that the disciples stole the body. immediately after the sundown which marked the close of the
( d ) Not less nnlikely is the supposition that the Jewish Sabbath ; see, however, 5 z d ) .
authorities actually believed the account of the soldiers (c) Others suggest that the enemies of the Christians
regarding the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Surely had removed the body of Jesus in order that it might
the consequence must have been, as with Paul at a later not receive the veneration of his followers. T h e sur-
date, their conversion to the faith of Jesus. If, on the prising thing in this would be, not so much that such a
other hand, they remained unmoved, they must also policy would have given the greatest possible, though
have believed that. however perplexing it might at first unintentional, impetus to such veneration, as rather this,
sight appear, the affair was capable of explanation other- that such action would presuppose a disposition to
wise than by the resurrection of Jesus, and must have worship the dead body for which it would be difficult to
moved Pilate to institute a strict inquiry into the conduct find a precedent among the Jews, for whom any contact
of the soldiers, rather than have sought to bribe the with a corpse meant defilement.
soldiers. ( e ) Above all, the soldiers coiild not have (d)For a long time the favourite view was that the
accepted a bribe, least of all if they had nothing better to disciples themselves actually had done what, according
say by way of ostensible defence than that they had fallen to Mt. 2764, the Jewish authorities were apprehensive
asleep. For this the penalty was death. According to they might do, and, according to 28 13 1 5 , imputed to
Acts 1 2 19 we actually find Agrippa I. putting to death the them falsely, namely, that they had stolen the body in
soldiers who had allowed Peter to escape from prison, order that they might afterwards proclaim that Jesus
and this is conclusive as to the nature of military respon- had risen.
sibilities, even if in point of fact the liberation of Peter was Renan (Ajbtrcs, 4 2 6 , ET @A),without expressly stating
brought about through no fault of his keepers (cp SIMON this purpose of the disciples, is inclined to attribute a share in the
removal of the body to Mary Magdalene (whose predisposition
PETER, 5 3, e ) . Ronian soldiers knew only too well the to mental malady [Lk.8 21 he accentuates), because only a
strictness with which discipline was administered, and woman's hand would have left the clothes in such order as is
the promise of the Jewish authorities to obtain immunity described in Jn. 207. That a theft of this kind would have had
for them from Pilate, if needful (Mt. 2 8 1 4 ) , would have the effect of convincing Fainsayers of the resurrection of Jesus
is not very easy to believe. On the other hand, it could in
made no impression on them. ( f j TF best criticism certain circumstances have made some impression on followen
on this whole feature of the narrative is the simple fact of Jesus.
that the Gospel of Peter, which unquestionably is later T h e question forces itself, however : Who was there
than Mt., avoids it altogether and concludes quite differ- to set the plan on foot? T h e disciples were utterly
ently (above, § j a ) . cast down ; to all probable seeming, in fact, they were
That Jesus was buried in a usual way, not-as is con- not even in Jerusalem at all (G OSPELS , 5 138 u). T h e
4065 4066
RESURRECTION- A N D ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
theory thus breaks down at the outset, and it seems actually had happened precisely three days after death
superfluous to ask whether the disciples would have could hardly have been held very firmly. As, however,
ventured to act in a sense contrary to the ordinance of we find it in point of fact held with equal firmness by
God who had suffered their master to die. Paul ( I Cor. 1 5 4 ) and by the evangelists, the balance of
( e ) W e mention, lastly, yet another theory, which is es favours the view that the first appearances
most clearly a mere refuge of despair- the theory, happened on the same day or only a little later.
namely, that the earthquake (mentioned only in Mt. With this it fits in very well if we suppose that the
25 2 ) opened a chasm immediately under the sepulchre, disciples shortly after the arrest of Jesus, and Peter
into which the body of Jesus disappeared. shortly after his denial, had already set out for Galilee,
Not only this, however, but also all the other hypo- so that they might arrive there on the third day (cp Jos.
theses mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, become 2
‘2
. 52, 269). This is, moreover, the reason why the
superfluous on the adoption of the view that the state- Gospel of Peter, in spite of all appearance, has no prob-
ments about the empty sepulchre are uuhistorical. ability in its favour if it really means to convey that the
-4s soon as his approaching death came to be foreseen disciples did not set out on their return journey to
by Jesus, he must have looked forward also to its annul- Galilee until the eighth or rather the ninth day after the
22. The third ment, unless, indeed, he at the same death of Jesus, and that thus at least eleven days
time had abandoned the belief that he elapsed before the first appearance of the risen Jesus
day* was the Messiah ordained by God to was experienced (see above, 5 e ) .
establish the divine kingdom upon earth. (u) As is ( e ) According to the Gospels Jesus remained under
said elsewhere (G OSPELS , 5 145 [f]), it is not probable the power of death not for about seventy-two hours but
that Jesus foretold simply his resurrection ; that took only for somewhere between twenty-six and thirty-six
him into heaven, whereas the work of the Messiah lay horns. These, however, in fact, according to Jewish
upon earth. T h e most important prediction accord- reckoning, are distributed between Friday, Saturday,
ingly was that of his coming again from heaven. T h e and Sunday. In two of the OT passages referred to
time fixed by him is variously stated in the Gospels as above-2 K. 20 5 and Hos 6 z-we read not ‘ after three
being at the end of the then living generation (Mt. days,’ but ‘on the third day.’ Thus the Gospel tradi-
1627f:), after a probably shorter interval ( 1 0 ~ 3 )and ~ tion literally satisfies the expression.
in the immediate future (dr’& p n , Mt. 2 6 6 4 ) . T h e It must have appeared fitting that the rising of Jesus should
most certain conclusion that can be deduced from this occur at as early a moment as possible after the third day had
begun. From the same sense of fitness the visit of the women
variation clearly is that Jesus never gave any precise once it was accepted as a fact, was naturally assigned to th;
date, and this for the reason that he himself (see Mk. early morning hours. Where Mk. has ‘after three days’ (per;
133z=Mt. 2 4 3 6 ) did not know it : yet it is also very 7p.k $ p C p a ~; 831 9 31 lO34), the parallel passages consistently
have ‘on the third d a y ’ ( * ~ p i +‘pp:
v M t . 1 6 ~ 11723 2019
possible that he used the expression ‘ i n ’ or ‘after’ Lk.9 22 18 33 as also 24 7 46, cp also 24 21 Acts 10 40). The latter
‘ three days’ as a conventional designation for a very expression in Mt. and Lk. may possibly be dependent on the
short interval ( L k . 1 3 3 2 Mk. 1458 1 5 2 9 and parallels, on account of the course of events as given by themselves, and thus
which cp M INISTRY , 2 u). Mk.’s phrase might seem to have been the original one. Yet we
must not imagine that the two hrases were for the evaneelists
(6) As soon as the question came to be one not of his really incompatible. Matthew I%mselfsays in one place (27 63$)
coming again from heaven, but of his rising again from that Jesus foretold his resurrection ‘after three days’ ( p e d
the dead, the expression ‘after three days,’ in itself a Tpcis + ~ Q Q s )and re resents the ews as basing upon this their
petition to Pilate tzat the s e p d h r e may be guarded ‘till the
very indefinite one, came to have a more exact meaning. third day’ (&os i s 7 p h p $p+as). Were this to be taken
T h e Jewish belief was that the soul lingered for three literally it would have no sense, for in that case no watch would
days only, near the body it had left, in the hope of have been asked for precisely the fourth day, which was the
returning to it ; after that the body became so changed critical one. From this it follows also that we are not compelled
to regard Mt. 12 40 (see above, c) as genuine for the reason that
that a reanimation was no longer possible (see J O H N , according to the report in the Gospels, the time of the fulfilmen;
SON OF Z EBEDEE , § l o a ; and Edersheim, Lzye and was shorter than that appointed in Jesus’ prophecy. Jii. 2 19-21
Times of Jesus, 2 3 2 4 5 ) . I t was only natural that in says : i v ~ p i d r v$p&pmc.
thinking of the resurrection of Jesus this limit should b e As for the number of the appearances, Paul knows of
kept in mind (Mk. 8 3 1 9 3 1 1 0 3 4 and : Lk. 2 4 7 2 1 46). more than we find in any one Gospel-viz., . five, over
If it is somewhat difficult to believe that Jesus uttered and above that made to himself.
these prophecies so early (especially in connection with (u) I t is not possible, however, to identify each of
Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi ; see G OSPELS , even the few Gospel accounts with one of Paul’s.
5 145e), and with such exactitude of detail, it must Let one example suffice in illustration of the kind of violence
in dealing with texts required in order to effect identifications.
nevertheless be recognised that he may very well, at Resch (TUv. 4421-426 X . 2381-389, x. 3 768-
one time or another, have expressed himself in some 23. Number Of 782 7 p - 8 1 4 824-827) ideAtifies the appearance
such sense. appearances. to Peter with that to the unnamed disciple
at Emmaus (see above, 5 z q ) , that to the
(6) T h e OT texts that have special relevance in this
Twelve with Lk.24 36-49 and Jn. 20 19-24 (above, $ z r), fhat t:
connection are 2 K. 2 0 5 and Hos. 62 (in both of which the Five Hundred with Lk.24 so$ where, nevertheless, them
the interval of three days is brought into connection ( ~ 6 ~ 0 6 sdenotes
) precisely the same‘persons as we find in 2433 36.
with a revivification, if not after death, at least after a That to James he identifies with that to Thomas and the other
disciples in Jn. 20 26-29. This James he holds to he identical with
sickness or time of weakness) : and Jonah 21 [117] also James the son of A l p h u s , who may (Resch says) have been
-the three days’ sojourn of the prophet in the belly of named Thomas-ie., twin-because his brother Judas of James
the whale-is in Mt. 1240, albeit in a very inappropriate is called Twin in Syriac tradition (Lips. dgokr. Ag.-Gesch.
i. 20 227, ii. 2 154 1 7 3 s ) . Finally, the appearance to ‘all the
and interrupting way (see G OSPELS, 8 1 4 0 a ) , inter- apostles’ is, according to Resch, that mentioned in Mt. 28 16-20
preted with reference to the period during which Jesus and Acts14-12.
was to remain in the grave. Paul expressly refers to (a) If one addresses oneself to the problems with-
the Scriptures in I Cor. 1 5 4 . A forsaking ‘for a small out harmonistic prepossessions, the safest criteria for
moment ’ is spoken of also in Is. 5 4 7 . identifying a n event of which there are two accounts
( d ) In this way it became possible for the resurrection will be the presence of characteristic details and (next
of Jesus, if expected at all, to be expected exactly after in importance) exact time- data. Unfortunately Paul
three days. T h e expectation, however, would hardly supplies us with no details, and dates are gained only
have had any result if those who had expected had not indirectly, so far as they can be deduced from the order
also had the consciousness of having seen him. In in which he mentions the events. T h e number of persons
itself considered it was not absolutely imperative that said to have been involved in a historical event is a
the first appearances should coincide with the precise secure criterion of its identity only if the number is
time of the expected resurrection. But if they had small. As soon as it becomes considerable, an error
occurred much later the belief that the resurrection within moderate limits is not wholly inconceivable.
4067 4058
RESURRECTION- A N D ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
(c) On these principles the only identification that alongside of the others would be too devoid of
admits of being made without question is that of the colour.
appearance to Peter in I Cor. 155 with the appearance To this want of interest in mere visual appearances
mentioned in Lk. 24 34. Next in Paul's account comes of the risen Jesus we can add, however, in the case of the
an appearance to the Twelve. A similar appearance is evangelists a positive interest, that of
24. Iduence
recorded by Mt. as the only one he knows. In Lk. the serving definite purposes by their narra-
only appearance to the Eleven (with others) is in 2433 of tendency tives. ( u ) It makes for confirmation
36-51 ; Jn. 20 19-24 contains the first appearance to ten on Gospels. of what has been laid down in preceding
apostles ; but we must identify the two on account of sections ($5 17-22)as to the elements in the a&ounts 07
their exactly similar date ( 5 z Y ) . C p also the almost the resurrection which alone can be recognised as histori-
identical words in Lk.2436, 'stood in the midst of cal, if we are in a position to show that everything in the
them ' (Purl)dv pduy ahgu) and Jn. 20 19, ' stood in the accounts which goes beyond such indubitably historical
midst ' (?UT EIP ~b pPuov). T h e diversity of the special elements is a product of tendencies ahich by an inherent
features mentioned by Lk. and Jn. may be ignored all necessity could not fail to lead to a shaping of the
the more readily if we find ourselves able to regard them accounts in the form in which they now lie before us,
merely as unhistorical embellishments. Both date even where there is no substratum of actual fact. In so
(evening of the resurrection day), however, and place far as these tendencies give us the right to pronounce
(Jerusalem) are quite irreconcilable ,with those in Mt. unhistorical everything that can be explained by
Nevertheless it will remain open to us to recognise as their means, in the absence of sufficient testimony to
kernel common to all three accounts that after the historical fact, they may be appropriately considered
appearance to Peter there was another to the Eleven. now in the course of the investigation as to objective
Here also belongs the second fragment of the Gospel facts in the resurrection-narratives on which we are at
of the Hebrews (above, f 4c). This, however, is the present engaged. I t will appear that at all points the
only one of Reschs identifications that can stand reference to tendencies supplies an adequate explanation
scrutiny, and even so Mt. must be left out. of all the statemews which we have been unable to
( d ) The appearance to the 500 has no parallels (the accept as historical.
proposed parallel referred to in f 116 cannot be (6) .As regards the nature of these tendencies :-some
accepted), that to James only in the Gospel of the are directly apologetical, having for their object to
Hebrews (above, 5 4 n , 6). As parallel to that to ' a l l preclude the possibility of certain definite objections
the apostles' on the other hand we must not adduce against the actuality of the resurrection. Others are
Acts 14-12. T h e event related there is. in the intention apologetical indirectly, their aim being to round off the
of the author, not the sequel to the only appearance in picture by supplying gaps so that no questions may
the Third Gospel (2433 36-51) to about the same number remain open. Lastly, some have in view the needs of
of persons ; it aims at correcting that part (2444-51) of the church itself, tracing back, as they do, to the risen
the earlier narrative which ends with the Ascension. Jesus certain instructions which were not found in the
Jn. 2i)z6-q admits of being cited in this connection reports of the period of his earthly ministry ( 5 z8),or
merely as being the only repetition to be met with in seeking to compensate for the want of that direct assur-
any gospel, of an appearance to a company of disciples ance of the continued life of Jesus which later genera-
approximating this number. Since, however, this com- tions were no longer able to command (§ 29).
pany is in Jn. supplemented only by Thomas and in (c) That the evangelical narratives as a whole are in
Paul by quite different persons. we have no assurance many ways influenced by tendency has been shown in
that even so much as a reminiscence of one and the G OSPELS , 55 108-114and J OHN , SON OF ZEBEDEE, $5
same occurrence underlies the two accounts. On the 17, 20 c, 23, 35 h, and elsewhere. How close at hand
other hand, in Paul the appearance of the risen Jesus apologetic interests were where the story of the resurrec-
at the sepulchre to the two Marys (Mt.), or to Mary tion was concerned is seen even in the fact that the
Magdalene alone (Jn. ), is unmentioned, as also that to entire statement of Paul is made with an apologetic
the two disciples at Emmaus and that reported in Jn. 21, view-only, in his case there is no justification for the
which has some resemblance to what we find in the conjecture that the contents of his statement were
Gospel of Peter (above, $ 5 d). altered by this consideration ($$ IO/ ). In the Gospels,
( e ) It has already been shown at some length ($5 on the other hand, we have at least one point in which
15, 1 8 c ) that Paul would certainly not have omitted this is particularly clear, and recognised even by very
to mention at least the appearances at the sepulchre conservative theologians.
and at Emmaus had he been aware of them. To meet I n Mt. 2815 it is expressly said that the report of the theft of
this difficulty, and establish the priority of the Gospel the hody by the disciples was current amonq the Jews in the
writer's time. The writer traces it back to the false testimony
narratives to Paul, the counter question has been asked : of the guard at the sepulchre procured by bribery on the part of
How could the evangelists possibly have allowed so the Jewish authorities. If we find ourselves unable to regard
much that is found in Pan1 to escape them, if they had this bribery, or indeed any part of the story as to the watch set
been acquainted with his narrative or even with the over the sepulchre, as historical, we are shut up to supposing
that the allegations arose from the desire (or tendency) to make
tradition which underlies i t ? This question, however, the story of the theft of the body by the disciples seem untenable.
is easily answered. For a writer who could report a n ( d ) It must at the same time be expressly emphasised
instance in which Jesus had partaken of food (Lk. ), or that we are by no means compelled to think of this
in which his wounds had been touched (Lk., Jn.), or tendency as operative in such a manner that an author
who could speak of the empty sepulchre as all four would produce from his own brain a quite new narrative
evangelists do, or of appearances of the risen Jesus close in the apologetic direction. Precisely the same result
to the sepulchre (Mt., Jn.)-for such a writer and for - namely, the complete unhistoricity and the ' tendency'
his readers an accumulation of instances in which Jesus character of a narrative- merges if we assume that the
had merely been seen no longer possessed any very narrative has grown up only bit by bit, by the co-
great interest; and a case even in which he had operation of several, and has reached its present form
appeared to five hundred brethren at once would, at under the influence of naive and artless presuppositions
the time when the Gospels were written, hardly have and pardonable misunderstandings, in some such manner
been considered so important as an appearance to the as we have sought to render probable elsewhere for
apostles, whose place in the reverence of the faithful n series of narratives found in the Fourth Gospel (see
had already come to he very exalted (see M INISTRY, J OHN . S O N OF ZEBEDEE, f 35, a - f ) . A special reason
$ 34). Even the instance in which' Jesus had been for making the same attempt in the case of the resurrec-
merely seen (though) by Peter is only touched on by tion is found in the character of the accounts themselves.
Lk. (2434), not described, plainly because the narrative If they were pure inventions it would be very difficult to
130 a 4069 4070
RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
understand why, for example, of the disciples at be hard to say why he does not assign the appearance of
Emmaus one is nameless, and of those in Jn. 21 two Jesus a t the sepulchre to Peter and the beloved disciple,
are unnamed, or why the appearances to Peter as being both of whom nevertheless he represents as examining
the first, or that to the 500 as being the most imposing, the sepulchre. Since he names only a woman as re-
should not have received detailed adornment. Cp, ceiving the appearance he shows himself bound by the
further, $5 19c, 25” representation which we now find in Mt., in spite of all
(e) To help us t o realise how such a narrative could the comparative freedom with which he departs from it.
come into existence by successive steps, let us take the So also the Coptic account, and the Diduskdiia (above,
example referred to above-that of the watch set on §§ 6, 7 8).
the sepulchre. ( d ) In all the reports hitherto mentioned, however,
A Christian who found himself confronted for the first time Jesus was seen only after, not during, his resurrection.
with the assertion that the disciples had stolen the body of T h e possibility of filling u p this blank was offered by
Jesus naturally opposed it to the utmost. As, however at the the story of the guard a t the sepulchre, which on its
same time (as we must su pose if we believe the n a r r k v e of own merits has already been discussed (above, 5 24 e).
Mt. to he unhistorical) he r)ouud’himself uuahle to adduce any
counter-evidence, he would he constrained to have recourse to It could in point of fact fill the blank in a n (apologeti-
conjectures and to say somtthing like this : ‘ The Jews we may cally) extremely effective way, inasmuch a s it was by
he quite cktain, s a w to the watching of the sepulchie ; they unbelievers that the actual fact of the resurrection was
could very well have kno,wn that Jesus had predicted his rising
again for the third day. A somewhat careless Christian by- observed.
stander received the impression that in these suggestions what The timidity which restrained the other writers from touching
he was Iihtening to was not mere conjecture but statement of upon this incident continued to be still operative with Mt. in so
fact, and circulated it among his friends as such ; that it was far that he does not say that the person of Jesus was actually
unhesitatingly believed by Christians is not astonishing. Next, seen and adds that the watchers became as dead men (284).
let us suppose, another propounded the question : Did then the The’Gospel of Peter has completely overcome this timidity ; the
men of the guard actually see what happened at the resurrection watchers observe accurately each of the successive phases of the
of Jesus? Again the answer could only he a conjecture ; but resurrection and seeJesus himselfas he emerges from the tomb.
just as certainly it must have run as follows : ‘ Unquestionably ; The codex Bohbiensis (above, 5 7 a)relates this simply as a fact
for they were continuouklyat the sepulchre, and Roman soldiers without mention of the witnesses. The statement of the Gospel
never sleep on guard. As, further, at the time we are at of the Hebrews-that Jesus gave the linen shroud to the servant
present supposing, the statement that the women had found the of the high-priest-stands upon the same plane.
stone rolled away had long heen current conjecture as to what As long a s there was still current knowledge that the
the guards had observed before t h e arrival of the women could first appearances of the risen Jesus were in Galilee, the
hardly have been other than to the effect that there had been an 28, ( b ) On fact could be reconciled with the presence
earthquake and that an angel had come down from heaven and
rolled away the stone. That this conjecture also should have question: of the disciples in Jerusalem on the
heeu taken up as a statement of fact is easy to suppose. Oalilee o~ morning of the resurrection only ( a ) on
Lastly, a listener perhaps would ask : ‘Why then did not the Jerusalem. the assumption that they were then
soldiers tell what had happened, and why have we been left in
ignorance of this until n o w ? ’ Oncemore the answer-aconjec- directed to go to Galilee. The natural
ture merely, yet ready to he accepted as a fact-was at hand : media for conveying such a communication miist have
The Jewish authorities will doubtless have bribed them to seemed to be the angels a t the sepulchre in the first
suppress the truth and to spread instead of it the rumour that
the disciples had stolen the body. instance, and after them the women. So Mk. and
Mt. So far as Mt. is concerned this direction to be
Without pursuing this line of explanation further in given to the disciples was perhaps the reason, o r a
details, let us now endeavour to see what were the reason in addition to that suggested in 5 z d, why the
2B.
of conscious or unconstious apologetic women should be made t o go to the grave so early as
tendency. ( a ) tendencies a t work which could have on the evening ending the Sabbath, so that the disciples
on accounis of given rise t o the unhistorical elements might still in the course of the night have time t o set
sepulchre. in the gospel narratives. ( u ) If Jesus out and if possible obtain a sight of Jesus within three
was risen. his mave must have been days after his crucifixion.
empty. If this was disputed, %e Christians asserted (6) Yet such a combination as this was altogether
it as a fact, and that with the very best intention of too strange. W h y should Jesus not have appeared
affirming what was true. Therefore, no hesitation was forthwith in Jerusalem to the disciples ? Accordingly
felt in further declaring that (according to all reasonable Lk. and Jn. simply suppressed the direction to go to
conjecture! the women who had witnessed Jesus’ death Galilee, finding themselves unable to accept it, and
had wished to anoint his body and thus had come t o transferred the appearances t o Jerusalem. Or, it was
know of the emptiness of the grave. In the fact that not our canonical evangelists who did both things a t
according t o h4k. and Mt. this was not alleged regard- one and the same time, but there had sprung up,
ing the male disciples we can see still a true recollection irrespective of Mk. and Mt., the feeling that Jesus
that those disciples were by that time no longer in must in any case have already appeared t o the disciples
Jerusalem (see G OSPELS, 5 138 Q ) ; this feature was in Jerusalem ; it presented itself t o Lk. and Jn. with a
not first added by our canonical evangelists Mk. and certain degree of authority, and these writers had not
Mt.. for they already presuppose the presence of the now any occasion t o invent but simply to choose what
disciples in Jerusalem. seemed to them the more probable representation, a n d
(6) W h y then should not these disciples themselves then, when in the preparation of their respective books
have gone to the sepulchre ? In an earlier phase of the they reached the order to go to Galilee, merely to pass
narratives it was, no doubt, borne in mind that these over it or get round it (12 d ) , as no longer compatible
disciples, if in Jerusalem a t all, had to remain in con- with the new view.
cealment, and even a writing so late a s the Gospel of As against all assurances that the risen Jesus had
Peter (26) knew that very well. Lk., however (24 q ) , been seen, it was always possible to raise the objec-
ignores it. His statement that ‘certain ’ ( T L Y P S ) disciples tion that what was seen had been merely
went to the sepulchre is still very vague. But Jn. (c) On ‘ a vision ’ (@dvTaupa). One good way
sensible
forthwith lays hold of it and definitely names Peter and of meeting this objection was ( u ) the
the beloved disciple, and reports upon their rivalry in a reality of assurance
appearances. that the eye - witnesses had
manner that betrays a conscious tendency much more assured themselves of the contrary with
strongly than most of the other narratives (cp SIMON all the more care and circumspection because they them-
P ETER, 5 22/13. ‘selves had a t first shared this doubt. It is thus that
(c) T h e most obvious conjecture must necessarily we are to explain the care with which the disbelief of
have been that Jesus was seen immediately at the the disciples is accentuated.
sepulchre itself. Here also may be distinguished two So in Mt. 28 17 (‘hut some doubted,’ oi 62 Z6lurauau)l Lk.
stages. T h e earlier is the account of Mt. ; Jn. recasts 1 Should Brandt (355.357) he right in his conjecture that these
it (5 19c). If Jn. had been a free inventor it would three words are a gloss, because, in the words immediately
4071 4072
RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
24 x i 37 41-in vu. 37 41 we have a doubt that is hardly intelli- taken for granted that Jesus had still remained upon
gible in the present connection, since all those present have earth and had dealings with his disciples in every respect
already in v. 34 confessed their faith in the resurrection of Jesus
{an unevenness that would he removed by the hypothesis of as a man. In the earliest stage of this way of represent-
Brandt spoken of in $ 16 6)-also with special emphasis in Jn. ing matters, such a condition of things was held to have
20 25 Mk. I6 I I 1 3 3 and in the Coptic account. The counter- lasted for only one d a y ; but afterwards the time was
part, a specially strong faith, is shown by James, in the Gospel extended to forty days (§ 16 a , b ) .
of the Hebrews, in his oath that he would fast until Jesus had
risen again. That this second view was not met with in tradition from the
beginning hut owes its existence to a transfornlation of the
( B ) If then it was held important to be able to over- earlier vi&, is absolutely certain unless we assign Acts to
come doubts, it was always possible to produce some im- another than the author at the Third Gospel. The cause of the
pression if assurance could be given that Jesus had been transformation is very apparent ; the disciples were, during all
the lifetime of J e y very weakly and a t the end still needed
not only seen but also heard. As to the substance of much instruction concerning the’kingdom of God’ ( m p i n j s
whnt he said something will be found in the next section @arrrAeiar TOG 0eoG : Acts 13).
(8 28) ; for the present, all that comes into consideration (f) T h e idea of a continuous presence of Jesus upon
is the simple fact of speech. For narrators who had earth, if only for a single day, necessarily carried with
never themselves witnessed a n appearance of Jesus it it the consequence that this condition terminated in an
was an exceedingly natural thing to assume that Jesus ascension.
had been not only seen but also heard, and it was No one needed to invent the idea; every account of eye-
equally easy for their hearers to take their conjecture witnesses had closed with the more or less definite statement
that Jesus had again disappeared, and disappeared into heaven
for fact. At the same time, since it was not impossible ($174, At the same time the tendency to adorn a plain story
also to hear words, as Paul reports himself to have done shows itself at work with sufficient clearness if we compare the
( z Cor. 1 2 4 ) , without the experience being more than an simple ‘he parted from them and was carried up into heaven’
ecstasy, some yet stronger proof of objectivity still re- (&“T &’ air& rdr dvc+Cpmo e k T ~ oQpav6v)
V of Lk. 24 57, or
even Mk. 16x9 with the circumstantial account given in Acts
mained necessary. 1 p 1 1 . The driginal limitation of the period during which
[fl
( c ) I n § 17 stress has already been laid on the appearances of Jesus occurred to a single day will have co-
s
o erated along with the other causes mentioned in 23 e to bring
fact that in the bodily figure of Jesus which was seen the aBout the exclusion by Lk. of the appearance to the 500, that to
marks of the wounds were also included; nay more, James, and that to ‘ all the apostles.’
that spectators even perhaps believed themselves t o see T h e belief once created that Jesus in his various
that he was showing them. Still, a real guarantee of auuearances had also suoken. the door lav wide ouen
on
_ 1
the actuality of his return t o this earth had not been 28. for ali kinds of conjectuGe as to what
received until the wounds had been touched. ( u ) I n this region the
Whilst, however, there is between such an ‘actual’seeing and wordsreported. he mosthad said. coniecture was that lesus
obvious
actual touching adistinction so great that it can hardly be exag-
gerated it is one which is capable of being almost entirely over- uttered words leading n p to, or explaining, the alleged
looked b y people who neither themselves had witnessed an facts which we have already considered.
appearance of Jesus nor were familiar with the principles of Thns it fits the situation equally that in Mt. 28 I O Jesus re-
psychology; and thus it would not he im osrible for them, peats to the women the injunction of the angels to bid the
without any consciousness of inaccuracy stil? less of deliberate disciples repair to Galilee, and that in Lk. 24 49 and Acts 1 4
pqrversion of the truth, t o change the) statement which eye. on the other hand, he bids them remain in Jerusalem, whilst :i
witnesses had actually made as to having seen the wounds into Jn. 20 17 he merely sends them word that he is ascending to
the different statement that Jesus had invited the disciples to heaven, and for this reason does not suffer Mary Magdalene to
touch them. So Lk. 2439 Jn. 20 27 : also the Coptic account and touch him. I t is still in accordance with the same principle
the second fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews (5 4 c), in the that he is represented as at a later date making the request that
last-cited case with the express addition that the disciples ayailed his disciples should touch him and asking the disciples whether
themselves of the invitation. I n a naive way a touching of they have anything to eat (B zit, &.
Jesus by the women is mentioned in Mt. 289.
(6) Other words of Jesus apply to situations which we
( d ) Lk. goes yet another step further in his statement
have not yet discussed. Thus, in Lk. 2438 and in the
(2142f )that Jesus asked for food, and partook of it in Dia‘uskaZzu ( 5 76), as well as in the speech to James
the presence of the disciples. This is in a. 41 expressly in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the purpose is to prepare
characterised as a still stronger proof of the reality of the way for a joyful frame of heart and mind. T h e
his resurrection than the fact that he had been touched. words in Jn. 2019 26, ‘ Peace be unto you,’ a s also those
Here, accordingly, the popular conceptions as to the to Saul, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou m e ? ’ (Acts
nature of the resurrection body underlying Mk. 614-16, 9 4 , etc.), are singularly well chosen.
which in the earliest period were not applied to Jesus (c) W h a t must have presented itself as the main
(I 17 e ) , gain influence. Jn. does not follow Lk. in object must have been that of instructing the disciples,
t h i s ; he declines to represent the risen Jesus in so hefore the final departure of Jesus, in everything which
strongly and frankly sensuous a manner.’ Yet even
was still necessary for their future tasks.
Lk.’s representation is surpassed by the extra-canonical
To this category of instruction belongs the repeated insistence
addition to L k . 2 1 4 3 (I 7 c) that Jesus gave to his upon the uncertainty of the time of the end of the world (Acts
disciples the remainder of the food of which he had been 1 7 : cp Mk. 13 32), but very specially as new matter, the proof
partaking. An eating in their presence here becomes an that the passion of Jesus had been abpoinred by God and fore-
eating with them, which according to Acts 1 0 4 1 was, in told by the prophets (Lk. 2425-27 44-46). If Jesus in this
manner established a correct understanding of events that were
fact, continually happening.2 past i t was natural indeed inevitable to think that, over and
( e ) I t becomes now quite easy t o understand how, abo& this he had biven all the new’directions for the future
once narrators had ceased to shrink from such repre- which we,: in point of fact followed in the church and therefore
could not hut have proceeded from its founder. Thus (it was
sentations, the reporter passed over that particular touch held) it must necessarily have been Jesus who told the disciples
in the accounts actually proceeding from eye-witnesses that ‘all authority had been given unto him in heaven and on
according to which Jesus had vanished after each earth,’ and that he was with them alway even unto the end of
appearance, and how instead of this it was unsuspectipgly the world (Mt.2818 2 0 ) ; he it was whd must have instituted
the mission to the Gentiles (Rlt. 28 19f: Lk. 2447 Mk. 16 IS), as
also baptism (Mk. 16 16, and the canonical text of Mt. 28 19 :
hut cp $ 8 c), and he too it must have been who promised the
following Jesus passes over the doubt of these disciples without power of performing miracles (Mk. I6 17f:), yet also demanded
remark ;he insertion would still show that a reader of the a faith that believed without having seen (Jn. 20 q),-this in
oldest &iod found it fitting to presuppose doubtson the part of view of the fact that he knew of, and was aide to foretell, the
some of the disciples. outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Lk. 2449 Acts
1 The question in Jn. 21 5, quite on a level with Lk.2441 14,f 8), if he did not himself impart the Spirit as in Jn. 2022.
(‘aught to eat?’), has a quite different significance; in Jn.
Jesus does not intend to eat, but to rive them to eat. Neither (a’) This leads us to the significance which the words
also does Lk. 24 301: (the scene at Emmaus) imply a represen- of the risen Jesus have, especially for the apostles ; for
tation of Jesur a s eating. See 5 29 6 . it is only to them that in Jn. the Spirit is imparted, as
2 The rendering of avvaAq%+ovdr in E V w . of Acts 1 4 ‘ eat-
ing with them ’ is, however, very doubtful (EV ‘ beiiig assembled also the power to forgive or to retain sins (2OZ3)or,
together with them’). indeed, a formal mission of any kind (2021). W e find,
4073 4074
RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
further, that in the missionary precept the disciples in his disappearance when the two disciples recognised him
come first into account, just as in Acts (especially (Lk. 2431), at the Sea of Galilee in no one's asking him who he
was Un. 21 12).
26 16-18)it is Paul who does so. Jn. 21 15-23 has to do
entirely with fixing the relative rank in the regard of the 111. EXPLANATION OP THE FACTS.
church between Peter on the one hand and the beloved
disciple on the other ( 5 9 c ) ; similarly 203-10(cp S IMON T h e last problem still demanding solution, is how to
PETER, 226). Thegospel tradition has therefore made explain the only fact that has emerged in the course of
use of its accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in a very 30. Nature of our examination- the fact that Jesus
decided manner for the purpose of carrying back to was seen, as we read in I Cor. 155-8.
Jesus the high esteem in which the apostles were held ~ ~ Any attempted~ explanation o presupposes~ ~ ~
at a later time. a n insiEht into subjective experience
With other reasons (SQ 23 e 27 [f])the purpose just referred that perhaps can never- be completely attained. It
to may have co-operated to bring it about that the evangelists demands, therefore, the greatest caution. I t cannot,
recorded almost exclusively only appearances to apostles and however, be left unattempted.
pass over in silence those to the 500 and to James,-indeed, that ( Q ) T h e investigator who holds himself bound to
Mt. contents himself with recording no more than one appear-
ance altogether an appearance in which E. Weiss even discerns accept and make intelligible as literal fact everything
a free fusion 0; all that Mt. knew by tradition regarding the recorded in the resurrection narratives, even of the
appearances of Jesus. canonical gospels merely, cannot fulfil his task on any
At last, however, the emphasis that had been laid on other condition than that he assumes a revivification of
the literal historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus the buried body of Jesus to a new period of earthly life,
gave place to something different. ( u ) hardly less earthly than when Jesus was taken for Elijah
29* (e) On a However firmly established the resurrec- or the Baptist risen from the dead (Mk. 6 14-16 828 and [I,
tion might seem to be historically, however c p 3 11-13 Mt. 11 14). I t only remains to be stipulated
for lTnelOn Of little open to any shadow of doubt in the that he who does so shall fully realise that what he is
risen Jesus' minds of the faithful, its value for them assuming is a miracle in the fullest sense of the word.
was nevertheless small : it was nothing more than Many theologians are strangely wanting in clearness as
a n event of past time. What faith demands is some- to this. Even, however, after one has clearly nnder-
thing present, something now and always capable stood what he is accepting, it is impossible to stop here ;
of being experienced afresh. T h e demand for a faith for such a view does justice only to one side-the
that could believe without having seen (Jn. 2027 29 physical and sensuous-of the resurrection-narratives ;
I Pet. 1 8 ) was hard to satisfy. Thus there came to be not to the other, according to which Jesus was neverthe-
felt a need for such a turn being given to the resurrection- less exalted to heaven, a thing impossible for flesh and
narrative as should make the continued life of Jesus blood ( I Cor. 1550).
capable of being experienced anew at all times (Mt. 28 20 : (6) In order to do justice to this second side also,
' I am with you alway '), and thus the historical state- recourse is often had to the theory of a gradual sublima-
ments s to his long-past appearances- accounts which tion or spiritualisation of the resurrection-body of Jesus
had been elaborated with such care-in great measure -at first wholly material-whereby it was gradually
lost their importance. made fit for its ascension. Again, what has to be
(6) Towards this result Paul had already contributed. insisted on is that the miracle is not hereby diminished ;
T h e risen Christ is for him identical with the Holy on the contrary, to the original miracle of the revivifi-
Spirit (2 Cor. 317 Rom. 89-11,and often). T h e fourth cation of the material body is added a second- that of
evangelist followed him in this (5 16c; J OHN , SON OF the spiritualisation of the material body. T h e thing,
ZEBEDEE, 5 26 c). Therefore in the Fourth Gospel the however, is also quite inconceivable; how is one to
risen Jesus having ascended to heaven bestows the Holy represent to oneself the stages of the transition ?
Spirit already on the very day of the resurrection. A body which is already capable of making its way through
Only to the disciples, indeed, in 2022, but according to closed doors must surely have ceased to he tangible Un. 20 26x).
738f: expressly to all believers ; and therefore it is not Moreover such a view is in direct contradiction to what we find
in NT, n& only in I Cor. 15 50-53 hut also in the gospels ;.for
open to doubt that 167 13-15141828 1526, etc., are also the touching there referred to and (in Lk. 24 39-43) the eating
to be interpreted in the latter sense. As Holy Spirit happen precisely at the last appeurance of Jesus which is
Jesus is always present. immediately followed by the ascension ; and the precept not tn
touch is placed in Jn. (20 17) at an earlier point. So, also, we
(c) A somewhat more sensible substitute for vision of read that Jesus is immediately recognised in his later appear-
the risen Jesus is the observauce of the ordinance of the ances, but precisely in the earlier ones not (Lk. 24 I6 Jn. 20 14).
Supper. This is the true meaning of the deeply signifi- (c) If we decide to confine ourselves to the task of
cant narrative of the disciples at Emmaus (cp C LEOPAS). explaining what we take to be the simple fact according
The wish of Christianity-'abide with us'-did not admit of to I Cor. 15, we must not suffer ourselves to forget that
being fulfilled in a literal sense ; hut in every act of.communion Paul thinks of the future resurrection-body of man-
'he went in to abide with them:(Lk. 2429)). Not wlth fleshand
bones as in the case of the primitive disciples (2: 39), but ' in which he regards as heavenly and pneumatic--as con-
another form ' (6" &ipp Fop+$: Mk. 16 12); and whilst the result formed to the pattern of the resurrection-body of Jesus
of all that could he told about the empty,grave was 'him they (so I Cor. 1545-4g).I Jesus' body also, then, in his view
saw not,' he is now presently recopised in the breaking of the
bread' (Lk. 242430J34). I t is lain that the knowledge ninst have been heavenly and pneumatic ; and as Paul
ascribed to the two disciples, so skil&lly embodied in this nar- in I Cor. has not yet given u p the revivification of
rative, could not have been drawn by them from the events de- the buried body (5 156), he must have thought of the
scribed by Lk.even if they had literally happened to them on the pneumatic at;ributes possessed by it as having arisen
resurrection day ; it is naturally the product of a long growth,
and that too in Gentile-Christkn circles in which the corporeal through metamorphosis. such as, according t o I Cor.
element in Jesus was neither so familiar nor so important as in 1551-53,is to happen also to the bodies of those men
the primitive-a ostolical. I t is clearly a reminiscence of a and women who shall still be alive at the last day.
celebration of t i e Lord's Supper that we have also in Jn. 21 13
and in the giving of the bread to James in the Gospel of the According to what we have seen in 5 1 7 e the original
Hebrews. only in Jn. it has its prototype in the feeding of the apostles also agree in this. Thus the explanation of the
five thou&nd &th loaves and fishes (6 g r~ =21 g), which, how- facts which proceeds on the belief of the apostles that a
ever, in turn bears the most express marks of being but a clothing body of Jesus was really seen must think of that body a s
of the Supper (see J O H N S ON OF ZEBEDEE, $5 zoc, 23e).
The number ' seven' as a&ed to the disciples corresponds to heavenly and pneumatic; not, however, in such a sense
the number of baskets which in the second 'feeding' in the that it was given to Jesus at his resurrection as a new
Synoptists (Mk. 8 8 = Mt. 15 -7) were filled with the fragments
that remained over ' whilst Jin Jn. 6 13, in agreement with the I In 21. 49 the fntnreT' we shall hear ' (+opiuopcv)-is to he
first ' feeding ' in the' Synoptists (Mk. 643 = Mt. 14 zo= Lk. 9 17)~ read. An exhortation, let us bear' ( $ o p i u u p v ; SO Ti. WH),
twelve baskets are filled, correspondlng to the number 'twelve is meaningless, for the resurrection-body is obtained without
as applied to the disciples. The mysterious character of the our co-operation. The confusion of o and o with copyists is
presence of the risen Jesus at the Supper appears at Emmaus very common ; see Gal. 6 IO 12 I Jn. 5 20 Rom. 5 I 14 g, etc.
4075 4076
RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
body whilst the old body remained in the grave, but in course arid did not require to be made known by a
the sense that it came into existence through a change special revelation. But what is aimed at in putting
wrought on the buried body. On this explanation the forward this view is much rather to establish the
resurrection has as much an entirely miraculous char- complete difference between Jesus and all other men
acter as it has on either of the other two theories already which has been from the first claimed for him by the
considered. assertion of his resurrection, but yet to be able to
In order to escape so far as may be from miracle dispense with miracle. This can never succeed.
of the character described in the preceding section, If a really non-miraculous explanation is desired, then
31. Resurrec- and, generally, to be-rid of the question apart from subjective visions (of which more hereafter)
of the corporeity of the risen Jesus,
tion of the recourse is often had to the view that
nn -,--two possibilities present themselves.
JJ. MUY-
(ai T h e hypothesis that Jesus was only
spirit it was only the spirit of Tesus that rose miraculous
explanations apparently dead foiind many supporters
and appeared to his follow&s. Here opinion is divided (excluding in the days of rationalism, and it has
as to whether such a thing is possible without a miracle __:_:_-_, also been espoused bv a writer so modern
or not. Any one who holds appearances of the spirits of
the departed to be possible in the natural order will be That crucified persons taken down from tge cross while still
able to dispense with assuming a miracle here. T h e in life have been able to recover is testified by Herodotus (7 194)
and Josephus (Vit. 75 end, !j 420J). In a case of seeming
majority, however, maintain the negative. Moreover, death indeed it is hardly credible and to call to one's aid the
such persons declare that the appearances of Jesus to wonderful power of healing which' Jesus exercised on behalf of
his disciples differ considerably from the manner in other ersons is in this connection quite fantastic. More than
this : {ad Jesus presented himself merely as one who had all
which the spiritualism of the present day holds appear- but died on the cross his appearance would have produced the
ances of spirits to occnr. They find themselves com- impression of weakness and helplessness, not that of a conqueror
pelled accordingly, if it was merely the spirit of Jesus of death and the grave, which nevertheless was the character he
that was alive and manifested itself, to postulate a required to present if he was to inspire his followers to a world-
conquering faith. Finally, what could they say, if he neverthe-
miracle whereby it was made visible. less in the end died after all? To escape the force of this
It is to be observed, moreover, that this view-that guestion the assumption was that he had withdrawn himself
only the spirit lives on-is in no respect different from into solitude, perhaps into some cave in order that his death
might not become known. It is obvious that the theory of a
the doctrine of the immortality of the soul except in this, seeming death is not enough; it is necessary to assume also
that in the particular case in question the continuance various machinations, whether on the y t . o f J e s u s himself or on
of the life of the spirit begins only on the third day the part of his disciples, whether at t e time of his leaving the
after death. This, however, is a collocation of quite sepulchre or with a view to covering the worst signs of weak.
ness before he presented himself to larger circles of his followers.
heterogeneous ideas. T h e essence of the doctrine of In this aspect the present hypothesis approximates-
immortality lies in this, that the life of the soul is never ( a ) T h e hypothesis that, although Jesus did not
interrupted, and thus there can be no thought at all of recover, the disciples spread abroad, and found credence
revivification after remaining for a time in a state of for, the rumour that he was alive. Apart from all
death. Revivification can occur only in the case of a other difficulties, such a hypothesis is from the outset
subject that is capable of dying-in other words, in a untenable for two reasons : not only would the disciples
body. This is a Jewish idea, that of immortality is immediately after the death have been unable to
Greek. T h e latter is adopted in the Book of Wisdom, summon courage for so gigantic a task as the theory
and Paul comes near it in z Cor. 5 1-8 (5 15 6 ) ; for the implies, but also at a later date they would not have
original apostles it is from the outset excluded (5 17 e ) . had courage in persecution to surrender their lives for
It is discovered to be necessary, accordingly, to go a such a faith.
step farther. T h e belief that the risen Jesus actually Thus subjective visions are all that remain now to
3a. objective did appear is frankly given up. 54. Nature be dealt with. Let us endeavour first of
( u ) T h e disciples, we are told, saw all to determine their nature in general LO
visions' nothing real : neither the body of Jesus, Of subjec- far as this is practicable, without a too
clothed with earthly or heavenly attributes, nor the spirit tive minute discussion of the conditions implied
of Jesus whether in true spirit form or in some kind of in the N T narratives and statements.
acquired visibility. What they believed they saw was ( u ) In contradistinction from the so-called objective
in reality only a visionary image, without any real vision (see 5 32a),the image that is seen in the sub-
appearance of Jesus; but this visionary image was jective vision is a product of the mental condition of
produced in their souls immediately by God in order the seer. T h e presupposition is, accordingly, that he
that they might be assured that Jesus was risen. For is not only in a high degree of psychical excitement
this reason the vision is called objective. which is capable of producing in him the belief that he
(6) T h e belief is entertained that by this method of is seeing something which in point of fact has no
regarding the matter the assumption of a miracle is objective existence, but also that all the elements which
made superfluous; all that is postulated is merely a are requisite for the formation of a visionary image,
Divine act of revelation. Keim has invented for this whether it be views or ideas, are previously present in
view, which he also supports, the phrase: telegram his mind and have engaged its activities. That in these
from heaven. This act of revelation itself, however, is circumstances the seer should behold a n image for
nothing less than a miracle. Were it not miraculous which there is no corresponding reality, can be spoken
the visionary image of the risen Jesus in the minds of of as something abnormal only in so far as the occurrence
the disciples could only have its origin in their own is on the whole a rare one ; as soon as a high degree of
subjective condition. This is exactly what is denied mental excitement is given, the existence of visions is by
and must be denied; otherwise the disciples must be the laws of psychology just as intelligible and natnral
taken to have had their faith in the resurrection within as, in a lower degree of mental excitement, is the
themselves and needed no divine revelation of it. T h e occurrence of minor disturbances of sense perceptions,
subjective condition of the disciples must on this view such as the hearing of noises and the like.
be represented as one of the greatest prostration, which ( a ) T h e view that a subjective vision could never
could be changed into its opposite only by a revelation have led the disciples to the belief that Jesus was alive
really coming from God. because they were able to distinguish a vision from a
(c) It has to be remarked, further, that according to real experience is quite a mistake.' It is not in the
this view Jesus' continued existence must be regarded least necessary that we should raise the question whether
a s miraculous in the full sense. If the presupposition they were always able to d o so; let it be at once
were that his soul was immortal like the soul of any 1 On this point Beyschlag (Lc&e* /em 1422-440) is par-
other man, his continued life would be a matter of ticularly instructive.
4077 4.078
RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
assumed that they could. T h e distinction is not un- the latter case, in his view the thing seen becomes
known in the N T : see, for example, Acts129 : indeed invested with reality.
we may lay it down that 'was seen' (6987)with the Thus Beyschlag (as above, 4.32-435) is of opinion that Acts
single exception of Acts 7 26 always stands for another 169 does not make Paul believe that in reality a man of
kind of seeing than that of ordinary sense-perception Macedonia stood before him, nor 10 10-16make Peter think that
in reality a sheet containing real animals was let down from
(ex.,Lk.111 931 2243 Acts23 723035 917 1331 169 heaven-not only not in mundane actuality hut also not even in
2616 [I Tim. 316?] Rev. 1119 1213). Nay, this is our heavenly actuality: on the contrary in each case neither had
warrant for calling in visions to our aid in explaining taken in more than this, that God w i s seeking to give them to
understand something by means of sensible images. This way
the appearances of Jesus. All that we have gained by of looking a t matters is utterly inconsistent with the beliefs of
this concession, however, is merely that the seers dis- that time. If it is God who sends the Macedonian or the sheet
tinguished once and again the condition in which they containing the beasts, as a matter of course it is believed that
were : whether ecstatic or normal; it by no means these things are sent really (possessing of course not mundane
but heavenly actuality) ; for where it is presupposed that God
follows a s matter of course that they held the thing seen can if he chooses send them really, it would he quite unaccount-
in vision to be unreal, and only what they saw when able to believe that he has nevertheless not done so. That the
in their ordinary condition to be real. How otherwise sending is not done for its own sake merely, hut has for its
urpose to incite Paul or Peter to a particular course of action
could the very conception of such a thing as a n objec- indeed true ; hut this does not by any means divest the thin;
tive vision be possible ? which God has sent of its reality. Beyschlag makes it seem as
(c) On the contrary, it pertains precisely to the if this were so merely by a reference to Acts 12 9 : 'he knew not
that it wa,s try. which w a s done by the angel, hut thought he
subjective vision that the seer, if he is not a person saw a vision. It is correct to say that the same word (6papa)
thoroughly instructed in psychology and the natural is employed here as is used in l69f: 10 17 19 11 5, and that Peter
sciences, is compelled to hold what he sees in his vision regards this vision (Cpapa) as something unreal. Here however
for real as long as it does not bring before him some- the distinction drawn in a preceding paragraph (above c) falls
to he applied : that a Macedonian or a sheet containin; beasts
thing which to his conception is impossible. Wherein endowed with a heavenly corporeality could he sent by God
otherwise would consist the delusion, which nevertheless was regarded by Paul and by Peter respectively as thoroughly
every one knows to be connected with subjective vision, possible; on the other hand in 12 9 it is presupposed that the
liberation of Peter when it has 'not true hut a vision' would
if not in this, that the visionary seeks for the cause of have
what he has seen in the external world, not in his own . . been@ pregarded
'vision' by him as impossible. In like manner, if
a w s ) in Tobit 12 19 means something opposed to
mental condition? And indeed the visionaries of the reality, a mere appearance (+dvraupa), that meaning is secured
Bible had more extended powers than modern visionaries only by the antithesis in the sentence. The angel Raphael
who has accom anied Tobias, says he:e by way of after!
have for taking a visionary image as an objective explanation of ,gat his real nature was : I hare neither eaten
reality; for, if they were unable to attribute to the nor drunken but ye saw only an appearance. The identity
image they saw any ordinary mundane reality because of the word (Cpapa or 6paorr) thus by no means proves identity
of judgment u on the matter here in question, namely the reality
it was contrary to their ideas of mundane things, they or unreality orwhat has been seen.
could always attribute to it a heavenly reality, and it
was only if it was contrary to their.conception of things
(f)Equally mistaken would it be to maintain that
visions are throughout the whole OT and N T regarded as
heavenly that they came to recognise it as a product of
an inferior form of divine revelation. Beyschlag deduces
their own fantasy.
this from a single text (Nu. 126-8): to a prophet I
( d ) .W e have therefore to distinguish between three
reveal myself by visions or dreams, but with Moses I
experiences which were regarded as possible by the
speak face to face. Not only is the dream placed upon
disciples and their contemporaries : ( I ) the seeing of a n
a level with the vision, a n equality of which there can
earthly person by the use of the ordinary organs of
be no thought in connection with the appearances of
sight : ( 2 ) the seeing of a person in a real yet heavenly
the risen Jesus, but also in antithesis to both is placed
corporeity, not by the bodily eyes but in a vision
G o d s direct speaking, which undoubtedly makes known
(dmauia : Lk. 1 2 2 2423 Acts2619 z Cor. 121 : or
the will of God more plainly than a visual image
tipauis : Acts 2 17 Rev. 9 17 : or lipapa : Acts 9 IO 12
can, the interpretation of which rests with the seer. I n
1031719 115 l 6 9 f : 189), in a stateof ecstasy(&uTaurs:
the case of the resurrection of Jesus, however, the
Acts 1010 1 1 5 2217), or, it may be, outside of the seer's
situation is exactly reversed. If God had announced to
own body ( 2 Cor. 1 2 2 J ) : ( 3 ) the production of a false
the disciples by spoken words that Jesus was alive, even
image on the mind without any corresponding outward
if they fully believed these words to have been received
reality. T h e first of these possibilities (ordinary seeing)
immediately from God, the announcement would not
is contemplated only by those evangelists who speak
have been for them so clear and impressive as when
of Jesus as eating and as being touched, and who never
they were themselves permitted to look upon the form
themselves had been present at appearances of the
of Jesus as of one who was alive.
risen Jesus. T h e second possibility (visionary seeing of
a heavenly corporeity) is what the witnesses of such (9) After what has been said in three preceding
paragraphs (c, d , e ) the decisive question comes to be :
appearances intended and what Paul indicates by the
what sort of appearances of a person risen from the dead
word ' was seen ' (&+87). With the third possibility
were regarded by the disciples as possible ?
(false image) it has this in common that in both the To this the answer must a t once he: Not incorporeal appear-
condition of the participants is visionary ; with the first ances; for the idea of the immortality of the soul alone was
(ordinary seeing), that the participants hold what they utterly strange to them (5 r7e). Next, we must say : they
see to be absolutely real and to have an existence looked for a general resurrection of the terrestrial body to a
terrestrial life on the last day; but in exceptional ca%esthey
external to themselves (but not with a mundane reality). regarded it as happening even in the present (Mk. 6 14-16;cp
( e ) I t was the mistake of many critics to assume that $ 17e). And as they would have felt no difficulty in regarding
by the use of ' was seen ' (d@97) the purely subjective Jesus as an exceptional instance of this last description, they
origin of what had been seen was conceded by Paul would have regarded an appearance of Jesus in this form (with
a terrestrial body) as a real one. This case, however, does not
himself. T h e same error, however, is almost entirely come into consideration : for such an appearance of Jesus does
shared also by apologists such as Beyschlag when they not come within the range of what is historically authenticated.
suppose that the participants, if they had held their W h a t is alone authenticated is the appearance of
condition to be that of visionaries, would at the same Jesus in heavenly corporeality : but of that it has been
time have perceived the unreality of what they saw. This shown in 17e that it corresponded with the conceptions
hypothetically enunciated statement of the apologists of Paul and likewise with those of the original apostles.
is distinguished from the categorical assertion of the ( h ) T h e resultant conclusion then must be that when
critics in only one point : the apologists will have it the disciples experienced a n appearance of Jesus in
that the participant need not necessarily attribute the heavenly corporeality they were under compulsion to
origin of what he sees to the state of his own mind, but regard it as objectively real, and therefore to believe
can attribute it to God-yet without the result that, in that Jesus was risen because they had actually seen him.
4079 4080
RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
Consequently, this belief of theirs does not prove that
what they saw was objectively real : it can equally well ,
’ salvation for men. For Saul, the Pharisee, could never
get away from the thought that some kind of propitia-
have been merely a n image begotten of their own ’ tion had to be made for the sins of men, before God
mental condition. could bring in his grace. Perhaps the Christians had
Having now, we believe, shown in a general way the 1 even already begun to quote in support of their view
possibility that the things related concerning the risen Is. 53, which Paul in all probability has in his mind
36. Situation Jesus may rest upon subjective visions, when, in I Cor.153, he says that he has received hy
what next remains for us to inquire is tradition the doctrine that Christ, according to the
of whether such visions have any prob- Scriptures, had been delivered as a propitiation for
ability in view of the known situation of the dkciples. our sins.
This question admits of a n affirmative answer, very (i) Whether, however, all this, which in one respect
particularly in the case of Paul. promised blessedness, but in another threatened him
It will ever remain the lasting merit of Holsten that he has with divine punishment a s a persecutor of the Christians,
carried out this research on all sides with the most penetrating was really true or not, turned for Paul upon the answer
analysis. The view he arrived at holds its ground alike in
presence of conservative theology and in presence of the deniers to the question, whether in actuality Jesus was risen.
of the genuineness of all the Pauline epistles, who find the For, in addition to the doctrine of propitiation, Saul the
change from Pharisee to apostle of Jesus freed from the law too Pharisee w a s indissolubly u-edded to the thought that
sudden. An energetic nature could only pass from the one ‘ every one that hangeth on a tree ’ is accursed, unless
extre,me to the other, and could not possibly hold a mediating
positlon.1 God hiniself has unmistakably pronounced otherwise-
( a ) Paul persecuted the Christians as blasphemers, viz. that this proposition has no application to Jesus,
because they proclaimed as the Messiah one u-ho b y the who did not die the death of a criminal, but the death
judgment of God (Dt.2123, cp Gal.313) had been of a divine offering for sin. Such a divine declaration
plainly marked as a criminal. (S) If, in defending was involved, according to the Christians, in the resur-
their position, they quoted passages of the O T which in rection of Jesus.
their view treated of the Messiah, Paul could not gainsay {k), I t will not be necessary t o dwell upon the deeply
this application in a general way ; all that he denied agitating effect which such donbts must have produced
was the applicability of the passages to one who had been in Paul’s inmost s o u l ; the vividness with which
crucified. (c) From their appeals to the appearances of the living figure so often described to him by Chris- .
Jesus, Paul certainly had come to know quite well the tians must, time and again, have stood before him,
form in which they would have it that they had seen only t o be banished as often by the opposition of his
him. ( d ) Apart from this blasphemy of theirs Paul intellect; until finally, only too easily, there came a
cannot but have recognised their honesty, seriousness, time when the image of fancy refused any longer to
a n d blamelessness of moral character. W h a t if they yield to the effort of thought. All that need be pointed
should be in the right ? We may be certain that, when out further is that on his own testimony, as well a s on
he entered their houses and haled them before the that of Acts. Paul was very prone to visions and other
judgment-seat, there were not wanting heart-rending ecstatic conditions (z Cor. 12 1-4 I Cor. 14 18 Acts 9 12
scenes, which in the case of a man not wholly hardened 169 189 2217 2723). T h a t he does not place what he
could not fail t o raise ever anew the recurring question had experienced a t Damascus on a level with those
whether it was really a t the behest of God that he had visions of his, but speaks of it as the last appearance of
to show all this cruelty. H e repressed his scruples; the risen Jesus ( I Cor. 15S), is intelligible enough if he
yet the goad had entered his soul. was not aware of any further appearances having been
( e ) I n his own inner life he had no satisfaction. What- made to other persons (see 9 oh); but it in no way
ever may have been the zeal with which he followed the shows that in the journey to Damascus what befell was
precepts of the fathers (Gal. 114), unlike the great mass not a vision, but an actual meeting with the risen Jesus.
of morally laxer Pharisees his contemporaries, he per- T h e possibility, indeed the probability, of a vision here
ceived the impossibility of fulfilling the whole of the law’s has been pointed o u t ; it is for each reader to choose
requirements. And, not being able to fulfil them, he between this and a miracle.
was accursed (Gal. IO), and all men were in the same (0Let it he clearly understood, however, that we do not here
employ the word ‘was seen’ (&$e?) as evidence that Paul
condemnation with himself. I n Rom. 77-25 he has himself concedes the subjective ori in of the image which he
impressively described this condition. v)
God in the O T had promised a time of salvation, a n d
And yet saw. (To the contrary, see 346, c5 Neither do we make use
of the expression in Gal. 116, where Paul speaks of God as
it was inconceivable that he should not hold t o his having revealed his son ‘in me’ ( i v ipol), to prove that Paul
regarded the occurrence at Damascus as one that had taken
word. But how could he, if the universal fulfilment of place solely within himself. The words ‘ I have seen ’ (86para)
the law-which was so clearly impossible-wereheld t o and ‘was seen ’ (&$h) in I Cor. 9 I 15 8 are decisive against this
be the indispensable condition ? for by them the apostle means to say that he has really seed
(although not in earthly but in heavenly corporeality) the risen
(8)Here of necessity must have come about in the Jesus as appearing to him ad extya. Yet so far as Gal. 11sf:
mind of Paul a combination of these two lines of 1s concerned, neither is it probable that ‘to reveal ’ (drroaah6+ai)
thought which had hitherto remained apart. What if denotes a subsequent inward illumination of Paul, since ‘hut
when’ (are 6c) and ‘straightway’ (&O&S) mark the timq
the Christians were right in their assertion that the which followed immedi4tely upon that of ‘the Jews’ religion
Crucified One really was the Messiah, through whom it (‘Iou8aLupk) (1 1 3 ~ 3 . In me’ (Zv &ol) in spite of the refer-
was God’s will to bring salvation to the world without ence of ‘ to reveal’ (&ro~ah6+m) to the ’event on the road to
insisting on the fulfilment of the entire law? I n that Damascus, may mean ‘within me,’ in so far as the a peaiance
produced effects upon the spiritual life of the apostle ;g u t i; can
case the persecution of the Christians was indeed a easily mean also ‘upon me’-i.e., by changing the persecutor
crime; but Paul, and with him all mankind, was into a believer (not however, ‘through the success of my mis-
nevertheless delivered from the anguish of soul caused sionaIy labours,’ whlch did not occur till later).
by daily transgression of the law ; mercy, no longer T h e situation of the earliest disciples very readily
wrath, was what he might expect from God. ( h ) And suggests the same explanation of the facts. (a) T h e
indeed, this being so, it could only have been throl;gh 36. Of mental struggle between despair and
the death of Jesus that God had willed to procure hope- the disaster involved in the
disciples. death of Jesus, and the hope they still
1 Holsten, ZWT, 1861, pp. 223-284 ; Zum Evang. des Pawlus
I / . des Petrus, 1-237 (1868); Pfleiderer, Pauliniziiius, 7873, (2)
somehow clung to, that the kingdom of God might still
1890, Einl. On the other side : Beyschlag S t . Kr. 1864, pp. be established by Jesus-can hardly have been less
197.264 ; 1870, pp. 7-50, 189-263. Specially>nteresti& is Scholz than had been the struggle in the mind of Paul.
(DeutscL.Euan$eL Blntfer, 1881 pp. 8r6-841) who recognises Perhaps there was in their case the additional circum-
the whole psychological preparkon for the ’conversion, and
then brings in the supernatural fact of the risen Jesus, which stance that they were fasting, a condition highly favour-
his previous representation has enabled him to dispense with. able to the seeing of visions. Yet such a conjecture
4081 4082
RESURRECTION- BND ASCENSION-NARRATIVES
is by no means indispensable, and we need not lay view of the accumulated evidence, a fact not to he
stress on the indication as to this given in the Gospel of denied.
Peter and in the Didaskalia (above, 5s 5 [f], 7d). All (f)T h e attempt has been made to argue from this,
these psychological elements, however, will be more fully on the contrary, that subjective visions cannot be
considered later ( 5 37). thought of as explaining the recorded facts of the
( b ) On the other hand, we are unable -to attach resurrection, inasmuch as in that case we should be
weight to the view that the disciples were gradually led entitled to expect very many more recorded visions
by a study of the OT to a conviction that Jesus was than are enumerated by Paul. That, however, would
alive, and that thus in the end they came to have depend on the amount of predisposition to visions. I t
visions in which they beheld his form. is very easily conceivable that this may very rapidly
Visions do not arise by processes so gradual or so placid. It have diminished when, by means of a moderate number
is certainly correct to suppose that certain passages of the OT of reported appearances, the conviction had become
must have had an influence on the thoughts of the disciples in
those critical days ; hut not that they were then discovered for established that Jesus had risen. On this account it is
the first time as a result of study. Rather must they have been also best to presume that the first five appearances
long familiar when suddenly, under the impression made by the followed one another very quickly. All the more
death of J&us they acquire a new and decisive si nificanceas confidently in that case could Paul speak of that which
convincing the'bereaved ones that the continued fife of Jesus
was made assured by the word of God. he had himself received as being the last of all (9 I O h).
(c) From our list of such passages mnst be excluded many T h e consideration which above all others causes the
which are frequently quoted as belonging to it ; for example, most serious misgivings, is the state of deep depression
Is. 25 8 Ps. 133 I 3 Ezek. 18 5-9,Ps. 2 7 (although it appears to
be cited in Acts 13 33 in this sense), and, in particular, Ps. 16 IO, . Situation i n which the disciples were lefi by the
3
,
although this is cited in Acts 2 27 31 13 35. What is said in the of peter. death of Jesus. Is it conceivable that
Hebrew text is that God will not suffer his pious worshipper to in such circumstances subjective visions
die (cp v. 9). When PB by a false etymology (nnd='to destroy,' should have come to them ?
instead of n:d='to sink') renders &ibath, which, as the (u) This question, however, is essentially simplified
parallelism conclusively shows, means 'grave ' by 'destruction'
(&+"p&). the mistranslation is innocuous a; long as this word by what has been pointed out above (s 36 e ) , if we
is taken to mean 'death ' as the translators certainly took i t . it suppose in addition that it was Peter alone who re-
becomes misleading onl; on the Christian interpretation w&ch ceived the first vision. Could he but once find himself
understands the bodily corruption that follows death. Passages able to say that he had seen Jesus, the others n o
of the OT from which the disciples could really have drawn
their conviction as to the resurrection of Jesus are Ex. 36 (see longer needed to be able t o raise themselves out of
its employment by Jesus himself in Mk. 1226s) Is. 53 f their state of prostration by their own strength ; what
Hos. 6 2 z K. 20 5 , perhaps also Ps. 118 17 Job 19 25-27 had happened to Peter supplied what was wanting in
very specially Ps. 86 13 110 I (cp Brandt, 498.504). It 'must this respect. T h e question thus narrows itself to this :
always be borne in mind, it is hardly necessary to say, that
they did not interpret such passages in a critical manner and Is the possibility of a subjective vision excluded in the
with reference to the context but simply as they seemed to case even of Peter ?
present to them a consoling thbnght. (6) Undoubtedly an unusually strong faith was
( d ) , N o weight can be given to the objection that the image of
the risen Jesus which presented itself to the disciples cannot needed, if in Peter the thought that Jesus, notwith-
have been subjective because at first they did not recognise standing his death, was still alive, was to become so
it. That they failed to do so is stated only in passages powerful that a t last it could take the form of a vision.
which must he regarded as unhistorical (Lk.24 16 Jn. 20 14); All the requisite conditions, however, were present.
in Lk.2 4 37 41 it is not even said that he was not recognised.
W e do not at all lay weight upon the consideration,
( e ) Another objection, that though perhaps the suh-
that with the return to Galilee the reminiscences of
jective explanation might be admissible in the case of a
single individual, it wholly fails in the case of appear- Jesus associated with those localities would again take
the upper hand over the impression which his death
ances to several, not to speak of the case of 500 a t
had m a d e ; for indeed this impression was indelible.
once. appears a t first sight to have great weight. As
against this it is worth mentioning that one of the most But alongside of this impression there would also be
recollections of the predictions of Jesus. W e do not
recent upholders of an objective resurrection of Jesus,
refer here primarily to the predictions of his resurrection
Steude (SI h-y. 1887, pp. 273-275), quite gives u p this
(see § 22 a ) ; those referring to his coming again from
argument. I n point of fact there is ample evidence t o
heaven to set u p the kingdom of God upon earth-
prove that visions have been seen by many, in the
predictions which are certainly quite historical (see
cases of Thomas of Canterbury, Savonarola, the
Spanish general Pacchi, several crusaders-days and
GOSPELS,5 145 [f])-are much more important.
They also, it is true, might seem to have been decisively
even months after their death-and similar occurrences
falsified by the death of Jesus; for with Peter also it
also in the cases of 800 French soldiers, the Camisards
was an infallible word of God, that every one that
in 1686-1707, the followers of the Roman Catholic
hangs on a tree is cursed (Dt. 2123; cp Gal. 3x3).
priest Poschl in Upper Austria in 1812-1818, the
Precisely here, however, there is a difference between
' Preaching-sickness ' and ' Reading-sickness ' in Sweden
the cases of the two apostles : Paul could apply this
in 1841-1854. and so f0rth.l T h a t in circumstances
thesis t o Jesus in cold blood, because he had never
of general excitement and highly strung expectation
personally known him ( 2 Cor. 516, when rightly inter-
visions are contagious, and that others easily perceive
preted); Peter could not-he owed too much to him.
that which a t first had been seen by only one, is, in
T o speak more exactly, the reason why Peter, even after
1 E. A. Abbott, St. Thomas of Canterdury, 1898; Hase the crucifixion, did not cease wholly t o have faith in the
Gesch./csu, 1876,pp. 595f and Neue Projhfen, 333=P) 2 99$ prediction of Jesus, lay partly in the deep impression of
Renter, A Z e x a d r der"Dritfe, 3 110-112, 772-7 4 (1864); his utter trustw-orthiness which he had left upon his
Scholten Evang. nach /oh. (Germ.), 3.9s (18671; Renan
AjBtres,'ibf: 22 (ET 51f: 55); Keim, Gesch Jesu von Nazara: disciple, and partly also in the religious inheritance which
3 599.592 (1872)~E T 6, 3.463); Perty, Mystische ErscJwi- Peter felt he owed him, in the ineradicable conviction of
nungenf41130-133 (1872) E. Stein Psychische C o n 3 b u the truth of his cause. From this conviction of the
Z I , ~ (Erlangen, 1877); Hohnbaum, ' Psychkche Gem hat'
38-41 (1845); Lenbuscher, Wahnsinn in den 4 ZeiztenJahrhun! truth of Jesus' cause the conviction of his continued
dertcn, 222-249 (1848); Ideler, Theorie des religissem W d n - personal life was inseparable in the thought of that
sinns (1848.18 jo) ; Emminghaus, AZZ'em. Psychojathologie. age. I n this sense Renan's saying (&&res, 44, ET
98 33f: 3 7 s 96,113,186 (1878), with the literaturethere referred 70) is true : ' ce qui a resuscite Jesus, c'est l'amour.'
to; AZ&em. Ztschr.filr Psychiatnk, 1849, pp. 253-261: 1854,
pp. 115-125;1856, pp. 546-604; rUo, pp: 565-719;Wiedemann, ( c ) There is yet another point, which for the most
Die re&. Bewepn,o in Oberoesfnrem5 u. SaZzlurg k i m part is utterly overlooked in this connection. W e do
Re,inn a'es 19 Jahrh. (1890); Die S a t e der PbschZiaianer in not mean the lively temperament of Peter ; for whether
06er&treich in demJahre 18x7 (no place on title-page, 1819);
Misson, Thddtre Sac& des Cmennes, London, 1707; Blanc, that made him specially susceptible to visions cannot be
Inspiration des Camisurds, Paris, 1859. said. We refer to the fact that Peter had denied his
4083 4084
RESURRECTION- AND ASCENSION-NARFUTIVES
Lord. Even if the circumstance, mentioned only in the cause of Jesus did not die with him on the cross we
Lk. (2261), that after his denial his eye met that of his are assured by history, even if his resurrection did not
master, be hardly historical (cp S IMON PETER, 5 19 d), occur as a literal fact. It is undeniable that the church
there still remains a delicate suggestion of what must was founded, not directly upon the fact of the resurrec-
most infallibly have happened ; the form of him whom tion of Jesus, but upon the belief in his resurrection;
Peter had denied must have come up before him with and this faith worked with equal power whether the
ever renewed vividness, however he may have struggled resurrection was an actual fact or not. T h e view of
to escape it. Though at first he may have said to him- Paul that, apart from the literal truth of the resurrection
self that this was a mere creation of his fancy, it is of Jesus, there is no forgiveness of sins, bas as its
certainly not too bold a conjecture that a moment came necessary presupposition the dogma, not of Paul the
when he believed he saw his Lord bodily present before Christian but of Paul the Pharisee, that every crucified
him, whether it was that the eye was turned upon him person without exception is accursed of God ; as soon
with reproach and rebuke, or whether it was that it as the possibility of a miscarriage of justice either in the
already assured him of that forgiveness, for which synedrium or at Pilate's judgment seat is conceded, this
beyond all doubt he had been praying with all the view eo ipso falls to the ground. Finally, the view
energy of his soul. that unless Jesus actually rose again the hope of the
( d ) If this be sound, we shall find in the denial of final resurrection of the dead is vain would be a sound
Peter an occasion for the occurrence of a vision as direct one if this hope had consisted in the expectation that all
as we have found the persecution of the Christians by men were to rise three days after their respective deaths.
Paul to have been. If He will, we shall be able to In its actual form, as hope of the resurrection at the last
discern in these acts of hostility against Jesus or his day, it would come to be denied, in so far as an
followers a n arrangement in the providence of God, event happening in the case of Jesus is concerned, only
whereby chosen vessels were prepared for the further- if Jesus himself were to continue in the state of death at
ance of Christianity. In any case this deed of Peter, the last day. In so far, however, as the idea of the
that he held fast his faith in the imperishability of the immortality of the soul takes the place of the hope of a
cause of Jesus and therefore also of the person of Jesus, final resurrection- as in modern times is very extensively
will remain the greatest of his life, greater still than his the case-it ceases to he a matter of fundamental
confession at Czsarea Philippi (Mk. 8 2 9 and ]I), and importance whether Jesus rose again on the third day,
would make to be true those two a o r d s even though in or not ; for immortality consists only in a continued
the mouth of Jesus they be not historical : ' t h o u art existence of the soul, and that from the moment of the
Peter ( L e . , a rock) and upon this rock will I build my death of the body onwards, and is just as incapable of
church' (Mt. 1 6 1 8 , cp MINISTRY,§ 4 J ) , and ' D o thou, being confirmed or made known by a resurrection of the
when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren' body as of being called in question by the absence of a
(Lk. 2 2 p , cp S IM O N P ETER , 5 15 6). resurrection. If immortality could thus be confirmed or
For all that has been said in the foregoing paragraphs made known, that must have been possible on the first
the most that ciln be claimed is that it Droves the and the second day after death, for immortality was then
possibility-the probability if you will present. For that time, however, resurrection is ex-
38. Conclusion -of the explanation from subjective
cluded by presupposition.
on vision- visions. From the very nature of the Prins, De reaZifeif wan's Hreren opsfanding, 1861, and
hypothesis. case it would not be possible to prove (against Prins) Straatman, De realifeit van's Heeren opstanding
more, for the visionary character of the appearances
..
. en hare verdedigers, 1862 ;Paul, Z W T ,
39. Literature. 1863, 182-209, 279-311 ; 1864, 82-95, 396-408
could not be established for us by the visionaries them- and (against Paul) Strauss, &id. 1863, 386-
selves-on the contrary, everything constrained them 400 ; Gehhardt, Die Auferstehung Christi und ihre nerresten
to regard what they had seen as objective and real-nor Ggner, 1864 ; Steude, Die Aufersfehung J e w , 1888, and with
more scientific thoroughness in St.Kr., 1887. 203-295 (see above,
yet by the reporters, who simply repeated what the 8 36 e) ; Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Marcuseuangeliunzs, 1894
visionaries had related to them. Only scientifically and Die Berikhfe u6er die Auferstehung /E=, 1898; Eck,
trained reporters could have assured us on the point, ' Bedeutung der Auferstehung Jesu fiir die Urgemeinde u. f i r
uns' in Htffe zur Christlichen UTeZf, No. 32, 1898; Loofs,
and such reporters did not then exist. Let it be 'Die Auferstehungsherichte u. ihr Werth,' i6id. No. 33, 1898 ;
expressly observed, however, that in the vision-hypo- Briickner, ' Die Berichte uher die Auferstehung Jesu ' in Prot.
thesis it is only the judgment of the visionaries as to the Monntshefte, 1899,41-47,96-110, 153-160. Amongst the writings
on the life of Jesus see Strauss, Keim, Weiss, Beyschlag (vol. 1.)
objective reality of what they had seen that is set aside ; and, quite specially, Brandt, fi'nng. Gesch., 1893, 305-446,
every other biblical statement of fact, unless we have 490-517.
been compelled to set it aside as inconsistent with some [The bulk of English work upon this subject (of which the
other biblical statement, remains unaffected. The more useful or significant portions are indicated in the suh-
joined paragraphs by an asterisk) falls into one or other of two
hypothesis, furthermore, attributes no want of upright- classes : (a) one dealing primarily with historical and theo-
ness either to the visionary or to the reporter. T h e logical appreciations of the fact or truth in question ; (6) the
error which it points out affects merely the husk- other sensitive, in the first instance, to the features of the record
and the historical evidence. Owing to the backwardness and
namely that the risen Jesus was seen in objective inefficiency of English criticism upon the synoptic question,
reality, but not the kernel of the matter, that Jesus and the consequent aucity of scientific work upon Mt. and Lk.
lives in the spiritual sense ; thus it is an error, only in especially (upon LE 24 note the strangely parallel story in
the same relative sense as is the dogma that the Bible is Plutarch : V i f .Ronr. zS), the latter class of writings is as yet in-
adequately represented, being conspicuous for open.miudedness
inspired in every letter (a dogma without the temporary (in its better representatives) rather than for thoroughness, and
ascendancy of which the church of to-day would hardly more successful in criticising the weak points of opposing
have existed), or in the same sense in which the anthro- theories than in constructing a satisfactory and tenable hypo-
thesis which might do justice to the complex of facts under
pomorphic view of God's being and his relation to review. Cp Froude's Short Studies, 1 22gf:
nature which possesses every child is an error-an error (a) The conservative side is represented by a long series of
but for which the number of grown-up persons of writings, whose weakness consists mainly in the preponderance
unshaken religious conviction would indeed be small. of the dogmatic over the historical element or in literalism. Of
these the following are the more salient :-F. D. Maurice's
Reverting now once more to J I and the ideas on Theol. Essays (8); Westcott's Intr-od. t o Study of Gospels
account of which it is held that the belief in a literal ( ( 6 ) 1881) 133-341 ' The Cos). of the Resurr. The Historic
resurrection cannot be given up, we remark that the Faith (cbip. ti), ind The Reuelafion fl fhi Risen L m d :
*Milligan's exhaustive and theological The Resurr. of our
doctrine of the government of the church by Christ is Lord ( I 4 1894). and The Ascension a n d Heaven@ Priesthood
one that can give place without any religious loss to of our Lord, 1892 ; *M'Cheyne Edgar's vigorous Gosp. of the
that of the leading of the church by the spirit of Christ, Risen Savimr, 1892, pp. 21-135 ; C. A. Row's The /esus of
or, if it is desired to put it in a more personal form, the EvangPZists 1868, pp. 26zJ (critique of mythical theories)'
J. Kennedy's s&ey in T h Resun: d o u r Lord an hisforicai
that of the government of the church by God. That fact, wifh examination of naturalistic hyjotheses, 1881 ;
I31 408.5 4086