>Y^H°¥lMIIVEI&SinrY° Bought with the income
of the
Ellen Battell Eldridge Fund
/90tr

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

By
JAMES ORR, M.A., D.D
Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology in the
United Free Church College, Glasgow

"t?e is not bere; far £?e is risen, etocn as $}t sails."

CINCINNATI: JENNINGS & GRAHAM
NEW YORK: EATON & MAINS

g

c>7

CONTENTS.

PAGE
The Present State of the Question 9
n
Its Nature as Miracle • • ¦ • • 33
III
The Gospel Narratives and Critical Solvents. 57
IV
The Credibility of the Witness — The Burial . 83

Credibility continued — "The Easter Message" hi
5

6 CONTENTS PAGE
VI
Credibility continued — The Post-Resurrection
Appearances. . . . . . .143
VTI
The Significance of the Appearances — The Risen
Body ........ 173
VIII
The Apostolic Church — Visional and Apparitional
Theories ....... 205
IX
Neo-Babylonian Theories — Jewish and Apo
cryphal Ideas . . . . . .235
X
Doctrinal Bearings of the Resurrection . . 265
Index . ...... 289

THE PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION

THE PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
A restatement of the grounds of belief in the
great fact of the Lord's Resurrection seems called
for in view of the changed forms of assault on this
article of the Christian faith in recent years. It
is difficult, indeed, to isolate this particular fact,
outstanding as it is, from its context in the Gospel
history taken as a whole, every point in which is
made subject to a like minute and searching criti
cism. On the other hand, the consideration of
the evidence for the Resurrection may furnish a
vantage ground for forming a better estimate of
the value of the methods by which much of the
hostile criticism of the Gospels is at present carried
on. As preliminary to the inquiry, it is desirable
that a survey should be taken of the changed lights
in which the question appears in past and in con
temporary thought.
Time was, not so far removed, when the Resur
rection of Jesus was regarded as an immovable
corner-stone of Christianity. A scholar and his-

io PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
torian like the late Dr. Arnold, of Rugby, summed
up a general belief when he wrote : " I have been
used for many years to study the history of other
times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of
those who have written about them ; and I know
of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved
by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the
understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great
sign which God has given us, that Christ died and
rose again from the dead." * It will be recognized
by any one familiar with the signs of the times
that this language could not be employed about
the state of belief to-day.
It was not that this article of Christian belief
had not been long enough and violently enough
assailed. The Resurrection of Jesus has been a
subject of controversy in all ages. The story which
St. Matthew tells us was in circulation among the
Jews " until this day " 2 — that the disciples had
stolen the body of Jesus — was still spread abroad
in the days of Justin Martyr.3 It reappears in
that grotesque mediaeval concoction, the Toledoth
Jeschu.* Celsus, whom Origen combats, ridicules
the Christian belief, and, with modern acuteness,
urges the contradictions in the Gospel narratives.6
1 Sermon on the Sign of the Prophet Jonas.
a Matt, xxviii. 15. 3 Dial, with Trypho, 108.
4 With some difference, in both the Wagenseil (1681)
and the Huldreich (1705) recensions.
5 Origen, Against Celsus, ii. 56-63 ; v. 56, 58.

PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION n
Deistical writers, as Woolston and Chubb, made
the Resurrection a chief object of their attacks.1
On the Continent, from Reimarus to Strauss, the
stream of destructive or evasive 2 criticism was
kept up. Strauss must be regarded as the most
trenchant and remorseless of the assailants even to
the present hour.3 What escaped his notice in
criticism of the narratives is not likely to have much
force now. If, therefore, faith in the Resurrection
till recently remained unshaken, it was not because
the belief was not contested, but because of the
confident conviction that the attack all along the
line had failed. Other elements in the Gospel
tradition might be doubtful, but here, it was sup
posed, was a rock on which the most timorous
might plant his feet without fear. Details in the
Resurrection narratives themselves might be, pro
bably were, inaccurate ; but the central facts — the
empty grave, the message to the women, the
appearances to the disciples, sustained as these
were by the independent witness of Paul in i
Corinthians xv. 7, the belief of the whole Apostolic
1 Replied to by Sherlock, West, Paley, etc.
2 Several writers in this period advocated the theory
that Christ's death was only a case of swoon or suspended
animation (thus Paulus, Schleiermacher, Hase, etc.).
Strauss may be credited with having given this theory its
death-blow. See his New Life of Jesus (E.T.), i. pp. 13-
33 ; 4°8-12-
3 For the full strength of Strauss's criticism the original
Life of Jesus (1835) should be consulted.

12 PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
church — stood secure. This temper of certainty
is excellently reflected in the Apologetic textbooks
of the most recent period. In these the discussion
travels along fixed and familiar lines — theories of
imposture, of swoon, of subjective hallucination
or visions, of objective but spiritual manifestations,
all triumphantly refuted, and leaving the way
open for the only remaining hypothesis, viz., that
the event in dispute actually happened.
It is not suggested that Apologetic, up to this
recent point, had failed in its main object, or that
its confidence in the soundness of its grounds for
belief in the Resurrection was misplaced. It is
not implied, even, that the evidence which sufficed
then is not adequate to sustain faith now. It may
turn out that it is, and that in the essence of both
attack and defence less is really changed than the
modern man supposes. Still even the casual
observer cannot fail to perceive that, in important
respects, the state of the controversy is very different
to-day from what it was, say, fifteen or twenty
years ago. Forces which were then only gathering
strength, or beginning to make themselves felt,
have now come to a head, and the old grounds
for belief, and the old answers to objections, are
no longer allowed to pass unchallenged. The
evidence for the Resurrection may be much what
it has been for the last nineteen centuries, but
the temper of the age in dealing with that evidence

PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION 13
has undeniably altered. The subject is approached
from new sides, with new presuppositions, with
new critical methods and apparatus, with a wider
outlook on the religious history of mankind, and
a better understanding, derived from comparative
study, of the growth of religious myths ; and, in
the light of this new knowledge, it is confidently
affirmed that the old defences are obsolete, and
that it is no longer open to the instructed intelli
gence — " the modern mind," as it is named — to
entertain even the possibility of the bodily Resur
rection of Christ from the grave. The believer in this
divine fact, accordingly, is anew put on his defence,
and must speak to purpose, if he does not wish to
see the ground taken away from beneath his feet.
It has already been hinted, and will subsequently
become more fully apparent, that the consideration
of Christ's Resurrection cannot be dissociated
from the view taken of the facts which make up
the Gospel history as a whole. This should be
frankly acknowledged on both sides at the outset.
Christ is not divided. The Gospel story cannot
be dealt with piecemeal. The Resurrection brings
its powerful attestation to the claims made by
Jesus in His earthly Ministry ; x but the claim
to Messiahship and divine Sonship, on the other
hand, with all the evidence in the Gospels that
supports it, must be taken into account when we
1 Rom. i. 4.

14 PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
are judging of the reasonableness and probability
of the Resurrection. No one can, even if he would,
approach this subject without some prepossessions
on the character, claims, and religious significance
of Jesus, derived from the previous study of the
records of His life, or, going deeper, from the pre
suppositions which have governed even that study.
The behever's presupposition is Christ. If Christ
was what His Church has hitherto believed Him
to be — the divine Son and Saviour of the world —
there is no antecedent presumption against His
Resurrection ; rather it is incredible that He
should have remained the prey of death.1 If a
lower estimate is taken of Christ, the historical
evidence for the Resurrection will assume a different
aspect. It will then remain to be seen which
estimate of Christ most entirely fits in with the
totality of the facts. On that basis the question
may safely be brought to an issue.
This leads to the remark that it is really this
question of the admissibility of the supernatural
in the form of miracle which lies at the bottom
of the whole investigation. The repugnance to
miracle which is so marked a characteristic of the
" modern " criticism of the Gospels can hardly,
without an ignoring of the course of discussion
for at least the last century and a half, be spoken
of as a " new " thing. It underlay the rationalism
1 Acts ii. 24.

PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION 15
of the older period, and some of the most stinging
words in Strauss's Life of Jesus are directed against
the abortive attempts of well-meaning mediating
theologians to evade this fundamental issue.
Strauss's own position is made clear beyond possi
bility of mistake, and anticipates everything the
" modern " man has to urge on the subject. " Our
modern world," he says, " after many centuries
of tedious research, has attained a conviction
that all things are linked together by a chain of
causes and effects, which suffers no interruption.
. . . The totality of things forms a vast circle,
which, except that it owes its existence and laws
to a superior power, suffers no intrusion from with
out. This conviction is so much a habit of thought
with the modern world, that in actual life the
belief in a supernatural manifestation, an imme
diate divine agency, is at once attributed to ignor
ance and imposture." x Strauss at this stage is
persuaded that " the essence of the Christian
faith is perfectly independent of his criticism " ;
that " the supernatural birth of Christ, His miracles,
His resurrection and ascension, remain eternal
truths, whatever doubts may be cast on their
reality as historical facts " ; and that " the dog
matic significance of the life of Jesus remains in
violate." 2 At a later period, in his book on The
1 The words are from the fourth edition (1840) of the
(older) Life of Jesus (E.T.) i. p. 71. 2 Ibid. Pref. p. xi.

16 PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
Old and the New Faith, he reached the true gravi
tation level of his speculations, and in answer to
the question, " Are we still Christians ? " boldly
answered " No." x
The " modern " man has thus no reason to
plume himself on his denial of miracle as a brand-
new product of the scientific temper of the age
in which he lives. His " modernity " goes back
a long way in its negations. What is to be admitted
is that the magnificent advance of the sciences
during the past century has accentuated and
reinforced this temper of distrust (or positive
denial) of the miraculous ; has given it greater
precision and wider diffusion ; has furnished it
with new and plausible reasons, and made it more
formidable as a practical force to be encountered.
There is no doubt, in any case, that this spirit
rules in a large proportion of the works recently
issued on the Gospels and on the life of Christ,
and is the concealed or avowed premiss of their
treatment of the miraculous element in Christ's
history, and notably of His Resurrection.2 The
same temper has insensibly spread through a large
part of the Christian community. Dr. Sanday
1 In 1872.
2 One may name almost at random such writers as
A. Sabatier, Harnack, Pfleiderer, Wernle, Weinel, Wrede,
Wellhausen, Schmiedel, Bousset, Neumann, O. Holtzmann,
E. Carpenter, Percy Gardner, G. B. Foster (Chicago),
N. Schmidt, K. Lake, etc.

PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION 17
truly enough describes " the attitude of many a
loyal Christian " when he says that " he [the
Christian] accepts the narratives of miracles and
of the miraculous as they stand, but with a note
of interrogation." * Others frankly reject them
altogether. A chief difficulty in dealing with
this widely-spread tendency is that it is, in most
cases, less the result of reasoning than, as just
said, a " temper," due to what Mr. Balfour would
call " a psychological climate," 2 or Lecky would
describe as " the general intellectual condition "
of the time.3 Still, it is only by fair reasoning,
and the adducing of considerations which set
things in a different light, that it can be legitimately
met ; apart, that is, from a change in the " climate "
itself, a thing continually happening. When this
is done, it is remarkable how little, in the end, it
is able to say in justification of its sweeping
assumptions. It is not only, however, in the general temper
of the time that a change has taken place in the
treatment of our subject ; the new spirit has
1 The Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 103.
2 "A psychological ' atmosphere ' or ' climate ' favour
able to the life of certain modes of belief, unfavourable,
and even fatal, to the life of others." — Foundations of
Belief, fourth edition, p. 218.
* See the " Introduction " to Lecky's History of Rational
ism in Europe, and his interesting summary of the causes
of " The Declining Sense of the Miraculous " in the close
of chap. ii. of that work.
E,J. 2

x8 PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
armed itself with new weapons, and, first of all,
with those supplied to it in the methods and results
of the later textual and historical criticism. Even
the tyro cannot be unaware of the almost revo
lutionary changes wrought in the forms and methods
of New Testament criticism — following in the
wake of Old Testament criticism ' — within the
last generation. There is, to begin with, an enor
mous increase in the materials of criticism, with
its results in greater specialization and increased
urgency in the demand for a many-sided equip
ment in the textual critic, commentator, and
historical writer.2 Then, with extension of know
ledge, has come a sharpening of intelligence and
increased stringency of method — a painstakingness
in research, an attention to detail, aptitude in
seizing points of relation and contrast, skill in
disentangling difficulties, fertility in suggestion —
above all, a boldness and enterprise in specula
tion 3 — which leave the older and more cautious
scholarship far in the rear. Doubtless, if the
Resurrection be truth, the application of these
1 It is a sign of the times that Old Testament scholars
like Wellhausen and Gunkel are now transferring their
attentions to the New Testament.
2 See the remarkable catalogue of qualifications for the
commentator set forth in the Preface to Mr. W. C. Allen's
new commentary on St. Matthew (Intern. Crit. Com.).
3 Dr. Sanday notes this as a characteristic of recent
work on the Gospels. See his Life of Christ in Recent
Research, p. 41.

PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION 19
stricter methods should only make the truth the
more apparent. But it is obvious also that, for
those who care to use them in that way, the methods
furnish ready aids for the disintegration of the
text and evaporation of its historical contents.
If a passage for any reason is distasteful, the re
sources in the critical arsenal are boundless for
getting it out of the way. There is slight textual
variation, some MS. or version omits or alters,
the Evangelists conflict, it is unsuitable to the
speaker or the context, if otherwise unchallengeable,
it is late and unreliable tradition. Wellhausen's
Introduction to the First Three Gospels is an illus
tration of how nearly everything which has hitherto
been of interest and value in the Gospels — Sermon
on the Mount and parables included — disappears
under this kind of treatment.1 Schmiedel's article
on the " Gospels " in the Encyclopedia Biblica
is a yet more extreme example. The application
of the method to our immediate subject is admir
ably seen in Professor Lake's recent book on The
Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
Christ. A painfully minute and unsparing verbal
criticism of the Gospel narratives and of the refer
ences in Paul results naturally in the conclusion
that there is no evidence of any value— except,
perhaps, for the general fact of " appearances "
1 See his Einleitung, pp. 52~57. 68-72, 86-87, 90-93.
etc.

20 PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
to the disciples. No fibre of the history is left
standing as it was. Material assistance is afforded
to this type of criticism by the theory of the rela
tions of the Gospels which is at present the pre
vailing one — what Mr. Allen believes to be " the
one solid result of literary criticism," J viz., the
dependence of the first and third Gospels, in their
narrative portions, on the " prior " Gospel of
St. Mark. It is temptingly easy, on this theory,
to regard everything in these other Gospels which
is not found in, or varies from, St. Mark, as a wil
ful " writing up " or embellishment of the original
simpler story ; as something, therefore, to be at
once set aside as unhistorical.2
These which have been named are dogmatic
and literary assaults ; but now, from yet another
side, a formidable attack is seen developing on
the historicity of the narratives of the Resurrec
tion — namely, from the side of comparative religion
and mythology. It is in itself nothing new to
draw comparisons between the Resurrection of
Jesus and the stories of death and resurrection
in pagan religions. Celsus of old made a begin
ning in this direction.3 The myths, too, on which
1 St. Matthew, Pref. p. vii. It is not to be assumed
that this judgment, on which more will be said after, is
acquiesced in by every one. Cf. chap. iii.
2 This is pretty much Wellhausen's method, except
that Wellhausen attaches little or no historical value even
to St. Mark. Prof. Lake follows in the same track.
8 Origen, Against Celsus, ii. 55-58.

PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION 21
reliance is placed in these comparisons are, in
many cases, really there,1 and frequently collec
tions have been made of them for the purpose of
discrediting the Christian belief. The subject may
now be said to have entered on its scientific phase
in the study of comparative mythology — for in
stance, in such a work as Dr. J. G. Frazer's Golden
Bough 2 — and as the result of the long train of
discoveries throwing light on the religious beliefs
and mythological conceptions of the most ancient
peoples — Babylonian, Egyptian, Arabian, Persian,
and others. In its newest form — sometimes called
the " Pan-Babylonian," though there is yet great
diversity of standpoint, and no little division of
opinion, among the writers to whom the name
is applied — the movement has already attained
to imposing proportions, and has given birth to
an important literature. Among its best-known
representatives on the Continent, of different
types, are H. Winckler, A. Jeremias, H. Gunkel,
P. Jensen ; Dr. Cheyne may speak for it here.
A chief characteristic of the school is that, de
clining to look at any people or religion in isolation
from general history, it aims at explaining any
given rehgion from the circumstances of its environ-
1 Myths of death and resurrection are prominent in the
ancient Mysteries. This phase of the subject will be dis
cussed after.
2 Cf. also L. R. Farnell's book, The Evolution of Religion.

22 PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
ment, and from analogies and parallels drawn
from other religions. Conceptions derived ulti
mately from Babylonia were spread through the
whole East, and these, entering through many
channels, had a powerful influence in moulding,
first the Israelitish, then the Christian religions.
Winckler boldly applied his theory to the religious
ideas and history of the Old Testament ; Gunkel
and the others named x extend it to the New.
" Conservative theologians," writes Dr. Cheyne,
" will have to admit that the New Testament
now has to be studied from the point of view of
mythology as well as from that of philological
exegesis and Church-history. . . . For that har
monious combination of points of view which is
necessary for the due comprehension of the New
Testament, it is essential that the help of mytho
logy, treated of course by strictly critical methods,
should be invoked. In short, there are parts of
the New Testament — in the Gospels, in the Epistles,
and in the Apocalypse — which can only be accounted
for by the newly-discovered fact of Oriental syn
cretism, which began early and continued late.
And the leading factor in this is Babylonian." 2
The story of the Resurrection is naturally one
1 Cf. Gunkel's Zum Religionsgeschichtlichen Verstdndniss
des neuen Testaments. Jeremias is an exception to the
general position in so far that, while accepting the analogies,
he does not deny the New Testament facts. See his
Babylonisches im N.T. 2 Bible Problems, pp. 18, 19.

PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION 23
of the " legends " on the rise of which the new
Babylonian theory is supposed to be able to cast
special light, and Dr. Cheyne gratefully accepts
its help.1 Professor Lake regards it as a theory
which, while not proved, " one has seriously to
reckon with." 2 Even Dr. Cheyne, however, is
outdone, and is stirred to active protest, by the
astonishing lengths to which the theory is carried
by Professor Jensen in his recent massive work,
The Gilgamesh Epic in World Literature,3 which
literally transforms the Gospel history into a
version of the story of that mythical Babylonian
hero ! It is the saving fact in theories of this
kind that they speedily run themselves into excesses
which deprive them of influence to right-thinking
minds.4 Yet another point of view is reached (though
it may be combined with the preceding), when
the attempt is made to show that the idea and
spiritual virtue of Christ's Resurrection can be
conserved, while the belief in a bodily rising from
the tomb is surrendered. This is the tendency
which manifests itself especially in a section of
the school of theologians denominated Ritschlian.
It connects itself naturally with the disposition
in this school to seek the ground of faith in an
1 Bible Problems, pp. 21, 115 ff. 2 Ut supra, p. 263.
3 Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der Weltliteratur, Bd. I.
4 The general theory is discussed in Chap. ix.

24 PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
immediate religious impression — in something
verifiable on its own account — and to dissociate
faith from doubtful questions of criticism and
uncertainties of historical inquiry. Ritschl him
self left his relation to the historical fact of the
Resurrection in great obscurity. Of those usually
reckoned as his followers, some accept and defend
the fact,1 but the greater number sit loose to the
idea of a bodily Resurrection, claiming that it
cannot be established by historical evidence, and
in any case is not an essential element of faith.2
Most reject the bodily rising as inconsistent with
an order of nature. The certainty to which the
Christian holds fast is that Christ, his Lord, still
lives and rules, but this is, as Herrmann would
say, a " thought of faith " — a conviction of Christ's
abiding life, based on the estimate of His religious
worth, and not affected by any view that may
be held as to His physical resuscitation. There
can be no doubt that the feeling which this line
of argument represents is very widely spread.
The name which most readily occurs in con
nexion with the view of the Resurrection now
indicated is that of Professor Harnack, whose
Berlin lectures, translated under the title, What
1 E.g., Kaftan, Loofs, Hairing.
2 Among those who take this position may be named
Herrmann, J. Weiss, Wendt, Lobstein, Reischle, etc.
Some of these admit supernatural impressions. See
below, chap. viii.

PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION 25
is Christianity ? x have helped not a little to popu
larize it. Harnack had earlier unambiguously
stated his position in his History of Dogma. " Faith,"
it is there contended, " has by no means to do
with the knowledge of the form in which Jesus
lives, but only with the conviction that He is
the living Lord." " We do not need to have
faith in a fact, and that which requires religious
belief, that is, trust in God, can never be a fact
which would hold good apart from that belief.
The historical question and the question of faith
must, therefore, be clearly distinguished here."
He seeks to show the weakness of the historical
evidence — " even the empty grave on the third
day can by no means be regarded as a certain
historical fact " — and declares : " (1) that every
conception which represents the Resurrection of
Christ as a simple reanimation of His mortal body
[no one affirms that it is] is far from the original
conception, and (2) that the question generally as
to whether Christ has risen can have no existence
for any one who looks at it apart from the contents
and worth of the Person of Jesus." 2 Quite to
the same effect, if in warmer language, Harnack
distinguishes in his Berhn lectures between what
he calls " the Easter message " and " the Easter
faith " — the former telling us of " that wonderful
1 Das Wesen des Christentums.
2 Eng. trans, i. pp. 85-86.

26 PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
event in Joseph of Arimathsea's garden, which,
however, no eye saw " ; the latter being " the
conviction that the Crucified One still lives ; that
God is just and powerful ; that He who is the
firstborn among many brethren still lives." The
former, the historical foundation, faith " must
abandon altogether, and with it the miraculous
appeal to our senses." Nevertheless, " What
ever may have happened at the grave and in the
manner of the appearances, one thing is certain :
this grave was the birthplace of the indestructible
belief that death is vanquished, that there is a
life eternal." x The logic is not very easy to fol
low, but this is not the place to criticise it. Enough
if it is made clear how this mode of conceiving
of the Resurrection of Christ, which imports a
new element into the discussion, presents itself
to the minds that hold it.
The " appearances " to the disciples, however,
still are there, variously and well attested, as by St.
Paul's famous list in i Corinthians xv. 4-8, as to
which even Strauss says : " There is no occasion
to doubt that the Apostle Paul heard this from
Peter, James, and perhaps from others concerned
(cf. Gal. i. 18 ff., ii. 9), and that all of these, even the
five hundred, were firmly convinced that they had
seen Jesus who had been dead and was alive again." 2
1 What is Christianity ? E.T., 1900, pp. 161-2.,
2 New Life of Jesus, i. p. 400.

PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION 27
What is the explanation ? Were they simply, as
Strauss thought, visions, hallucinations, delusions ?
Here is a new dividing-line, even among those who
reject the reality of the Lord's bodily Resurrection.
The appearances were too real and persistent, they
feel, to be explained as the mere work of the imagina
tion. Phantasy has its laws, and it does not operate
in this strange way. There were appearances, but
may they not have been appearances of the spiritually
risen Christ, manifestations from the life beyond the
grave by one whose body was still sleeping in the
tomb ? So thought Keim, who argued powerfully
against the subjective visionary theory ] — so thinks
even Professor Lake.2
The idea is not wholly a new one,3 but Keim
brought new support to it in his Jesus of Nazara,
and since then it has commended itself to many
minds, who have found in it a via media between
complete denial of the Resurrection and acceptance
of the physical miracle of the bodily rising. It has
obtained the adhesion of not a few of the members
of the Ritschlian school.4
All this belongs to the older stage of the contro
versy. It perhaps would not have sufficed to bring
1 Jesus of Nazara (E.T.), vi. pp. 323 ff.
8 Ut supra, pp. 271-6.
3 It appears in Schenkel, Weisse, Schweitzer, and others.
4 Among these Bornemann, Reischle, and others, leave
the question open : J. Weiss argues for supernatural
impressions, etc.

28 PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
about a revival of the theory but for the new turn
given to speculation on appearances of the dead by
the investigations and reports of the Society of
Psychical Research. It is to " the type of pheno
mena collected " by this Society, " and specially
by the late Mr. F. W. H. Myers," that Professor
Lake attaches himself in his hypothetical explana
tion.1 His position, as stated by himself, is a curious
inversion of the older one. Formerly, the Resurrec
tion of Jesus was thought to be a guarantee of the
future life — of immortality. Now, it appears, the
future life " remains merely a hypothesis until it
can be shown that personal life does endure beyond
death, is neither extinguished nor suspended, and
is capable of manifesting its existence to i*s." 2
Professor Lake has not the sanguineness of Professor
Harnack. He thinks that " some evidence " has
been produced by men of high scientific stand
ing connected with the above Society, but " we
must wait until the experts have sufficiently sifted
the arguments for alternative explanations of the
phenomena before they can actually be used as
reliable evidence for the survival of personality
after death." 3 The belief in the Resurrection of
Christ even in the spiritual sense — that is, as survival
of personality — depends on the success of these
same experiments of the Psychical Research Society.
1 Ut supra, p. 272. 2 Ibid. p. 245. 3 Ibid.

PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION 29
This theory, it will naturally occur, is not a theory
of " Resurrection," in the New Testament sense of
that word at all ; but we have to do here with the
fact that some people believe that it is, or, at least,
that it represents the reality which lies behind the
narratives of Resurrection in the Gospels. Mr.
Myers himself identifies the two things, and, as illus
trating this phase of speculation, which has assumed,
in an age of unbelief in the supernatural, a semi-
scientific aspect, it may be useful, in closing, to quote
his own words : —
" I venture now," he says, " on a bold saying :
for I predict that, in consequence of the new evi
dence, all reasonable men, a century hence, will
beheve the Resurrection of Christ, whereas, in de
fault of the new evidence, no reasonable men, a
century hence, would have believed it. The ground
of the forecast is plain enough. Our ever-growing
recognition of the continuity, the uniformity of
cosmic law has gradually made of the alleged unique
ness of any incident its almost inevitable refutation.
. . . And especially as to that central claim, of the
soul's life manifested after the body's death, it is
plain that this can less and less be supported by
remote tradition alone ; that it must more and
more be tested by modern experience and inquiry.
. Had the results (in short) of ' psychical re
search ' been purely negative, would not Christian
evidence — I do not say Christian emotion, but Chris-

30 PRESENT STATE OF THE QUESTION
tian evidence — have received an overwhelming
blow ?
" As a matter of fact — or, if you prefer the phrase,
in my own personal opinion — our research has led
us to results of a quite different type. They have
not been negative only, but largely positive. We
have shown that, amid much deception and self-
deception, fraud and illusion, veritable manifesta
tions do reach us from beyond the grave. The
central claim of Christianity is thus confirmed, as
never before. . . . There is nothing to hinder the
conviction that, though we be all ' the children of
the Highest,' He came nearer than we, by some
space by us immeasurable, to that which is infinitely
far. Theie is nothing to hinder the devout convic
tion that He of His own act ' took upon Him the
form of a servant,' and was made flesh for our salva
tion, foreseeing the earthly travail and the eternal
crown." r
1 Human Personality and its Survival, II., pp. 288-9.

ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE

II
ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE
It is granted on all sides that the Christian Church
was founded on, or in connexion with, an energetic
preaching of the Lord's Resurrection from the dead.
The fact may be questioned : the belief will be
admitted. " In the faith of the disciples," Baur says, " the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ came to be regarded as a
solid and unquestionable fact. It was in this fact
that Christianity acquired a firm basis for its his
torical development." x
Strauss speaks of " the crowning miracle of the
Resurrection — that touchstone, as I may well call
it, not of Lives of Jesus only, but of Christianity
itself," and allows that it " touches Christianity to
the quick," and is " decisive for the whole view of
Christianity." 2
" The Resurrection," says Wellhausen, " was the
foundation of the Christian faith, the heavenly
Christ, the living and present Head of the disciples." 3
1 History of the First Three Centuries (E. T.) i. p. 42.
2 New Life of Jesus, i. pp. 41, 397.
3 Einleitung in die Drei Ersten Evangelien,p. 96.
R.J. 33 3

34 ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE
" For any one who studies the marvellous story
of the rise of the Church," writes Dr. Percy Gardner,
" it soon becomes clear that that rise was con
ditioned — perhaps was made possible — by the con
viction that the Founder was not born, like other
men, of an earthly father, and that His body did
not rest like those of other men in the grave. . . ." 1
" The Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ,"
says Canon Henson, " has always been regarded as
the corner-stone of the fabric of Christian belief ;
and it certainly has from the first been offered by
the missionaries of Christianity as the supreme de
monstration of the truth which in that capacity
they are charged to proclaim." 2
" There is no doubt," affirms Mr. F. C. Burkitt,
" that the Church of the Apostles believed in the
Resurrection of their Lord." 3
All which simply re-echoes what the Apostle Paul
states of the general belief of the Church of his time.
" For I delivered unto you first of all that which also
I received : that Christ died for our sins according
to the Scriptures ; and that He was buried : and
that He hath been raised on the third day according
to the Scriptures." 4
Here then, is a conceded point — the belief of the
Apostolic Church in the Resurrection of the Lord. It
1 A Historic View of the New Testament, Lect. v., Sect. 5.
2 The Value of the Bible and Other Sermons, p. 201.
3 The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 74.
4 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.

ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE 35
is well to begin with this point, and to inquire what
the nature of the belief of the earliest Church was.
Was it belief in visionary or spiritualistic appear
ances ? Behef in the survival of the soul of Jesus ?
Belief that somehow or somewhere Jesus lived with
God, while His body saw corruption in the tomb ?
Or was it belief that Jesus had actually risen in the
body from the grave ? That He had been truly dead,
and was as truly alive again ?
If the latter was the case, then beyond all question
the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus was belief
in a true miracle, and there is no getting away from
the alternative with which this account of the origin
of Christianity confronts us. Strauss states that
alternative for us with his usual frankness. " Here
then," he says, " we stand on that decisive point
where, in the presence of the accounts of the mir
aculous Resurrection of Jesus, we either acknowledge
the inadmissibility of the natural and historical
view of the life of Jesus, and must consequently
retract all that precedes, and so give up our whole
undertaking, or pledge ourselves to make out the
possibility of the result of these accounts, i.e., the
origin of the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus,
without any corresponding miraculous fact." 1
Now, that the belief of the Apostles and first dis
ciples was really belief in a true physical Resurrection
in other words, a Resurrection of the body of Jesus
1 Ut supra, i. p. 397-

36 ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE
from the grave, it seems impossible, in face of the
evidence, to doubt. Few of the writers above cited
do doubt it, whatever view they may take of the
reality lying behind the belief. We are happily
not here dependent on the results of a minute criti
cism of the Gospels or of other New Testament
texts. We are dealing with a belief which inter
weaves itself, directly or indirectly, with the whole
body of teaching in the New Testament. If Har
nack makes a distinction between the Easter " mes
sage " and the Easter " faith," it is certain that the
first Christians made no such distinction. This
admits of ample proof.
Take first the narratives in the Synoptics. There
are three of these, in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St.
Luke, and the cardinal feature in each is the empty
tomb, and the message to the women, and through
them to the disciples, that the Lord had risen. " He
is not here, He is risen." 1 The body had left the
sepulchre. It is not otherwise in St. John. The
Magdalene, and after her Peter and John, whom
she brings to the spot, find the tomb empty.2 It
is to be remembered that there are several other
miracles of resurrection in the Gospels,3 and these
1 Matt, xxviii. 6 ; Mark xvi. 6 ; Luke xxiv. 6, 22, 24.
2 John xx. 2-13.
3 Matt. ix. 18, 23-25 ; Mark v. 33-43 ; Luke vii. 11-
15, viii. 49-56; John xi. ; cf. Matt. xi. 5, and Christ's
repudiation of the Sadducean denial of the resurrection,
Matt. xxii. 29-32.

ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE 37
throw fight on what was understood by Resurrec
tion in the case of the Master. They were all bodily
resurrections. The professed fear of the authorities
that the disciples might steal away the body of
Jesus, and say, " He is risen from the dead," points
in the same direction.1
With this belief in the bodily Resurrection corre
spond the narratives of the appearance of the Risen
One to His disciples. It is not the truth of the narra
tives that is being discussed at this stage, though
indirectly that is involved, but the nature of their
testimony to the Apostolic belief, and on this point
their witness can leave little doubt upon the mind.
The appearances to the women,2 to the Apostles,3
to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus,4 to the
disciples in Galilee,5 all speak to a person who has
risen in the body — not to an incorporeal spirit or
phantom. The conditions of existence of the body
were, indeed, in some respects supernaturally
altered,6 as befitted the new state on which it had
entered, and was yet more fully to enter. But it
was still a body which could be seen, touched,
handled ; which evinced its identity with the body
that had been crucified, by the print of the nails
1 Matt, xxvii. 64.
2 Matt, xxviii. 9, 10 ; John xx. 14-18 ; cf. Mark xvi. 9.
3 Luke xxiv. 36-43 ; John xx. 19-29 ; cf. Mark xvi. 14.
4 Luke xxiv. 13-32.
6 Matt, xxviii. 16 and 17 ; John xxi.
6 This is touched on below, pp. 53-4 ; cf. chap. vii.

38 ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE
and the spear-mark in the side.1 These marks of
His passion, it is implied, Jesus bears with Him even
in the body of his glory.2 He walked with His
disciples, conversed with them, ate with them :
" shewed Himself alive," as Luke says, " after His
passion by many proofs." 3 If any tangible evi
dence could be afforded of the real Resurrection
of the Lord from the grave, it was surely furnished
in that wonderful period of intercourse with His
disciples, prior to the final Ascension to His
Father. What the Gospels attest as the belief of the Apos
tolic Church on the nature of the Resurrection is
amply corroborated by the witness of St. Paul. It is,
indeed, frequently argued that since St. Paul, in the
words, " He appeared (a>cp9r/) to me also," puts the
appearance of the Lord to himself at his conversion
in the same category with the appearances to the
disciples after the Resurrection,4 he must have re
garded these as, like his own, visionary.6 Canon
Henson repeats this objection. " The Apostle, in
1 Luke xxiv. 39-40 ; John xx. 24-28.
2 Cf. Rev. v. and vi. 3 Acts i. 3.
4 1 Cor. xv. 3-9.
5 Thus, e.g., Weizsacker (Apostolic Age, E. T. i. pp. 8,9),
Pfleiderer (Christian Origins, E. T., pp. 136-137, 160-161).
Weizsacker says : " There is absolutely no proof that Paul
presupposed a physical Christophany in the case of the
older Apostles. Had he done so he could not have put
his own experience on a level with theirs. But since he
does so we must conclude that he looked upon the visions
of his predecessors in the same light as his own."

ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE 39
classing his own ' vision ' of the risen Saviour on
the road to Damascus with the other Christo-
phanies, allows us to conclude that in all the appear
ances there was nothing of the nature of a resus
citated body, which could be touched, held, handled,
and could certify its frankly physical character by
eating and drinking."1 This, however, is to miss the
very point of the Apostle's enumeration. St. Paul's
object in his use of " appeared " is not to suggest
that the earlier appearances were visionary, but
conversely to imply that the appearance vouchsafed
to himself on the road to Damascus was as real
as those granted to the others. He, too, had verit
ably " seen Jesus our Lord." 2 That St. Paul con
ceived of the Resurrection as an actual reanimation
and coming forth of Christ's body from the tomb
follows, not only from his introduction of the clause,
" and that He was buried," 8 but from the whole
argument of the chapter in Corinthians, and from
numerous statements elsewhere in his Epistles.
In 1 Corinthians xv. St. Paul is rebutting the con"
tention of the adversaries in that Church that there
is no resurrection from the dead for believers, and
he does this by appealing to the Resurrection of
Christ. The latter fact does not seem to have been
disputed. If there is no resurrection from the dead,
St. Paul argues, then Christ has not risen ; if Christ
has risen, His Resurrection is a pledge of that of
1 Ut supra, p. 204. 2 1 Cor. ix. 1. 8 1 Cor. xv. 4.

40 ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE
His people.1 It is perfectly certain that the sceptics
of Corinth were not denying a merely spiritual
resurrection ; they evidently believed that death was
the extinction of the individual life.2 As little is
St. Paul contending in his reply for a merely spiritual
resurrection. He contends for a resurrection of
the body, though in a transformed and spiritualized
condition.3 Professor Lake will concede as much as
this. " There can be clearly no doubt," he says,
" that he [Paul] believed in the complete personal
identity of that which rose with that which had
died and been buried." 4 As respects Christ, " He
believed that at the Resurrection of Jesus His body
was changed from one of flesh and blood to one which
was spiritual, incorruptible, and immortal, in such a
way that there was no trace left of the corruptible
body of flesh and blood which had been laid in the
grave." B This, however, need not imply, as Pro
fessor Lake supposes it to do,6 that the transforma
tion was effected all at once, nor exclude such appear
ances as the Gospels record between the Resurrection
and Ascension.
1 i Cor. xv. 12-23. 2 xv- 32. 3 xv. 33-57.
4 Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,
p. 20.
B Ibid. p. 23.
6 Ibid. pp. 27 and 35. Canon Henson argues in the
Hibbert Journal, 1903-4, pp. 476-93, that there is a contra
diction between St. Paul and St. Luke in their conceptions of
Christ's Resurrection body. Cf. below, p. 182.

ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE 41
The Apostle's view of the bodily Resurrection of
Jesus is unambiguously implied in the various state
ments of his other Epistles. Thus, in Romans viii.
11 we have the declaration : " But if the Spirit of
Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth
in you, He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead
shall give life also to your mortal bodies through
His Spirit that dwelleth in you." Here plainly it
is the " mortal body " which is the subject of the
quickening. Later, in verse 23 of the same chapter,
we have : " Waiting for our adoption, to wit, the
redemption of our body." In Ephesians i. 19, 20,
" the exceeding greatness of [God's] power to usward
who believe," is measured by " that working of the
strength of His might which He wrought in Christ,
when He raised Him from the dead." In Philippians
iii. 10, 11, 21, the hope held out is that the Lord Jesus
Christ, awaited from heaven, " shall fashion anew
the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed
to the body of His glory." The like implication
of a bodily Resurrection is found in 1 Thessalonians
iv. 13-17, and many more passages.
It seems unnecessary to accumulate evidence
to the same effect from the remaining New Testa
ment writings. No one will dispute that this is
the conception in St. Peter's address in Acts ii. 24-
32, and the statements in 1 Peter i. 3, 21, iii. 21,
are hardly less explicit. The Apocalypse empha
sizes the fact that Jesus is " the firstborn of the

42 ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE
dead." i "lam the first and the last, and the
Living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am
alive for evermore." 2 " These things saith the first
and the last, who was dead, and lived again." s
On a fair view of the evidence, therefore, it seems
plain that the belief of the Apostolic Church was
belief in a true bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ,
and it is as little open to doubt that, if such an event
took place, it was a miracle, i.e., a true supernatural
intervention of God, in the strictest sense of the
word. Whether that of itself suffices to debar the
" modern " mind from accepting the Resurrection
as an historical fact is matter for discussion, but
there should be no hesitation in conceding that
a question of miracle is involved.
The only possible alternative to this is to assume
that Jesus at His burial was not really dead — that
His supposed death from crucifixion was in reality
a " swoon," and that, having revived in the " cool
air " of the tomb, and issued forth, He was believed
by His disciples to have been raised from the dead.
This naturalistic explanation, although numbering
among its supporters no less great a name than
Schleiermacher's,4 is now hopelessly discredited. It
1 Rev. i. 5. 2 i. 17, 18. 3 ii. 8.
4 It is doubtful how far Schleiermacher himself remained
satisfied with this explanation given in his Leben Jesu
(posthumously published). In his Der christliche Glaube
(sect. 99), he takes up a more positive attitude, allowing,
if not a direct, still a mediate connexion with the doctrine

ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE 43
was previously mentioned that Strauss practically
gave the swoon theory its death-blow, and little has
been heard of it since his time. " It is evident,"
Strauss well says, " that this view of the Resurrec
tion of Jesus, apart from the difficulties in which it
is involved, does not even solve the problem which
is here under consideration — the origin, that is, of
the Christian Church by faith in the miraculous
Resurrection of a Messiah. It is impossible that a
being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre,
who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical
treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening,
and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His
sufferings, could have given to the disciples the im
pression that He was a Conqueror over death and
the grave, the Prince of Life, an impression which
lay at the bottom of their future ministry." x The
hypothesis, in fact, cannot help passing over into
one of fraud, for, while proclaiming Jesus as the
Risen Lord, who had ascended to heavenly glory,
the Apostles must have known the real state of the
case, and have closely kept the secret that their
Master was in concealment or had died.
Miracle, therefore, in the Resurrection of Jesus
cannot be escaped from, and it is well that this,
the most fundamental objection to belief in the
of Christ's Person, inasmuch as anything that reflects on
the Apostles reflects back on Christ who chose them.
1 Ut supra, i. p. 412.

44 ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE
Resurrection, should be grappled with at once. It
is, as before said, not the Resurrection alone that is
involved in this objection, but the whole picture
of Christ in the Gospels. That picture, as critics
are coming to admit, is the picture of a supernatural
Personage throughout.1 It is at least something j
to have it recognized that the Resurrection does not(
stand as an isolated fact, but is congruous with the(
rest of the Gospel history.
It is, however, precisely this element of the mi
raculous which, it is boldly declared, the " modern "
mind cannot admit. The scientific doctrine of
" the uniformity of nature " stands in the way.
Nature, it is contended, subsists in an unbroken
connexion of causes and effects, determined by
immutable laws, and the admission of a breach in
this predetermined order, even in a single instance,
would be the subversion of the postulate on which
the whole of science rests. For the scientific man
to admit the possibility of miracles would be to
involve himself in intellectual confusion. Apart,
therefore, from the difficulty of proof, which, in face
of our experience of the regularity of nature, and of
the notorious falhbilitv of human testimony to

1 Cf. Bousset, Was wissen wir von Jesus ? pp. 54, 57.
" Even the oldest Gospel," this writer says, " is written
from the standpoint of faith ; already for Mark, Jesus is
not only the Messiah of the Jewish people, but the miracu
lous eternal son of God, whose glory shone in this world."

ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE 45
extraordinary events,1 is held to present another
insuperable obstacle to the acceptance of miracle,
the very idea of a miraculous occurrence is thought
to be precluded. Even Dr. Sanday writes in his
latest work, The Life of Christ in Recent Research :
" We are modern men, and we cannot divest our
selves of our modernity. ... I would not ask any
one to divest himself of those ideas which we all
naturally bring with us — I mean our ideas as to the
uniformity of the ordinary course of nature." 2 As
an illustration from a different quarter, a sentence
or two may be quoted from the biographer of St.
Francis of Assisi, P. Sabatier, who expresses the
feeling entertained by some in as concise a way as
any. " If by miracle," he says, " we understand
either the suspension or subversion of the laws of
nature, or the intervention of the First Cause in
certain particular cases, I could not concede it.
In this negation physical and logical reasons are
secondary ; the true reason — let no one be surprised
— is entirely religious ; the miracle is immoral.
The equality of all before God is one of the postu
lates of the religious consciousness, and the miracle,
that good pleasure of God, only degrades Him to
the level of the capricious tyrants of the earth." 3
1 Hume's famous argument against miracles turns in
substance on the contrast between our unalterable ex
perience of nature and the fallibility of human testimony
to wonderful events.
2 P. 204. 8 Life of St. Francis, p. 433.

46 ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE
The application of this axiom to the life of Christ
in the Gospels, and specially to such a fact as the
Resurrection, naturally lays the history, as we
possess it, in ruins.1 There is no need, really,
for investigation of evidence ; the question is
decided before the evidence is looked at. Pro
fessor Lake quotes from Dr. Rashdall with refer
ence to the reanimation or sudden transformation
of a really dead body, in " violation of the best
ascertained laws of physics, chemistry, and physi
ology " : " Were the testimony fifty times stronger
than it is, any hypothesis would be more possible
than that." 2
A word may here be said on the mediating at
tempts which have frequently been made, and
still are made, to bridge the gulf between this
modern view of the uniformity of nature and
the older conception of the supernatural as direct
interference of God with the order of nature, through
the hypothesis of " unknown laws." This is what
Dr. Sanday in the above-mentioned work calls
" making both ends meet," 3 and it commends
itself to him and to others as a possible means
1 Cf., on the other hand. Kaftan's vigorous protest
against this modern view of the world in his pamphlet
Jesus und Paulus, pp. 4, 5, 9, 72. " I am no lover," he
says, " of the modern view of the world ; rather I find it
astonishing that so many thinking men should be led
astray by this bugbear " (Popanz).
2 XJt supra, p. 267. 3 P. 203.

ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE 47
of reconciliation between miracle and science.
The hypothesis has its legitimate place in a general
philosophy of miracles ; for it is certainly not.
an essential part of the Biblical idea of miracle
that natural forces should not be utilized. Even
assuming that miracle were confined to the wielding,
directing, modifying, combining or otherwise using,
the forces inherent in nature, it is impossible to
say how much, in the hands of an omniscient,
omnipotent Being, this might cover. Still, when
all this has been admitted, the real difficulty is
not removed. There is a class of miracles in the 1
Gospel — the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection
may safely be placed among them, though they
are not the only examples — which is not amenable
to this species of treatment ; miracles which,;
if accepted at all, unquestionably imply direct
action of the Creative Cause. We have no reason''
whatever to believe — the Society for Psychical
Research does not help us here — that hitherto
unknown laws or secret forces of nature will ever
piove adequate to the instantaneous healing of
a leper, or the restoring of fife to the dead. It
is with regard to this class of miracles that the
scientist takes up his ground. Assume what you
will, he will say, of wonderful and inexplicable facts
due to unknown natural causes : what cannot be
admitted is the occurrence of events due to direct
Divine intervention ; what Hume would speak of

48 ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE
as the effects of " particular volitions," 1 or Renan,
of " private volitions." 2 These, in his judgment,
are cases of the interpolation into nature of a force
which breaks through, rends, disrupts, the natural
sequence, and can hardly be conceived of otherwise
than as a disturbance of the total system. It is
this objection the believer in the miracle of the
Resurrection has to meet.
But can it not be met ? It is granted, of course,
that there are views of the universe which exclude
miracle absolutely. The atheist, the Spinozist,
the materialist, the monist like Haeckel, the abso
lutist, to whom the universe is the logical unfolding
of an eternal Idea — all systems, in short, which
exclude a Living Personal God as the Author and
Upholder of the world — have no alternative but
to deny miracle. Miracle on such a conception of
the world is rightly called impossible. But that,
we must hold, is not the true conception of the
relation of God to His world, and the question is
not — Is miracle possible on an atheistic, or material
istic, or pantheistic conception of the world ? but,
Is it possible and credible on a theistic view — on
the view of God as at once immanent in the world,
yet subsisting in His transcendent and eternally
1 Natural Religion, Pt. XI.
2 Philosophical Dialogues, E. T., pp. 6 ff. " Two things
appear to me quite certain . we find no trace of the
action of definite beings higher than man, acting, as Mal-
branche says, by private volitions."

ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE 49
complete life above it— All-Powerful, All-Wise,
All-Holy, All-Good ? It is here, e.g., that a writer
like Professor G. B. Foster, in his Finality of the
Christian Religion, seems utterly inconsistent with
himself in his uncompromising polemic against
miracles.1 He would be consistent if he took up
Spinoza's position of the identity of God with nature.
But he claims to hold by the Father-God of Jesus
Christ, and expressly finds fault with " naturalism "
because it denies ends, purposes, ruling ideas, the
providence of a just and holy God. But by what
right, on such a basis, is the supernatural ruled
out of the history of revelation, and especially out
of the history of Christ ? Once postulate a God who,
as said, has a being above the world as well as in
it, a Being of fatherly love, free, self-determined,
purposeful, who has moral aims, and overrules
causes and events for their realization, and it is
hard to see why, for high ends of revelation and
redemption, a supernatural economy should not
be engrafted on the natural, achieving ends which
could not be naturally attained, and why the evi
dence for such an economy should on a priori grounds
be ruled out of consideration. To speak of miracle,
with P. Sabatier, from the religious point of view,
as " immoral," is simply absurd.
1 He goes so far as to say that " an intelligent man
who now affirms his faith in such stories as actual facts
can hardly know what intellectual honesty means " (p.
132). k-J. 4

50 ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE
On such a genuinely theistic conception of the
relation of God to the world and to man, the scientific
objection to miracle drawn from " the uniformity
of Nature," while plausible as an abstract state
ment, is seen, on deeper probing, to have really very
little force. Professor Huxley and J. S. Mill are
probably as good authorities on science as most,
and both tell us that there is no scientific impossi
bility in miracle — it is purely and solely a question
of evidence.1 What, in the first place, is a " law
of nature " ? Simply our registered observation
of the order in which we find causes and effects
ordinarily linked together. That they are so linked
together no one disputes. To quote Mr. W. C. D.
Whetham, in his interesting book on The Recent
Developments of Physical Science : " Many brave
things have been written, and many capital letters
expended, in describing the Reign of Law. The
laws of Nature, however, when the mode of their
discovery is analyzed, are seen to be merely the
most convenient way of stating the results of ex
perience in a form suitable for future reference.
. . . We thus look on natural laws merely as con
venient shorthand statements of the organized
information that at present is at our disposal." 2
Next, what do we mean by " uniformity " in this
1 Huxley, Controverted Questions, pp. 258, 269 ; Mill,
Logic, Bk. III. chap. xxv.
2 Pp. 31, 37.

ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE 51
connexion ? Simply that, given like causes opera
ting under like conditions, like effects will follow.
No one denies this either. Every one will concede
to Dr. Sanday " the uniformity of the ordinary
course of nature." If it were otherwise, we should
have no world in which we could live at all. The
question is not, Do natural causes operate uni
formly ? but, Are natural causes the only causes
that exist or operate ? For miracle, as has fre
quently been pointed out, is precisely the assertion
of the interposition of a new cause ; one, besides,
which the theist must admit to be a vera causa.1
Not to dwell unduly on these considerations, it
need only further be remarked that it misrepresents
the nature of such a miracle as the Resurrection
of Christ — or of the Gospel miracles generally — to
speak of miracles, with Dr. Rashdall, as " com
pletely isolated exceptions to the laws of nature," 2
or as arbitrary, capricious breaks in the natural
order, " violations " of nature's laws. Miracles
may well be parts of a system, and belong to a higher
order of causation — though not necessarily a mechani
cal one. Professor A. B. Bruce, in this connexion,
refers to Bushnell 's view of miracles as " wrought
in accordance with a purpose," what he calls " the
law of one's end," and to the phrase used by Bishop
Butler for the same purpose, " general laws of
1 Thus J. S. Mill. 2 See Lake, ut supra, p. 268.

52 ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE
wisdom." x And is it not the case that, in any
worthy theistic view, God must be regarded as
Himself the ultimate law of all connexion of pheno
mena in the universe, and the immanent cause of
its changes ? This means that a free, holy Will
is the ultimate fact to be reckoned with in the inter
pretation of nature. The ultimate Cause of things
has certainly not so bound Himself by secondary
laws that He cannot act at will beyond, or in trans
cendence of them.2
The following may be quoted from Professor A.
T. Ormond's Concepts of Philosophy, as one of the
latest utterances from the side of philosophy. Pro
fessor Ormond says : " As to the miracle, in any
case where it is real, it is either intended in the
divine purpose, or it is not. If not, then it has no
religious significance. If, however, it be intended
in the divine purpose, it then has a place in the
world-scheme which evolution itself is working out.
1 The Miraculous Element in the Gospels, pp. 65-6 ; cf.
Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 264-9 ; Butler,
Analogy, Pt. II. chap. iv. sect. 3.
2 There are at least three cases in which direct creative
action seems to be no " violation " of natural order, but
rather to be called for in the interests of that order : (a) In
the initial act of creation establishing the order ; (6) in
the founding of a higher order or kingdom in nature, e.g
at the introduction of life (organic nature), (c) where the
exercise of creative energy is remedial or redemptive. In
this last case the creative act is not disturbance or des
truction of nature, but the restoration of an order already
disturbed (Christ's miracles of healing, etc.),.

ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE 53
How could a genuine miracle contradict evolution
unless we conceive evolution as being absolute ?
It is not evolution but the form of naturalism we
have been criticising, that is inconsistent with any
genuine divine happenings." x
It is granted, then, that, in the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead, we are in presence of
a miracle — a miracle, however, congruous with the
character, personal dignity, and claims of Him
whose triumph over death is asserted — and there
is no evading the issue with which this confronts
us, of an actual, miraculous economy of revelation
in history. This assuredly was no exception — a
single hole drilled in the ordinary uniform course
of nature, without antecedents in what had gone
before, and consequents in what was to follow. It
belongs to a divine system in which miracles must
be conceived as interwoven from the beginning.
The Resurrection was a demonstration of God's
mighty power (" the strength of His might " 2) ;
but was an act in which the Son Himself shared,
re-taking to Himself the life He had voluntarily
laid down. It is in the fight of this miraculous
character of the Resurrection we have to consider
the phenomena of the appearances of the risen Lord,
which otherwise may seem to present features
difficult to reconcile. It is an error of Harnack's
1 Op. cit. p. 603.
2 Eph. i. 19.

54 ITS NATURE AS MIRACLE
to speak of the ordinary conception of the Resur
rection as that of " a simple reanimation of His
mortal body." x No one will think of it in that
light who studies the narratives of the Gospels.
They show that while Jesus was truly risen in the
body, He had entered, even bodily, on a new phase
of existence, in which some at least of the ordinary
natural limitations of body were transcended.2
The discussion of these, however, belongs properly
to another stage, and may here be deferred. Enough
that the central fact be held fast that Jesus truly
manifested Himself in the body in which He was
crucified as Victor over death.
1 History of Dogma, E. T. i. pp. 85-6.
2 Cf. the remarks on this subject in Dr. Forrest's The
Christ of History and Experience, pp. 146 ff., and in Milli-
gan, The Resurrection of Our Lord, pp. 12 ff. Dr. Forrest
says : " These contradictory aspects, instead of casting a
suspicion on the appearances, are of the essence of the
problem which they were intended to solve. Christ
hovers, as it were, on the border-line of two different
worlds, and partakes of the characteristics of both, just
because He is revealing the one to the other. . . . During
the forty days His body was in a transition state, and
had to undergo a further transformation in entering into
the spiritual sphere, its true home" (pp. i<;o, 1^2). Pre-
ludings of these changes are seen in the Transfiguration,
the Walking on the Sea, etc.

THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES AND CRITI
CAL SOLVENTS

Ill
THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES AND CRITICAL
SOLVENTS
It was before stated that a change in the treatment
of the evidence for the Resurrection is necessitated
by the new and more stringent methods of criticism
applied to the narratives of the Gospels, and espe
cially by the theory, now the prevalent one, of the
dependence of the first and third Gospels, in their
narrative parts, on the second — that of St. Mark.
It is desirable, before proceeding further, to give
attention to these new critical methods and their
results, in their bearings on the subject in hand.
It is, of course, too much to ask, even if one had
the competency for the task, that a full discussion
of the Synoptical problem should precede all exami
nation of the narratives of the Resurrection, or that
the Johannine question should be exhaustively
handled before one is entitled to adduce a testimony
from the Fourth Gospel. On the other hand, it
seems imperative that something should be said
on the critical aspect of the subject — enough at
least to indicate the writer's own position, and some

58 THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
of the grounds that are believed to justify it — still
always with a strict eye on the special point under
investigation. It will prepare the way for this critical inquiry
if a glance be taken first at the range of the New
Testament material here falling to be dealt with.
The narratives of the Resurrection go together with
the narratives of the burial and of the post-Resur
rection appearances of Jesus, and form an inseparable
whole with them. Supplementary to the Gospel
narratives are certain passages in the Book of Acts
and in Paul.
The distribution of the subject-matter may be
thus exhibited : —
St. Matthew : Burial, xxvii. 57-66 ; Resurrection,
xxviii. 1-8 ; Appearances, xxviii. 9-20.
St. Mark : Burial, xv. 42-47 ; Resurrection.
xvi. 1-8. App. to St. Mark : Appearances, xvi. 9-20.
St. Luke : Burial, xxiii. 50-56 ; Resurrection,
xxiv. 1-12 ; cf. vers. 22-24 ; Appearances, xxiv.
12-53. St. John : Burial, xix. 38-42 ; Resurrection,
xx. 1-13 ; Appearances, xx. 14-29 ; xxi.
Acts : Appearances, i. 3-11.
St. Paul : Burial and Resurrection, 1 Cor. xv. 4 ;
Appearances, 1 Cor. xv. 5-8.
The narratives thus tabulated contain the his
torical witness to the Lord's Resurrection, so far
as that witness has been preserved to us. On them,

AND CRITICAL SOLVENTS 59
accordingly, the whole force of critical enginery
has been directed, with the aim of discrediting their
testimony. The narratives are held to be put out
of court (1) On the ground of their manifest discre
pancies ; (2) Through the application of critical
methods to the text ; (3) Through the presence of
legendary elements in their accounts.
The consideration of the alleged discrepancies
can stand over, save as they prove to be involved
in the general discussion. Even if all are admitted,
they hardly touch the main facts of the combined
witness — especially the testimony to the central
fact of the empty tomb and the Lord's Resurrection
on the third day. " No difficulty of weaving the
separate incidents," says Dr. Sanday, " into an
orderly and well-compacted narrative can impugn
the unanimous belief of the Church which lies behind
them, that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead on the
third day and appeared to the disciples." x " There
are many variations and discrepancies," writes
Mr. F. C. Burkitt, " but all the Gospels agree in the
main facts." 2 Strauss' statement of these discre
pancies, which he discovers in every particular of
the accounts, still remains the fullest and best, and
the use he makes of them is not one to the liking of
the newer criticism. " Hence," he says, " nothing
1 Outlines of the Life of Christ, p. 180 : cf. Alford, Greek
Testament, i. Prol. p. 20.
2 The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 223.

60 THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
but wilful blindness can prevent the perception
that no one of the narrators knew and presupposed
what another records." x
As previously indicated, the critical attack on the
narratives of the Resurrection connects itself with
the criticism of the Gospels as a whole. The newer
criticism is principally distinguished from the older
by a different attitude of mind to the Gospel material,
and it proceeds by bolder and more assumptive
methods. It starts rightly with a painstaking and
exhaustive induction of the phenomena to be inter
preted ; 2 its peculiarity comes to light in the more
daring, and often extremely arbitrary way in which
it goes about the interpretation. It is no longer
held to be enough to determine and explain a text.
The newer criticism must get behind the text and
show its genesis ; must show by comparison with
related texts its probable " genealogy ; " 3 must
take it to pieces, and discover what motive or ten
dency is at work in it, how it is coloured by environ
ment and modified by later conditions — in brief,
how it " grew " : this generally with the assump
tion that the saying or fact must originally have
been something very different from what the text
1 Life of Jesus, iii. p. 344.
2 Illustrations are furnished in the analysis of the lin
guistic phenomena of the Gospels in Sir John Hawkins'
Horae Synopticae, Plummer's St. Luke, Introd., Harnack's
Lukas der Arzt (St. Luke and Acts), etc.
3 Cf. Lake. Res. of Jesus Christ, pp. 167-8.

AND CRITICAL SOLVENTS 61
represents it to be. Such a method, no doubt,
may open the way to brilliant discoveries, but it
may also, and this more frequently, lead to the
criticism losing itself in fanciful conjectures. Abun
dant illustration will be afforded when we come to
the examination of the Resurrection narratives.
One question of no small importance is that of
the relation of the Synoptical Gospels to each other.
It has already been pointed out that the current
theory on this subject — what Mr. W. C. Allen and
Mr. Burkitt regard as " the one sohd result " of
the literary criticism of the Gospels — is that St.
Matthew and St. Luke, as respects their narrative
parts,1 are based on St. Mark.2 It is desirable to
keep this question in its right place. It would
manifestly be a suicidal procedure to base the de
fence of the Resurrection on the acceptance or
rejection of any given solution of the Synoptical
problem, especially on the challenge of a theory
which has obtained the assent of so many distin
guished scholars. Assume it to be finally proved
1 The supposed Logia source does not come into con
sideration here.
2 Allen, St. Matthew, Pref. p. vii. : " Assuming what I
believe to be the one sohd result of literary criticism, viz.
the priority of the second Gospel to the other two synoptic
Gospels." Burkitt, The Gospel History, p. 37 : " the one
solid contribution," etc. " We are bound to conclude
that Mark contains the whole of a document which Mat
thew and Luke have independently used, and, further,
that Mark contains very little besides."

62 THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
that St. Matthew and St. Luke used St. Mark as
a chief " source," the limits of the evidence for the
Resurrection would be sensibly narrowed, but its
intrinsic force would not be greatly weakened.
St. Mark, after all, is not inventing. He is embody
ing in his Gospel the common Apostofic tradition
of his time — a tradition which goes back to the
Apostles themselves, and rests on their combined
witness. There is no reason for believing that St.
Mark took the liberties with the tradition, in alter
ing and " doctoring " it, which some learned
writers suppose. If the other Evangelists, whose
Gospels, on any showing, are closely related to St.
Mark's, adopted the latter as one of their sources,
it can only be because they recognized in that
Gospel a form of the genuine tradition. Their
adoption of it, and working of it up with their own
materials, but set an additional imprimatur on its
contents. At the same time, it is not to be gain
said that, in practice, the attack on the credit of
the Gospels has been greatly aided by the preva
lence of this theory of the dependence of the other
Synoptics on St. Mark. As before indicated, it
affords leverage for treating the narratives of the
first and third Gospels as a simple " writing up "
and embellishing of St. Mark's stories, and for re
jecting any details not found in the latter as unhis-
torical and legendary. The modus operandi is
expounded by Professor Lake. " When, therefore,"

AND CRITICAL SOLVENTS 63
he says, " we find a narrative which is given in all
three Gospels, we have no right to say that we have
three separate accounts of the same incident ; but
we must take the account in Mark as presumably
the basis of the other two, and ask whether their
variations cannot be explained as due to obscuri
ties or ambiguities in their sources, which they tried
to clear up. . . . Since Matthew and Luke, so far
as they are dealing with the Marcan source, are not
first-hand evidence, but rather the two earliest
attempts to comment on and explain Mark, we are
by no means bound to follow the explanations given
by either." *
This leads to the question — Is the theory true ?
Despite its existing prestige, this may be gravely
questioned. Detailed discussion would be out of
place, but the bearing of the theory on the Resur
rection narratives — which will be found to afford
some of the most striking disproofs of it — is so
direct, that a little attention must be given to it.
The grounds on which the Marcan theory rests
are stated with admirable succinctness by Mr.
Burkitt. " In the parts common to Mark, Matthew
and Luke," he says, "there is a good deal in which
all verbally agree ; there is also much common to
Mark and Matthew, and much common to Mark
and Luke, but hardly anything common to Matthew
and Luke which Mark does not share also. There
1 Ut supra, p. 45.

64 THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
is very little of Mark which is not more or less
adequately represented either in Matthew or in
Luke. Moreover, the common order is Mark's
order. Matthew and Luke never agree against
Mark in transposing a narrative. Luke sometimes
deserts the order of Mark, and Matthew often does
so ; but in these cases Mark is always supported
by the remaining Gospel." x
With little qualification this may be accepted
as a correct description of the facts, and it admirably
proves that there existed what Dr. E. A. Abbott
calls an " Original Tradition," to which St. Mark,
of the three Evangelists, most closely adhered,
giving little else, while St. Matthew and St. Luke
borrowed parts of it,2 combining it with material
drawn from other funds of information. But does
this prove the kind of literary dependence of the
first and third Gospels on St. Mark which the current
theory supposes ? Or, if dependence exists in any
degree, is this the form of theory which most ade
quately satisfies the conditions ? It is not a question
of the facts, but one rather of the interpretation of
the facts. A few reasons may be offered for leaning
to a negative answer to the above queries.
1 Ut supra, p. 36.
2 Cf. Abbott, The Common Tradition of the Synoptic
Gospels, Introd., pp. vi., vii. " To speak more accu
rately, it is believed that the Gospel of St. Mark contains
a closer approximation to the Original Tradition than is
contained in the other Synoptics."

AND CRITICAL SOLVENTS 65
I. The impression undeniably produced by agree
ment in the character and order of the sections in
the Gospels is seriously weakened when account
is taken of the widely divergent phraseology in large
parts of the resembling narratives. The diver
gence is so marked, and so often apparently without
motive, that, notwithstanding frequent assonances
in words and clauses, a direct borrowing of one
Evangelist from another seems next to incredible.
The narratives of the Resurrection are a palmary
example,1 but the same thing is observable through
out. Mr. Burkitt has been heard on the agreements ;
let Alford state the facts that make for literary
independence. " Let any passage," he says, " com
mon to the three Evangelists be put to the test.
The phenomena presented will be much as follows :
first, perhaps, we shall have three, five, or more
words identical ; then as many wholly distinct ;
then two clauses or more expressed in the same
words but differing order ; then a clause contained
in one or two, and not in the third ; then several
words identical ; then a clause or two not only
wholly distinct but apparently inconsistent ; and
so forth ; with recurrences of the same arbitrary
and anomalous alterations, coincidences, and trans
positions." 2 A simple way of testing this state-
1 See the words of Strauss quoted earlier (pp. 59-60)
2 Greek Testament, i. Prol. p. 5.
..;. 5

66 THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
ment is to take such a book as Dr. Abbott's The
Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, where
the narratives are arranged in parallel columns,
and verbal agreements of the three Evangelists
(the so-called " Triple Tradition " ; the " Double
Tradition," can be obtained by underlining in
pencil) are indicated in black type, and note the
proportion of agreement to divergence in the
different sections. The proportion varies, but in
most cases the amount of divergence will be found
to be very considerable. Dr. Abbott himself goes
so far as to say : " Closely though the Synoptists
in some passages agree, yet the independence of
their testimony requires in these days [as recently
as 1884] no proof. Few reasonable sceptics now
assert . . . that any of the three first Evangelists
had before him the work of the other two. Proof,
if proof were needed, might easily be derived from
a perusal of the pages of the following Harmony,
which would show a number of divergences, half-
agreements, incomplete statements, omissions, in
compatible, as a whole, with the hypothesis of
borrowing." x
It cannot be said that the difficulties created by
these remarkable phenomena have, up to the
present time, been successfully overcome by the
advocates of the dependence theory. Dr. A.
Wright, in contending for an original " oral " Mark,
1 Ut supra, Introd. p. vi.

AND CRITICAL SOLVENTS 67
thinks they have not yet been removed.1 Sir
John Hawkins, though he argues for a use of St.
Mark, yet draws attention to a large series of pheno
mena which he declares to be, " on the whole, and
when taken together, inexplicable on any exclu
sively or mainly documentary theory." " Copying
from documents," he says, " does not seem to
account for them : but it is not at all difficult to
see how they might have arisen in the course of oral
transmission." 2 To bring the phenomena into
harmony with the theory of literary dependence
on St. Mark there is needed the assumption of a
freedom in the use of sources by St. Matthew and
St. Luke which passes all reasonable bounds, and
commonly admits of no satisfactory explanation.
" The Evangelists," says Mr. Burkitt, " altered
freely the earlier sources which they used as the
1 Cf. his Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, Introd. p. x.
" At present the hypothesis of a Ur-Markus having been
discredited and practically abandoned, the supporters of
documents insist — in spite (as I think) of the very serious
difficulties which they have not yet removed — that St.
Mark's Gospel was used by St. Matthew and St. Luke.''
He points out elsewhere the difficulties of supposing that
St. Luke used St. Mark (p. xvi.). Dr. Wright's own theory
of a proto-, deutero-, and trito-Mark is loaded with many
difficulties. 2 Horae Synopticae, p. 52. The instances given in Pt.
iv., sects, ii., iii., include variations in the reports of the
sayings of Jesus, the attribution of the same, or similar
words, to different speakers, the use of the same, or similar
words, as parts of a speech, and as part of the Evangelist's
narrative, transpositions, etc,

68 THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
basis of their narratives." x This freedom of theirs
is then used as proof that " literary piety is a
quality. . . which hardly makes its appearance in
Christendom before 150 a.d." 2 With doubtful
consistency the same writer declares that, if the
Evangelists had worked on a " fixed oral tradition,"
he " cannot imagine how they dared to take such
liberties with it " ! 3 That is, a " fixed tradition "
is sacred, and dare not be tampered with, but a
document embodying this tradition, even though
by a writer like St. Mark, is liable to the freest
literary manipulation ! It is to be remembered
that the proof of the alleged lack of " literary
piety " is mainly the assumption itself that St.
Mark was used by the other Evangelists.
2. Assuming, however, some degree of dependence
in the relations of the Gospels, the question is still
pertinent — Is the theory of dependence on St.
Mark that which alone, or best, satisfies the conditions ?
It has not always been thought that it is, and very
competent scholars, on grounds that seem cogent,
take the liberty of doubting it still. It is almost
with amused interest that one, in these days, reads
the lengthy and learned argumentation of a Baur,
a Strauss, a Dr. S. Davidson,4 to demonstrate from
1 Ut supra, p. 18. 2 P. 15.
3 P. 35. Elsewhere he bases an argument on St. Luke's
"literary good faith" (p. 118).
4 Cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, i. pp. 169-83 ; S.
Davidson, Introd. to New Testament, i. pp. 278 ff., etc.

AND CRITICAL SOLVENTS 69
the textual phenomena that St. Mark was the
latest of the three Gospels, and depended on St.
Matthew and St. Luke, not they on St. Mark.1
The very phenomena now relied on to prove the
originality of St. Mark, e.g., his picturesqueness,
are turned by these writers into an argument against
him. The argument from verbal coincidences is
reversed, and St. Mark is made out to be based on
the others because in numerous instances St. Mark's
text agrees partly with St. Matthew and partly
with St. Luke. And, assuredly, if dependence
is assumed, lists can easily be furnished in which
the secondary character of the text of St. Mark
can as plausibly be maintained. But the Tubingen
theory of St. Mark's dependence is by no means
the only alternative to the prevailing view. The
learned Professor Zahn, e.g., strikes out on a differ
ent line, and supposes a dependence of St. Mark
on the Aramaic St. Matthew, but, conversely, a
partial dependence of the Greek St. Matthew on
1 More recently, the dependence of St. Mark on St"
Matt, and St. Luke is upheld by an able scholar, Dr. Colin
Campbell, whose work, The First Three Gospels in Greek,
arranged in Parallel Columns (second edition, 1899), is
designed to support this thesis. In a recent communica
tion Dr. C. writes : "I have seen nothing yet to alter my
conviction as to the substantial truth [of this hypothesis]
. . . Every detail I have accumulated — and I have a
large mass of material — convinces me that the prevalent
view is wrong. . . There are multitudes of expressions
in Mark which are best understood if we presuppose his
use of Matthew and Luke." (Pages of instances are given.)

70 THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
the canonical St. Mark.1 It is, in short, yet too
early to take the dependence on St. Mark as a fixed
result. 3. A strong argument against the current theory
seems to the present writer to arise from St. Luke's
Prologue,2 in which the principles which guided
the Evangelist in the composition of his Gospel
are explicitly laid down. It is to be noted that,
in this Preface, St. Luke assumes that the chief
matters he is about to relate are already well known
— fully established (TreTrX-ripoabopr/fiivcov) — in the
churches ; that they had been received from those
who " from the beginning were eye-witnesses
(avTOTTTai) and ministers of the word " ; that they
had been the subject of careful catechetical instruc
tion {KariyxTjOr}^) ; that many attempts had already
been made to draw up written narratives of these
things. For himself St. Luke claims that he has
" traced the course of all things accurately from
the first," and his object in writing, as he says,
"in order " («a.#ef 17?) , is that Theophilus may
" fully know " (eV^veos) the " certainty " [dacpd-
Xeiav) of those things concerning which he had
already been orally instructed. Does this, it may
be asked, suggest such a process of composition
1 Einleitung, ii. pp. 322 ff.
2 Luke i. 1-4 ; cf. on this point Dr. A. Wright, St.
Luke's Gospel in Greek, pp. xiv., xv. ; Synopsis of Gospels
in Greek, p. xviii.

AND CRITICAL SOLVENTS 71
as the current theory supposes ? St. Luke speaks,
indeed, of " many " who had taken in hand to
draw up written narratives. He alludes to these
earlier attempts, not disparagingly, but evidently
as implying that they were unauthoritative, lacked
order, and generally were unfitted for the purpose
his own Gospel was intended to serve. He himself,
in contrast with the " many," goes back to first
hand sources, and writes " in order." He is not
appropriating the work of others, but drawing
from his own researches.1 How does this tally
with the hypothesis now in vogue ? On this hypo
thesis another principal Gospel not only existed,
but was known to St. Luke, and was used by him
as a main basis of his own. This Gospel was the
work of John Mark, son of Mary of Jerusalem,
companion of St. Peter ; therefore may be presumed
to have been of high authority. St. Luke sets such
value on St. Mark's Gospel that he takes up fully
two-thirds of its contents into his own — draws
from it, in fact, nearly all his narrative material.
He relies so much on its " order " that in only one
or two instances does he venture to deviate from it.
Does this harmonize with the account he himself
1 Dr. Wright says : " His authorities were not written
documents, but partly eye-witnesses, partly professional
catechists " (ut supra). Dr. Plummer says: "That [the
reference to ' eye-witnesses '] would at once exclude Mat
thew, whose Gospel Luke does not appear to have known.
It is doubtful whether Mark is included in the ttoXXoi."

72 THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
gives ? The linguistic phenomena in St. Luke
which show a far wider divergence from the Marcan
type than in the first Gospel, again present diffi
culties.1 On the other hand, the " order," which
appears to belong to the form which the narratives
had come to assume before any Gospel was written,2
cannot alone be relied on to prove dependence, and
singular omissions remain to be accounted for.3
On the whole, therefore, it appears safer not to
allow a theory of dependence to rule the treatment,
or to create an initial prejudice against one Gospel
in comparison with another. St. Matthew and St.
Luke may be heard without assuming that either
Gospel, in its narrative portions, is a simple echo
of St. Mark.
It is impossible here to enter on the grounds
which, it is believed, justify the view that the
Fourth Gospel is a genuine work of the Apostle
1 Cf. Wright, Synopsis, p. xvi.
2 In all the Synoptics certain groups or chains of events
are linked together in the same way, evidently as the
result of traditional connexion. E.g., the Cure of the
Paralytic, the Call and Feast of Matthew, Questionings
of Pharisees and of John's Disciples ; again, the Plucking
of the Ears of Corn, the Cure of the Man with the Withered
Hand (Sabbath Stories). St. Matthew frequently trans
poses, in the interests of his own plan — chiefly, however,
in the earlier part of his Gospel.
3 Cf. Burkitt, p. 130 : "He freely omits large portions
of Mark," etc. One important series in St. Matthew (xiv.,
22-xvi. 12) and St. Mark (vi. 45-viii. 26) is, for no obvious
reason, wholly omitted in St. Luke.

AND CRITICAL SOLVENTS 73
John,1 containing authentic reminiscences of that
Apostle of the Lord's doings and teachings, especi
ally in Judaea, and in His more intimate intercourse
with His disciples, thus filling up the outline of the
other Evangelists in places which they had left
blank.2 The difficulty which weighs so strongly
with Mr. Burkitt of finding a place in the frame
work of St. Mark for the Raising of Lazarus is
certainly not insuperable ; 3 while his own view of
the free invention of this and other incidents and
discourses by the Evangelist 4 deprives the Gospel
of even the slightest claim to historical credit.
But the whole tone of the Gospel suggests a writer
who has minute and accurate knowledge of the
matters about which he writes — down even to
small personal details — and who means to be taken
as a faithful witness.5 As such he is accepted here.
1 Reference may simply be made to the works of Prin
cipal Drummond and Dr. Sanday on the Fourth Gospel.
Mr. Burkitt is hard driven when he relies on the late and
untrustworthy references to Papias to overturn the unani
mous early tradition of St. John's residence in Ephesus
(P- 252) •
2 Mr. Burkitt doubts if our Synoptic Gospels contain
stories from more than forty separate days of our Lord's
life (p. 20). 3 Cf. pp. 222-3, and Pref. to second edition.
4 " If [Mark] did not know of it [The Raising of Lazarus],
can we believe that, as a matter of fact, it ever occurred ?
Cf. pp. 225-6, 237, etc.
5 The interesting treatment of "The Historical Pro
blems of the Fourth Gospel," from a lay point of view,
in R. H. Hutton's Theological Essays, well deserves atten
tion at the present time.

74 THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
The way is now open for the consideration of
the application of these critical theories to the
narratives of the Resurrection, and attention may
first be given to certain features in the accounts of
the Resurrection itself.
At first sight, nothing might seem plainer than
that the narratives of the first three Gospels, while
necessarily related, are yet independent, in the sense
that no one of them is copied from, or based on,
the others. As already hinted, the difficulties of
a theory of dependence are here at their maximum.
In scarcely any particular — time, names and num
ber of women, events at the grave, number, appear
ance and position of angels, etc.- — do their accounts
exactly agree. This is indeed the stronghold of
the argument from " discrepancies " of which so
much is made. The theory, however, is, that the
narratives in St. Matthew and St. Luke are derived
from the simpler story of St. Mark ; and in carry
ing through this theory the advocates of depen
dence are driven to the most arbitrary and compli
cated hypotheses to explain how the divergences
arose. It will be interesting to watch the process
of dissolving the credit of the narratives by the
aid of this assumption in the skilled hands of a
writer like Professor Lake — though the result may
rather appear as a reductio ad absurdum of the
theory itself.
To begin with, certain cases of omission of details

AND CRITICAL SOLVENTS 75
by St. Matthew and St. Luke are proposed to be
solved by the hypothesis of an " original Mark "
{Ur-Markus), from which these details were absent.
Professor Lake, while not committing himself to
the theory, which Dr. Wright tells us is now " dis
credited and practically abandoned," x yet so far
inclines to it that he thinks — the reader will note
the simplicity of the hypothesis — " there is some
thing to be said for the view that the original Mar
can document did not give any names in Mark xv.
47, and that this form was used by Luke ; 2 that a
later edition, used by Matthew, identified the
women as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary ;
and that another editor produced the text which
is found in the canonical Mark." 3
More serious, however, is the difficulty that the
narratives are frequently divergent in phraseology
and circumstance in what they do relate. How is
this to be explained ? To take a leading example,
St. Mark narrates of the women that " entering
into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on
the right side, arrayed in a white robe." 4 St.
Matthew has an independent story of a great earth
quake, and represents an angel as rolling away the
stone and sitting upon it.6 St. Luke records that,
1 Synopsis, p. x.
2 It is a difficulty that St. Luke so often omits the proper
names in St. Mark. Cf. Wright, ut supra.
3 Lake, ut supra, p. 54.
4 Mark. xvi. 5. 5 Matt, xxviii. 2-5.

76 THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
when they had entered the tomb, " two men stood
by them in dazzling apparel." x No divergence
could be greater, on the principle that " the two
other Gospels, Matthew and Luke, are closely based
on the Marcan narrative." 2 But Professor Lake
is not discouraged. Accepting St. Mark's narra
tive as the original, " the others," he thinks, " all
fall into place on an intelligible though complicated
system of development under the influence of
known causes." 3 " Complicated " indeed — and
unreal — as will be seen by glancing at it.
First, there is a slight (infinitesimal) possibility
that the Marcan text may originally have read,
" came to the tomb " (instead of " entered into "),*
and this left it doubtful whether the " young man "
of the story was seen " on the right side " inside
or outside the tomb.5 In " elucidating " the point
left in ambiguity, St. Luke took it the one way and
St. Matthew the other — hence their variation.
Only, if this is not the correct reading, the explana
tion falls.
Next, the " young man " in St. Mark " appears
without any explanation of his identity or mis
sion." 6 He was really, on Professor Lake's theory,
as will be seen later, a youth at the spot who tried
to persuade the women that they had come to the
1 Luke xxiv. 3-5. 2 Ut supra, p. 63.
3 P. 62-3. 4 The Vat MS. reads ZXOovaai.
6 Ut supra, pp. 62-3. 6 P. 184.

AND CRITICAL SOLVENTS 77
wrong tomb.1 Naturally, however, attempts were
soon made to identify him. " The most obvious
view for that generation, in which angelology was
so powerful a force, was that he was an angel.
This view is adopted in Matthew." 2 " Still a
further step is to be found in the doubling of the
angel, again strictly in accordance with Jewish
thought." This in St. Luke, St. John, and the
Gospel of Peter.3 " Why are there two men in
Luke instead of one ? The answer is not quite
plain, but it seems probable that there was a general
belief in Jewish and possibly other circles that two
angels were specially connected with the messages
of God." 4 Elsewhere the probability is conceded
that St. Luke is here following a different tradition
from St. Mark's.6 But why, then, not all through ?
We are not done yet, however, with this " young
man " of St. Mark's narrative. An attempt is
made " to bring together and trace the develop
ment of the various forms in which the original
' young man ' is represented in various books." 6
" Two hypotheses," we are told, " naturally pre
sented themselves : one that the young man was
an angel ; the other that he was the Risen Lord
Himself." ' St. Matthew, after his manner, adopted
both views. The angel sitting on the stone is one
form : the appearance of Jesus to the women as
1 Cf. pp. 251-2. 2 P. 185. 3 P. 185.
4 P. 67. 6 Pp. 67, 92. 6 P. 67. 7 P. 85.

78 THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES
they went x is the other. This appearance of
Jesus recorded by St. Matthew is held to be a
" doublet " of St. Mark's young man story. So
is St. John's account of the appearance of the Lord
to Mary Magdalene.2
If attention has been given to this incident in
some detail, it is because, in its far-fetched conjec
tures and hypothetical ingenuities, it represents
so characteristically the processes by which it is
sought to dissipate the credibility of the Gospel
narratives, and the methods by which the Marcan
theory is applied to this end. The real effect of
its forced combinations and toppling structure " of
possibles " and " perhapses "is to cast doubt on
the theory with which it starts, and lend strength
to the view of the independence of the narratives.
After all, why should St. Luke, whose narrative is
so very divergent, be supposed to be dependent on
St. Mark in his account of the Resurrection ? Pro
fessor Lake has been heard admitting that it is
possible that St. Luke followed a different tradition.
Going a stage further back, we find Mr. Burkitt
allowing that St. Luke in the Passion " deserts
Mark to follow another story of the last scenes." 3
At the other end, St. Luke is admittedly original
in his account of the ^>os£-Resurrection appearances.
1 P. 85, Matt, xxviii. 9.
2 P. 186, John xx. 14, 15.
3 Ut supra, p. 130.

AND CRITICAL SOLVENTS 79
Why then should he not be so in the narrative of
the Resurrection itself ? The same question may
be asked regarding St. Matthew. The harmonistic
expedients censured in commentators are mild in
comparison with the violence needed to evolve the
narratives of either of the other Evangelists out of
that of St. Mark.
The detailed examination of the narratives next
to be undertaken will further illustrate the unten-
ableness of the new critical constructions, and
provide the basis of a positive argument for the
reality of the Resurrection.

THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS-
THE BURIAL

*.i. «

IV
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS— THE
BURIAL
One of the most touching scenes in Goethe's Faust
is where the heart-sick sceptic, about to drain the
poison-goblet, is turned from his purpose by hear
ing the ringing of the Easter bells, and the choral
hymns, proclaiming that the Lord is risen. " I
hear your message," is his first comment, " but I
have not faith. Miracle is faith's favourite child." l
In this we hear the voice of to-day. But the sweet
sounds, with their tidings of victory and joy for
the world, melt and conquer — for the time.
Sing ye on, sweet songs that are of heaven I
Tears come, Earth has her child again.
It is this " Easter Message," fraught with such
infinite consolation for mankind, which is again
placed in question. The mood of the sceptic is
resumed. Faith may, if it will, believe that Jesus
lives with God ; that He has not in spirit succumbed
to death. But the historical fact on which the
Church has hitherto reposed its confidence in His
1 " Das Wunder ist des Glaubens liebstes Kind."
83

84 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
victory over death — His Resurrection in the body
from the grave — is negatived as incredible, and
the evidence on which the belief rests is declared
to be valueless as proof of so great a wonder. A
little has already been said of the methods by which
the breaking down of the evidence is attempted on
the part of historical criticism. Much is made of
the secondary character of the narratives, of their
contradictions, of the mythical and legendary
elements alleged to be apparent in them. The
accounts are pitted against each other, are picked
to pieces, and attacked in their separate details
(" divide and conquer.").1 Their larger coherences,
the connexion with the life of Christ as a whole,
their antecedents and consequents in revelation
and history — all this is left out of view or mini
mized. It is time to come to closer quarters with
this bold challenge of the evidence, and to ask how
far the denial rests on satisfactory grounds.
One or two general remarks are pertinent at the
outset. It is customary to urge as decisive against the
narratives of the Gospels that not any of the writers
are first-hand witnesses. This, however, as already
hinted, is to take much too narrow a view. If the
1 Cf., amongst recent works, Die Auferstehung Christi,
by Arnold Meyer (1905), and the work of Prof. Lake re
peatedly referred to, The Historical Evidence for the Resur
rection of Jesus Christ. (Now Abbe Loisy's Les Evangiles
Synoptiques.)

THE BURIAL 85
Fourth Gospel, as is here presumed, and as indica
tions in its Resurrection narratives themselves
tend to show, is a genuine work of the Apostle John,
we have one witness of foremost rank who was an
eye-witness. St. Mark, according to a tradition
which there seems no reason to doubt, was the
" interpreter " of St. Peter x — another primary
witness. St. Luke lays stress upon the fact that
the things which he relates rested primarily on the
testimony of those " which from the beginning
were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." 2
The Gospel of St. Matthew, if not directly the work
of that Apostle, must have been written by one in
such close intimacy with the Apostle — another
first-hand witness — that his Gospel ever after passed
as St. Matthew's own.3 St Paul's appeal is to
eye-witnesses.4 But there is more than this. It is never to be
forgotten that, as the words of St. Luke above cited
imply, the writers of the Synoptical Gospels, like
Confucius in China, were not " originators " but
" transmitters." Their business was not to create,
but simply to record, as faithfully as they could,
1 Papias, in Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. iii. 39, and generally
in the ancient Church. Cf. Meyer, Weiss, Westcott, Sal
mon, Zahn, etc.
2 Luke i. 2.
3 Cf. Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 259. All early writers agree
in accepting the Greek Gospel as St. Matthew's, even
while declaring that he wrote in Aramaic.
4 1 Cor. xv. 5-8.

86 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
a tradition already existing and well established in
the Church — a tradition derived originally from
Apostles, circulating in oral and written form, and
well preserved by careful catechetical teaching.
It is to be remembered that the Apostles, with
numerous other eye-witnesses, lived for years
together at Jerusalem, continuously engaged in
the work of instruction ; that during this period
they were in constant communication with each
other, with their converts, and with the Churches
which they founded ; that the witness which they
bore necessarily acquired a fixed and familiar
form ; and that the deposit of the common tradi
tion which we have in the Gospels has behind it, in
its main features, all the weight of this consentient
testimony — is, therefore, of the highest value as
evidence. If it is not the testimony of this or
that single eye-witness, it may be something better.
Next, as to the " contradictions." These, it
will be seen immediately, are greatly exaggerated.
But even on the points which present undeniable
difficulties, certain things, in fairness, are to be
borne in mind. We see how minute, faithful, and
life-like are the narratives of the Lord's Crucifixion.
The events of the Resurrection morning could not
be less well known. The Apostles were, above all
things else, witnesses to the Resurrection.1 Within
a few weeks of the Crucifixion they were proclaim-
1 Acts. i. 22, ii. 32, iii. 15, iv. 33 ; 1 Cor. xv. 15.

THE BURIAL 87
ing the Resurrection of Jesus in the streets of
Jerusalem, and making multitudes of converts by
their preaching.1 The facts must have been con
stantly talked about, narrated in preaching, ex
periences compared, particular incidents connected
with this or that person or group of persons, either
as original informants, or as prominent persons in
the story. It is further to be remembered that
the Resurrection day was necessarily one of great
excitement. Events and experiences, as the tale
was told, would be mingled, blended, grouped, in
a way which no one who was not an eye-witness,
like St. John, would be able afterwards clearly to
disentangle. Yet the essential facts, and even
the chief details of the story, would stand out
beyond all reasonable question. This is what we
would expect in the narratives of the Gospels, and
what, in fact, we find. No one of the Evangelists
professes to give a complete account of everything
that happened on that wonderful Easter morning
and day. Each selects and combines from his own
point of view ; gives outstanding names and facts,
without disputing or denying that others may
have something else to tell ; in default of more
exact knowledge, sometimes generalizes. It is
here that St. John, with his more precise and con
secutive narration, affords valuable aid,2 as he
1 Acts ii.-iv.
2 It is possible to agree with Renan here. " In all that

88 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
does so frequently in matters of chronology in the
Gospels.
In narratives of this description, however credible
in origin and substance, it is clearly as hopeless as
it is unfair to adopt the methods of a pettifogging
attorney, bent at all costs on tripping the witness
up on small details. No two of the Evangelists,
e.g., agree precisely in the terms they employ as to
the time of the visit of the women to the tomb.1
Yet in all four it is plainly implied that the visit
took place in early morning, when dawn was merg
ing into day, and that it was full daylight before
the visit was completed. One Evangelist names
certain women ; others add a name or two more
- — names familiar in all the accounts. How small
such points are as the basis of a charge of irre
concilable contradictions ! How few statements
of public events, even where stricter accuracy of
expression is aimed at, could endure to have such
methods applied to them ! 2
concerns the narrative of the Resurrection and the appear
ances," he says, " the Fourth Gospel maintains that su
periority which it has for all the rest of the Life of Jesus.
If we wish to find a consecutive logical narrative, which
allows that which is hidden behind the allusions to be
conjectured, it is there that we must look for it " (Les
Apotres, p. ix.). Attention may again be drawn to R. H.
Hutton's essay on " The Historical Problems of the Fourth
Gospel " (Theol. Essays, No. vii.).
1 On this and the next example, see after.
2 Critics are always girding at the doctrine of " verbal
inspiration." Yet their own objections rest on the postu-

THE BURIAL 89
Two examples may illustrate.
Professor Huxley was a man of scientific mind,
from whom accurate statement in an ordinary
narrative of fact might justly be expected. It
happens, however, that in Huxley's Darwiniana
the scientist makes two references in different papers
to the origin of the breed of Ancon sheep. It is
instructive to put the two passages side by side.
Here is the first : —
With the 'cuteness characteristic of their nation, the
neighbours of the Massachusetts farmer imagined that it
would be an excellent thing if all his sheep were imbued
with the stay-at-home tendencies enforced by Nature on
the newly-arrived ram, and they advised Wright to kill
the old patriarch of his fold, and instal the Ancon ram in
his place. The result justified their sagacious anticipa
tions.1 Here is the other : —
It occurred to Seth Wright, who was, like his successors,
more or less 'cute, that if he could get a stock of sheep
like those with the bandy legs, they would not be able to
jump over the fences so readily ; and he acted upon that
idea.2 Here, manifestly, are " discrepancies " which,
on critical principles, should discredit the whole
story. In the latter narrative we have Seth Wright
alone ; in the former, neighbours ; [" the second
late of the narrowest view of verbal inspiration, and lose
their force on any other hypothesis.
1 Darwiniana, pp. 38-9. 2 P. 409.

90 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
narrative," we might say in the usual style, " knows
nothing of neighbours ; " the longer version is
plainly a later expansion]. In the latter, the idea
is Seth Wright's very own — the product of his own
'cuteness ; in the other, the 'cuteness is wholly in
the neighbours, and Seth Wright only acts on their
advice. Yet how contemptuously would any sensible
person scout such hypercriticism !
A second instructive example is furnished in a
recent issue of the Bibliotheca Sacra.1 A class in
history was studying the French Revolution, and
the pupils were asked to look the matter up, and
report next day by what vote Louis XVI was con
demned. Nearly half the class reported that the
vote was unanimous. A considerable number pro
tested that he was condemned by a majority of
one. A few gave the majority as 145 in a vote of
721. " How utterly irreconcilable these reports
seemed ! Yet for each the authority of reputable
historians could be given. In fact, all were true,
and the full truth was a combination of all three."
On the first vote as to the king's guilt there was no
contrary voice. Some tell only of this. The vote
on the penalty was given individually, with reasons,
and a majority of 145 declared for the death penalty,
at once or after peace was made with Austria, or
after confirmation by the people. The votes for
1 Oct., 1907, pp. 768-9.

THE BURIAL 91
immediate death were only 361 as against 360.
History abounds with similar illustrations.1
It helps, further, to set this question in its right
light, if it is kept in mind that the Gospel narratives
take for granted the Resurrection of Jesus as a
fact universally accepted, on Apostolic testimony,
and aim primarily, not at proof of the fact, but at
telling how the event came about, and was brought
on that Easter morning to the knowledge of the
disciples, with the surprising consequences. It is
not evidence led in a court of law, but information
concerning an event which everybody already knew
and believed in, which they furnish. This explains,
in part, their naive and informal character. It
reminds us also that, while the value of these narra
tives, as contributing to the evidence of the fact,
cannot be exaggerated, the certainty of the fact
itself rests on a prior and much broader basis —
the unfaltering Apostolic witness.2 The origin of
1 As an example of another kind, reference may be
made to Rev. R. J. Campbell's volume of Sermons Ad
dressed to Individuals, where, on pp. 145-6 and pp. 181-2
the same story of a Brighton man is told with affecting
dramatic details. The story is no doubt true in substance ;
but for " discrepancies " — let the reader compare them,
and never speak more (or Mr. Campbell either) of the
Gospels !
2 As shown in a previous paper, the belief in the Resur
rection is admitted on all hands. R. Otto, in his Leben
und Wirken Jesu, says : " It can be firmly maintained :
no fact in history is better attested than, not indeed the
Resurrection, but certainly the rock-fast conviction of the

92 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
the Christian Church, it will hereafter be argued,
can simply not be explained except on the assump
tion of the reality of the fact. Meanwhile it is to
be inquired what credit attaches to the Gospel
relation of the circumstances of this astonishing
event which has changed the whole outlook of the
generations of mankind upon the future.
Let the chief points be taken in order, and their
credibility examined. The force of the objections
of a destructive historical criticism can then be
tested. A first fact attested by all the witnesses is that
Jesus died and was buried. St. Paul sums up the
unanimous belief of the early Church on this point
in the words : " That Christ died for our sins accord
ing to the Scriptures, and that He was buried." J
The reality of Christ's death, as against the swoon
theories, was touched on before, and need not be
re-argued. No one now holds that Jesus did not die !
" He was buried," St. Paul says. How He was
buried is told by the Evangelists. The facts must
have been perfectly well known to the primitive
community, and the accounts in all four Gospels,
as might be expected, are in singular agreement.2
first community of the Resurrection of Christ " (p. 49).
It is here contended that the belief is inexplicable, under
the conditions, without the fact.
1 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4. ;
8 Matt, xxvii. 57-61 ; Mark xv. 42-7 ; Luke xxiii. 50-6 ;
John xix. 38-42.

THE BURIAL 93
Combining their statements, we learn that Joseph
of Arimathaea, an honourable councillor (Mark and
John), and secret disciple of Jesus (Matthew, John),
a " rich man " (Matthew), one " looking for the
kingdom of God " (Mark, Luke), " a good man and
a righteous " (Luke), begged from Pilate the body
of Jesus (all four), and, wrapping it in a linen cloth
(all), buried it in a new (Matthew, Luke, John)
rock-tomb (all) belonging to himself (Matthew, cf.
John), in the vicinity of the place of crucifixion (in
" a garden," John says), and closed the entrance
with a great (Matthew, Mark, implied in the others)
stone. St. John further informs us that Nicodemus
assisted in the burial, bringing with him costly
spices. Phraseology differs in the accounts, and
slight particulars furnished by one Evangelist are
lacking or unnoticed in the others. St. Mark alone,
e.g., tells of Pilate's hesitation in granting Joseph's
request, and alone relates that Joseph " bought "
a linen cloth. Yet the story, on the face of it, is
harmonious throughout, and what any Evangelist
fails to state the rest of his narrative generally
implies. St. Luke and St. John do not even men
tion the rolling of the stone to the door of the tomb
(the fact was one so well known that it could be
omitted). But it is told how the stone was found
removed on the Resurrection morning.1
What has historical criticism to say to this story ?
1 Luke xxiv. 2 ; John xx. 1.

94 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
One method is simply to deny or ignore it, and to
aver, in teeth of the evidence, that the body of
Jesus was probably cast by the Jews to the dung
hill,1 or otherwise disposed of. This, however, is
generally felt to be too drastic a procedure, and the
tendency in recent criticism has been to accept the
main fact of Joseph's interment of the body of
Jesus,2 but usually with qualifications and explana
tions which deprive the act of the character it has
in the Gospels. Professor Lake's book may again
serve to illustrate the process. According to this
writer, the narrative which, to the ordinary eye,
reads so harmoniously is honeycombed with contra
dictions. The variations and omissions in the
accounts form, indeed, a difficulty in the way of the
Marcan theory — e.g., the omission of St. Mark's
mention of the hesitation of Pilate (Matthew, Luke),
or of the names of the women at the tomb (Luke)
— but this is got over, or minimized, by the sugges
tion of an " Ur-Markus." 3 Then the path is open
to assume that St. Matthew's " rich man," and St.
1 Thus Strauss, Reville, etc. Reville, quoted by Godet,
says the Jews perhaps cast the body of Jesus on the dust-
heap, and adds, " as was generally done with the bodies
of executed criminals.'' Godet points out that " such a
custom was not in conformity with Jewish or Roman
law " (Defence of the Christian Faith, E. T., p. 106).
2 Thus Renan, H. J. Holtzmann, O. Holtzmann, Prof.
Lake, etc. Strauss allows that Roman law permitted
the handing over of the body to friends ( Ulpian, xlviii. 24).
3 Res. of Jesus Christ, pp. 52-4.

THE BURIAL 95
Luke's " good man and righteous," are but varying
interpretations (" paraphrases ") of St. Mark's " a
councillor of honourable estate " ; 1 that the dis-
cipleship of St. Matthew, said to be unknown to,
and in contradiction with, St. Mark, is an attempt
to find a " motive " for the burial ; 2 that St. Luke,
by the use of the term " hewn in stone " (Xa^evTw
contradicts the description of the tomb in the other
Synoptics ; 3 while St. John goes still further astray
in regarding the tomb as " a kind of mausoleum," *
etc. " The discipleship ascribed to Joseph in, John
[as in Matthew] is not really to be reconciled with
the Marcan account." 5 The probable truth is
held to be that Joseph, a member of the Sanhedrim,
and acting as its representative,6 was moved to do
what he did solely by regard for the precept in
Deuteronomy xxi. 22 ff . : that the body of a criminal
hanged on a tree should be buried before sunset.7
But how far-fetched and distorted is all this
theorizing ! The contradictions in the narratives
1 Pp. 50-1. 2 Pp. 46, 50, 61, 173, etc.
3 P. 51. "In Mark we have an ordinary rock-tomb ;
in Luke, a tomb of hewn stone ; in John, a mausoleum
with a place for the body in the centre " (p. 176).
4 Pp. 172-3. 5 Pp. 172.
6 Pp. 177, 182. Mr. Burkitt, on the other hand, seems
to question that /3ouA^t?;s means a member of the San
hedrim, and hints that St. Luke has here again mistaken
St. Mark (Gospel History, p. 56). There is no reason to
doubt St. Luke's accuracy in his understanding of the word.
7 Pp. 130, 182.

96 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
hunted out with such painstaking zeal simply do
not exist. To take first the question of disciple-
ship. If the word " disciple " is not used by St.
Mark and St. Luke, is not the fact of discipleship
to the degree intended — a secret sympathy now
coming to avowal — written across their narratives
as plainly as across those of St. Matthew and St.
John ? What else but discipleship of this kind
could move a member of the Sanhedrim (" he had
not," St. Luke tells us, " consented to their counsel
and deed." x), on the very day of Christ's crucifixion,
to come boldly forward (" having dared," St. Mark
says 2), to ask from Pilate the body of the Crucified ;
then, having bought linen, to wrap it therein and
give it reverent burial in a rock-tomb (according to
St. Matthew, his own ; 3 according to St. Matthew,
St. Luke, St. John,4 new) ? Indeed, does not the
very expression used by St. Mark and St. Luke,
" looking for the kingdom of God," imply, for them,
a measure of discipleship ?
Is it probable, Professor Lake asks, that a disciple
would have been a member of the Sanhedrim, or

1 Luke xxiii. 51. * Mark xv. 43. 8 Matt, xxvii. 60.
4 Matt. xvii. 60 ; Luke xxiii. 53 ; John xix. 41. " In
the first Gospel," says Strauss, " Joseph is a disciple of
Jesus — and such must have been the man who, under
circumstances so unfavourable, did not hesitate to take
charge of His body " (Life of Jesus, iii. p. 297). Renan
follows the narratives without hesitation, including the
anointing (Vie de Jesus, chap. xxvi.).

THE BURIAL . 97
have omitted the anointing ? * "If Joseph was
not a disciple, he probably did not anoint the body,
if he was, he probably did." 2 Then the absence of
the mention of the anointing in St. Mark is taken
as a proof that Joseph was not a disciple. But
in St. Matthew's narrative, where the discipleship
is asserted, there is no anointing either. On Pro
fessor Lake's showing, it should nevertheless be
presupposed.3 " Mark says that Joseph was a
member of the Sanhedrim, and that he did not
anoint the body." 4 St. Mark makes no such state
ment. What Professor Lake converts into this
assertion is an inference of his own from a later
part of the narrative, where St. Mark speaks of the
purchase of spices by the women with a view to
their anointing on the first day of the week.5
The attempt to make out a discrepancy about the
tomb is even less successful. In the adjective Xa^evra
in St. Luke Professor Lake seems to have discovered
a signification unknown to most students of the
language. One asks, by what right does he impose
on this word, occurring here alone in the New Testa
ment, a sense contrary to that of the corresponding
1 Ut supra, p. 171. 2 P. 173.
3 In another place he says, " He [Matthew] had given
an explanation of the burial by Joseph of Arimathaea —
discipleship — which rendered it improbable that the latter
had omitted the usual last kindnesses to a dead friend's
body" (p. 61). St. Matthew should at least be cleared
of contradiction to St. John.
4 P. 171. 6 Mark xvi. 1.
R.J. rj

98 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
word in the other Gospels ? In the one case
in which it occurs in the LXX (Deut. iv. 49), it
cannot well mean aught else than hewn out of the
rock. Meyer appears to give the meaning correctly,
" hewn in stone, therefore neither dug nor built." x
But the tomb, it is objected, was not necessarily
Joseph's own, as St. Matthew affirms. Surely,
however, the very use of it for the burial of the
Lord's body, which all the Evangelists attest, is the
strongest of proofs that it was. The tomb was
evidently one of some distinction. Three witnesses
describe it as " new," " where never man had yet
lain" (Matthew, Luke, and John), and it was situated
in " a garden." 2 Can those who write thus have
thought of it as other than the property of the coun
cillor who used it. Or was it the custom in Judaea
for people simply to appropriate any one's rock-
tomb that pleased them ? 3 Professor Lake finds
1 Com. in loc. On Jewish tombs and burial customs,
cf. Latham, The Risen Master, pp. 33-6, 87-8, and plates.
2 John xix. 41.
3 Cf. Ebrard, Gospel History, E. T., p. 446 ; Godet,
Com. on St. John, E. T., iii. p. 282. O. Holtzmann's
theory of the Resurrection, as will be seen later, turns on
the very point that the tomb was Joseph's (Leben Jesu,
p. 392). A. Meyer's conjecture (Die Auferstehung, p. 123)
that the tomb was a chance, deserted one, not only con
tradicts the evidence but is out of harmony with St. Mark's
narrative of the loving care shown in Christ's burial. The
circumstance that St. John gives the proximity of the
tomb as a reason for the burial (xix. 42) in no way contra
dicts the ownership by Joseph.

THE BURIAL 99
a discrepancy even in St. Luke's omitting to mention
the closing of the door with a stone ! But he adds
in a footnote : " But the stone is implied in Luke
xxii. 2. Either St. Luke forgot his previous omis
sion or the latter was, after all, accidental ! " J
The futility of the counter-explanation offered
of Joseph of Arimathaea's action hardly needs
elaboration. Is it credible that any member of
the Sanhedrim, without living sympathy with Jesus
— still more the Sanhedrim as a body or their
representative — should behave in the manner re
corded from the simple motive of securing that a
criminal who had undergone execution should be
buried before sunset ? The answer may be left to
the reader's own reflections.
Connected with the burial is the story of the guard
at the tomb, narrated only by St. Matthew 2 — there
fore lacking the breadth of attestation of the main
history. It is not, on that account, as is very fre
quently assumed, to be dismissed as legendary.
If it has behind it the authority of St. Matthew,
it is certainly not legendary ; even if not his, it may
come from some first-hand and quite authentic
source. It will fall to be considered again in con
nexion with the events of the Resurrection. Mean
while it need only be remarked that its credibility
is at least not shaken by many of the objections
1 Ut supra, p. 51.
2 Matt, xxvii. 62-9; cf. xxviii. 4, 11-15.

ioo THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
which have been urged against it.1 If the Gospel
narratives are to be believed, the action, teaching,
and miracles of Jesus — including the Resurrection
of Lazarus 2— had made a deep impression on the
authorities. Especially had the events of the past
week stirred them to the depths.3 Had they not
on the previous night condemned Jesus for a blas
phemous claim to Messiahship ? Had not mysterious
words of His about the building of the temple in
three days been quoted against Him ? 4 Had the
betrayer dropped no hints of sayings of Jesus in
which, repeatedly, He had spoken of His being put
to death and rising again the third day ? b If
such things came to the ears of the chief priests and
Pharisees, as it is implied they did, do they not
furnish sufficient motive for what followed ? Herod's
conscience-stricken thought about Jesus, that He
was John the Baptist risen from the dead,6 shows
that such ideas as Resurrection were not far to
seek. Even if the guilty consciences of those re
sponsible for Christ's crucifixion prompted no such
fears, was not the fact that the body had been com-
1 See these in Meyer's Com. on Matthew, in loc.
* Cf. John xi. 47-57-
3 Matt. xxi. 12-16, xxiii., xxvi. 3-5, etc.
4 Matt. xxvi. 6-1 ; Mark xiv. 58 ; cf. John ii. 18-22.
6 Matt. xvi. 21 ; xvii. 22, 23 ; xx. 16, 19 (so Mark, Luke).
O. Holtzmann accepts and builds upon the genuineness
of these sayings (Leben Jesu, p. 388). So earlier, Renan,
in part (Les Apotres, ch. i.).
6 Matt. xiv. 2 ; Mark vi. 14-61 ; Luke ix. 7-9.

THE BURIAL 101
mitted to Christ's friends enough to create the
apprehension that His disciples might remove it
and afterwards pretend that He had risen ? It was
with this plea that they went to Pilate and obtained
the watch they sought. To make security doubly
sure, they sealed the tomb with the official seal.
The sole result, under providence, was to afford
new evidence for the reality of the Resurrection.
The events of the Resurrection morning itself
now claim our attention. But a minor point already
alluded to, connecting the Resurrection narratives
with those just considered, viz., the purpose attri
buted to the holy women by two of the Evangelists l
of anointing the body of Jesus, may first be touched
on. In regard to it several difficulties (" contra
dictions ") have been raised.
There is first the supposed inconsistency between
this intention of the women of Galilee and the fact
recorded by St. John alone,2 that the anointing
had already been done by Joseph and Nicodemus,
with lavish munificence, at the time of burial. The
women were present at that scene.3 Why then
should they contemplate a repetition of the func
tion ? Then contradictions are pointed out in the
narratives of the Synoptics themselves, inasmuch as
St. Matthew, from a motive which Professor Lake
1 Mark xvi. I ; Luke xxiii. 56 ; xxiv. 1.
2 John xix. 39, 40. Strauss elaborates this objection.
Renan finds no difficulty.
3 Matt, xxvii. 61 ; Mark xv. 49 ; Luke xxiii. 55.

102 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
thinks he can divine,1 omits this feature altogether,
while St. Mark places the purchase of the spices
on the Saturday (" when the Sabbath was past "),2
and St. Luke on the Friday 3 evening. Are these
difficulties really formidable ? In a fair judgment
it is hard to believe it. The difficulty is rather with
those who suppose that St. Matthew, with St.
Mark's Gospel before him, designedly omitted or
changed this particular, or that St. Matthew and
St. Luke, both copying from St. Mark, fell into con
tradiction with each other,4 and with their source.
Grant independent narration, and the difficulties
mostly vanish.
With reference to the first point, it should be
observed that, in strictness, St. John, in his narra
tive of the burial, says nothing of " anointing."
The " mixture of myrrh and aloes " need not have
been an ointment, and the language of the Gospel,
"bound it [the body] in linen cloths with the spices,"6
1 Ut supra, p. 61. The motive, as stated above, is
that St. Matthew presupposes an anointing by Joseph.
He has also a guard at the tomb. A. Meyer (Die Auferste-
hung, pp. 108, in) contents himself with the guard.
2 Mark xvi. i. 3 Luke xxiii. 56.
4 St. Luke is thought to have been ignorant of, or to
have momentarily forgotten, the Jewish method of reckon
ing days— a likely supposition (p. 59). Is it not St. Luke
himself who tells us in verse 54 : " And the Sabbath drew
on (Greek, " began to dawn ") ?
6 John xix. 40. Luthardt comments : " Probably of
pulverized gum, myrrh and aloe-wood, that was strewn
between the bandages " (Com. in loc.) . St. Luke distin-

THE BURIAL 103
suggests that it was not.1 But not to press this
point, the circumstances have to be considered.
The burial by Joseph of Arimathsea was extremely
hurried. The permission of Pilate had to be ob
tained, the body taken down, linen and spices
bought, the body prepared for burial and interred,
all within the space of two or three hours — possibly
less.2 It was probably cleansed, and enswathed
within the linen sheet or bandages with the spices,
without more being attempted. There was plainly
room here for the more loving and complete anoint
ing which the devotion of the women would sug
gest.3 Probably this was intended from the first.
It is not, at least, surprising that their affection
should contemplate such an act, and that steps
should immediately be taken, perhaps a beginning
of purchases made, to carry out their purpose.
Next, with respect to the alleged Synoptic incon
sistencies, Professor Lake being witness, St. Mat
thew's text, albeit silent, does not exclude, but
guishes, as a physician would, between " spices " and
"ointments" (xxiii. 56).
1 Cf. Latham, The Risen Master, pp. 9 (quoting Elli-
cott), 36-7.
2 The haste was due to the nearness of the Sabbath
(Mark and Luke).
3 If, in modern custom, wreaths were placed on the
grave of a friend in a hurried burial, would this preclude
the desire of other mourners, who had not earlier opportu
nity, to bring their wreaths ? or would they carefully
reckon up whether enough had not already been done ?
Cf. Ebrard, Gospel History, p. 446.

104 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
presupposes, such an anointing — if anointing it
was — as that described by St. John.1 Much less,
surely, can it be held to exclude the intention, re
corded in St. Mark and St. Luke, of the women to
anoint — a circumstance probably left unnoticed
because never carried into effect,2 or because soon
overshadowed by greater events. The point is
very immaterial as to when precisely the purchases
of spices were made. The " internal probability,"
as Professor Lake would say, is that the purchases
were commenced in the short space that remained
before the Sabbath began, and were completed
after the Sabbath ended. Most likely some women
made purchases at one time, others at another.
In stating, however, that " they returned, and pre
pared spices and ointments," 3 St. Luke is probably
not intending to fix any precise time : perhaps
had not the means of doing it. The next verse
[" And on the Sabbath they rested, according to
the commandment "] as the ah shows, and the
R.V. correctly indicates, begins a new paragraph.
With the narratives of the wonderful events of
the Easter morning, which are next to be considered,
1 Ut supra, p. 61.
2 The reasons assigned by the critics are quite gratuitous.
St. Matthew has in view, like the others, an anointing for
burial (cf. the story of Mary of Bethany, chap. xxvi. 13.
Strauss makes adroit use of this incident for his own pur
pose, New Life of Jesus, i. pp. 397-8).
8 Luke xxiii. 56.

THE BURIAL 105
the core of the subject is reached. It is conceded
on all hands that the Resurrection narratives present
problems of exceptional interest and difficulty.
It is not simply the so-called " discrepancies " in the
narratives which create the problems. These,
as said before, may prove to be of minor
account. What are they all compared with the
tremendous agreement in the testimony which
Strauss himself thus formulates : " According to
all the Gospels, Jesus, after having been buried on
the Friday evening, and lain during the Sabbath
in the grave, came out of it restored to life at day
break on Sunday " ? l The problems arise from
the fact that now, in the historical inquiry, an
unequivocal step is taken into the region of the
supernatural. Naturalism or supernaturalism —
there is no escape from the alternative presented.
There are consequently two, and only two, possible
avenues of approach to these narratives, and ac
cording as the one or the other is adopted, the light
in which they appear will be different. If they
are approached, as they are by most " moderns,"
with the fixed persuasion that there is, and can
be, no resurrection of the dead, it is impossible to
avoid seeing in them only a farrago of contradic
tions and ^credibilities. For it is undeniably a
supernatural fact which they record — the revivi
fication of the Son of God, the supreme act of triumph
1 New Life of Jesus, i. p. 397.

106 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
by which the Redeemer of the world, through the
might of the Father, resumed the life He had volun
tarily laid down.1 The element in which they
move is the supernatural — the earthquake which
opens a path from the tomb and scatters the guards ;
angelic appearances and messages ; manifesta
tions of the Risen Lord Himself. If nothing
of this can be accepted, the narratives, with
the faith which they embody, and the effects
of that faith in history, remain an enigma, incap
able, as the attempts at the reading of their riddle
show, of solution.2
Here, then, a choice must be made. If Strauss's
dictum, " Every historian should possess philo
sophy enough to be able to deny miracles here as
well as elsewhere," 3 is accepted, it becomes an
insult to intelligence to speak of the narratives as
evidence of anything. If, on the other hand, with
scope for the discussion of details, the presence of
the supernatural in the heart of the narratives is
frankly acknowledged, harmony speedily begins
to manifest itself where before there was irrecon
cilable confusion. As R. H. Hutton, a man of no
1 John x. 17, 18 ; cf. Matt. xx. 28, etc.
2 Justly has Prof. F. Loofs said : " He who has never
felt that, with the message, ' Christ is risen,' something
quite extraordinary, all but incomprehensible to natural
experience, has entered into the history of the world, has
not yet rightly understood what it is to preach the Risen
One " (Die Auferstehungsberichte, p. 7).
3 Quoted by Godet, Com. on St. John, iii. p. 323.

THE BURIAL 107
narrow intellect and a cultured judge of historical
evidence, puts it : " The whole incredibility which
has been felt in relation to this statement [the Lord's
Resurrection] arises, I imagine, entirely from its
supernatural and miraculous character. ... A
short statement of how the matter really stands
will prove, I think, that, were the fact not super
natural, the various inconsistencies in the evidence
adduced of it would not weigh a jot with any reason
able mind against accepting it." x
It is in this spirit that the discussion of the Re
surrection narratives will be approached in the suc
ceeding chapters. The evidence will be taken as
it is given — not with the a priori demand for some
other kind of evidence, but with the aim of ascer
taining the value of that actually possessed. It will
be fully recognized that, as before allowed, the
narratives are fragmentary, condensed, often gener
alized,2 are different in points of view, difficult in
1 Theol. Essays, third edition, p. 131. The whole essay
should be consulted.
2 In illustration of what is meant by " generalizing,"
the following may be adapted from Ebrard (Gospel History,
pp. 450-1). A friend is at the point of death. On return
ing from a journey, I am met in succession by different
persons, one of whom tells me of his illness, two others
inform me of his death, while a fourth gives me a parting
message. In writing later to an acquaintance, I state
briefly that on my way home I had met four friends, who
had given me the particulars of his illness and death, and
conveyed to me his last dying words. Of what interest
would it be to the recipient of the letter to know whether

io8 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
some respects to fit into each other, yet generally,
with patient inspection, furnishing a key to the
solution of their own difficulties — receiving also
no small elucidation from the better-ordered story
of St. John. In contrast with the extraordinary
treatment accorded to them by the newer school,
the study, it is hoped, will do something to create
or strengthen confidence in their credibility.
all the friends came together, or separately, which came
first and which brought the message ? In the same way,
it mattered little to the readers of the Synoptic Gospels
to know whether the women all went together to the grave,
or whether one went before the rest, etc. Yet in this
lies most of the difficulty.

CREDIBILITY continued—" THE EASTER
MESSAGE "

V
CREDIBILITY continued—" THE EASTER
MESSAGE "
Professor Harnack, in his lectures on Christianity,
bids us hold by " the Easter faith " that " Jesus
Christ has passed through death, that God has
awakened Him to life and glory," but warns us
against basing this faith on " the Easter message
of the empty grave, and the appearances of Jesus
to His disciples." x On what, then, one asks, is
the faith to be based which connects it peculiarly
with Easter ? Or on what did the Apostles and the
whole primitive Church base it, except on their
conviction that, in St. Paul's words,2 Jesus " was
buried, and that He hath been raised on the third
day according to the Scriptures ; and that He
appeared to Cephas," and to the others named ?
But in all these " stories told by Paul and the Evan
gelists," Professor Harnack reminds us, " there
is no tradition of single events which is quite trust
worthy." 3 1 What is Christianity ? pp. 160-3.
2 1 Cor. xv. 4-6. 3 P. 162.

112 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
It is this assertion of the insecurity of the Easter
message of the Resurrection as a basis for faith
which is now to be tested. Attention will be given
first to the points which are more central and essen
tial. It is, of course, easy to spirit away every
part of the evidence by sufficiently bold denials,
and by constructions which betray their weakness
in the fact that hardly two of them agree together.
It will be seen as the inquiry proceeds that the con
tradictions imputed to the Evangelists are trifles
compared with those of the critics among them
selves in seeking to amend the history. Agreeing
only in rejecting the evidence of the Gospels as to
what actually happened, they lose themselves in
a maze of contradictory conjectures.
A few examples may be of service.
Weizsacker, like Pfleiderer, is certain that St. Paul
knew nothing of the women's visit to the grave.
" The only possible explanation," he says, " is
that the Apostle was ignorant of its existence." 1
" Paul," says Pfleiderer, " knows nothing of the
women's discovery of the empty grave." 2 Pro
fessor Lake, on the other hand, thinks that St. Paul
did know of it, and accounts in this way for his
mention of " the third day." 3
Further, as " Paul's knowledge of these things
1 Apost. Age, E. T., i. p. 5.
2 Christian Origins, p. 134.
3 Res. of Jesus Christ, pp. 191-6.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 113
must have come from the heads of the primitive
Church," Weizsacker deduces that " it is the primi
tive Church itself that was ignorant of any such
tradition." 1 The visit of the women must there
fore be dismissed as baseless legend. Keim agrees.2
But Renan,3 Reville, H. J. Holtzmann,4 0. Holtz
mann, Professor Lake — indeed most — accept the
fact as historical.
Another crucial point is the empty tomb. Strauss,
Keim, and, more recently, A. Meyer 6 treat the
empty grave as an inference from belief in the
Resurrection. But a " hundred voices," Keim
acknowledges, are raised in protest, and " many
critics, not only of the Right, but even of the Left,
are able to regard it [the empty grave] as certain
and incontrovertible."6 "There is no reason to
doubt," says O. Holtzmann, " that the women did
not carry out their intention of anointing, because
they found the grave empty."7 Renan does not
dream of questioning the fact.
Many critics, including Professor Lake,8 think it
impossible that Jesus should have spoken of His
death and Resurrection on the third day. Others,
as A. Meyer 9 and O. Holtzmann,10 find in such say-
1 Ut supra. 2 Jesus of Nazara, E. T., vi. p. 296.
3 Les Apotres, ch. i. 4 Die Synoptiker, p. 105.
6 Die Auferstehung Christi, pp. 120-25.
6 Ut supra, pp. 297-8. 7 Leben Jesu, p. 391.
8 Ut supra, pp. 255-9.
9 Ut supra, pp. 181-2. 10 Ut supra, p. 388. 8

114 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
ings of Jesus an important element in the develop
ment of belief in the Resurrection.
A favourite view, shared by Strauss, Weizsacker,
Keim, Pfleiderer, A. Meyer, Professor Lake, is that
the disciples, immediately after the Crucifixion,
fled to Galilee, there, and not at Jerusalem, receiv
ing the visions which convinced them that the
Lord had risen.1 On this hypothesis, the women,
even if they visited the tomb, had no share in the
origin of the belief in the Resurrection.2 Most, on
the other hand, who, like Renan 3 and H. J. Holtz
mann,4 accept the visit to the tomb, hold that the
Apostles were still in Jerusalem on the Easter
morning. To return to the positive investigation. It has
already been seen that no doubt can rest on the
cardinal fact that Jesus did die, and was buried ;
and Harnack will allow a connexion of the Easter
message with " that wonderful event in Joseph of
Arimathaea's Garden," which, however, he says,
" no eye saw." s What was the nature of that
connexion ?
i. It is the uncontradicted testimony of all the
witnesses that it was the Easter morning, or, as the
Evangelists call it, " the first day of the week,"
1 Weizsacker, i. pp. 2, 3 ; Keim, vi. pp. 281 ff. ; A.
Meyer, pp. 121, 127-30, etc.
2 A Meyer, p. 124 ; Lake, p. 195.
3 Les Apotres, ch. i.
4 Ut supra, p. 105. 6 Ut supra, p. 161.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 115
or third day after the Crucifixion, on which the
event known as the Resurrection happened ; in
other words, that Jesus rose from the dead on the
third day. The four Evangehsts, whatever their
other divergences, are agreed about this.1 The
Apostle Paul, who had conversed with the original
witnesses only eight or nine years after the event,2
confirms the statement, and declares it to be the
general belief of the Church.3 Not a ripple of
dubiety can be shown to rest on the belief. " There
is no doubt," Professor Lake allows, " that from
the beginning the Resurrection was believed to
have taken place on the third day.4
Here, then, it might seem, is an unchallengeable
basis from which to start, for a whole Christian
Church can hardly be conceived of as mistaken
about an elementary fact connected with its own
origin. But the fact is not unchallenged. Noth
ing in this history is. Strauss long ago set the
example in endeavouring to show how the belief
might have originated from Old Testament hints.6
1 Matthew xxviii. 1 ; Mark xvi. 2 ; Luke xxiv. 1 ;
John xx. 1. The predictions of Jesus of His rising on' the
third day may be added, if only as evidence of the behef.
2 Galatians i. 18, 19 ; ii. 1, 9. Strauss says " There is
no occasion to doubt that the Apostle Paul had heard this
from Peter, James, and others concerned." (Ne-'i Life
of Jesus, i. p. 400.)
3 1 Corinthians xv. 3.
4 Ut supra, p. 253 ; cf. p. 264,
6 Ut supra, i. pp. 438-9.

116 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
Professor Lake, who thinks it rests " on theological
rather than historical grounds," x devotes some
twenty-five pages of his book, in different places,
to weaken its foundations.2 A new Babylonian
school derives it from pagan myths.3 A writer
like A. Meyer combines all the standpoints, and
would explain it from Old Testament passages,
predictions of Jesus, and Greek, Persian, and
Babylonian analogies.4
It is difficult to know what to make of a criti
cism of this kind, which so boldly sets aside exist
ing evidence to launch out on assertions for which
no proof can be given. It is the more difficult in
Professor Lake's case, that in the end he accepts
the Marcan tradition of the visit of the women to
the tomf> — or what they took to be the tomb — on
the morning of the third day after the Crucifixion,
for the purpose of anointing.5 If they did — and
who can reasonably doubt it ? — why all this pother
in seeking an explanation from Old Testament
suggestions, Babylonian mythology, and other
obscure quarters ? It is argued, to be sure, that
even the experience of the women was not a proof
that the Resurrection did not take place on the
1 Ut supra, p. 264.
2 Cf. pp. 27-33, 191-3. 196-9, 253-65.
3 Cf. Cheyne, Bible Problems, pp. no ff. ; Lake, pp.
197-8, 261.
4 Ut supra, pp. 178-85.
* Ut supra, pp. 182, 196, 246, etc.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 117
second day rather than on the third, and mytho
logy is called in to help to fix the day.1 One reads
even : " It is never stated, but only implied in
Mark that the Resurrection was on the third day." 2
As if, in St. Mark's time, a single soul in the Church
had a doubt on that subject !
The treatment of St. Paul's testimony to " the
third day " is not less arbitrary. The attempt is
made by Professor Lake to separate St. Paul's
mention of the third day from his witness to the
appearances ; " the strongest evidence for the alter
native [negative] view " being, that it requires
that St. Paul should have said, " and was seen
on the third day," not " and was raised on the third
day." 3 One asks, Could Jesus have been seen
until He was raised ? It is granted that St. Paul
was acquainted with the Jerusalem tradition which
embraced this fact.4 Yet several pages discuss,
with indecisive result, whether " the third day "
was not " merely a deduction from Scripture." 5
The conclusion is that, whatever St. Paul's reason
(it is allowed later on that it is " not impossible "
that his reference may be to the experience of the
women),6 " we can only be almost certain that it
cannot have been anything which he was able to
rank as first-hand evidence of the Resurrection." 7
1 Pp. 254, 259-63. 2 P. 198. 3 Pp. 27-8.
4 P. 41. 6 Pp. 29-32. • P. 196.
7 P. 32.

118 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
Is not the unreality of such reasoning itself a power
ful corroboration of the historicity of the Gospel
and Pauline statements ?
2. The next important element in the witness,
in part implied in the preceding, is the visit of the
women to the tomb of Jesus at early morning on the
third day.1 Here, again, with some variation, we
have a substantial nucleus of agreement. The
differences will be looked at immediately ; but
how little they touch the main matter is ap
parent from the circumstance that, even among the
extremer sceptics, the greater number admit that
the women — the same named in the Gospels — did
go to visit the tomb of Jesus on that memorable
morning. Strauss can hardly admit it, for he
throws doubt on the previous fact of the burial.
But most who allow that Jesus was laid in the (or
a) rock-tomb admit that the sorrowing women
who had followed Him from Galilee, and had wit
nessed the Crucifixion and entombment,2 or mem
bers of their company, did, as was most natural,
come to the tomb on the morning after the close
of the Sabbath, as day was breaking, for the pur
pose of anointing the body. Professor Lake ad
mits this ; the two Holtzmanns admit it ; even

1 Matthew xxviii. I ; Mark xvi. I, 2 ; Luke xxiv. I, 10 ;
cf. xxiii. 55 ; John xx. 1.
2 Cf. Matthew xxvii. 55, 56 ; Mark xv. 40, 41 ; Luke
xxiii. 49 ; J°hn xix- 25.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 119
A. Meyer, although, without the least ground, he
disconnects the incident from the third day, con
cedes that visits were made.1 Renan gives a
summary of the facts, yet with a touch of incon
sistency with his previous statements which, in
the Evangelists, would be called " contradiction,"
he tells, e.g., of " the Galilean women who on the
Friday evening had hastily embalmed the body," 2
forgetful that earlier he had correctly described
the embalming as performed by Joseph and Nico-
demus. 3
The essential point being thus conceded, long
time need not be spent on the alleged discrepancies
with regard to (i) the names and number of the
women. St. John's account in this connexion
will be considered by itself. Meanwhile what
must strike every careful reader is, that the names
of all, or most, of the women concerned are, if not
directly in the narratives of the Resurrection, yet
in the related accounts of the closing scenes, given
by each of the Evangelists. It is St. Mark, the
supposed source, that tells how, at the Crucifixion,
" there were also women beholding from afar :
among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and
Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joses,
and Salome, who, when He was in Galilee, fol
lowed Him and ministered unto Him ; and many
1 Ut supra, p. 124. His account is referred to below.
2 Les Apotres, p. 6. 3 Vie de Jesus, p. 431.

120 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
other women which came up with Him to Jerusa
lem " ; 1 and how, at the burial, " Mary Magda
lene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where
He was laid." 2 These two, with Salome, are then
described as buying spices and coming to the tomb
on the Resurrection morning.3 St. Matthew gives
the like story of " many women beholding from
afar, which had followed Jesus from Galilee,"
" among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary
the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of
the sons of Zebedee (Salome)," 4 and tells, as before,
of Mary Magdalene and the other Mary " sitting
over against the sepulchre." 6 It is extravagant
to suppose that because St. Matthew, following
up this statement, speaks of " Mary Magdalene
and the other Mary " 6 coming to the sepulchre
on the first day of the week, and omits the men
tion of Salome, he designs to contradict St. Mark,
who includes her. 7 St. Luke, likewise, knows of
" the women that followed with Him from Gali
lee," 8 and who (therefore not the two Marys only)
beheld where He was laid,9 and came with their
1 Mark xv. 40. 2 Ver. 47.
8 Mark xvi. 1. 4 Matt, xxvii. 55, 56.
6 Ver. 61. 6 Matthew xxviii. 10.
7 It would be as reasonable to accuse St. Mark of con
tradiction because in one verse he speaks of " Mary the
mother of James the less and of Joses," and in another
of " Mary the mother of Joses " only.
8 Luke xxiii. 49. 8 Ver. 55.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 121
spices on the first-day morning.1 St. Luke gives
the list afterwards as " Mary Magdalene, and Joanna,
and Mary the mother of James, and the other
women with them." (Salome is omitted and
Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, ap
pears.2) St. John corroborates the others in
speaking of Christ's '" mother and His mother's
sister [probably Salome, so Meyer, Alford, etc.],
Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene," 3
at the Cross ; but at the Resurrection he speaks
only of Mary Magdalene,4 of whom he has a special
story to tell. The " we," however, in St. John xx. 2,
implies the presence of others.
Is there really any difficulty of moment in these
various narratives ? They are incomplete, but
surely they are not contradictory. The same group
of women is in the background in each ; Mary
Magdalene and " the other Mary," are the promi
nent figures in all : the mention of other names
is determined by the preference or special object
of the Evangelist. It is most natural that the
mourning women should repair at the earliest
moment on the morning after the Sabbath to the
tomb of their crucified Master, to " see " it, as St.
Matthew says,5 and, if access could be obtained,
to complete the rites of burial. There is no need
for supposing that they came together ; it is much
1 Luke xxiv. i. 2 Ver. 10. 3 John xix. 25.
4 John xx. i. 6 Matthew xxviii. i.

122 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
more probable that they came in different groups
or companies — perhaps Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary, or these with Salome, first, to be
joined after by Joanna and other members of the
Galilean band.1 Nothing, as was before noted,
can be inferred from St. Matthew omitting to
mention the design of anointing. His story of
the guard, as rendering the anointing impossible,
may have influenced him : only that the women
knew nothing of the guard. It is not that the
Evangelist was ignorant of the custom of anoint
ing ; 2 but, following up the picture he had drawn
of the two Marys " sitting over against " the sepul
chre at the burial,3 he gives prominence to the
yearning of love these women felt to see again where
the Lord slept.4
There remains (ii) the time of this visit of the
women, as to which, again, discrepancy is fre
quently alleged. Certain of the notes of time in
the Evangelists raise interesting exegetical ques
tions (e.g., St. Matthew's " late on the Sabbath
1 After enumerating the women Renan says : " They
came, probably each on her own account, for it is difficult
to call in question the tradition of the three Synoptical
Gospels, according to which several women came to the
tomb : on the other hand, it is certain that in the two
most authentic narratives [?] which we possess of the
Resurrection, Mary Magdalene alone played a part."
(Les Apotres, p. 6.)
2 Cf. Matthew xxvi. 12. 3 Matthew xxvii. 6i.
4 Matthew xxviii i.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 123
day " ; 1 St. Mark's " when the sun was risen " 2) ¦
but real contradiction it is hard to discover. What
can be readily observed is that no one of the Evan
gehsts employs the precise expression of another
— a strong proof of independence ; 3 and further,
that all the expressions imply that the visits took
place at, or about, early dawn, or daybreak, when
darkness was passing into day. St. Matthew
gives the description, " late on the Sabbath day "
(oyjre Se cafiftaToiv), as it began to dawn (ttj iirMpmo--
Kovo-y) towards the first day of the week." 4 St. Mark
says : " Very early (Xidv irpmi) on the first day
of the week . . . when the sun was risen " (dvarei-
XavTos tov rjXiov).5 St. Luke has the expression :
" At early dawn " (opdpov j3a8eo<i).i St. John
has : " Early (irpw!), while it was yet dark." 7
The discrepancies between these expressions are
formal only. If contradiction there is, it lies chiefly
in St. Mark's own apparently inconsistent clauses,
" very early," and " when the sun was risen." 8
1 Matthew xxviii. 1. 2 Mark xvi. 2.
3 Alford wrote : " The independence and distinctness
of the four narratives in this part have never been ques
tioned " (on Matt, xxviii. 1). This, too, needs qualifying.
4 Matthew xxviii. 1. Meyer observes : " Consequently
the point of time mentioned here is substantially identical
with that given in Luke xxiv. 1, and in John xx. i " (in
loc). 6 Mark xvi. 2. 6 Luke xxiv. 1. 7 John xx. 1.
8 Scholars are well agreed that the aorist participle here
can only bear the sense : " After the sun was risen,"

124 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
As the Evangelist cannot be supposed to intend
verbally to contradict himself within the compass
of one verse, his language must reasonably be con
strued to mean : "At early dawn, when the sun was
just above the horizon." Similarly, St. Matthew's
" late on the Sabbath day " cannot reason
ably be put into contradiction with his own ex
planatory clause : " As it began to dawn towards
the first day of the week." It is not, as the con
text shows,1 Saturday night that is meant, but
the period of darkness ending at dawn of the fol
lowing morning (thus Meyer, Alford, etc.). The
view advocated by some that St. Matthew, bor
rowing from St. Mark, here combines inconsistent
clauses by dropping out St. Mark's mention of the
purchase of spices between,2 is, as Meyer remarks,
untenable. It is not St. Mark's language that
is used, and St. Matthew may be credited with

1 Some, as McClellan, The New Testament, pp. 512-31,
insist that St. Matthew's " late on the Sabbath " can only
mean Saturday evening, and explain the subsequent clause
by the help of Luke xxiii. 54, " And the Sabbath drew
on " (liritfttao-Ki). But the events that follow in St. Mat
thew plainly belong to the morning of the first day. Mc
Clellan acknowledges that " nearly every modern writer
of importance [a long list] interprets St. Matthew's phrases
as of Sunday morning."
2 Thus Lake, p. 57 ; W. C. Allen, St. Matthew, pp. 300-1,
etc. : so, too, Caspari (Chron. Introd., E. T., p. 240). Allen
says : " Matthew, by omitting Mark's reference to the
purchase of perfumes, has combined two entirely incon
sistent notes of time." But see Meyer, in loc.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 125
sufficient knowledge of Greek to keep him from
perpetrating so obvious a blunder. St. John's
" while it was yet dark " presents no difficulty
when the situation is recalled. The women began
to arrive just as day was breaking, and it was day
light before they left the place. Mary Magdalene
had light enough to see that the stone was taken
away.1 3. The third crucial fact in the history — one
which, in connexion with succeeding incidents,
establishes the seality of the Resurrection, is that,
when the women reached the tomb of Jesus on that
Easter morning, after much dubiety as to how
they were to obtain entrance, they found the stone
rolled away and the tomb empty. Here, again, there
is entire unanimity among the witnesses.2 St.
Matthew alone tells of how the stone was removed
— of " a great earthquake," and the descent of an
angel of the Lord, who rolled away the stone, and
sat upon it, before whose dazzling aspect the keepers
became as dead men.3 But all the Evangelists
agree that the stone, the rolling away of which had
caused the women much concern (" who shall roll
us away the stone from the door of the tomb ? ") 4
1 John xx. 1 : " Twilight in that latitude does not last
for more than a quarter of an hour " (Latham, The Risen
Master, p. 225).
2 Matthew xxviii. 2-7 ; Mark xvi. 3-6 ; Luke xxiv.
2-6; John xx. 1, 11, 12.
3 Matthew xxviii. 2-4. 4 Mark xvi. 3.

126 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
was found rolled away, and that the tomb was
empty, when the women arrived. In St. Mark's
words : " And looking up, they see that the stone
is rolled back ; for it was exceeding great." x Or
in St. Luke's : " And they found the stone rolled
away from the tomb. And they entered in, and
found not the body of the Lord Jesus." 2 Accord
ing to St. John, the emptiness of the tomb was
subsequently verified by St. Peter and St. John
himself.3 Moreover, while St. Matthew alone gives
the story of the rolling away of the stone by the
angel, the implication in all the other narratives
is that the stone was removed by supernatural
power. No human hand had effected this wonder.
St. Matthew, therefore, only narrates in objective
fashion — a reflection, possibly, of the terrified
imagination of some of the guards — what the other
Evangehsts postulate. What really had hap
pened the women were soon to learn from angelic
announcements to themselves. Jesus had risen, as
He said.4
Here, then, are two facts in the history of the
Resurrection — the stone rolled away, and the empty
tomb — attested about as well as facts can be, with
the belief of the whole primitive Church behind
them. There is not a hint anywhere that the fact
1 Verse 4. 2 Luke xxiv. 2, 3.
3 John xx. 3-9 ; cf. Luke xxiv. 12.
4 Matthew xxviii. 6.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 127
of the empty tomb was ever questioned by either
friend or foe. If would have been easy to question or
disprove it when the Apostles were boldly proclaim
ing the Resurrection in Jerusalem a few weeks
later.1 But no one appears to have done so. The
other fact of the rolling away of the stone with
which the tomb had been closed is involved in the
tomb being found empty. Taken as they stand
— much more when taken in connexion with what
succeeds — the two facts support belief in the Re
surrection. What is to be said of them ?
There are here only two courses if the Resurrec
tion is disputed. Either (1) the facts may be
denied, and the evidence set aside, as when it is
argued that the empty tomb is itself an inference
from belief in the Resurrection.2 Or (2) the facts
may be admitted, and a " natural " explanation
be sought for them. The extremer view has al
ready been alluded to, and need not longer detain
us. It is interesting only for its implied admission
that the behef of the Apostolic Church was belief
in a bodily Rising. Undoubtedly every believer
in the Resurrection of Christ, St. Paul included,
held as part of that belief that the tomb of Jesus
was left empty. But the emptiness of the tomb
was not a deduction from prior belief in the Re-

1 Acts ii. 24, 31 ; iii. 15 ; iv. 10, etc.
2 Thus Strauss, Weizsacker, Keim, etc.

128 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
surrection — the Apostles were guilty of no such
hysteron proteron — but was a fact by itself, ade
quately attested, and one of the grounds of belief
in that divine occurrence. In recent times, accord
ingly, the other alternative is that more commonly
adopted. It is becoming usual to accept the fact
of the empty tomb, and to seek for it, since the
Resurrection is not admitted, some natural explana
tion. The study of these explanations is extremely
instructive. Dr. Rashdall is quoted by Professor
Lake as saying that " were the testimony fifty
times stronger than it is, any hypothesis would
be more possible than that " of a physical resuscita
tion.1 Only in the light of these " more possible "
explanations is the strength of the evidence for the
Resurrection of Jesus fully disclosed.
If the tomb was empty on the morning of that
third day, and Jesus did not rise, some other hands
must secretly have removed the body. Who did
it ? The old theory of fraud on the part of the
disciples 2 has now no respectable advocates, and
may be put out of account. Who, then, effected
the removal ? Pilate ? The Sanhedrim — the ene
mies of Jesus ? This has been actually defended,3
1 Lake, ut supra, p. 269.
2 Reimarus and some of the Deists. The calumny
noted in Matthew xxviii 12-15, ls an additional proof
that the tomb was found empty.
3 E.g., by A. ReVille, Schwartzkopff, etc. : ci A. Meyer,
ut supra, pp. 17—18.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 129
but may also be passed over.1 But glance at more
recent solutions.
0. Holtzmann gives the following account. The
honourable councillor, Joseph of Arimathasa, hav
ing first, as the Gospels relate, permitted the burial
of Jesus in his rock-tomb, felt on reflection that it
would not do to have the body of a man who had
been crucified lying among the dead in his respect
able family vault. He, therefore, when the Sab
bath was past, had the body of Jesus secretly
removed, and buried elsewhere. Such, this author
thinks, is " the simplest explanation of the mys
terious occurrence." 2 It is implied, of course.
that the secret was carefully kept from the dis
ciples, who were allowed to believe that their
Master had risen. This interesting little decep
tion of Joseph, so likely in a good man, and first
brought to light in these last years, successfully
took in the whole Christian Church, and, com
bined with imaginary appearances, created its
faith in the Resurrection !
So transparent a piece of trickery does not appeal
to Professor Lake, who gives a solution on different
lines. The facts, he thinks, were probably these.
1 Renan admits the empty tomb, but judiciously re
frains from explanations. Cf. Latham, The Risen Master,
pp. 6-9.
2 Leben Jesu, pp. 392-3. The germ of the theorv is
found in H. J. Holtzmann, Die Synoptiker, p. 105. Cf.
the criticism in A. Meyer, pp. 1 18-19.
r.j. q

130 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
The women came in the dusk of morning to an
empty tomb, which they mistakenly took to be
that of Jesus. The neighbourhood of Jerusalem
was full of rock-tombs, and it was easy to go wrong.
A young man, standing near, tried to convince
them of their error, and pointed them to where the
Lord really lay. [This is the young man, as pre
viously seen, whom legend, according to Professor
Lake, transforms into an angel, and also into the
Risen Lord.] But the women fled. Professor
Lake's own words deserve to be quoted : " The
women came in the early morning to a tomb which
they thought was the one in which they had seen
the Lord buried. They expected to find a closed
tomb, but they found an open one ; and a young
man, who was in the entrance, guessing their errand,
tried to tell them that they had made a mistake
in the place. ' He is not here,' said he ; ' see the
place where they laid Him,' and probably pointed
to the next tomb. But the women were fright
ened at the detection of their error, and fled, only
imperfectly or not at all understanding what they
heard. If was only later on, when they knew
that the Lord had risen [from visions of the dis
ciples in Gahlee], and — on their view — that His
tomb must be empty, that they came to believe
that the young man was something more than
they had seen ; that he was not telling them of
their mistake, but announcing the Resurrection,

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 131
and that his intention was to give them a message
for the disciples." x
As a " natural " explanation, this fairly rivals
Paulus. But will any one believe that such a
mistake of a few women is really the foundation
on which the Christian Church has built its Easter
hope, or affords an adequate explanation of the
revolutionary effects in the faith and hope of the
disciples which, according to all the narrativesj
were wrought by the experiences of that Easter
morning ? If so, he has a strange idea of the rela
tion of causes and effects. The theory, it need
hardly be pointed out, is itself an invention, with
out historical support or probability — a travesty
of the narratives as we have them. There is no
evidence of a mistake of the women, who knew
too well where the Lord was laid ; 2 or of the pres
ence of the obliging young man, weeks after identi
fied with an angel within the tomb ; or of a mis
take of the import of the message. Were the
women the only persons who visited the spot ? Did
no one think of verifying their tale ? Did they
never themselves go back and discover their error ?
Whence this consentient and mistaken conviction
that the tomb was found empty on the third day, and
that a message came from it that the Lord had
risen ? As a " more possible " hypothesis Pro
fessor Lake's theory may safely be set aside.
1 Ut supra, pp. 251-2.
2 Mark xv, 47 ; Luke xxiii. 55.

132 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
A last example is taken from A. Meyer, who, in
his book Die Auferstehung Christi, after criticizing
and rejecting previous theories, gives what he con
jectures may be the true version of events. The
passage is an excellent example of the process of
manufacturing history out of moonshine. He
says : "If one seeks for an historical kernel behind
the narrative of Mark, it is not difficult to picture
to oneself how, perhaps, after some time [indefinite],
in the early morning, veiled women, disciples of
Jesus, crept forth, sad and despairing, to seek the
tomb and the body ; how they, perchance, had
inquired about the place, how they stood some
time helpless before a huge stone, and said, ' Oh,
if only some one would roll away that stone for
us ' ; then again in doubt before an empty cave,
not knowing whether the Lord might have lain
there, and some one have taken Him away ; how
they may have often repeated such search, until
at last the news and summons came from Galilee,
' Why seek ye the living among the dead ? He
is not there, give up your seeking : He is long ago
risen and has appeared to Simon and the others ;
come and hear it for yourselves.' " J It has only
to be said of this flight of fancy that, when com
pared with the narrative of the Gospels, it has no
substance or feature of reality in it. It contradicts
the tradition at every point. There is no " historical
1 P. 124.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 133
kernel," for the ground of history is abandoned
for imagination. The visit of the women is cut
away from the third day : is unhistorically repre
sented as repeated and resultless ; the message
which came from the tomb is brought weeks later
from Galilee, etc. Opposed to the Gospels, it is
opposed equally to the theories already adduced.
Unbelief here also lacks unity in its hypotheses.
It shatters itself against the moveless rock of the
facts. 4. And now the Easter history reaches its climax.
The facts already reviewed — the third day, the
visit of the women, the stone supernaturally re
moved, the empty tomb — lead up to, and find their
natural culmination in, the angelic vision and mes
sage that the Lord had risen.1 Here once more it
is permissible to speak of at least essential agree
ment in the narratives. Particulars and phrase
ology in the accounts vary, as before, in a manner
incompatible with dependence. St. Luke, e.g.,
speaks of two angels where St. Matthew and St.
Mark mention only one ; and in the part of the
angel's message relating to Galilee St. Luke gives
the words a quite different turn from what they
have in the other Gospels.2 St. John's account
stands agai 1 by itself. Yet all the Synoptical
1 Matthew xxviii. 5-8 ; Mark xvi. 6-8 ; Luke xxiv.
4-11 ; John xx. 1, 11-12.
2 Luke xxiv. 6, 7 ; cf. Matthew xxviii. 7 ; Mark xvi. 7.

134 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
narratives agree that, while the women stood,
perplexed and affrighted at or within the tomb,
they received a vision of angels ; that the announce
ment was made to them that the Lord had risen ;
that they were invited to see the place where He
had lain ; that they had given them a message to
take to the disciples. In the central part of the
message : " He is not here ; He is risen," there is
verbal agreement : only St. Matthew and St. Luke
reverse the order of the clauses. St. Mark breaks
off with the women fleeing from the tomb in " trem
bling and astonishment " ; x but there can be no
reasonable doubt that his Gospel also, not less
than the others, contemplated a report of the
angelic message to the disciples, and a narrative
of certain of the appearances.2 According to St.
Matthew and St. Luke, the report was made on
the same day.3 The Apostles were, therefore,
still in Jerusalem, and the fiction of their having
already dispersed to Galilee is proved to be baseless.
The Lord had risen ! There were no witnesses
of that august event ; but the fact was made certain
to the faith of the disciples by the empty grave, by
the angelic vision, and by the subsequent appear
ances of Jesus Himself. The time of the Resur
rection is not told, but it is implied that it syn-
1 Mark xvi. 8.
2 Cf. the remarks in Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, p. 120.
3 Matthew xxviii. 3 ; Luke xxiv. 9-1 1, 22, 23.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 135
chronized with the convulsion of nature which
St. Matthew describes, and with the rolling away
of the stone by the angel which terrified and pros
trated the guards. It therefore preceded by
some time the visit of the women. There is no
need to suppose that the guards were still there
when the women arrived. It may rather be pre
sumed that, on recovery from their terror, they
betook themselves away as speedily as they could.
Neither need the angel of St. Matthew be under
stood to be still sitting on the stone as at the first.
His language to the women — " Come, see the place
where the Lord lay "¦ — rather implies that, as in
other Gospels, he addresses them from within the
tomb. It is not to be gainsaid that we have here a story
of supernatural events. The narratives are steeped
in the supernatural. The supernatural element
may be resisted, but it must at least be conceded
that the account goes together on its own assump
tion that a tremendous miracle — the Resurrection
of the Lord — really took place. It was before
remarked that in all the Gospels there is the im
plication of supernatural power in the removal
of the stone. A physical convulsion was the natural
accompaniment of so great a marvel.1 The ap-
1 Cf. the darkness, earthquake, and rending of the
Temple veil at the Crucifixion. Matthew xxvii. 15, 51 ;
Mark xv. 33, 37 ; Luke xxiii. 44, 45.

136 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
pearance of the angel is in keeping with what is
told of the later appearances of the angels to the
women. The reality of the angelic appearances,
again, is vouched for by the message which, accord
ing to all the witnesses, the women received, and
which they subsequently conveyed to the disciples.
That message is the kernel of the whole story. It
is the " Easter message " which has changed the
face of the world. If anything stands fast in the
Resurrection history, it is that this message did not
spring from their own sad, despairing hearts, but
was given them by celestial visitants at the tomb.
So closely, in truth, is this message which the
women received bound up with the " vision of
angels," 1 that it is difficult to see how the one is
to be believed, if the other is rejected.2 The dif
ference in the accounts of the vision, though Strauss
and later sceptics have made much of them, are
not of a nature to occasion serious difficulty. There
may really have been two angels, as in the experi
ence of Mary Magdalene,3 though only one is men
tioned by St. Matthew and St. Mark : or St. Luke,
in his summary narrative, may be combining the
,' Luke xxiv. 23.
2 There seems to the present writer no incredibility in
the supposition of a higher spiritual world capable of
manifesting itself, but much to favour the idea. What
ever the theory of Christ's knowledge, this is precisely one
of the things on which His intuition might be trusted.
3 John xx. 12.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 137
experience of Mary Magdalene with that of the
other women. But there is a further con
sideration suggested by the nature of vision itself.
Whether or not it is right to speak of " ecstasy "
in such an experience, it is certain that the state
of " vision " (oTrrao-ia) is not simply an extension
of ordinary perception. It is not a state of pure
objectivity. It is not on the outer but on the
inner senses that an impression is made in the
apprehension of the supersensible. There is, in
Old Testament phrase, an " opening of the eyes," x
a raising of consciousness to a higher plane. What
is seen is real, but there is a subjective element in
the seeing. It follows that in a vision like that of
the women at the tomb the experience of one is
not necessarily the measure of the experience of
another. When notes were compared, all would
not be found to have had exactly the same per
ceptions. Especially would this be the case if
there were different companies, or if the experi
ences registered were not those of the same moment.
Yet in the main the perceptions did agree. Forms
of men (" a young man," Mark ; " two men,"
Luke) ;2 " appearance like lightning, and raiment
1 Cf. Numbers xxiv. 3, 16 ; 2 Kings vi. 17, etc.
2 Mr. Latham's idea that the " visitants to the tomb "
(and at the Ascension) may have been persons (Essenes ?)
from Jerusalem (Risen Master, pp. 412-19), is a strange
aberration. The rationalistic theory that the women may
have been deceived by the glint of the grave clothes is
left unnoticed.

138 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
white as snow " (Matthew) ; " arrayed in white
robe " (Mark) ; " in dazzling apparel " (Luke) ;
"in white" (John). Above all do the narratives
agree in the words of comfort : " Fear not ye : for I
know that ye seek Jesus, which hath been crucified.
He is not here ; for He is risen, even as He said.
Come, see the place where the Lord lay " (Mat
thew). "Be not amazed; ye seek Jesus the
Nazarene, which hath been crucified : He is risen ;
He is not here ; behold the place where they laid
Him ! " (Mark). " Why seek ye the living among
the dead? He is not here, but is risen" (Luke).
From St. Mark and St. Luke 1 we learn that the
women had " entered " and inspected the tomb
before this wonderful experience befell them. It
is not strange that, when it came, they were
" amazed " (Mark) and " affrighted " (Luke), and
needed the reassurance given them. The mes
sage they received for the disciples, that Jesus
was going before them into Galilee, where they would
see Him, with its important variation in St. Luke,
will better be considered in connexion with the
appearances. The events at the tomb ended with
the hasty departure of the women — " with fear and
great joy," says St. Matthew ;2" with trembling
and astonishment," because of their fear, declares
St. Mark,3 saying nothing to any one, as they
1 Mark xvi. 5 ; Luke xxiv. 5.
2 Matthew xxviii. 8. 3 Mark xvi. 8.

"THE EASTER MESSAGE" 139
hasted to fulfil their commission to the disciples.
St. Mark's Gospel, at this point, on the usual view,
breaks off : not, however, before it has told us the
things it is most essential for us to know.1
1 The gospel, ending at chap. xvi. 8, is manifestly in
complete. Dean Burgon unquestionably makes out a strong
case for suspense of judgment with regard to the remain
ing verses (9-20). (Cf. his Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark).
But it is safer to regard the verses as an early Appendix.
The problems which this raises must here stand over.

CREDIBILITY continued— THE POST-RE
SURRECTION APPEARANCES

VI
CREDIBILITY continued— THE POST-
RESURRECTION APPEARANCES
It is the testimony of all the New Testament wit
nesses — of the Gospels, of the Book of Acts, of St.
Paul — that Jesus did appear to His disciples after
His Resurrection. It was not simply the voices
of angels proclaiming to the women that He had
risen — not even the eloquent fact of the empty
tomb — which produced in the disciples the immov
able conviction that their Master had indeed burst
the bands of death, and lived to die no more.1 They
believed, and unitedly testified, that they had seen
Him, conversed with Him, eaten and drunk with
Him ; 2 could give place, and date, and names, to
His appearances to them. Often in the primitive
circles, while the Apostles were still in their midst
at Jerusalem, must the story of the time, occasion
and manner of the chief of these manifestations,
and of the incidents connected with them, have
been recited.
1 The reports of the women and of others were at first
received with incredulity (Mark xvi. n, 13, 14 ; Luke
xxiv. 11). 2 Acts x. 41.
143

144 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
There is a point here, it should be noted in passing,
in which the weakness of the assault on the testi
mony for the Resurrection is specially apparent.
The assumption, practically, of the hostile critics
of that testimony is that the Church had no history ;
that it knew nothing, really, of its own past ; that
myths and legends grew up in rank abundance, and
were everywhere eagerly received ; that the writers
of the Gospels had no scrupulous conscience for
truth, but imagined, manipulated, and altered their
materials at pleasure.1 Any Church of our own
day could give a good account of its origin, and of
the events in its history, say, for the past fifty
years. But the Churches founded by the Apostles
— even the Mother-Church at Jerusalem — are be
lieved to have had no such capability. The early
believers had a different opinion of their knowledge
and responsibility, 2 and of their ability to discern
between true and false. They were not so ready
as the objectors imagine to be imposed on by
" cunningly devised fables." 3 The Church to which
they belonged had a continuous history ; they
thought they knew how it originated, on what facts
it was based, who were its early witnesses, and to
what they testified ; and they told their story
without doubt or hesitation.
1 This is really the assumption, e.g., underlying the
Abbe Loisy's newly published Les Evangiles Synoptiques.
2 Cf. St. Paul, i Cor. xv. 15. 3 2 Peter i. 16.

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 145
This witness which the Apostles bore had nothing
vague or intangible about it. It was in large part
full, detailed, circumstantial. It was not "appear
ances " simply, but prolonged interviews, that
were alleged. The testimony must be treated in
view of the actual circumstances and relations
between persons in the Apostolic comrrmnity —
another point often overlooked. When, e.g., it is
argued, as by Weizsacker 1 that, when the author
of the Acts makes St. Peter say, " We ate and
drank with Him after He rose from the dead,"2
he employs a mode of representing the Risen Christ
impossible to St. Paul, it has to be asked whether
St. Luke, who accompanied St. Paul for so many
years, would have ventured to put into the mouths
of St. Peter and of St. Paul himself3 such speeches
as are found in Acts, if they had been wholly alien
to the Apostles' belief and testimony.4 We are
brought here, in short, to the alternative : either
narratives of the kind must be dismissed as wilful
fiction, for unconscious legend is impossible in face
of the knowledge which the Church possessed of
its own beginnings ; or if they are allowed to rest
on original authentic tradition, they can leave no
doubt upon the mind that Jesus was believed to
1 Apost. Age, i. p. 10. Thus also Loisy, ii. p. 772.
2 Acts x. 41. 3 E.g., Acts xiii. 31.
4 Weizsacker does not, of course, admit St. Luke's
authorship of the Acts. His argument breaks down for
every one who does.
r.i. 10

146 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
have risen and to have appeared in bodily reality to
His disciples.
The fact, however, as before, remains, and has now
to be dealt with, that the narratives of the Resur
rection appearances are challenged, and, line by fine,
point by point, the story which they tell is sought
to be discredited. The grounds on which this is
done are various. It is objected that the Gospels
give different versions of these appearances, and
that none gives all the appearances ; that the
evidence, even if allowed, is not of a kind to satisfy
the demands of science — Renan, e.g., asks that the
miracle of resurrection be performed before " a
commission composed of physiologists, physicists,
chemists, persons accustomed to historical criticism,"
and be repeated as often as desired ; 1 that Jesus
appeared to none but His own disciples ; that
legends of resurrection are not uncommon, and
are explicable from natural tendencies of the mind.2
To all which it is sufficient at present to reply that
1 Vie de Je'sus, Introd. pp. i., ii.
2 " Heroes," Renan declares, " do not die." " At
the moment when Mohammed expired Omar issued from
the tent sabre in hand, and declared he would strike off
the head of any one who would dare to say that the Prophet
was no more" (Les Apotres, p. 3). But heroes do die,
and the parallel is without relevance. Mohammed's fol
lowers never seriously claimed that the Prophet did not
die, or had risen from the dead. There is no instance in
history, apart from Christianity, of a religion established
on behef in the Resurrection of its Founder. This is
discussed later. Cf. chap. viii.

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 147
the evidence was not designed to satisfy scientific
experts,1 but to produce faith in those "chosen
before of God," 2 that they might be " witnesses "
to others ; and that, as observed earlier, it is not here
proposed to set up a priori demands for evi
dence, but to examine carefully what evidence we
have, and to ask whether, with what else is known
of Jesus, it is not sufficient to sustain the faith
that He is risen from the dead, nay, to shut us
up to that faith as the only reasonable explanation
of the facts.
It is desirable to begin in this inquiry by col
lecting the evidence for the appearances, and con
sidering generally the value to be attached to the
same. The several appearances can then be dis
cussed in order.
There were, as already said, appearances of the
Risen Jesus, or what were taken to be such, to His
followers. St. Paul's list in 1 Corinthians xv. 3-8
is allowed even by the most sceptical to afford
unassailable testimony on this head.3 It is
further implied in the accounts, and is generally
conceded, that these appearances extended over a
considerable time — at least some days or weeks.
1 Cf. Luke xvi. 30, 31. A mere intellectual conviction,
even if produced, would have been of no avail for the end
proposed. 2 Acts x. 40-1.
3 Strauss, New Life of Jesus, i. p. 400. Renan, Les
Apotres, p. ix. Weizsacker, Apost. Age, ch. i. Keim,
Jesus of Nazara, vi. p. 279 and generally.

148 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
St. Luke states the period at " forty days." x " In
Matthew," Strauss says, " the appearance of Jesus
upon the mountain in Galilee must be supposed to
have taken place long enough after the Resurrection
to give time for the disciples to return back from
Jerusalem to Galilee," 2 St. Paul 3 and St. John
likewise assume a considerable period during which
Jesus was manifested to His disciples. The chrono
logical datum of St. Luke in Acts i. 3 must be
allowed to rule the interpretation of the obviously
condensed (" foreshortened ") account of the closing
chapter of his Gospel. Events, as will be seen
later, were there compressed which were afterwards
to be narrated more in detail.
Furthermore, the witnesses to the appearances of
Jesus are many, and all, it can be claimed, are
entitled to be heard with a presumption of their
honesty and credibility. Only leading points need
be recalled. It was before stated that St. John
is here unhesitatingly accepted as an eye-witness.
St. Mark was the companion of St. Peter, St. Luke
was the companion of St. Paul, and a zealous investi
gator on his own account. 4 St. Paul had direct com
munication with St. Peter, St. James, St. John, and
other members of the original Apostolic company.6
1 Acts i. 3. 2 Ut supra, ii. p. 420.
3 Renan finds in 1 Cor. xv. 3-8 evidence of " the long
duration of the appearances." Cf. Acts xiii. 31.
4 Luke i. 1-4.
6 Gal. i. 18, 19 ; ii. 1, 9 ; Acts ix. 26-7.

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 149
St. Matthew is believed to be connected with at
least the original of his Gospel — to stand in a real
way behind it. The Appendix to St. Mark is yet
an unsolved problem. The fact that it appears in
nearly all extant MSS. and versions 1 points to a
very early date, and perhaps to a close relation with
St. Mark himself. It does not seem warranted to
regard it as simply a summary of incidents based on
St. Luke and St. John.2 It does not show linguistic
dependence on the other Gospels ; furnishes original
(Mark-like) details ; bears generally a stamp of a
distinct and authentic tradition.3
The amplitude and weight of the evidence will best
1 The section (chap. xvi. 9-20) is absent, as is well known,
from Cod. Sin. and Cod. Vat., from Syr. Sin., from om
Armenian and Ethiopic MSS., etc. ; on the other 1 end
"it is supported by the vast majority of uncials," " by
the cursives in a body," by all lectionaries and most ver
sions. (Cf. art. " Mark " in Hastings' Diet, of Bible, hi.
p. 252.) On the adverse patristic testimony, . see Burgon,
chap. v.
2 Keim describes it unjustly as "a violent attempt
at adjustment between Mark and Luke-John, between
Galilee and Jerusalem " (vi. p. 318). The incidents in
the Appendix must all have been well known in the early
circles to which St. Mark (son of the Mary in whose home
the Church met for worship, Acts xii. 12) belonged.
3 Mr. Latham (Risen Master, pp. 202-3) is a little hard
on the Appendix in fastening on its emphasis of " unbe
lief " (vers. 11, 16). It is precisely in St. Mark and St.
Matthew that the emphasis is laid on a-n-iona (Mark vi
6 ; ix. 24 ; Matt. xiii. 58 ; xvii. 20), St. Luke uses the
verb in chap. xxiv. 11, 41. On upbraiding, cf, Luke
xxiv. 25.

150 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
be seen by a survey of its particulars as furnished
by these various witnesses : —
i. St. Mark breaks off at chapter xvi. 8, but in
verse 7 forecasts a meeting of Jesus with the dis
ciples in Galilee, as Jesus had foretold.1 This is
evidently the collective meeting which St. Matthew
narrates. 2. St. Matthew narrates the meeting in Galilee
(on " the mountain where Jesus had appointed
them "),2 but tells also of an appearance to the
women on the morning of the Resurrection. The
Galilean meeting, with its great Commission, " Go
ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations,"
etc., is the objective of St. Matthew's Gospel, and
to it he hastens without pausing on intermediate
events. Yet the fact that he relates the appearance
of the women (in which that t6 Mary Magdalene
may be merged) ,3 shows that the appointed meeting
was not held to exclude earlier appearances.
3. St. Luke has a rich store of original tradition,
confined, however, to Jerusalem and its neighbour
hood. While St. Matthew concentrates on the
meeting in Galilee, St. Luke is chiefly interested
in the appearances on the Resurrection day and
1 Cf. Mark xiv. 28 ; Matt. xxvi. 32. " After I am
raised up I will go before you into Galilee."
2 Matt, xxviii. 16-20. Regarding this " appoint
ment " the Gospels are silent. Only the promise is given :
" There shall ye see Him [Me] " (Matt, xxviii. 7-10 ;
Mark xvi. 7).
3 Matt, xxviii. 9, 10. Cf. John xx. 14-17.

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 151
in Jerusalem, as leading up to the promise of the
Spirit, and the Ascension al Bethany. His accounts
include an appearance to St. Peter,1 the appearance
to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus,2 an
appearance to the eleven in the evening 3 — -these
all on Easter Day — finally, a meeting, more fully
reported in Acts, on the day of Ascension.4 No
thing is said of appearances in Galilee, though
ample room is left for these, if indeed they are not
implied in the " forty days " of Acts i. 3.6
4. St. John, writing, it is to be remembered, with
knowledge of the other Gospels, gives additional
valuable information concerning the events of the
Resurrection morning, and records, besides the
appearance to Mary Magdalene in the garden, 6 an
appearance to the assembled disciples that same
evening,7 another appearance to the eleven eight
days after,8 and an appearance to seven disciples
some time later, at the Lake of Galilee.9 St. John's
narratives abound in minute touches which only
personal knowledge could impart.
5. St. Paul's list in 1 Corinthians xi. 3-8 — the
earliest written testimony, and of undoubted
genuineness — covers a wide area. It leaves un-
1 Luke xxiv. 34. Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 5.
2 Luke xxv. 13, 32. 3 Vers. 33-43.
4 Vers. 50, 51 ; cf. Acts i. 4-12.
6 " Appearing to them by the space of forty days "
(Acts i. 3).
6 John xx. 14-17. 7 John xx. 19-25.
8 Vers. 26-28. 9 John xxi. 1-14.

152 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
noticed the appearances to the women, but enumer
ates an appearance to St. Peter, one to the " twelve "
(more strictly "the eleven")1 one to over five
hundred brethren at once, the majority of them
still living, one to St. James, and yet another to
all the Apostles. To this series St. Paul adds, as
of equal validity with the rest, the appearance to
himself. One point about this list is of interest in connexion
with the question of " silence " in the Gospels. St.
Luke was St. Paul's companion. Apart from what
he must often have heard from St. Paul's own lips,
he was undoubtedly familiar with this Epistle to
the Corinthians, with its enumeration of appearances.
Yet in his Gospel and in Acts he omits all mention
of the great appearance to the five hundred brethren
at once (probably to be identified with St Matthew's
Galilean meeting), and of the appearance to St.
James.2 This bears also on the point of the Evange
list's supposed ignorance in his Gospel of any longer
interval than a single day between the Resurrection
and the Ascension.3 How, it may be asked, was
1 Professor Lake says : " ' The twelve ' is the title
of a body of men who were originally twelve in number,
but it had become a conventional name, and bore no
necessary relation to the actual number " (p. 37).
2 Cf. the remarks of Godet on this point in his Com.
on St. Luke, E. T., ii. p. 363.
3 Thus Strauss, Weizsacker, Keim, etc., but also Meyer,
Alford and others. Surely, however, it is evident of itself
that St. Luke could not suppose that the journey to Beth-

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 153
this possible, in view of the explicit testimony of St.
Paul, known to St. Luke, to Christ's numerous
appearances ? Acts i. makes it plain that St. Luke
did know.
6. Lastly, the Appendix to St. Mark contains
brief notices of three of the above appearances —
the appearance to Mary Magdalene, that to the
two disciples, and an appearance to the eleven.1
It is probable that, as in St. Luke, this one appear
ance to the eleven is made to stand for all, and that
some of the injunctions attached to it really belong
to other meetings.
In estimating the value of this range of testimony,
the following points are of significance. It will be
seen — (1) that, while certain of the appearances
depend on one witness, most are doubly or even
triply attested ; (2) that, while of one or two we
have only brief notices, of most there are detailed
accounts ; (3) that, if the narratives are at all to
be trusted, they leave no room for doubt as to the
Resurrection of the Lord in the body. Special
weight in this connexion must be attached to the
testimony of St. John and St. Paul — one a personal
witness, the other basing on first-hand communica
tions. It is of interest, accordingly, to note how
large a part of the entire case is covered by the
any and the Ascension (chap. xxiv. 50, 51) took place
late at night after a crowded day, and the prolonged
evening meeting detailed in vers. 39-49. See next chapter.
1 Mark xvi. 9-20.

154 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
testimony of these two. Thus St. John attests :
(i) the appearance to Mary Magdalene, whose sum
mons brought him to the tomb ; 1 (2) two appear
ances to the eleven, at both of which he was present ; 2
and (3) the meeting at the Lake of Galilee, at which
again he was present 3 — four instances out of a total
K of ten. St. Paul again attests : (1) the appearance
to St. Peter ; (2) two appearances to the Apostles,
one coinciding with one of St. John's ; (3) the
appearance to the five hundred ; and (4) the appear
ance to St. James — four additional to St. John's,
or, between the two, eight appearances. A further
noteworthy result is that, with the exception of
the appearance to the women in St. Matthew,
the singly attested appearances are among the best
attested, for they are included in the above list ;
likewise the greater appearances, if, as is usually
assumed, the appearance to the five hundred is to
be identified with the meeting in Galilee, are, with
one exception (the appearance to the disciples on
the way to Emmaus), all included here. It will be
shown after that the Emmaus narrative, corro
borated by the Appendix to St. Mark, is one of the
most credible of the series.
On the basis of this analysis, the attempt may
now be made to place the recorded appearances
in their order, and to exhibit the degree of attestation
that pertains to each. It is only to be borne in mind
1 John xx. 3. 2 Vers. 19-29. 3 John xxi. 2.

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 155
what formerly was said, that in no case is it the
design of the Evangehsts to furnish proofs for the
Resurrection.1 Their object is simply to supply
information, each in accordance with his particular
aim, regarding a fact already universally believed.
Each gives his own selection of incidents, and no
single narrative makes any pretence to be complete.2
The appearances to the disciples may be arranged
as follows : —
1. The appearance to Mary Magdalene (John,
Appendix to Mark). According to the Marcan
Appendix this appearance was the " first."
2. The appearance to the women on their way
to the disciples (Matt.). The relation to (1) is con
sidered below.
3. The appearance to St. Peter (Luke, Paul).
St. Paul doubtless had the fact from St. Peter him
self. St. Luke probably had it from St. Paul
But it was known from the beginning.3
4. The appearance to the two disciples on the
road to Emmaus (Luke, Appendix to Mark). St.
Luke gives the detailed account.
1 This should be partially qualified in the case of St.
John, who does exhibit an evidential purpose (chap. xx.
31 ; xxi. 24).
2 Each Evangelist would have been ready to endorse
the concluding words in St. John: " There are also many
other things which Jesus did," etc. (xxi. 5 ; cf. xx. 31).
3 Luke xxiv. 34. St. Mark may have had this appear
ance in view in the words : " Go, tell His disciples and
Peter" (xvi. 7).

156 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
5. The appearance to the assembled disciples
in the evening (Luke, John, Paul, Appendix to
Mark). The details are given in St. Luke and St.
John. These five appearances all occurred on the day of
Resurrection. 6. The second appearance to the eleven, " eight
days after " (John). St. John had told how, on the
previous occasion, Thomas was not present. The
doubt of Thomas was now removed.
7. An appearance to seven disciples at the Lake
of Galilee (John).
8. The great appearance to over five hundred
brethren at once (Paul). This, as above said, is
probably identical with the " appointed " meeting
in Galilee, when the " eleven " received their Lord's
great Commission (Matt).
9. An appearance to St. James (Paul).
10. The final appearance to the eleven (Paul),
identical with the meeting of Jesus with His disciples
prior to His Ascension (Luke in Gospel and Acts ;
Appendix to Mark).
It will be perceived from this enumeration that
there were in all no fewer than five appearances of
Jesus — half of the total number — to the Apostles,
when all, or a majority, were present ; in one in
stance at a large gathering of over five hundred.
Of the remaining instances, three were private
(to Mary, St. Peter, St James) : one was to two

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 157
disciples on a journey ; one was to the group of
women. St. Matthew probably introduces the last
because of the message then repeated to meet the
Lord in Galilee. St. Luke, as shown, confines himself
to the meetings in and about Jerusalem. St. Paul
dwells naturally for his purpose on the appearances
to the Apostles, including that to James, and the
meeting with the five hundred. St. John fills up
from his reminiscences what the others had left
untold — the tender scene with the Magdalene, the
second appearance to the Apostles, the appearance
to the seven in Galilee. It all seems very natural.
The pieces of the puzzle are perhaps not so hard
to put together after all.
The circumstances of the several appearances
must now be more carefully investigated, with a
view to the further elucidation of their nature and
reality. But, first, there are certain threads of the
Synoptical narratives which require to be gathered
up, and related to what follows.
1. Two of the Evangelists, St. Matthew and St.
Mark, agree that the women at the tomb received
a message to give to the disciples.1 St. Luke does
not mention this message, yet relates : " They
returned from the tomb, and told all these things
to the eleven, and to all the rest " 2 (the implica
tion of a wider company should be noted). In the
report of the words spoken by the angels to the
1 Matt, xxviii. 7 ; Mark xvi. 7. 2 Luke xxiv. 9.

158 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
women, however, there is an important variation
in St. Luke, which needs consideration. In the
two other Synoptics, the women are directed to tell
the disciples that Jesus goes before them into
Galilee, and that there they will see Him. In
stead of this message, St. Luke reads : " Remember
how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee,
saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up
unto the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and
the third day rise again. And they remembered
His words." 1 In St. Matthew, further, the words
which in St. Mark appear in connexion with the
direction about Galilee (" as He said unto you ") 2
are transferred to the announcement of the Resur
rection (" as He said "),3 and the angel's message
closes with the statement, " Lo, I have told you."
The difficulty of deriving either of these forms
from the other is obvious (the word " Galilee "
occurring in both should not mislead) . The simple
explanation seems to be that it is not the design
of St. Luke to relate the appearances in Galilee
(cf., however, Acts i. 3 ; " appearing to them by the
space of forty days ") ; he therefore omits the part
of the message bearing on this point. For the rest,
Jesus did do both things there stated : (1) an
nounce when in Galilee His approaching death
and Resurrection4 (so in Matt.), and St. Luke
1 Luke xxiv. 6-8. 2 Mark xvi. 7. 3 Matt, xxviii. 6.
4 Cf. Matt. xvi. 21 ; xvii. 9-13, etc.

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 159
simply repeats His words ; and (2) announce that
He would meet His disciples in Galilee x (" as He
said unto you," Mark). This second part St.
Luke passes over.
2. In the close of his narrative of the Resurrec
tion, St. Matthew gives the sequel to his story of the
guard at the tomb2 previously alluded to. Cer
tain of the guard, hastening to the city, told the
chief priests what had happened. These, after
counsel with the elders, bribed the soldiers to spread
the report that the disciples had stolen the body of
Jesus while they (the guard) slept, promising to
use their interest with Pilate to secure them from
harm. This episode, as was before seen, is rejected
by the critics as fabulous. Yet it is difficult to
believe that a narrative so circumstantial could be
simple invention,3 or have no foundation in fact.
Nor are the grounds alleged adequate to sustain
this view of it. The central point in the story —
the charge of stealing the body — is evidently his
torical. It is given as a current report when the
Gospel was written,4 and is independently attested.6
1 Matt. xxvi. 32 ; Mark xiv. 28.
2 Matt, xxvii. 11-15. Cf. chap, xxvii. 62-66.
3 Professor Lake thinks that the episode has " neither
intrinsic nor traditional probability." It is, in his view,
" nothing more than a fragment of controversy " between
Jews and Gentiles, " in which each imputed unworthy
motives to the other, and stated suggestions as established
fact " (p. 180). 4 Matt, xxviii. 15.
5 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 108 ; Tertullian,
On Spectacles, 30.

160 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
As giving the Jewish version of the Resurrection,
it has value as a left-hand testimony to the fact
of the grave being found empty. When it is asked,
Is it likely that the soldiers should accept a bribe to
plead guilty to a military offence— sleeping on duty —
which was punishable by death ? 1 it is overlooked
that the breach of discipline had already been com
mitted in their flight from the tomb, and admission
that the tomb was open and the body gone. The
theft by the disciples was only a pretext to cover
an event which both soldiers and priests were
aware had really a more marvellous character. The
case would be presented in a truer light to Pilate,
and the soldiers screened. It was probably from
some of the guards themselves — led, like the cen
turion, to say, " Truly this man was the Son of
God," 2 — that the facts were ascertained.3
This leads to the consideration of the distinct
appearances. i. Little use has up to this point been made of the
testimony of St. John. It is now necessary to
consider that testimony in its relation to the Synop
tics, as embodying the narrative of the first of our
Lord's recorded appearances — that to Mary Mag-
1 Lake, p. 178. 2 Mark xv. 39.
3 Dr. Forrest, in his Christ of History and Experience,
says : This " incident related by Matthew . . . though
it is not corroborated in any of the other Gospels, has, I
think, every mark of probability " (p. 145). Cf. Alford on
Matt, xxvii. 62-66.

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 161
dalene.1 St. John has the supreme qualification
as a witness that he himself was magna pars in the
transactions he records. His narrative has an
autoptic character. Part of its design apparently is
to give greater precision to certain events which the
other Gospels had more or less generalized. It is
a piece of testimony of the first importance.
In the story of the appearance to Mary Magdalene,
St. John so far goes with the Synoptics that he tells
how Mary Magdalene came in the early morning
to the tomb of Jesus, and found the stone taken
away.2 Mention is not made of companions, but
probably at least one other is implied in Mary's
words : " They have taken away the Lord out of
the tomb, and we know not where they have laid
Him." 3 The same words may suggest that, either
by her own inspection or that of others, Mary had
ascertained that the tomb was empty — not simply
open. But here St. John diverges. We learn from him
how, concluding that the body had been removed,
Mary at once ran to carry the news to St. Peter
and St. John. It was still very early, and the dis
ciples had to be sought for in their private— per
haps separate — lodgings (ver. 10). Aroused by her
tale, they lost not a moment in hastening to the
1 John xx. n-18.
2 Ver. 1, 3 Ver. 2.
r.j. XI

162 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
spot.1 St. John — for he only can be meant by
" the other disciple " 2 — outran St. Peter, and com
ing first to the tomb, stooped and looked in, and
saw (fiXiirei) the linen cloths (606via) lying, but
did not go farther. St. Peter followed, but, with
characteristic energy, at once entered, and beheld
(dewpei, implying careful note), not simply the
disposition of the cloths, but the peculiarity of the
napkin for the head lying rolled up in a place by
itself.3 St. John then found courage to enter, and
" having seen, believed." 4 It is a weakening of
this expression to suppose it to mean simply, " be
lieved that the tomb was empty." Both disciples
believed this. But with a flash of true discernment
St. John grasped the significance of what he saw,
viz., that Jesus had risen — a truth to which the
Scriptures had not yet led him.5 St. Peter, it is
implied, though wondering,6 had still not attained
to this confidence. The two disciples then returned
home.7 Meanwhile Mary Magdalene had come back, and
was " standing without at the tomb weeping." 8
Afterwards she too stooped and looked into the
1 Ver. 3-10. 2 Vers. 2, 3, 8.
3 Ver. 7. Mr. Latham's ingenious reasoning from the
disposition of the grave-cloths to the manner of the Resur
rection should be studied in his Risen Master, chaps, i-iii.
4 Ver. 8. 6 Ver. 9.
6 Cf. Luke xxii. 12, below.
7 Ver. 10. 8 Ver. 11.

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 163
tomb, and had, like the other women, a " vision of
angels " — in her case " two angels in white raiment,"
one at the head, the other at the foot, of the ledge
or slab where the body of Jesus had lain.1 Then
came the meeting with the Lord described in the
succeeding verses. At first Mary took the person
who addressed her for the gardener, and besought
him, if it was he who had borne away her Lord
from the tomb, to tell her where he had laid Him.2
Little trace here of the hallucinee, whose passion,
according to Renan, " gave to the world a resusci
tated god."3 Christ's tender word "Mary" illum
inated her at once as to who He was, and with the
exclamation " Rabboni," she would have clasped
Him, had He permitted her.
The words with which the Risen Lord in this
interview gently checked the movement of Mary
at once to worship and to detain Him — to hold Him,
now restored to her, as if never more to let Him
go — have been the subject of sufficiently diverse
interpretations. " Touch me not " (^ uov a-mov;
R.V. marg., " Take not hold on Me "), Jesus said,
" for I am not yet ascended unto My Father ; but
go unto My brethren, and say to them, I ascend
unto My Father and your Father, and My God and
your God." 4 The meaning that lies on the surface
is : " Do not hold me now, for I am not yet ascended
1 Vers, n-13, see the plates of the tomb in Latham.
2 Ver. 15. 3 Vie de Jesus, p. 434. 4 Ver. 17.

164 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
unto My Father, but go at once unto My brethren,"
etc. But the terms of the message to the brethren
(" Say unto them, I ascend," etc.) show that a
deeper reason lay behind. " Tell them," its pur
port is, " that I am risen ; the same, yet entered on
a higher (the Ascension) life, in which old relations
cannot be renewed, but better ones begin." 1
If this striking narrative of St. John stood alone,
it would be sufficiently attested, but it is corro
borated by two notices which probably are independ
ent of it. The Appendix to St. Mark tells of the
early morning appearance to Mary Magdalene ; 2
St. Luke records the visit of St. Peter to the tomb,
in language closely resembling St. John's, with an
indication later that he was not alone. St. Luke
xxiv. 12, reads : " But Peter arose and ran into
the tomb; and stooping and looking in, he seeth
(BXe-rrei) the linen cloths (odovia) by themselves,
and he departed to his home, wondering at
that which was come to pass." In verse 24, the
disciples journeying to Emmaus say : " And cer
tain of them that were with us went to the tomb,
and found it even as the women had said : but
1 The chief interpretations of the passage can be seen
in Godet, Com. on St. John, iii. pp. 311-13, and in Latham,
ut supra, pp. 419-20. Godet takes it to mean : "I have
not reached the state in which I shall be able to live with
you in the communion I promised you " (p. 311).
2 On the supposed dependence on St. John, cf. remark
above.

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 165
Him they saw not." 1 On the ground of its absence
from certain Western texts, the former passage (ver.
12) is regarded by textual critics with suspicion.2
This doubt does not attach to verse 24, which plainly
has in view the visit described by St. John. Its
genuineness, in turn, supports that of verse 12,
where St. Peter only is mentioned. It may reason
ably be supposed that St. John, in his fuller narrative,
has the aim of rectifying a certain inexactitude in
St. Luke's summary account. St. Luke, e.g.,
speaks of St. Peter, at the tomb, as " stooping and
looking in." St. John, the disciple who accompanied
St. Peter, explains that, while this was true of him
self (cf. chap. xx. 5), St. Peter did more, actually
entering the tomb and inspecting the contents.
In his consecutive account, he makes clear also the
precise time of this visit.
2. At this point a question of some nicety arises
as to the relation of this appearance to Mary Mag
dalene, and the appearance to the women recorded
in St. Matthew xxviii. 9, 10, which stands next upon
our list. Are these appearances different ? Or
1 Meyer remarks : " Of the ' other disciple ' of John
xx. 3, Luke says nothing, but, according to ver. 24, does
not exclude him " (Com. in loc).
2 The preponderance of early MSS. authority sustains
the passage. Godet, who, in his Com. on St. Luke (ii. p. 352)
upholds the genuineness, treats it in his Com. on St. John
(iii. p. 308) as " a gloss borrowed from St. John." Had
it been so, it would surely have avoided the appearance
of contradiction I

166 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
is the second (that in Matthew) merely a gener
alized form of the first (that in John) ? The latter
is the view taken by many scholars.1 In favour
of it is the fact that only two women, Mary Mag
dalene and the other Mary, are mentioned in St.
Matthew's narrative.2 We know, however, that
there were other women present, and there is a
marked contrast in the circumstances in the two
narratives. The women in St. Matthew are already
on their way to tell the disciples ; they hold
Jesus by the feet, and are apparently unrebuked
(the act was only one of worship) ; the mes
sage, too, is different. The appearance to Mary
may well be grouped (probably is) with that of
the other women ; it is not so easy to identify the
latter with Mary's solitary experience. If, on the
other hand, the appearances are taken to be dis
tinct, a difficulty arises as to the order of time.
The appearance to the women coming from the
tomb would now seem to claim precedence over
that to Mary, who had in the interval gone to
Jerusalem and had returned. There is nothing
absolutely to preclude this, if the note of order
in the Appendix to St. Mark (" appeared first to
Mary Magdalene ") be surrendered. Some, accord
ingly, do place the appearance to the other women
first.3 1 E.g., Ebrard, Godet, Alford, Swete. * Ver. i.
* E.g., Milligan, The Resur. of our Lord, pp. 259-60.

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 167
But even on the ordinarily received view
that the appearance to Mary Magdalene was the
prior, the problem, when the circumstances are
fairly considered, does not seem insoluble. Both
appearances took place in early morning, with at
most an hour or two between them. The disciples,
mostly lodging apart — in Jerusalem,1 in Bethany,
elsewhere2 — could not be convened till later.
The women, after their first hurried flight (cf.
Mark xvi. 8) must have paused to regain their self-
possession, to confer with one another on what
they had seen and heard, to consider how they should
proceed in conveying their tidings to the still scat
tered disciples. In such a pause, their hearts aflame
with love and holy desire, Jesus, who a little earlier
had made Himself known to Mary in the garden,
appeared to them. Even before He approached a
single Apostle, He disclosed Himself to this company
of faithful hearts. His " All hail ! " and the re
newed commission to the disciples sealed the mes
sage at the tomb.
It is not unlikely that, before long, on her way back
to the city, Mary Magdalene joined her sisters, and
that, after interchange of experiences, the errand
to the disciples was undertaken by the women
together. Keen indeed must have been the chill
to their enthusiasm at the reception their message
1 As St. Peter and St. John above,
2 Two were from Emmaus.

168 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
met with when they did deliver it. Their words
received no credence : were treated as " idle talk." 1
That the tomb was found empty, the Apostles did
not dispute ; but stories of visions of angels and
appearances of Jesus they refused to accept.
There was astonishment, but not belief. Yet
it is this sceptical circle, antipathetic to visionary
experiences, in which belief in the Resurrection
is supposed spontaneously to have arisen through
visions of their own.
3. It must have been still early on this eventful
day, probably soon after the Apostle's visit to the
tomb, and while he was still brooding on what had
happened, that the third appearance of Jesus took
place — the appearance to St. Peter, attested by both
St. Paul2 and St. Luke.3 The critics, as will be
found, transfer this appearance from Jerusalem to
Galilee, but without a shadow of a valid reason. It
was in harmony with the tender, considerate
spirit displayed by Jesus in all these manifestations
that such an appearance should be granted, so soon
after the Resurrection, to the disciple who had
denied, yet who so devotedly loved Him — whom
He Himself had named the " Rock." 4 Like the
appearance to St. James at a later period, the
meeting was entirely private. It can only be
1 Luke xxiv. 10, n, 22, 23. Cf. Mark xvi. 9-11.
2 1 Cor. xv. 5. 3 Luke xxiv. 34.
* Matt. xvi. 18 ; John i. 42.

POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 169
conjectured how, with another look, reproachful
perhaps, but gracious and forgiving, the memory
was banished of that look turned upon St. Peter
in the High Priest's palace, which had overwhelmed
him with such sorrow.1 The great stone was now
rolled away from his heart, as before the stone had
been roiled from the tomb. The transformation
which this appearance of Christ wrought in the
Apostle is reflected in the excitement which the
report of it created in the circle of the disciples.
" The Lord hath risen indeed and hath appeared
to Simon." 2 The disciples might disbelieve the
women ; they could not doubt the reality of the
experience of St. Peter. The " conversion " which
Jesus had predicted was realized, and thereafter
the Apostle was to " strengthen " his brethren.3
4. As it is with the appearance to St. Peter, so
it is with the other appearance which may be associ
ated with this, as of the same private order — the
appearance to St. James*
It is among the latest of the appearances, as that
to Peter is among the earliest. With regard to both,
1 Luke xxii. 61.
2 Luke xxiv. 34. Prof. Lake thinks it " uncertain "
whether Simon Peter or another is intended in this passage
— a characteristic excess of scepticism. He cannot be
lieve that St. Luke has in view the appearance to Cephas
referred to by St. Paul. He prefers, " with the courage
of despair," as he calls it, to " think that St. Luke himself
did not write " the passage (pp. 101-3).
3 Luke xxii. 32. 4 1 Cor. xv. 7.

170 THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
while the facts are well-attested, no particulars
are given. It is not doubted that the person
intended in St. Paul's notice is the well-known James,
the " brother of the Lord." 1 This of itself explains
much. James, so far as is known, was not a be
liever in Jesus up to the time of the Crucifixion.2
Yet immediately after the Ascension, he, and
the other brethren of Jesus, are found in the com
pany of the disciples.3 Thereafter he became a
" pillar " 4 — finally the chief personage — in the
Church at Jerusalem.5 He ranked with the Apostles.6
What could explain such a change, save that, hke
the other Apostles, he had " seen the Lord ? " 7
Christ's appearance to St. James was not simply
His revelation to His own family — His kinsfolk
according to the flesh — but was the qualification
for hfelong Apostolic service. St. James exercised
an authority at Jerusalem hardly second to that
of St. Paul among the Churches of the Gentiles..
The remaining appearances will introduce us to
the problems connected with the nature of the
Resurrection body of the Lord.8
1 Gal. i. 19. Cf. Matt. xiii. 35 ; Mark vi. 3.
2 Cf. John vii. 5. 3 Acts i. 14. 4 Gal. iii. 9.
6 Acts xii. 17 ; xv. 13 ; xxi. 18.
6 Gal. i. 19 ; ii. 9 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5. 7 Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 1.
8 Cf. Hegisippus in Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., ii. 23. There
is a legend about St. James in the Gospel according to the
Hebrews (cf. Westcott, Introd. to Gospels, p. 463 ; Lightfoot,
Galatians, p. 274), to which, however, little, if any, weight
can be attached. Apocryphal ideas will be considered later.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE APPEAR
ANCES—THE RISEN BODY

VII

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE APPEARANCES
—THE RISEN BODY
The appearances of Jesus already considered —
those, viz., to Mary Magdalene, to the women, to
St. Peter, on the day of Resurrection, and that to
St. James later — were all of a private or semi-
private nature. Isolated, under varying conditions,
designed for personal comfort and confirmation,
taking place well-nigh simultaneously, the manifes
tations to one and another on the Resurrection day
afforded no room for self-deception, or for collusion,
or the contagious action of sympathy. It would
seem as if, on this first day, by manifestations to
individuals chosen for their peculiar receptiveness or
representative character, Jesus desired to lay a
broad basis for certainty in His Rising, before He
appeared to His disciples as a body.
Another example of this semi-private form of
manifestation to which attention must now be
directed was the appearance of Jesus to the two
disciples on their way to Emmaus, the full account

174 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
of which is furnished by St. Luke.1 The name
of only one of these favoured disciples is given —
Cleopas : 2 otherwise both are unknown. Chosen
for this honour as representatives of the wider circle
of disciples, doubtless also for the susceptibility
discerned in them for the reception of Christ's
communications, they form a link with the general
Apostolic company. From it they had just come,
after hearing the reports of certain of the women
and of others who had visited the tomb,3 and to
it they returned after their own meeting with
Jesus, to find the company in excitement at the
news of the Lord's appearance to St. Peter, and to
witness another appearance of the Master.4 Theirs
was the singular privilege, shared, so far as is
known, by St. Peter only, of beholding the Risen
Lord twice on one day !
The story of St. Luke is simple and direct, with
every internal mark of truthfulness. The dis
ciples were on their way to Emmaus, a village
about two hours' walk from Jerusalem,6 when
Jesus overtook them, and questioned them as to
the nature of their communings. Their inability
to recognize Him is explained by the statement :
" Their eyes were holden that they should not
know Him."6 Their simple recital of the events of
1 Luke xxiv. 12-35. 2 Ver. 18. 3 Vers. 22-24.
4 Vers. 34-36.
8 Ver. 13 ;cf. Josephus, Jewish War, vii. 6, 6. * Ver. 16.

THE RISEN BODY 175
the past few days and expression of their disap
pointed hopes — " We hoped that it was He who
should redeem Israel " J — with their mention of
the women's tale of the " vision of angels, who said
that He was alive," 2 gave Jesus the opportunity of
reproving their unbelief, and of expounding to
them in His own way the meaning of the Scrip
tures regarding Himself.3 As the day was closing,
they constrained Jesus to abide with them ; then, at
the evening meal, as Jesus blessed and brake the
bread, and gave it to them, " their eyes were opened
and they knew Him ; and He vanished out of their
sight." 4 Recalling how their hearts had burned
within them as He opened to them the Scriptures,
they hastily rose, and returned at once to Jerusalem.5
According to the Appendix to St. Mark, their testi
mony, like that of the women earlier, was not at
first believed 6 — a fact very credible when the
strangeness of their story, and the difficulty of
harmonizing the appearance at Emmaus with

1 Ver. 21. 2 Ver. 23.
3 Vers. 25-27. The Lord's exposition of the Scriptures
here and later (vers. 44-46) may have turned on the suffer
ings and fate of righteous men and prophets in all ages,
and on the predictions of the future triumph and glory
of the Sufferer in Ps. xxii. (vers. 22-31), and Is. liii. Psalms
like the 16th and prophecies like Zech. xiii. would also have
place (cf. Hengstenberg, Christologie, iv. App. iv.).
4 Vers. 30-31. 5 Vers. 32-33.
6 Mark xvi. 12, 13.

176 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
that to St. Peter at Jerusalem, are considered.1
It is apparent from many parts of his Gospel that
St. Luke had access to a Jerusalem tradition of
primitive origin and high value, and this narrative,
which probably took shape at the time from the
report of the disciples,2 is, in its clear, straight
forward character, evidently one of the best pre
served parts of that tradition. Critics, accordingly,
while of course rejecting its testimony to the bodily
appearance of Jesus, commonly treat the Emmaus
narrative with considerable respect. As examples,
Renan, after his manner, takes the picturesque story
simply as it stands, transforming the stranger
into "a pious man well versed in the Scriptures,"
whose gesture in the breaking of bread at the
evening repast vividly recalled Jesus, and plunged the
disciples into tender thoughts. When they awoke
from their reverie, the stranger was gone.3 A. Meyer
sees in the appearance to Simon and the naming of
Cleopas and Emmaus evidence that St. Luke's
source contained " valuable old material." His
1 It is told in Luke xxiv. 41 that, even when the Lord
Himself appeared among them, the Apostles and disciples
" disbelieved for joy."
2 Cf. Latham, The Risen Master, pp. 135-7.
3 Les Apotres, pp. 18-21. Renan's descrption is
characteristic. " How often had they not seen their
beloved Master, in that hour, forget the burden of the day,
and, in the abandon of gay conversation, and enlivened
by several sips of excellent wine, speak to them of the
fruit of the vine," etc. (p. 11).

THE RISEN BODY 177
chief objection is that St. Paul does not mention an
incident which, if true, must have been " of price
less significance as a proof of the Resurrection." 1
Professor Lake allows that the story " reads as
though it were based on fact," and thinks it "is
probably a genuine remnant of the original tradition
of the Church at Jerusalem, which has suffered
a little in the process of transmission." 2 It is
supposed to preserve a recollection of appearances
in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, afterwards
woven into connexion with the Apostles (thus also
A. Meyer) . The reference to the appearance to Simon,
assumed to be Galilean, is excised.3 Against these
arbitrary conjectures, the simplicity and direct
ness of the narrative — its " air of reality " — suffi
ciently speak.4
The real points of difficulty in the narrative are
those which touch on the mystery of the Lord's Re
surrection body. Such are (1) His non-recognition by
the disciples through " their eyes " being " holden "
(or, as in the Appendix to St. Mark, His appearance
to them " in another form " 6) ; (2) His vanishing
from their sight at the table ; (3) His appearing on
the same evening at Jerusalem. These points are
1 Die Auferstehung Christi, pp. 132-3.
2 Res. of Jesus Christ, pp. 218-19.
3 Ibid. pp. 103, 219.
4 On general objections to the narrative cf. Loot's
Die Auferstehungsberichte und ihr Wert, pp. 27-8.
5 Mark xvi. 12,
R.J- 12

178 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
better held over till all the facts of a similar
nature are in view.
The time had now arrived when these private
appearances of Jesus were to give place to His
more public manifestations of Himself to His dis
ciples. Accordingly, still on the Resurrection-
evening, and in connexion with the visit of the
Emmaus disciples just described, we come to the
first in order of the important series of the appear
ances of the Lord to His assembled Apostles. This,
as in a marked degree typical, will repay careful
study. i. The witnesses to this first appearance to the
Apostles are St. Luke x and St. John,2 supported
by St. Paul.3 The story, in St. Luke, is the con
tinuation of the Emmaus narrative ; in St. John
it is a distinct episode, and furnishes in its com
mencement the important detail that, when Jesus
appeared, " the doors were shut where the disciples
were, for fear of the Jews." 4 This makes more
emphatic the marvel of Christ's sudden appear
ance in the midst of the disciples, which yet is
implied in both narratives. " Jesus," St. Luke
says, " Himself stood (eo-Tij) in the midst of them."5
St. John speaks similarly : " Jesus came and stood
in the midst."6 This practical identity of lan-
1 Luke xxiv. 36-43. 2 John xx. 19-23.
3 1 Cor. xv. 5. 4 John xx. 19.
6 Luke xxiv. 36. 8 John xx. 19.

THE RISEN BODY 179
guage in an undoubted part of the text should
predispose us to consider favourably the two
succeeding clauses in St. Luke, likewise iden
tical with, or closely akin to St. John's, on which
doubt is cast by their absence from some Western
texts. They are these : (1) Ver. 36 reads, as in
St. John x : " And saith unto them, Peace be unto
you." (2) Ver. 40 reads : " And when He had
said this, He showed them His hands and His feet,"
where St. John has : " And when He had said this
He showed unto them His hands and His side."
The passages are here accepted as genuine ; 3 but
whether expressed or not, the showing of the hands
and the feet in the latter is implied in St. Luke's
preceding words : " See My hands and My feet,"
etc.4 Up to a certain point, therefore, the two nar
ratives agree almost verbally. That of St. John
an immediate witness, confirms that of St. Luke
and with it supports the authenticity of St. Luke's
narrative generally. The astonishment and doubt
which the Lord's sudden appearance occasioned
1 John xx. 19. 2 John xx. 20.
3 Alford's notes may be quoted. On ver. 36 : "Possi
bly from John ; but as the whole is nearly related to that
narrative, and the authority for the omission weak, Tis-
chendorf is certainly not justified in expunging it." On
ver. 40 : " Had this been interpolated from St. John, we
certainly should have found ' feet ' altered by some to
'side,' either here only, or in ver. 39 also." The RV,
retains both clauses in the text.
4 Luke xxiv. 39.

180 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
is reflected in both. St. Luke's language is the
more vivid. " They were terrified and affrighted,
and supposed that they beheld a spirit." x Even
after the Lord's reassurances, and His invitation,
" Handle Me, and see : for a spirit hath not flesh
and bones, as ye behold Me having," it is declared,
" They still disbelieved for joy, and wondered." 2
The removal of doubt is implied in St. John in
Christ's showing of His hands and His side, and
the " joy " is corroborated in the words : " The
disciples therefore were glad when they saw the
Lord." 3 The whole account is psychologically
most natural, and sheds vivid light by contrast
on the theories which see the origin of belief in the
Resurrection in an eager credulity and proneness
to mistake hallucinations for reality on the part
of the Apostles.
At this point St. Luke and St. John part company,
each giving an incident not related by the other.
St. Luke tells how, at His own request, the dis
ciples gave Jesus a piece of a broiled fish [the words
" and of a honey-comb " are doubtful] and He
" ate before them " 4 (a like " eating " seems im
plied in the later scene in St. John at the Lake of
Galilee).6 St. John, on the other hand, tells of
a renewed commission to the Apostles, and of how
Jesus " breathed on them, and said unto them,
1 Ver. 37. 2 Ver. 41. 3 John xx. 20.
4 Luke xxiv. 43. 6 John xxi. 4-13.

THE RISEN BODY 181
Receive ye [the] Holy Spirit. Whosesoever sins
ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them ; whose
soever sins ye retain, they are retained." 1 Into
the controversies connected with these solemn
words, this is not the place to enter. It may be
that here, as elsewhere, Jesus is contemplating the
existence of a spiritual: Society, and is investing
His Apostles with disciplinary authority to deal
with sins which affect the standing of members
in that Society.2 Or the deeper thought may be
that the remission or retention of sins is bound up
ipso facto with the reception or rejection of the
message which He commits to the Apostles to bear.
Whatever the nature of the authority, the text
makes plain that its exercise is conditioned by
the possession of the Holy Spirit. It is not neces
sary to assume that the actual imparting of the
Spirit was delayed till Pentecost. The act of
breathing and the words used by Jesus imply that
the Spirit was then given in a measure, if not in the
fulness of the later affusion.3 St. John, too, knew
that the Spirit was not given till Christ was glorified.4
In this incident, as in the earlier appearances,
while proof is given of the reality of Christ's risen
1 John xx. 21-3.
2 Cf. Matt, xviii. 17, 18. See also Latham, ut supra,
pp. 168-74.
3 " Arrha Pentecostes " (Bengel). "That preparatory
communication, that anticipatory Pentecost" (Godet).
4 John vii. 39.

18a SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
body, and of its identity with the body that was
crucified and buried, not less plain evidence is
afforded of the changed conditions under which
that body now existed. The fact is meanwhile,
again, only noted. When, however, the critics
import into these narratives a contradiction with
St. Paul's conception of Christ's Resurrection
body,1 and, to heighten the variance, arbitrarily
transfer the appearance to " the twelve " men
tioned by St. Paul in i Cor. xv. 5, to Galilee,
it must be pointed out that they not only break
with a sound Jerusalem tradition, of which the
Apostle must have been perfectly aware, but assert
what, on the face of it, is an incredibility. What
motive or occasion can be suggested for a convening
of " the twelve " (or eleven) in Galilee to receive
an appearance ? 2 And how difficult to conceive
of the simultaneous experience of such a vision
by a band of men so brought together ! Better
with A. Meyer, to cast doubt on the appearance
altogether.3 1 Thus Henson (Hibbert Journal, 1903-4, pp. 476-93,
Weizsacker, A. Meyer, Loisy (Les Evangiles, ii. p. 772),
etc. On the other hand, cf. Loofs, ut supra, pp. 27-9, 33.
2 According to Loisy, it was St. Peter, who had one
day seen Jesus when fishing on the Lake of Tiberias (see
below), who " no doubt [!] gathered the eleven, and kindled
with his ardour their wavering faith " (ii. p. 224).
3 Ut supra, p. 139. After disposing cf all details, Meyer
concludes that there is a " kernel " of trutn in the story
The vision theory is discussed in next chapter.

THE RISEN BODY 183
2. Eight days after this first appearance — St.
John here again being witness — a second appearance
of Jesus to the Apostles took place in the same
chamber, and under the like conditions (" the doors
being shut ").1 The peculiar feature of this second
meeting was the removal of the doubt of St. Thomas,
who, it is related, had not been present on the
earlier occasion.2 St. Thomas, in a spirit which
the " modern " mind should appreciate, refused
to believe in so extraordinary a fact as the Resur
rection of the Lord in the body on the mere report
of others, and demanded indubitable sensible
evidence of the miracle for himself. " Except I
shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put
my finger into the print of the nails, and put my
hand into His side, I will not believe." 3 Graciously,
at this second appearance, Jesus gave the doubting
Apostle the evidence he asked — " Reach hither thy
hand," 4 etc. — though, as the event proved, the
sign was not needed. The faith of the disciple was
greater than he thought, and the sight and words of
Jesus sufficed, without actual examination, to bring
him to his Lord's feet in adoring acknowledg
ment. The love and reverence that lay beneath his
doubts came in a surge of instantaneous devotion
to the surface : " My Lord and my God." 6 Yet,
as Jesus reminded him, there is a higher faith still
1 John xix. 24-9 2 John xx. 24. 8 Ver. 25.
4 Ver. 27. 6 Ver. 28.

184 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
— that which does not need even seeing, but appre
hends intuitively that in the nature of the case
nothing else could be true of One in whom the
Eternal Life was revealed. " Because thou hast
seen Me, thou hast believed ; blessed are they that
have not seen, and yet have believed." 1
The confidence instinctively awakened by this
striking narrative of the Lord's treatment of a
doubting spirit is not disturbed by the inability
that may be felt to explain why the Apostles should
still be at Jerusalem a whole week after they had
received the direction to meet the Lord in Galilee.
Various reasons might be suggested for the delay.
It appears from St. Matthew that place and time of
the Galilean meeting were definitely " appointed."2
There was therefore no need for departure till the time
drew near. It was, besides, the week of the Passover
feast, and there was urgent cause why the Apostles,
in the new circumstances that had arisen, should
remain at Jerusalem to bear their own testimony,
allay doubts, meet inquirers, check false rumours
and calumnies.3 When they did j ourney northwards
it would probably still be in company. The depar
ture may well have taken place in the course of
the week succeeding that renewed appearance of
Jesus on the eighth day. Very significant must
1 Ver. 29. 2 Matt, xxviii. 18.
3 Godet suggests as a reason " the obstinacy of Thomas "
(St. John, hi. pp. 319, 339).

THE RISEN BODY 185
that second meeting on " the first day of the week " —
the anniversary of the Rising — have been felt by
the disciples to be ! It consecrated it for them
anew as " the Lord's Day " ! 1
3. In harmony with this view of the succession
of events, the scene of manifestation is now trans
ferred to Galilee, and the third appearance of the Lord
to His disciples takes place, as recorded in St. John
xxi, on the shore of the Lake of Galilee (" Sea of
Tiberias ").2 The chapter (xxi.) is a supplement
to the rest of the Gospel, but is so evidently
Johannine in character that, with the exception
of the endorsement in verses 24-5, it may safely
be accepted as from the pen of the beloved disciple.3
Seven disciples were present on this occasion, of
whom five are named (" Simon Peter, Thomas,
Nathanael, the Sons of Zebedee "). 4 All five are
Apostles, if, as is probable, Nathanael is to be
identified with Bartholomew. This creates the like
lihood that " the two other of His disciples " were
Apostles also— unnamed, perhaps, as Luthardt
suggests,6 because not elsewhere mentioned in the
1 Rev. i. 10. 2 John xxi. I.
3 " Some (e.g. Zahn) prefer to take the chapter as the
work of a disciple, or disciples, of St. John. But style,
allusions, marks of eye-witness speak to its being from
the same hand as the rest of the Gospel (thus Lightfoot,
Meyer, Godet, Alford, etc.). The attestation (ver. 24),
covers this chapter equally with the others. The Gospel
never circulated without it.
4 Ver. 2. 6 Com. on St. John, hi. p. 358.

186 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
Gospel. At every point the life-like touches in the
story attest the writer as an eye-witness. The
disciples had spent a night of fruitless toil in fishing.
At break of day, Jesus appeared to them on the
shore, and, as yet unrecognized, bade them cast
their net on the right side of the boat.1 The unpre
cedented draught of fishes which rewarded their
effort revealed at once to St. John the presence of
the Lord. " It is the Lord," he said.2 St. Peter,
on hearing the words, girt his fisher's coat about
him (" for he was naked "), and cast himself into the
sea, while the others dragged the net to shore. 3
Arrived there, they found a fire of coals, with fish laid
on it, and bread ; after other fish had been brought,
Jesus invited them to eat, and with His own hand
distributed the bread and the fish.4 It is remarked
that, whilst the disciples now knew it was the Lord,
none durst inquire of Him, " Who art Thou ? " 6
It seems implied, though it is not directly stated,
that Jesus Himself shared in the meal. The scene
that followed of St. Peter's reinstatement (the three
fold question, answering to the three-fold denial, with
its subtle play on the word " lovest," 6 St. Peter's
replies, Christ's " Feed My lambs," " Feed My
sheep ") is familiar to every reader of Scripture.7
It need hardly be said, that, with all its delicate
1 Ver. 4. 2 Ver. 7. 3 Vers. 7, 8.
4 Vers. 9-13. 6 Ver. 12.
6 a-j/cnras (vers. 15, 16) ; <p:X<iis (ver. 17). St. Peter
uses <piXS>. 7 Vers. 15-19.

THE RISEN BODY 187
marks of truth, this narrative of the Fourth Gospel
meets with short shrift at the hands of the critics.
Its symbolical character is thought to rob it of all
claim to historicity. The theories propounded
regarding it are as various as the minds that conceive
them. One curious speculation, adopted by Har
nack, 1 is that St. John xxi. represents the lost
ending of St. Mark. Professor Lake thinks that
" there is certainly not a little to be said for this
hypothesis." 2 In reality it has nothing in its
favour, beyond the probability that the lost section
of St. Mark contained the account of some appear.
ance in Galilee. 3 Most take the first part of the
chapter to be a version, with adaptations, of St.
Luke's story of the miraculous draught of fishes.
Strauss sees in it a combination of this "legend"
in St. Luke with that of St. Peter walking on the
sea. 4 Only in this case St. Peter does not walk on
the sea. The newest tendency is to find in it a
reminiscence of the appearance of Jesus to St. Peter,
transferred to the Lake of Galilee. 6 The second
1 Chronologie, i. pp. 696 ff. Harnack follows Rohrbach.
Others see the lost conclusion of St. Mark behind Matt.
xxviii. 16-20.
2 Ut supra, p. 143.
3 As already said, style, names (Nathanael, Cana in
Galilee, Didymus, etc.), and whole cast of the narrative
speak for Johannine authorship and rebut this Marcan
theory. 4 New Life of Jesus, ii. pp. 131-2.
6 Thus, e.g. Loisy : " He [St. Peter] had seen Jesus one
day in the dawn when fishing on the Lake of Tiberias,"
etc. (ut supra, p. 224).

188 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
part of the story Renan accounts for by " dreams."
(" One day Peter, dreaming, believed that he heard
Jesus ask him, ' Lovest thou Me ? ' " x) : most
regard it as a free invention. 2 In these hypotheses
it is the imagination of the critics, not that of the
Evangelist, that is active. It is enough here to
oppose to them, conflicting and mutually destructive
in themselves, the direct and satisfying testimony
of the disciple who was there. It is, no doubt, a
miracle that is recorded — one of the " providential "
order — but the resemblance with that in St. Luke
begins and ends with the fact that it is a draught
of fishes. Circumstances and connexion are totally
different. In a symbolical respect it may well have
been designed as a reminder and renewal of the call
originally given, and a confirmation, suitable to
this period of new commissions, of the pledge which
accompanied that call : " From henceforth thou
shalt catch men."3
Noteworthy in this narrative, as in the preceding,
is the combination in Christ's Resurrection body
of seemingly opposite characters ; on the one hand,
mysterious (supernatural) traits, veiling recog
nition, and exciting awe in the beholders ; on the
other, attributes and functions which attest its full
1 Les Apotres, pp. 33-34.
2 Keim takes this view of the whole chapter (Jesus of
Nazara, vi. pp. 314-18).
3 Luke v. 10.

THE RISEN BODY 189
physical reality, and identity with the body that
was crucified.
4. Chief among the appearances of Jesus after
His Resurrection is unquestionably to be ranked
the great meeting on the mountain in Galilee, of
which St. Matthew alone preserves the record. 1
St. Matthew's testimony, however, is not wholly
without corroboration. It is commonly assumed
that St. Mark also had intended to give some account
of this meeting, 2 which is usually, and no doubt
correctly, identified with the appearance which
St. Paul mentions " to above five hundred brethren
at once, of whom the greater part remain until now. ' ' 3
St. Matthew, indeed, speaks only of " the eleven
disciples " in connexion with the meeting. He
does so because it is with the Commission to the
Apostles he is specially concerned. But the wider
scope of the gathering is already evident in his
own intimations regarding it. The meeting had
been in view from the day of Resurrection. The
summons to it was addressed to the " disciples," 4
who are by no means to be confined to the Apostles.
The place and, we must suppose, the time also,
had been definitely " appointed." s It was to be in
" a mountain " in Galilee — a place suitable for a
1 Matt, xxviii. 16-20.
2 Cf. Mark xvi. 7. 3 1 Cor. xv. 6.
4 Matt, xxviii. 7, 9. In ver. 10, " brethren."
6 Ver. 16. On whole incident, cf. Latham, ut suprat
pp. 280-94.

190 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
general gathering. The intention, in short, was a
collective meeting of disciples.
To this place, accordingly, at the appointed
time, the Apostles and other disciples repaired
and there, faithful to His promise, Jesus appeared
to them. The expression " when they saw Him " 1
suggests some sudden appearance, while the clause
" came unto them," 2 in the succeeding verse, points
to approach from some little distance. In so
large a company susceptibility would vary, and it is
not surprising that it is on record that, when Jesus
was first seen, " they worshipped Him, but some
doubted." 3 The statement is a testimony to the
genuineness of the narrative ; it is also an indirect
indication of the presence of others. 4 In the small
body of the eleven there is hardly room for a " some."
Whatever doubt there was would vanish when the
Lord drew near and spoke.
With such a view of the Galilean meeting, ob
jections to the genuineness of the great Commission,
" Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations," etc., lose most of their force. Based as
it is on the august declaration, " All authority hath
been given unto Me in heaven and on earth," and
culminating in the promise, " Lo, I am with you
always, even unto the end of the world," 6 the
1 Ver. 17. 2 Ver. 18. 3 Ibid.
4 Cf. Latham, pp. 291-3 ; Allen, St. Matthew, pp. 303,
3°5- 5 Cf. Latham, pp. 282-6 ; Allen, pp. 306-7.

THE RISEN BODY 191
Commission will be felt by most to hold its proper
place. If Jesus really rose, these, or words like these,
are precisely what He might be expected to use on
such an occasion. Doubt of the words, as a rule
goes along with doubt of the Resurrection itself.1
[The appearance to St. James 2 was dealt with in
last chapter.]
5. Shortly after the great meeting in Galilee, the
Apostles returned again to Jerusalem — from this
time on, as every one admits, the continuous scene of
their residence and labours. The fact that they
did return is confirmatory evidence that some
decisive experience had awaited them in the north.
A link, however, is still wanting to connect previous
events with the waiting for Pentecost, and the bold
action immediately thereafter taken in the founding
of the Church. That link is found in the last ap
pearance of the Lord to the Apostles — the appear
ance alluded to by St. Paul in the words, " then,
to all the Apostles" 3 and more circumstantially
narrated by St. Luke, who brings it into direct
1 The critical questions in this section are chiefly two :
(1) Whether St. Matthew here follows the lost ending of
St. Mark (some, as Allen, favour ; others doubt or deny) ;
and (2) whether the words, " Baptizing them into the
name," etc., should be omitted (after Eusebius). Prof.
Lake says : " The balance of argument is in favour of
the Eusebian text" (p. 88). Against this another sen
tence of his own may be quoted : " The text is found in
all MSS. and versions" (p. 87).
2 1 Cor. xv. 7. * Ibid.

192 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
relation with the Ascension.1 A difficulty is found
here in the fact that in his Gospel (chap, xxiv.) St.
Luke proceeds without break from Christ's first ap
pearance to " the eleven " to His last words about
" the promise of the Father " and the Ascension at
Bethany ; whereas in Acts i. he interposes " forty
days " between the Resurrection and Ascension,
and assumes appearances of Christ spread over the
whole period. Not only Strauss, Keim, Weizsacker,
etc., but also Meyer, and many other critics, em
phasize this " contradiction." It may reasonably
be suspected, however, that " contradiction " oc
curring in books by the same writer, addressed to the
same person, one of which is formally a continuation
of the other, has its origin, less in fault of the author,
than in the failure of the critics to do justice to his
method. St. Luke, in his second work, betrays
no consciousness of " contradiction " with his
first, and his acquaintance with St. Paul, and know
ledge of the fist of appearances in i Corinthians,2
make it, as formerly urged, unthinkable that he
should have supposed all the events between the
Resurrection and Ascension to be crowded into a
single day. Neither, as a more careful inspection
of his narrative in the Gospel shows, does he suppose
this. The sequence of events in chap, xxiv. makes
1 Luke xxiv. 44-53 ; Acts i. 5-12.
2 Weizsacker thinks that St. Luke's mention of the
appearance of St. Peter " depended on the writer's acquaint
ance with the passage in Paul " (Apost. Age, ii. p. 11).

THE RISEN BODY 193
it clear that it was already late in the evening
when Jesus appeared to " the eleven." x A meal
followed. After this, if all happened on the same
evening, there took place a lengthened exposition
of the prophetic Scriptures. The disciples were
then led out of Bethany, a mile and a half from the
city. There they witnessed the Ascension. After
wards they returned to Jerusalem " with great
joy," and were continually in the Temple. Is it not
self-evident that there is compressed into these
closing verses of the Gospel far more than the events
of one day ? 2 Conscious of his purpose to write a
fuller account of the circumstances of the Lord's
parting with His disciples, the Evangelist foreshortens
and summarizes his narrative of the instructions and
promises which had their beginning at that first
meeting, and were continued later.3 Similarly, the
citation of Christ's words in the closing verses of
the Appendix to St. Mark must be regarded as a
summary. The last meeting of Christ with His Apostles took
1 The disciples had returned from Emmaus after an
evening meal there.
2 Latham justly says : " I will not listen to the sup
position that the events of Luke xxiv. 36-53 all happened
in the one evening — this would make the Ascension take
place in the dead of night" (p. 155).
3 Cf. Godet, St. Luke, ii. p. 358 ; Plummer, St. Luke,
PP- 56l> 5^4- Luthardt says : " Luke draws into one
the entire time from the day of the Resurrection to the
Ascension" (St. John, iii. p. 356). 13

194 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
place, as we definitely learn from Acts i. 4, when
He was " assembled together with them " at Jerusa
lem. It was then His final instructions were given.
Even here the scene changes insensibly to Olivet,
where the Ascension is located. Jesus might have
simply " vanished " from the sight of His disciples,
as on previous occasions, but it was His will to leave
them in a way which would visibly mark the final
close of His temporal association with them. He
was " taken up," and " a cloud received Him out
of their sight." *- As they stood, still gazing at the
spot where He had disappeared, angels, described
as " two men in white apparel " (if ever angels
were in place, it surely was at the Resurrection
and Ascension), admonished them that, as they
had seen Him depart, so in like manner He
would come again. The visible Ascension has its
counterpart in the visible Return.
It is the same picture of the Ascension, essen
tially, which is given in the close of St. Luke's
Gospel : " He parted from them, and was carried
up into heaven." 2 It matters little for the sense
whether the last clause is retained, as probably
it should be, or, with some authorities, is rejected, for
the context plainly shows the kind of " parting "
that is intended (cf. "received up," ayaA^ya-v^eax?, in
chap. ix. 51). The Appendix to St. Mark, likewise,
correctly gives the meaning : " He was received up
1 Acts i. 10, 11. 2 Luke xxiv. 51.

THE RISEN BODY 195
(dveXrJn<p0i)) into heaven, and sat down at the right
hand of God." 1 Not in these passages only, but
thro ghout the whole of the New Testament, it is
imphcd that Jesus after His Resurrection " passed
into the heavens," was exalted and glorified. 2
The facts are now before us. It remains, as far
as it can be reverently done, to sum up the results
as to the nature of the body of the Lord during
this transitional period between Resurrection and
Ascension, and to consider briefly the problems
which these raise. This, with the full recognition
that, in the present state of knowledge, these pro
blems are, in large part, necessarily insoluble.
1 Mark xvi. 19.
2 John vi. 62, xx. 17 ; Eph. iv. 8-10 ; I Tim. hi. 16 ;
Heb. iv. 14 , 1 Pet. iii. 21, 22, etc. On the Ascension,
cf. Godet, St. Luke, hi. pp. i6y-y\ ; Latham, chap. xii.
Only a word need be said on the objection urged from
Strauss down that the Ascension is confuted by its connex
ion with a now exploded cosmogony. A recent writer, Prof.
A. O. Lovejoy, states the objection thus in The Hibbert
Journal, April 1908, p. 503 : "This story [of the Resur
rection] is inextricably involved with, and is unintelligible
apart from, the complementary story of the Ascension,
with its crude scene of levitation ; and this, in turn, is
meaningless without the scheme of cosmic topography
that places a heaven somewhere in space in a direction
perpendicular to the earth's surface at the latitude and
longitude of Bethany." The objection really rests on a
crudely realistic view of the world of space and time, as
if this was not itself the index and symbol of another and
(to us) invisible world, to which a higher reality belongs
(in illustration, cf . Stewart and Tait's The Unseen Universe) .
Reception into this world is not by way of spatial transi
tion.

196 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
" I am not yet ascended " ..." I ascend." x In
these two parts of the one saying of Jesus the
mystery of the Resurrection body is comprised
On earth, as the history shows, Jesus had a body
in all natural respects, corruptibility excepted, like
our own. He hungered, He thirsted, He was weary,
He suffered, He died of exhaustion and wounds.
In heaven, that body has undergone transformation ;
has become " the body of His glory." 2 In com
parison with the natural, it has become a spiritual —
" a pneumatic " — body, assimilated to, and entirely
under the control of, the spiritual nature and
forces that reside in it and work through it. In the
interval between the Resurrection and the Ascension
its condition must be thought of as intermediate
between these two states — no longer merely natural
(the act of Resurrection itself proclaimed this),
yet not fully entered into the state of glorification.
It presents characters, requisite for the proof of its
identity, which show that the earthly condition is
still not wholly parted with. It discovers qualities
and powers which reveal that the supra-terrestrial
condition is already begun. The apparently incon
sistent aspects, therefore, under which Christ's body
appears in the narratives do not constitute a bar to
the acceptance of the truthfulness of the accounts ;
they may rather, in their congruity with what is to be
1 John xx. 17. 2 Phil. iii. 21.

THE RISEN BODY 197
looked for in the Risen One, who has shown His power
over death, but has not yet entered into His glory,
be held to furnish a mark of credibility. How
unlikely that the myth-forming spirit — not to say
the crudeness of invention — should be able to seize
so exactly the two-fold aspect which the manifes
tation of the Redeemer in His triumph over the
grave must -necessarily present!
Let these peculiarities of the Lord's Risen body
be a little more closely considered.
1. On the one side, the greatest pains are taken
to prove that the body in which Jesus appeared
was a true body — not a spirit or phantasm, but the
veritable body which had suffered on the Cross, and
been laid in the tomb. It could be seen, touched,
handled. It bore on it the marks of the Passion.
To leave no room for doubt of its reality, it is told
that on at least two, probably on three, occasions,
Jesus ate with His disciples. With this accords the
fact that the grave in which the body of Jesus had
been buried on the Friday evening was found empty
on the Easter Sunday morning. It was seen before
that it was undeniably the belief of St. Paul and of the
whole Apostolic Church that Jesus rose on the
third day in the very body which had been
buried.1 1 Menegoz says : " The mention of the third day would
have no sense if Paul had not accepted the behef of the
community of Jerusalem that on the third day Jesus went

198 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
2. On the other hand, it is equally evident that
the Resurrection body of Jesus was not simply
natural. It had attributes proclaiming its con
nexion with that supra-terrestrial sphere to which
it now more properly belonged. These attributes,
moreover, however difficult to reconcile with the
more tangible properties, can still not be regarded
as mere legendary embellishments, for they appear
in some degree in all the presentations.
The peculiarities chiefly calling for notice in this
respect are the following : —
(i) There is the mysterious power which Jesus
seems to have possessed of withdrawing Himself in
greater or less degree from the recognition of those
around Him. In more than one of the narratives,
as has been seen, it is implied that there was some
thing strange — something unfamiliar or mysterious
— in His aspect, which prevented His immediate
recognition even by those intimate with Him ;
which held them in awe ; while again, when some
gesture, word, or look, revealed to them suddenly
who He was, they were surprised, as the truth
flashed upon them, that they had not recognized
Him sooner.
The instances which come under this head, indeed,
differ in character. It is possible that the failure
of Mary Magdalene to recognize Jesus at the begin-
forth alive from the tomb " (La Pe'chi et la Redemption
d'apres S. Paul, p. 261 ; quoted by Bruce).

THE RISEN BODY 199
ning 1 may have been due to her absorption in her
grief ; but it was probably in part occasioned also
by some alteration in His appearance. It is said
of the Emmaus disciples that " their eyes were
holden that they should not know Him," 2 else
where that He appeared to them " in another
form." 3 The former expression need not, perhaps,
be pressed to imply a supernatural action on their
senses. It may mean simply that they did not
know Him ; that there was that about Him which
prevented recognition. Yet when He was revealed
to them in the breaking of bread, they appear to
have marvelled at their blindness in not discerning
Him sooner. In the incident at the Sea of Tiberias,
the disciples may have been hindered from recog
nizing Jesus by the distance or the dimness of the
dawn. The narrative, nevertheless, imphes some
thing in Christ's aspect which awed and restrained
them, so that, even when they knew Him, they did
not ask, " Who art Thou ? " 4
(2) It is an extension of the same supernatural
quality when the power is attributed to Jesus of with
drawing Himself from sensible perception altogether.
At Emmaus, we are told, " He vanished out of their
sight." s On other occasions He appeared and dis
appeared.6 Here, apparently, is an emerging from,
and withdrawing into, complete invisibility.
1 John xx. 14. 2 Luke xxiv. 16. 3 Mark xvi. 12.
4 John xxi. 12. 6 Luke xxiv. 31.
6 Luke xxiv. 36 ; John xx. 19, 26.

200 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
(3) The climax in supernatural quality is reached
when Jesus is represented as withdrawing Himself
wholly from conditions of space and time, and as
transcending physical limitations — in appearing, e.g.,
to His disciples within closed doors,1 or being found
in different places at short intervals, or, finally, in
ascending from earth to heaven in visible form.2
A body in which powers like these are manifested is
on the point of escaping from earthly conditions
altogether — as, in truth, the body of Jesus was.
Little help can be gained from natural analogies
in throwing light on properties so mysterious as
those now described, or in removing the feeling of
incredulity with which they must always be regarded
by minds that persist in applying to them only the
standards of ordinary experience. Daily, indeed,
are men being forced to recognize that the world
holds more mysteries than they formerly imagined
it to do. Probably physicists are not so sure of the
absolute impenetrability of matter,3 or even of the
conservation of energy, as they once were ; and
newer speculations on the etheric basis of matter,
and on the relation of the seen to an unseen universe
(or universes), with forces and laws largely un-

1 Luke xxiv. 36 ; John xx. 19, 26.
2 Luke xxiv. 51 ; Acts i. 9. On the Ascension, see note
above, p. 195.
3 Cf. Stallo's Concepts of Modern Physics (Inter. Scien.
Lib.), pp. 91-2, 178-82.

THE RISEN BODY 201
known,1 open up vistas of possibility which may
hold in them the key to phenomena even as extra
ordinary as those in question. In another direction,
Mr. R. J. Campbell finds himself able to accept the
physical Resurrection, and " the mysterious appear
ances and disappearances of the body of Jesus,"
on the ground of a theory of a " three-dimensional "
and " four-dimensional " world,2 which probably
will be incomprehensible to most. Then the Society
for Psychical Research has ^experiments to prove
a direct control of matter by spirit in extraordinary,
if not preternatural, ways.3 Such considerations
may aid in removing prejudices, but they do little
really to explain the remarkable phenomena of the
bodily manifestations of Jesus to His disciples.
These must still rest on their connexion with His
unique Person.
Specially suggestive in this last relation are the
indications in the Gospels themselves that, even
during His earthly ministry, Christ's body possessed
powers and obeyed laws higher than those to which
ordinary humanity is subject. Two of the best
attested incidents in the cycle of Gospel tradition
— His Walking on the Sea,4 and the Transfigura-
1 Cf. The Unseen Universe (Stewart and Tait), pp. 166,
189-90. 2 The New Theology, pp. 220-24.
3 Cf. Myers, Human Personality, ii. pp. 204 ff. ; Sir Oliver
Lodge, Hibbert Journal, April, 1908, pp. 574 ff.
4 Matt. xiv. 22-33 ; Mark vi. 45-52 ; John vi. 15-21.
In St. Matthew's narrative St. Peter also shared this power
till his faith failed.

202 SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCES
tion 1 — will occur as examples. Mighty powers
worked in Him which already suggested to Herod
One risen from the dead ; 2 powers which might be
expected to manifest themselves in a higher degree
when He actually did rise.
1 Matt. xvii. 1-8 ; Mark ix. 2-8 ; Luke ix. 28-36. Well-
hausen (Das Evang. Marci, pp. 75-6) actually supposes
that the Transfiguration was originally an appearance of
the Risen Christ to St. Peter. Loisy follows him in the
conjecture (ii. p. 39).
2 Matt. xiv. 2.

THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH— VISIONAL
AND APPARITIONAL THEORIES

VIII
THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH— VISIONAL AND
APPARITIONAL THEORIES
It has been seen that the facts of the historical
witness for the Resurrection form a chain of evi
dence extending from the empty grave on the
morning of the third day and the message of the
women, through the successive appearances oi
Jesus in Jerusalem and Galilee, till the day that He
was finally " taken up " x into heaven in the view
of His disciples. On these facts was based, in the
immediate witnesses, the firm conviction, which
nothing could shake, that their Lord, who had been
crucified, had risen from the dead, and had been
exalted to heavenly dominion. Their testimony,
held fast to under the severest trial of privation,
suffering, and death, was public, and no attempt
was ever made, so far as is known, to refute their
assertion. The effects of the faith in the first dis
ciples, and in the hearts and lives of their converts,
were of a nature to establish that they were the
1 Acts i. 2.
205

206 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
victims of no illusion ; that they built on rock, not
sand. For this is the point next to be observed : the
historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
is not all the evidence. As the Resurrection had
its antecedents in the history and claims of Jesus,
so it had its results. Pentecost is such a result.
The Apostohc Church is such a result. The con
version of St. Paul, the Epistles of the New Testa
ment, the Spirit-filled lives of a multitude of be
lievers are such results. The Church founded on
the Apostolic witness has endured for nineteen
centuries. Christian experience throughout all these
ages is a fact which only a Living Christ can explain
or sustain. The Apostle speaks of the " power "
of Christ's Resurrection.1 That which continuously
exerts " power " is a demonstrable reality.
There is space only for a glance at one or two of
these results in the Apostolic Age.
i. The Day of Pentecost, in the Book of Acts, is
the sequel to the Resurrection and Ascension.
" Being, therefore," said St. Peter, " by the right
hand of God exalted, and having received of the
Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He hath
poured forth this, which ye do see and hear." 2
The cavils which have been raised against the
general historicity of the first chapters of the Acts,
1 Phil. iii. 10. 2 Acts ii. 33.

VISIONAL THEORIES 207
which narrate the outpouring of the Spirit, and
the origin of the Church at Jerusalem,1 are met,
apart from the note of clear remembrance and full
information in the narrative itself, by one single
consideration. It is as incredible that the Mother
of all the Churches — the undoubted seat of Apos
tolic residence and activity for many years — should
have been unaware of, or have forgotten, the cir
cumstances of its own origin, as that, say, Germany
should forget its Reformation by Luther, or America
its Declaration of Independence.
2. The crucial fact of St. Paul's conversion took
place at most five or six years after the Resurrec
tion.2 It happened, therefore, when the original
witnesses were still alive and located at Jerusalem,
and when remembrance had as yet no time to grow
obscure, or tradition to become corrupted or per
verted. Three years later St. Paul lodged for a
fortnight with St. Peter 3 — chief of the Apostles
— at Jerusalem, and there also met James, the
Lord's brother. Then, if not before, he must have
made himself familiar with the chief details of the
Jerusalem tradition regarding Christ's death and
Resurrection. Earlier, while yet a persecutor, he
1 Even Harnack, who partly shares in the objection,
admits that " the instances of alleged incredibility have
been much exaggerated by critics " (Lukas der Arzt, p. 88).
2 The dates range from 31-2 a.d. (Harnack), 33 (Ram
say), 35-6 (Conybeare and Howson, Turner).
3 Gal. i. 18.

208 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
had shared in the martyrdom of that precursor of
his own, St. Stephen, who, in dying, had the vision
of Jesus in heaven waiting to receive his departing
spirit.1 No fewer than three times in the Book of Acts
the circumstances of St. Paul's vision of Jesus on
the way to Damascus are narrated,2 and it can
scarcely be doubted by any one who accepts St.
Luke's authorship of the Book that the informa
tion which these accounts contain was derived
originally from St. Paul's own lips.3 This, again,
alone should suffice to set aside the contradiction
which some have imagined between the Apostle's
own conception of his conversion and the narratives
in Acts, as well as the charge of vital contradictions
in the narratives themselves.4 As penned by the
same writer, in the compass of the same work,
the accounts must, in all reason, be supposed to be
in harmony with each other to the author's own
thought, whatever critics may now choose to make
of them.
1 Acts vii. 51-60.
2 Acts. ix. 1-22 ; xxii. 1-16 ; xxvi. 1-18.
3 The first is St. Luke's narrative ; the second is in St.
Paul's defence before Lysias, when St. Luke was probably
present (a " we " section) ; the third is in St. Paul's de
fence before Agrippa, when St. Luke again was probably
present. 4 Particulars given in one narrative and not in another
are not contradictions. The writer being the same, the
particulars must in each case have been known to him,
though not expressed.

VISIONAL THEORIES 209
It is not necessary to discuss at length the reality
and objectivity of this appearance of the glorified
Jesus to Saul the persecutor, when his mad rage
against the saints was in full career. The sudden
and revolutionary change then wrought, with its
lasting moral and spiritual effects, is one which no
" kicking against the goads " 1 in Saul's con
science, or " explosion " of forces of the subliminal
consciousness which had been silently gathering
to a head, can satisfactorily explain. Objective
elements are implied in the great light, " above
the brightness of the sun," that suddenly shone
around the whole company, causing all, as the
longer narrative shows, to fall to the ground, and
in the voice which all heard, though Saul alone
apprehended its articulate purport.2 It is not so
clear whether Saul not simply heard the Lord
speak,3 but beheld His form in the heavenly glory.
That the latter, really, was the case, is suggested
by the contrast in the words used of his companions,
" hearing the voice, but beholding no man," 4 and
by the words of St. Paul himself, " Have I not seen
Jesus our Lord ? " 6 Most certain it is that St.
Paul himself was absolutely convinced, both at the
time of the vision and ever after, of the reality of
1 Acts. xxvi. 14.
2 Cf. Acts ix. 3, 7 ; xxvi. 13, 14.
3 Weizsacker and Loisy urge that St. Paul only saw a
hght and heard words.
4 Acts ix. 7. 6 1 Cor. ix. r.
R.J. J4

210 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
Christ's appearance to him, and of the call he then
received to be the Apostle of the Gentiles. Accord
ingly, he confidently ranks the appearance to
himself with those to the other Apostles.1 With
the outward vision went an inward revelation of
God's Son to his soul 2 — outward and inward com.
bining to effect an entire transformation in his
conceptions of God, man, Christ, the world : every
thing.3 This was the turning-point in St. Paul's
history ; a turning-point, also, in the history of
Christianity. Before, Christ's enemy, he was now
Christ's devoted " slave " (SovXos) and Apostle.
The Spirit that thenceforward wrought in him
with mightiest results was the surest attestation
of the genuineness of his experience.
3. In the prominence naturally given to the
testimony of St. Paul, it should not be overlooked
how pervasive is the witness of the entire New
Testament to this same great primary fact of the
Lord's Resurrection. It was seen that St. Peter
was one of the first to whom Jesus appeared. But
St. Peter has left an Epistle (the question of the
second Epistle may here be waived), which rings
throughout with the joyful hope and confidence
begotten by the Resurrection of Jesus from the
dead.4 Jesus appeared to St. James ; and St.

1 1 Cor. xv. 8. 2 Gal. i. 15, 16. 3 Cf. 2 Cor. v. 16.
4 1 Pet. i. 3, 21 ; hi. 21, 22.

VISIONAL THEORIES 211
James has likewise an Epistle which extols Jesus
as " the Lord of glory," and looks for His coming
as nigh at hand.1 St. John also, in Gospel, Epistle,
and Apocalypse, presupposes or declares the Resur
rection. The hope he holds out to believers is that,
when He — Jesus — shall be " manifested," they
shall be like Him, for they shall see Him even as
He is.2
The historical attestation of the Resurrection in
the New Testament has now been examined, and,
so far as the inquiry has gone, the Resurrection of
Jesus, as the foundation of the faith, hope, and
life of the Church, stands fast. But the question
will still be pressed — Is there no alternative con
clusion ? Is it not possible that the facts which
appear to render support to the belief in the Resur
rection in the Apostolic Age may be explained in
another way ? It has already been seen that this
is the contention of a large class of writers in our
own day. It has also been made apparent that
there is as yet little approach to agreement among
them in the rival theories they advance to sup
plant the Apostolic belief. The study of these
" modern " theories may, indeed, well be ranked
as a supplementary chapter in the exhibition of the
positive evidence for the Resurrection. It is in
this corroborative light it is proposed here principally
to regard them.
1 Jas. ii. 1 ; v. 7-9. 2 John iii. 2.

212 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
The two main pillars of belief in the Resurrection
were found to be the empty tomb on the morning
of the third day, and the actual appearances of the
Risen Lord to His disciples.
i. Some light has already been cast on the various
expedients by which it is attempted in the newer
theories to get rid of the fact of the empty tomb.
Either, as by not a few, the story is treated as un-
historical,1 and roundabout attempts are made to
explain its origin by inference from the (visionary)
appearances to the disciples in Galilee ; or, grant
ing a basis of fact in the narratives, it is conjectured
that the body of Jesus had been secretly removed
from the tomb, and disposed of elsewhere ; or, as
by Professor Lake, it is supposed that the women
made a mistake in the tomb which they visited.
These curiosities of theory need not be further
dwelt upon. Christian people to whom they are
offered may be excused for echoing the lament of
Mary Magdalene : " They have taken away my
Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." 2
For the critics do not even profess to know where
the body of Jesus was put. The disciples, indeed,
are now usually exonerated from participation in
a deliberate fraud, and speculation varies between
Pilate, the Sanhedrim, and Joseph of Arimathaga
1 " An empty grave was never seen by any disciple of
Jesus '' (A. Meyer, p. 213).
2 John xx. 11.

VISIONAL THEORIES 213
as persons who may have removed the body. Others,
more wisely, leave the matter in the vagueness of
ignorance.1 There remains the fact which cannot
be got over — a fact fatal to all this arbitrary theo
rising — that within a few weeks at most of the
Crucifixion, at Pentecost and in the days imme
diately thereaftert, he disciples, raised from de
spair to a joyful confidence which nothing could
destroy, were, as already told, boldly and publicly
proclaiming in the streets of the very city where
Jesus had been crucified that He was risen from
the dead ; were maintaining the same testimony
before the tribunals ; were stirring the city, and
making thousands of converts. Yet not the least
attempt was made, either by the rulers, or by any
one else interested, to stay the movement, and
silence the preachers, as might easily have been
done, had their testimony been false, by pointing
to where the body of Jesus still lay, or by showing
how it had come to be removed from the tomb in
which it had, after the Crucifixion, to the knowledge
of all, been deposited. Did not in this case spells
could not, and the empty tomb remains an unim-
1 Thus Renan ; now also Loisy. The latter says :
" It appears useless to discuss here the different hypothe
ses regarding the removal of the body [assumed by the
critic to be a fact], whether by Joseph of Arimathaea, or
by the proprietor of the tomb, or by the orders of the
Sanhedrim, or by Mary of Bethany, or by the Apostles
there" (Les Evangiles Synoptiques, ii. p. 720).

214 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
peachable witness to the truth of the message that
the Lord had risen.
2. If the empty tomb cannot be got rid of, may
it not at least be possible to show that the appear
ances of Jesus can be explained on another hypo
thesis than that of a physical Resurrection — either
by subjective hallucinations, which is the older
form of the visional theory, or, if that be thought
inadequate, by real apparitions of the (spiritually)
risen Christ, which is the form of theory now pre
ferred by many ? The aim in both of these classes
of theories, is to relieve the mind from the diffi
culty of believing in an actual rising of the body
from the grave ; in other words, to do away with
the physical miracle. Only, while the purely
visional theory takes away all ground for belief in
the Resurrection, the other, or apparitional, by
substituting a spiritual rising for the corporeal,
and allowing real manifestations of the Risen Jesus,
proposes in a certain way to conserve that belief.
Is this admissible ? It is hoped that a brief exam-
nation will make clear how far either theory is
from furnishing a tenable explanation of the facts
it has to deal with.
(i) Attention has to be called, first, to an interest
ing fact which has already been repeatedly alluded
to in the course of these discussions. It is to be ob
served with regard to most of these modern visional
and apparitional theories that, in complete break

VISIONAL THEORIES 215
with tradition, they feel the necessity of transfer
ring the appearances of Jesus from Jerusalem, where
the earlier of them are related to have happened
to the more remote region of Galilee, and so of dis
sociating them wholly from the message of the
women at the tomb.* A slight qualification of this is
that some are disposed to see in St. Luke's narra
tive of the appearance at Emmaus a reminiscence
of appearances in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem.2
But the greater appearances — all those included
in the list of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians xv. 3-8 —
are transported without further ado to Galilee.
The advantage of this change of locale for the
theory is obvious. It separates the visions from
the events of the Easter morning, gives time for
visions to develop, transfers them to scenes where
memory and imagination may be supposed to be
more prepared to work, frees them from the con
trol of the hard realities of the situation. As
Strauss puts it : "If the transference of the
appearances to Galilee disengages us from the
third day as the period of the commencement of
them, the longer time thus gained makes the re
action in the minds of the disciples more conceiv
able." 3
The real course of events after the Crucifixion
1 Thus Strauss, Keim, Weizsacker, Pfleiderer, Harnack,
O. Holtzmann, Lake, Loisy, etc.
2 Thus A. Meyer (pp. 134, 136) ; Lake (pp. 218-19).
3 New Life of Jesus, i. p. 437.

216 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
is alleged to be unmistakably indicated by the
statement of the Evangelists : " They [the dis
ciples] all left Him and fled " (whither should they
flee but to their old home ?), supported as this is
by the words of Jesus : " It is written, I will smite
the shepherd," etc., which He expressly connects
with His going before them into Galilee ; x and
again by the fact that St. Mark and St. Matthew
point to Galilee as the place of Christ's meeting
with His disciples.2 It is true that St. Luke and
St. John — in part also St. Matthew — locate the
first appearances in Jerusalem ; but this repre
sentation, declared to be irreconcilable with the
other, is promptly set aside as unhistorical.3 In
ternal probability is likewise claimed in favour of
Galilee.4 To Galilee, therefore, without hesitation,
all the leading appearances of Jesus — the appear
ance to St. Peter, the appearances to the Apostles,
to the five hundred, to St. James, etc. — are carried.6
1 Matt. xxvi. 31, 32, 56 ; Mark xiv. 27, 28, 50 ; John
xvi. 32.
2 Matt, xxviii. 7 ; Mark xvi. 7.
3 " This last conception is irreconcilable with the first "
(Strauss, i. p. 435). "Now these two representations are
irreconcilable" (Weizsacker, i. p. 2). "This is evidently
not genuine but coloured history" (Keim, vi. p. 284).
4 Strauss, i. pp. 436-7.
6 Keim is emphatic : " These appearances of Jesus
took place, according to the plainest evidence, in Galilee,
not in Jerusalem" (p. 281). "Nothing can be plainer
than that all the appearances are to be located in the mother
country of Christianity " (p. 283).

VISIONAL THEORIES 217
It is not difficult to show that this hypothesis,
directly opposed as it is to nine-tenths of the tra
dition we possess, has no real foothold even in the
facts alleged in its support.1 To give it any colour,
it is necessary to get behind the tradition even in
St. Mark, the supposed original, and in St. Matthew,
and to reinterpret the data in a way fatal to the
good sense and veracity of the narratives. There
is nothing in St. Matthew, St. Mark, or St. John to
countenance the idea that the " scattering " and
" fleeing " of the disciples had reference to a flight
into Galilee. On the very night of the "fleeing"2
St. Peter is found in the High Priest's palace.
The threefold denial into which he was there be
trayed does not look like a purpose to go at once
into Galilee. St. Matthew and St. Mark, again,
who announce that Jesus will go before the dis
ciples into Galilee, as plainly imply that the disciples
to whom the message is sent are still in Jerusalem.3
St. Matthew himself records an appearance in
Jerusalem in which the same direction to go into
Galilee is embodied.4 St. John predicts the " scat
tering," 5 yet gives detailed accounts of the meetings
1 For a criticism of the theory, cf. Loots, Die Auferste-
hungsberichte, pp. 18-25. Loots, however, is himself
arbitrary in transferring all the appearances to Jerusalem.
2 Matt. xxvi. 58 ; Mark xiv. 54.
3 This is supposed to be an expedient to cover the earlier
disgrace of the flight. Cf. Loofs in criticism (p. 20).
4 Matt, xxviii. 9, 10. 6 John xvi. 32.

218 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
in Jerusalem. It is not easy to see, therefore, how
Keim can suppose that St. John's words " preserve the
reminiscence that they [the disciples] fled towards
their home, that is, towards Galilee." x St. Luke
knew something of St. Paul's beliefs. He must
have known something also of St. Paul's under
standing of the locality of the appearances in
i Corinthians xv. Yet he places the appearance to
St. Peter in Jerusalem on the very day of the
Resurrection.2 And where is there the least evi
dence that St. Paul, who knew Jerusalem, but
never mentions Galilee, intended all the appear
ances he enumerates to be located in that region ?
There were Galilean appearances. St. Matthew
tells of one, St. Mark probably intended to tell of
one, St. John tells of one. But how extremely
unlikely, assuming the departure into Galilee to have
been simply a chance scattering, that the eleven
Apostles should be found on different occasions
convened to receive visions ? Or that above five
hundred brethren should be brought together in that
region, without previous appointment, for a similar
purpose ? Or that immediately afterwards Apostles
and disciples should be found again at Jerusalem,
a united body, animated by a common purpose
and hope, and ready to testify at all hazards that
Jesus had been raised from the tomb ?
1 Jesus of Nazara, vi. p. 283.
2 Luke xxiv. 34.

VISIONAL THEORIES 219
The theory of the transference of the earlier
appearances to Galilee being discarded as one
which a sound treatment of the sources cannot
justify, the way is cleared for a judgment on the
visional and apparitional theories which are put
forward to explain the appearances themselves.
(2) The theory of subjective visions, or mental
hallucinations, though its glaring weaknesses have
often been exposed, by none more effectively than
by Keim himself — is still the favourite with many.1
Visions, under excitement, or in persons of a high-
strung, nervous temperament, especially among
ascetics, are an often-recurring phenomenon in
religious history.2 Visions, too, in an emotional
atmosphere, are contagious. Here then, it
may be thought, is a principle which can be in
voked to furnish an easy and natural explana
tion of the abnormal experiences of the disciples
1 It was the theory of Strauss and Renan, and is favoured
by Weizsacker, Harnack, A. Meyer, O. Holtzmann, Loisy,
etc. 2 See the long chapter of instances in A. Meyer, Die
Auferstehung Christi, pp. 217-70. Cf. Keim, iv. pp. 346-8 :
" Thus, not to speak of the Old and New Testaments with
their long lists of examples, Maximilla and the Montanists
saw Christ, the Maid of Orleans received the Archangel
Michael and S.S. Catherine and Margaret, Francis of Assisi
saw the Lord as a seraph, and Savonarola looked upon
both obscure and clear pictures of the future through the
ordinary ministry of angels. In the same way, the eccen
tric Mohammed, the pious Swedenborg, the illuminated
bookseller Nicolai, have had visions," etc. (p. 346)

220 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
after the Resurrection. From St. Paul's " vision "
of Jesus on the way to Damascus, it is argued that
the earlier appearances which he enumerates must
have been visionary also.
The forms which the vision-theory assumes are
legion. Renan's is the most naive, idyllic, and
fanciful. Renan has no difficulty with the
appearances at Jerusalem. According to him, the
minds of the disciples swam in a delicious intoxi
cation almost from the hour of the Crucifixion.
" Heroes do not die." 1 Their Master must rise
again. It was Mary Magdalene who set the train
of visions in motion.2 In the garden she believed
that she saw and heard Jesus.3 Divine hallucina
tion ! Her enthusiasm gave to the world a resus
citated god ! 4 Others at once caught the infec
tion.5 The most trifling incidents — " a current of
air, a creaking window, a casual murmur " 6 —
sufficed to start a vision. St. Peter's vision (which
St. Paul misunderstood) was really his glimpse of
the white grave-clothes in the tomb.7 The dis-
1 Les Apotres, p. 3. See above, p. 146.
2 " Mary alone loved enough to dispense with nature,
and to have revived the phantom of the perfect Master. . .
The glory, then, of the Resurrection belongs to Mary Mag
dalene " (pp. 12, 13).
3 " The vision gently receded, and said to her : ' Touch
Me not ! ' Gradually the shadow disappeared " (p. n).
4 Vie de Jesus, p. 434; Les Apotres, p. 13.
6 Ibid., pp. 16, 17. 6 P. 22.
7 P. 12.

VISIONAL THEORIES 221
ciples at Emmaus, in their rapture, mistook the
" pious Jew " who had expounded to them the Scrip
tures for Jesus. Suddenly he had vanished ! 1
A breath of wind made the disciples in the closed
room think they recognized Jesus. " It was im
possible to doubt ; Jesus was present ; He was
there, in the assembly." 2 Visions multiplied on
every hand.3 Sometimes, " during meal time,
Jesus was seen to appear, taking the bread, bles
sing it, breaking it, and offering it." 4 When the
enthusiasm chilled, the disciples revived it by going
in a joyous company to Galilee.5 There they had
new experiences.6 It was all too lovely to last, so
by and by the excitement died away, and the visions
ceased ! 7
The falsetto note in these descriptions is all too
obvious, and sober-minded advocates of the vision
hypothesis usually now take another, if hardly
more successful, line. Jerusalem, as has been seen,
1 Pp. 20-1. 2 P. 22.
3 " Visions were multiplied without number " (p. 25).
There is not a word in the narratives to countenance this.
4 P. 26.
5 "In a melancholy mood, they thought of the lake
and of the beautiful mountains where they had received
a foretaste of the Kingdom of God. . . . The majority
of the disciples then departed, full of joy and hope, perhaps
in the company of the caravan, which took back the pil
grims from the Feast of the Passover " (pp. 28, 29).
6 " The visions, at first, on the lake appear to have
been pretty frequent " (p. 32). Again quite unhistorical.
7 Pp. 45 S. '

222 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
is abandoned as too near the scene of events ; the
third day also is set aside as affording too little
time for the recovery of the disciples from despair.
But Galilee, whither the disciples are carried, with
its memories and tender associations, revives hope,
and brings back the image of the Master. One
day, perhaps by the Lake of Galilee (a reminiscence
is discerned in St. John xxi.1), St. Peter sees a bright
light, or something of the kind, and fancies it is
Jesus.2 By a mysterious telepathy, his experience
affects the remaining Apostles, who happen to b»
gathered together, and they also have visions
The contagion spreads, and on another occasion
500 brethren at once have visions. By and by the
visions cease as suddenly as they began. Return
ing to Jerusalem, the Apostles are met by the
women, and for the first time (thus Professor Lake,
etc.) hear of the empty tomb. Their faith is con
firmed, and the women are established by the visions
in their conviction that Jesus is risen.
It will be seen, to begin with, that to gain for
this visional theory any semblance of plausibility,
every fact in the Gospel history has to be changed —
time, place, nature of the events, mood of the dis
ciples, etc.- — while scenes, conditions, and experi
ences are invented of which the Gospels know
nothing. It is not the facts on record that are
1 Thus Harnack, Loisy, etc.
2 Cf. Weizsacker, A. Meyer, etc.

VISIONAL THEORIES 223
explained, but a different (imaginary) set of facts
altogether. According to the history, the first
appearances took place in Jerusalem on the very
day of the Resurrection. They took place inde
pendently. There was no preparedness to see
visions, but, on the contrary, deep depression and
rooted incredulity, not removed till Jesus, by sen
sible tokens, put his corporeal reality beyond doubt.
The appearances were not momentary glimpses,
but, at least in several of the cases, prolonged
interviews. They were not excited by every trifling
circumstance, nor ceaselessly multiplied. They
numbered only ten altogether, five of them on the
first day. The subjects of them were not nervous,
hysterical persons, but men of stolid, practical
judgment, fishermen, a tax-gatherer like St. Mat
thew, a matter-of-fact, unideal man like St. Philip,
a sceptic like St. Thomas. In no case is there the
slightest trace of preparatory excitement. If, when
Jesus appeared, the disciples were " affrighted,"
it was at the thought that a spirit appeared to them,1
and this idea (a chance for the vision hypothesis) had
to be dispelled before they would believe that it
was Jesus. Ordinarily they were calm and col
lected. It is obvious that for the explanation of
such appearances a vision theory is useless.
Even on its own ground, however, it must be
held that the vision theory breaks down in the
1 Luke xxiv. 37-8.

224 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
most essential points. It is not, for instance, the
case that there is any general predisposition to
believe in the resurrection of " heroes," or to affirm
that heroes have actually risen. No single example
can be produced of belief in the resurrection of an
historical personage such as Jesus was : none at
least on which anything was ever founded. What
is found is an unwillingness to believe, or to admit,
in certain cases,1 for a time, that the hero is really
dead. The Christian Resurrection is thus a fact
without historical analogy. There was, moreover,
nothing in the nature of visions, assuming that the
disciples had them, to give rise to the idea of a bodily
Resurrection. " Visions " are phantasmal, and
would be construed as " apparitions " of the dead,
not as proofs of resurrection.2 This is precisely
what the Apostles at first did think about the appear
ances of Jesus. Lastly, as checking a purely
visional theory, there is the immovable fact of the
empty tomb. It would, indeed, be an extraordinary
coincidence if, in the environs of Jerusalem, the
tomb of Jesus was found empty, while, without
previous knowledge of a Resurrection, the dis
ciples began in Galilee to have visions of a Risen
Lord! 1 The cases are not numerous ; that of Mohammed,
which Renan cites, is not really one. Mohammed's death
was never really doubted.
2 Cf. B. Weiss, Life of Christ, iii. p. 390 (E. T.).

VISIONAL THEORIES 225
Psychologically, no good cause has ever been
shown why the disciples should have this marvellous
outburst of visionary experience ; should have it so
early as the third day, should have it simultane
ously, should have it within a strictly limited period,
after which the visions as suddenly ceased, should
never afterwards waver or doubt about it, should
be inspired by it for the noblest work ever done
on earth.1 If anything is certain historically, it is
that the death of their Master plunged the dis
ciples into deepest despondency, that their hearts,
always " slow to believe," were sad, and their hopes
broken, and that, so far from expecting a Resur
rection, they could hardly be persuaded of the fact
even after it occurred. Even the words which Jesus
had spoken on the subject had not been appre
hended in a sense which helped them to believe.
The women who visited the tomb had assuredly no
expectation of finding the Lord risen. Even had
their faith been stronger than it was, that would
not have caused the appearances.
Equally unaccountable on a purely visional
theory is the outcome of belief in the Resurrection.
It was this consideration which weighed most of
all with Keim, whose view is thus summed up by
Godet : " It would be difficult to understand how,
1 Keim forcibly urges against the vision-theory the
orderly, regular character and early cessation of the ap
pearances (vi. pp. 356-7). Cf. also Beyschlag, Leben Jesu,
i. PP- 430-50-
R.J. .15

226 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
from a society held together by over-excitement,
issuing in visions, could have proceeded the Christian
Church, with its lucidity of thought and earnest
ness of moral activity." x The visions not only
cease, but as Keim points out, make way for a
diametrically opposite mental current. From en
thusiastic excitement, the impetus of which would
have gone on working, as in Montanism, for a
long period, there is a sudden transition to self-
possession and clear-mindedness. " If therefore,"
Keim argues, " there was actually an early, an
immediate transition from the visions to a calm
self-possession, and to a self-possessed energy, then
the visions did not proceed from self-generated
visionary over-excitement and fanatical agitation
among the multitude." 2
(3) Impressed by these difficulties, it is not sur
prising to find a tendency exhibiting itself among
recent writers to concede the inadequacy of a purely
subjective account of the appearances to the dis
ciples, and to fall back on a theory of spiritual yet
real manifestations of the Risen Christ — on what is
called above an apparitional theory. Keim is not
the earliest, but he is one of the best known repre
sentatives of this theory,3 which is now thought
by certain " moderns " to receive support from the
1 Godet, Defence of the Christian Faith, p. 88.
2 Keim, vi. pp. 357~8- Cf. Weiss, ut supra, iii. p. 387.
3 Ut supra, vi. pp. 361-5.

VISIONAL THEORIES 227
evidence collected by the Society for Psychical
Research on apparitions of the dead, or phantasms
of persons at the time of death.1 The view is one
which commends itself to prominent Ritschlians,
e.g. to Johannes Weiss.2 It is put forward as
probable by Professor Lake.3 Keim thinks that
in this way he saves the truth of the Resurrection
(" thus, though much has fallen away, the secure
faith-fortress of the Resurrection remains.") 4
Keim's theory, in brief, is that, while the body
of the Crucified Jesus slept on in the tomb in which
it had received " honourable burial," 6 His spirit
manifested itself by supernatural impressions on the
minds of the disciples — what he calls " telegrams
from heaven " 6 — giving them the assurance that
He still lived, and grounding a firm hope of immor
tality. Keim will not even refuse to those who
may require it the belief that the vision took the
form of " corporeal appearances." 7 The newer
theories rely more on the evidence of apparitions
to bring the appearances of Jesus within the scope
of natural law — the idea of " law" being widened to
take in psychical manifestations from the unseen
world.8 So far from belief in immortality being
1 Cf. Lake, Resur. of Jesus Christ, pp. 271-6 ; Myers,
Human Personality, i. p. 288.
2 Das Nachjolge Christi, pp. 99, 151.
3 Ut supra. 4 P. 365. 6 P. 271. 6 Pp. 364-5.
7 P. 362.
8 Cf. Prof. Lake, in agreement with Dr. Rashdall : " A

228 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
based on the Resurrection, Professor Lake, in a
passage earlier quoted, would seem to say that this
belief (including the survival of Christ's person
ality) must remain an hypothesis till experts have
sifted the evidence for the alleged psychical mani
festations.1 It is not necessary here to investigate the degree
of truth which belongs to the class of phenomena
with which psychical research deals, or to discuss
the alternative explanations which may be given
of such phenomena. There is no call to deny the
reality of telepathic communication between living
minds, or the possibility of impressions being con
veyed from one mind to another in the hour of
death. The whole region is obscure, and needs
further exploration. What it is necessary to insist
upon is that nothing of the kind answers to the
proper Scriptural idea of Resurrection, and that
it is a mistake, involving a real yielding up of the
Christian basis, to rest the proof of Christ's rising
from the dead in any degree on data so elusive,

real though supernormal psychological event, but which
involved nothing which can properly be spoken of as a
suspension of natural law " (p. 269 ; cf. p. 277).
1 " It remains merely an hypothesis until it can be
shown that personal life does endure beyond death, is
neither extinguished nor suspended, and is capable of
manifesting its existence to us . . but we must wait
until the experts have sufficiently sifted the arguments
for alternative explanations of the phenomena " (p. 245).

VISIONAL THEORIES 229
precarious, and in this connexion so misleading, as
those to which attention is here directed. The
survival of the soul is not resurrection.1 An ap
paritional theory is not a theory of the Resur
rection of Jesus as Apostolic Christianity understood
it, but a substitute, which is in principle a negation,
of the Apostolic affirmation.
It is speedily apparent, further, that apparitional
theories of the Resurrection, quite as much as the
visional, break on the character of the facts the
theories are intended to explain. The empty tomb,
once more, stands as an insuperable barrier in the
way of all such theories. The testimony of the
Apostles again stands on record, and cannot be
spirited away. The witness of the Apostles was
that they had actually seen and conversed with
Jesus — not with an apparition or ghost of Jesus,
but with the living Christ Himself. It is an acute
criticism which the late Professor A. B. Bruce
makes on Keim's " telegram " theory when he
says : " It is open to the charge that it makes the
faith of the disciples rest on a hallucination. Christ
sends a series of telegrams from heaven to let
His disciples know that all is well. But what does
the telegram say in every case. Not merely, My
spirit lives with God and cares for you ; but, My
1 Prof. Lake says : . " What we mean by resurrection
is not resuscitation of the material body, but the unbroken
survival of personal life" (p. 265; cf. p. 275).

230 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
body is risen from the grave. ... If the Resur
rection be an unreality, if the body that was nailed
to the tree never came forth from the tomb, why
send messages that were certain to produce an
opposite impression ? " 1
After all, on such a theory supernaturalism is
not escaped, and most will feel that Keim's spirit
ualistic hypothesis is a poor exchange for the
Apostolic affirmation that Jesus actually burst the
bands of death, and came forth living from the tomb,
on the morning of the third day. Dr. Bruce says
of it : " Truly this is a poor foundation to build
Christendom upon, a bastard supernaturalism, as
objectionable to unbelievers as the true super
naturalism of the Catholic creed, and having the
additional drawback that it offers to faith asking
for bread a stone." 2 It does not help much to
plead that, if apparitions can be proved in the
present day, the whole subject is brought within
the domain of natural law. The reality of appar-
tions is never likely to be proved to the general
satisfaction of mankind ; but, if it were, they
would certainly be regarded as facts belonging to
a supernatural world, and not as mere phenomena
of nature. The root of the whole difficulty, as
Professor Lake frankly admits, is the naturalistic
assumption that the reanimation of a dead body —
1 Apologetics, p. 393. 2 Ibid.

VISIONAL THEORIES 231
even of the body of the Son of God — could not take
place.1 Anything, he says, rather than that.2,
Hence the need of resorting to the fantastic theories
just described, which yet, as seen, have an element
of the supernatural inhering in them.
Visional and apparitional theories once parted
with, there is only one remaining explanation, viz. ,
that the Resurrection really took place. As Beyschlag
truly says : " The faith of the disciples in the Re
surrection of Jesus, which no one denies, cannot
have originated, and cannot be explained other
wise than through the fact of the Resurrection,
through the fact in its full, objective, supernatural
sense, as hitherto understood." 3 So long as this
is contested, the Resurrection remains a problem
which rival attempts at explanation only leave in
deeper darkness.
1 Ut supra, pp. 264-5, 268-9.
2 " Such a phenomena is in itself so improbable that
any alternative is preferable to its assertion " (p. 267).
3 Leben Jesu, i. p. 440.

NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES— JEWISH
AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS

IX
NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES— JEWISH
AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS
The inadequacy of previous attempts to explain
the Resurrection of Jesus out of natural grounds
is convincingly shown by the rise of a new mytho
logical school, which, discarding, or at least dis
pensing with, theories of vision and apparition,
proposes to account for the " Resurrection-legend "
— indeed for the whole New Testament Christo-
logy x — by the help of conceptions imported into
Judaism from Babylonia and other parts of the
Orient (Egyptian, Arabian, Persian, etc.). The
rise of this school is connected particularly with
the brilliant results of exploration in the East during
the last half century, and with the consequent vast
enlargement in our knowledge of peoples and reli
gions of remote antiquity. The mythologies of
these ancient religions — the study of comparative
mythology generally — puts, it is thought, into the
hands of scholars a golden key to open locks in Old
1 Cf. Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verstdndniss
des Neuen Testaments, pp. 64, 89-95.
238

236 NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES
and New Testament religion which have hitherto
remained closed to the most painstaking efforts of
the learned.1 The prestige which this new Baby
lonian school has already gained through its novelty
and boldness of speculation entitles it to a con
sideration which, perhaps, if only its own merits
were regarded, would hardly be accorded to it.
It is well to apprehend at the outset the position
taken up by this revolutionary Babylonian school.
It is the fact that myths of resurrection, though
in vague, fluctuating form, to which the character
of historical reality cannot for a moment be attached,
are not infrequent in Oriental religions.2 They
are traceable in later even more than in earlier
times, and specially are found in connection with
the Mysteries. The analogies pressed into the
service of their theories by scholars are often suffi
ciently shadowy,3 but it is admitted that the myths
used in the Mysteries and related festivals, whether
Egyptian, Persian, Phrygian, Syrian, or Greek,
1 Gunkel, p. 78: "Already in the Old Testament
there are mysterious portions [he instances the "servant of
Jehovah " in Isaiah] which hitherto have defied all attempts
at interpretation," etc.
2 For examples, see Cheyne, Bible Problems, pp. 119-
22 ; Farnell, The Evolution of Religion, pp. 60-62 ; Frazer,
Golden Bough, ii. pp. 115-168 ; Zimmern in Schrader's
Keilinschriften, pp. 387 ff., 643.
3 As when Zimmern connects this idea with the Baby
lonian god Marduk ; or Cheyne (ut supra, p. 119) instances
the myth of Osiris, " who after a violent death hved on
in the person of his son Horus ! "

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 237
had all a certain family likeness. They all turn,
as Boissier remarks in his La Religion Romaine, on
the death and resurrection of a god, and, in order
still more to inflame the religious sensibility, in all
the tales the god is loved by a goddess, who loses
and refinds him, who mourns over his death, and
ends by receiving him back to life. " In Egypt,
it is Isis, who seeks Osiris, slain by a jealous brother ;
in Phoenicia, it is Astarte or Venus who weeps for
Adonis ; on the banks of the Euxine, it is Cybele,
the great mother of the gods, who sees the beau
tiful Attis die in her arms." x Older than any of
these, and, on the new theory, the parent of most
of them, is the often-told Babylonian myth of
Ishtar and Tammuz.2 All, in truth, are nature-
myths, telling the same story of the death of nature
in winter, and its revival in spring, or of the con
quest of light by darkness, and the return of bright
ness with the new sunrise.3 But in the Mysteries
an allegorical significance was read into these myths,
and they became the instruments of a moral sym
bolism, in which faint resemblances to Christian
ideas can be discerned.
All this is old and tolerably familiar. But the
1 Boissier, i. p. 408.
2 See the story in full in Sayce's Hibbert Lectuies, The
Religion of the Ancient Babylonians, Lect. IV., " Tammuz
and Ishtar."
3 Cf. Gunkel, ut supra, p. 77 ; A. Jeremias, Babylonisches
tin N.T., pp. 8 ff., n, 19, etc.

238 NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES
Babylonian school goes much further. It is no
longer parallels merely which are sought between
the Gospel narratives and pagan myths, but an
actual derivation is proclaimed. Ancient Baby
lonia had developed a comprehensive world-theory
of which its mythology is the imaginative expres
sion. These myths spread into all countries, re
ceiving in each local modification ; Israel, which
came into contact with, and in Canaan deeply
imbibed, this culture, could not escape being
affected by it. Winckler, and in a more extreme
form Jensen, find in Babylonian mythology the
key not only to the so-called legends of the patri
archs, of Moses and Aaron, and of the Judges, but
to the histories of Samuel, of Saul and David, of
Elijah and Elisha. Now, by Gunkel, Cheyne,
Jensen, and others, the theory is extended to the
New Testament. Filtering down through Egypt,
Canaan, Arabia, Phoenicia, Persia, there came, it
is alleged, myths of virgin-births, of descents into
Hades, of resurrections and ascensions ; these,
penetrating into Judaism, became attached to the
figure of the expected Messiah — itself of old-world
derivation — and gave rise to the idea that such
and such traits would be realized in Him. Dr.
Cheyne supposes that there was a written " pre-
Christian sketch " of the Messiah, which embodied
these features.1 One form of the Jewish concep-
1 Ut supra, p. 128.

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 239
tion is seen in the picture of the woman clothed
with the sun in Revelation xii. More definitely,
the form which the conception assumed in Christian
circles is seen in the legends of Christ's birth and
infancy, in the incidents and miracles of His minis
try, in the three days and nights of His burial in
the tomb, and in the stories of His Resurrection
and Ascension. It is the mythical theory of Strauss
over again, with the substitution of Babylonian
mythology for Old Testament prophecy as the
foundation of an imaginary history of Jesus.
The shapes which this theory assumes in the
hands of the writers who advocate it are naturally
various. A few instances may be given.
Dr. Cheyne goes far enough in assuring us that
" there are parts of the New Testament — in the
Gospels, in the Epistles, and in the Apocalypse —
which can only be accounted for by the newly-
discovered fact of an Oriental syncretism which
began early and continued late. And the leading
factor in this is Babylonian." Among the beliefs
the " mythic origin " of which is thus accounted
for, is " the form of the belief in the Resurrection
of Christ." x His " pre-Christian sketch " theory
is alluded to below.
Gunkel's position is not dissimilar, and is wrought
out in more detail. Judaism and Christianity, he
1 Bible Problems, pp. 19, 117.

240 NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES
holds, are both examples of syncretism in religion.1
Both are deeply penetrated by ideas diffused
through the Orient, and derived chiefly from Baby
lonia. He states his thesis thus : " That in its
origin and shaping (Ausbildung) the New Testament
religion stood, in weighty, indeed essential points-
under the decisive influence of foreign religions,
and that this influence was transmitted to the
men of the New Testament through Judaism." 2
He traces the penetrative influence of Oriental
conceptions in Judaism, with special respect to the
doctrine of the Resurrection ; 3 finds in it the origin
of the Messianic idea, and of the Christology of St.
Paul and St. John ; 4 and derives from it the Gospel
narratives of the Infancy,6 the Transfiguration,6
the Resurrection from the dead on the third day,7
the appearance to the disciples on the way to
Emmaus,8 the Ascension,9 the origin of Sunday
as a Christian festival,10 etc.
A. Jeremias, from a believing standpoint, cri
ticizes this position of Gunkel's, and the denial of
1 Ut supra, pp. 34, 117. Judaism must be named
" Eine synkretistische Religion." So, " Das Christentum
ist eine synkretistische Religion."
2 Ut supra, p. 1. 3 Pp. 31-35.
4 Pp. 24-5, 64, 89-95. " The form of the Messiah
belongs to this original mythological material " (p. 24).
6 Pp- 65-70.
6 P. 71 (likewise the Baptism and Temptation narratives,
pp. 70-1). 7 Pp. 76-83. b P. 71.
9 Pp. 71-2. 10 Pp. 73-76.

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 241
the absoluteness of Christianity connected with
it.1 Sharing the same general view that " the
Israelitish- Judaic background " of the New Testa
ment writings " is no other than the Babylonian,
or better, the old Oriental background," 2 he sees
in the Babylonian mythology a pre-ordained provi
dential preparation for the Gospel history and
the Christian religion, the essential truths of which
he accepts.3 The resurrection of a god formed
part of the universally-spread my thus.4
Everything hitherto attempted, however, in the
application of this theory to the Biblical history
is hopelessly left behind in the latest book which
has appeared on the subject — Professor Jensen's
Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der Weltliteratur of which,
as yet, only the first volume has appeared. But
this extends to 1,030 pages. It treats of the ori
gins of the legends of the Old Testament patri
archs, prophets, and deliverers, and of the New
Testament legend of Jesus, embracing all the inci
dents of His history — birth, life, miracles, death,
1 Bab. im N.T., p. 1. 2 P. 3.
3 Pp. 6, 46, 48, etc. The heathen myths are " Schatten-
bilder " (prefigurations, foreshadowings) of the Christian
verities. 4 Pp. 8-10. Jeremias has, however, little to say on
the apphcation to the Resurrection of Christ. He makes
much more of the Virgin-birth (pp. 46 ff.). He says that
no one who understands the circle of conceptions of the
ancient Orient will doubt that Is. vii. 14, in the sense of
the author, really means a "virgin" (p. 47).
RJ. l6

242 NEO-BABYLONIAN-THEORIES
and Resurrection. All, as the title suggests, are
treated as transformations and elaborations of
the old Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh and Eabani.
We have Abraham-Gilgamesh, J&cob-Gilgamesh,
Moses-Gilgamesh, ]oshua.-Gilgamesh, Sa.mson-Gil-
gamesh, Samuel-Gilgamesh, Sa.ul-Gilgamesh, David-
Gilgamesh, Solomon-Gilgamesh, TLlijah-Gilgamesh,
TLlisha-Gilgamesh, etc. With endless iteration
the changes are rung on a few mythical con
ceptions ; personages are blended, and attributes
and incidents are transferred at will from one to
another ; the most far-fetched and impossible
analogies are treated as demonstrations. The basis
being laid in the Old Testament, the stories of
John the Baptist and Jesus are then affiliated to
the Gilgamesh myths through their supposed Old
Testament parallels. For instance, the Resurrec
tion of " Jesus-Gilgamesh " is supposed to be
suggested by such incidents as the revival of the
dead man cast into the grave of Elisha, on touching
the bones of the prophet,1 and the removal of the
bones of Saul 2 and Samson 3 from their respec
tive tombs ! 4 " Incredible, such trifling," one is
disposed to exclaim. Not incredible, but the new
est and truest " scientific " treatment of history,
on the most approved " religionsgeschichtliche "
1 2 Kings xiii. 21. 2 2 Sam. xxi. 12-14.
3 Judges xvi. 31.
4 Gilgamesch-Epos, p. 923 ; cf. pp. 471, 697.

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 243
methods, thinks Jensen himself. The result, at
least, in this author's learned pages, is the removal
of the last particle of historicity from the life of
Jesus in the Gospels. Such a person as Jesus of
Nazareth " never existed " — " never lived." 1 " The
Jesus-legend is an Israelitish Gilgamesh-legend," 2
attached to some person of whom we know abso
lutely nothing — neither time nor country.3 " This
Jesus has never walked the earth, has never died
on earth, because He is actually nought but an
Israelitish Gilgamesh — nought but a counterpart
(Seitenstiick) to Abraham, to Moses, and to innu
merable other forms of the legend." 4
It is needless to confront a reasoner like Jensen,
confident in his multiplied proofs (?) that the
Gospel history is throughout simply a Gilgamesh-
legend, with the testimony of St. Paul. Every
thing that St. Paul has to tell of Jesus in his four
accepted Epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Galatians) belongs with the highest probability to
the Gilgamesh-legend.5 True, St. Paul tells how
he abode fifteen days with St. Peter at Jerusalem,
and then saw, and doubtless spoke with St. James,
the Lord's brother ; and again how fourteen years
later he met this same brother at Jerusalem. That
is, he met the brother of this perfectly legendary
character.6 Jensen's reply is simple. Since the
1 P. 1026. 2 P. 1024. 3 P. 1026.
4 P. 1029. 5 P. 1027. 6 P. 1028.

244 NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES
Jesus of the Gospels and of the Epistles never
existed, St. Paul could not have done what he
describes. If these notices actually come from
him, " the man either tells a falsehood, or he has
been mystified in a wonderful way in Jerusalem." 1
It is a suspicious circumstance that St. Paul has
to confirm his statement about seeing St. James
with an oath.2 It adds to the doubt that in i
Corinthians xi., in its present form, this same St.
Paul is found declaring that he received the quite
mythical account of the institution of the Lord's
Supper as a revelation of the Lord ! 3 " The ground
here sinks beneath our feet." 4
Jensen is an extremist, and his book may be
regarded as the reductio ad absurdum of a theory
which, before him, had been getting cut more and
more away from the ground of historical fact. It
is to that ground the endeavour must be made to
bring it back. The Resurrection of Jesus, it has
already been shown, is a fact which rests on his
torical evidence. What has the theory just de
scribed to say to this evidence ? It is a theory,
obviously, which may be applied in different ways.
It may be applied, e.g., to explain special traits in
the narratives without denying the general facts
of a death, a burial, and subsequent appearances
of Jesus. It may be combined with a vision
1 P. 1028. 2 Ibid.
8 Ibid. 4 P. 1029.

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 245
theory, and used, as indeed in part it is, by A.
Meyer x and Professor Lake, 2 to explain how the
stories of these appearances came to take on their
present form. Or, treating the whole account of
the Resurrection as mythical, it may give itself
no concern with the facts, and simply seek to
account for the origin of the legend.
It is probably doing the theory no injustice to
say that, in the hands of its chief exponents, it is
the latter point of view which rules. There is no
necessity for discussing the empty tomb, or the
reality of Christ's appearances. Enough to show
that the history, as we have it, is a deposit of
mythological conceptions. Gunkel, e.g., excuses
himself from discussion of the origin of faith in the
Resurrection,3 and confines himself to elucidating
the form of the legend. Jensen, as just seen,
regards the whole as a purely mythological growth.
Cheyne has nearly as little to say on the historical
basis. If this view be adopted, it cuts belief in
the Resurrection away from the ground of history
altogether, and it might be enough to reply to it
—the history is there, and it is utterly impossible,
by any legerdemain of the kind proposed, to get
rid of it. You do not get rid of facts by simply
proposing to give an artificial mythological ex-
1 Die Auferstehung Christi, 184-5, 353~4-
2 Resur. of Jesus Christ, pp. 260-3.
3 Pp. 76-7.

246 NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES
planation of them. The Gospels, the Acts, and
the Epistles still stand, as containing the well-
attested accounts which the Church of Apostolic
days had to give of its own origin. These accounts
had not the remotest relation to Gilgamesh epics,
nature-myths of Egyptian, Greek, or Persian
Mysteries, or pagan speculations of any kind, but
were narratives of plain facts, known to the whole
Church, and attested by Apostles and others who
were themselves eye-witnesses of most of the things
which they related. It was the fact that on the
Friday the Lord was publicly crucified, and died ;
that He was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arima-
thaea, in presence of many spectators ; that on
the morning of the third day — " the first day of
the week "—the tomb was visited by holy women>
who found it empty, and received the message
that Jesus had risen, as He said ; that on the same
day He appeared to individual disciples (Mary, St.
Peter, the disciples going to Emmaus), and, in the
evening, to the body of the disciples (the eleven) ;
that afterwards there were other appearances
which the Evangelists and St. Paul recount ; that,
after forty days, He was taken from them up to
heaven. The attempts to break down this history
have been studied in previous chapters, and proof
has been given that these attempts have failed.
Now, in lieu of the history, and as a new dis
covery, there is offered us this marvellous mytho-

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 247
logical construction, by which all history, and
most previous theories of explanation as well, are
swept into space. In dealing with it as a rival
theory, not of the origin of belief in the Resurrec
tion, for that it can hardly be said to touch, but
of the Gospel story of the Resurrection, it must
in frankness be declared of it that it labours under
nearly every possible defect which a theory of the
kind can have. This judgment it is necessary,
but not difficult, to substantiate.
1. One thing which must strike the mind about
the theory at once is the baselessness of its chief
assumptions. Nothing need be said here of the
general astral Babylonian hypothesis with which
it starts, or of the assumed universal diffusion of
this astral theory throughout the East. That
must stand or fall on its own merits.1 Nor need
the traces of the influence of Oriental symbolism
in Old Testament prophecy, or in Jewish and
Christian Apocalyptic, be denied, if such really
can be established. But what is to be said of the
1 Winckler's theory on this subject is still the subject of
much dispute among scholars (cf . Lake, Resur. of Jesus Christ,
pp. 260-2). Prof. Lake says on its application to Scrip
ture : " The difficulty is to decide how far this theory is
based on fact, and how far it is merely guess-work " (p.
262). For a popular statement of Winckler's theory, see
his Die Babylonische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zur
unsrigen (1902), and in criticism of Winckler and Jeremias,
E. Konig, " Altorientalische Weltanschauung" und Altes
Testament.

248 NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES
allegation, on the correctness of which the applica
tion to the New Testament depends, of a wholesale
absorption of Babylonian mythology by the Jewish
nation, and the crystallisation of this mythology
round the idea of the Messiah in Jewish popular
thought in pre-Christian times ? What proof worthy
of the name can be given of such an assumption ?
Dr. Cheyne's form of the theory, already referred
to, had best be stated in his own words. " The
four forms of Christian belief," he says, " which
we have been considering are the Virgin-birth of
Jesus Christ, His descent into the nether world,
His Resurrection, and His Ascension. On the
ground of facts supplied by archaeology, it is plau
sible to hold that all these arose out of a pre-Chris
tian sketch of the life, death, and exaltation of the
expected Messiah, itself ultimately derived from a
widely current mythic tradition respecting a solar
deity." 1 And earlier, " The Apostle Paul, when
he says (i Cor. xv. 3, 4) that Christ died and that
He rose again ' according to the Scriptures,' in
reality points to a pre-Christian sketch of the life
of Christ, partly — as we have seen — derived from
widely-spread non-Jewish myths, and embodied
in Jewish writings." 2 With this drapery it is
assumed that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth was
1 Ut supra, p. 128 ; cf. note xi., p. 252.
2 P. 113. Gunkel may be compared, ut supra, pp. 68-9,
78-9.

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 249
clothed. But where is the faintest trace of evidence
of such a pre-Christian Jewish sketch of the Messiah
embracing Virgin-birth, Resurrection, and Ascen
sion ? It is nothing but an inferential conjecture
from the Gospel narratives themselves, eked out
by allusions to myths of deaths and resurrections
of gods in other religions. These, as said above,
are, in their origin, nature-myths. The Resurrec
tion of Jesus was no nature-myth, but an event
which happened three days after His Crucifixion,
in an historical time, and in the case of an historical
Personage. Parallels to such an event utterly
fail.1 2. The baselessness of the foundation of the
theory is only equaUed by the arbitrariness of the
methods by which a connexion with the Gospel,
story is sought to be bolstered up. Specimens of
Professor Jensen's reasonings have been given
above, and no more need be said of them. But
a like arbitrariness, if in less glaring form, infects
1 Gunkel admits that ' ' this belief in a dying and rising
Christ was not present in official Judaism in the time of
Jesus " ; but thinks it may have lurked " in certain private
circles" (ut supra, p. 79). Cheyne, in his own note, can
give no evidence at all of writings alluding to a resurrec
tion (ut supra, p. 254).
Jesus and His Apostles found, indeed, a suffering and
rising Christ in the O.T., but their point of view (on this
see Hengstenberg, Christology, vol. iv., app. iv.) was not
that of contemporary Judaism. The disciples themselves
were " slow of heart " to believe the things that Jesus
spoke to them (Luke xxiv. 25-6, 44-6).

250 NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES
the whole theory. In the Protean shapes assumed
by Oriental mythology it is never difficult to pick
out isolated traits which, by ingenious, if far
fetched combinations, can be made to present
some resemblance to some feature or other in the
Gospel story. Thus, as parallels to " the death
of the world's Redeemer," we are told by Dr.
Cheyne : " That the death of the solar deity, Marduk,
was spoken of, and his grave shown, in Babylonia,
is an ascertained fact ; the death of Osiris and of
other gods was an Egyptian belief, and, though a
more distant parallel, one may here refer also to
the empty grave of Zeus pointed out in Crete." x
[Gunkel gives this last fact more correctly ; "In
Crete is shown the grave of Zeus, naturally an
empty grave." 2] Where facts fail, imagination
is invoked to fill the gaps, this specially in the
parts which concern the Resurrection. Thus, in
Jeremias : " The ' grave of Bel ' (Herod, i. 18),
like the grave of Osiris, certainly stands in connex
ion (zusammenhangt) with the celebration of the
death and resurrection of Marduk-Tammuz (Leh-
mann, i. p. 276), even though we still possess no
definite testimonies to a festival of the death and
resurrection of Marduk-Tammuz " 3 (italics ours).
Gunkel thinks that the Jewish belief in the resur-
erection compels us to " postulate " that " in the
1 Pp. 253-4. 2 Ut supra, p. 77.
3 Ut supra, p. 9.

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 251
Orient of that time belief in the resurrection must
have ruled." 1 Jensen has to face the fact, that
the Gilgamesh epic has nothing about a resurrec
tion. But, he says, " that the Babyloniana Gilga
mesh, who must die, in the oldest form of his legend
{Sage) rose again from the dead, appears self-
evident. For he is a Sun-god, and sun-gods, like
gods of light and warmth, who die, must also,
among the Babylonians, rise again." 2 The oldest
form of the E,lisha.-Gilgamesh legend, he thinks
probably included a translation to heaven, and,
as an inference from this, a resurrection.3 Simi-
arly, the Resurrection of Jesus is a " logical postu
late " from the fact of His exaltation, in accordance
with a long series of parallel myths.4
A special application of the theory to the Gospel
history connects itself with the Resurrection " on
the third day," and the origin of the Sunday festival.
It is very difficult, indeed, to find suitable illus
trations connecting resurrection with " the third
day " — indeed, none are to be found. We are
driven back on Jonah's three days in the fish, which
Dr. Cheyne says is not sufficient to justify St.
Paul's expression ; 6 on the Apocalyptic " time
and times and half a time," and three days and a
half ; on a Mandaean story of a " little boy of
1 Ut supra, p. 33. 2 Ut supra, p. 925.
3 Pp. 923-4- 4 P. 924.
6 Ut supra, p. 254.

252 NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES
three years and one day " ; on the Greek myth of
Apollo slaying the serpent Pytho on the fourth
day after his birth ; on the festival of the resur
rection of the Phrygian Attis on the fourth day
after the lamentations over his death.1 This is
actually supposed to be evidence. Gunkel makes
a strong point of the festival of Sunday. How
came the Resurrection of Jesus to be fixed down
to a Sunday ? How came this to be observed
as a weekly festival ? " All these difficulties are
relieved, so soon as we treat the matter from
the ' historical-religious ' point of view " 2 The
" Lord's Day " was the day of the Sun-god ; in
Babylonian reckoning the first day of the week.
Easter Sunday was the day of the sun's emergence
from the night of winter.3 Can it be held, then,
as accidental that this was the day on which Jesus
arose ? 4 It is really an ancient Oriental festival
which is here being taken over by the primitive
Christian community, as later the Church took
over December 25 as Christmas Day.6 It fails to
be observed in this ingenious construction — wholly
in the air, as if there was no such thing as history
in the matter — that there is not a single word in
1 Pp. 1 10-13 ; cf. Gunkel, ut supra, pp. 79-82 ; Lake,
p. 263.
2 Gunkel, p. 74.
3 Pp. 74, 79. Thus also Loisy, Les Evangiles Synop
tiques, ii. p. 721.
4 P. 79. 6 Pp. 74-5, 79.

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 253
the Gospels or in the New Testament connecting
" the first day of the week " — reckoned in purely
Jewish fashion by the " Sabbath " — with the day
of the sun, or any use or suggestion of the name
" Sunday." The " primitive community " had
other and far plainer reasons for remembrance
of the " Lord's Day " (Jesus alone was their " Lord,"
and no sun-god), viz., in the fact that on the Friday
of the Passover week He was crucified and en
tombed, and on the dawn of the first day of the
week thereafter actually came forth, as He had
predicted, victorious over the power of death, and
appeared to His disciples.
This theory, in brief, destitute of adequate founda
tion, laden with incredibilities, and disdainful
of the world of realities, has no claim whatever
to supersede the plain, simply-told, historically
well-attested narratives of the four Gospels as to
the grounds of the Church's belief from the begin
ning in the Resurrection of the Lord from the
dead. As has frequently been said in these pages
— the Church knew its own origin, and could be
under no vital mistake as to the great facts on
which its belief in Christ as its Crucified and Risen
Lord rested. It is difficult to imagine what kind
of persons the Apostles and Evangelists in some
of these theories are taken for — children or fools ?
They were really neither, and the work they did,
and the literature they have left, prove it. Who

254 NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES
that has ever felt on his spirit the power of the
impression of the picture and teaching of Jesus
in the Gospels could dream of accounting for it
by a bundle of Babylonian myths ? Who that
has ever experienced the power of His Resurrection
life could fancy the source of it an unreality ?
It may be appropriate at this point to say a
few words on the state of Jewish belief on the
subject of resurrection. That the Jews in the
time of Jesus were familiar with the idea of a
resurrection of the dead (the Sadducees alone deny
ing it x) is put beyond question by the Gospels ,2
though there is no evidence, despite assertions to
the contrary,3 that they connected death and
resurrection with the idea of the Messiah. The
particular ideas entertained by the Jews of the
resurrection-body,4' while of interest in themselves,
have therefore only a slight bearing on the origin
of belief in the Resurrection of Jesus from His
tomb on the third day. That was an event sui
generis, outside the anticipations of the disciples,
notwithstanding the repeated intimations which
Jesus Himself had given them regarding it,5 and
1 Matt. xxii. 23, etc. ; cf. Acts xxiii. 6-8.
2 As above ; cf. John v. 28, 29 ; xi. 24 ; Matt. xiv. 2 ;
and the instances of resurrection in the Gospels (Jairus's
daughter, son of widow of Nain, Lazarus).
3 Gunkel and Cheyne give no proof, and none is to be
had. 4 On these, cf. Lake, ut supra, pp. 23-7, with references.
6 As already seen, these were persistently misunder-

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 255
only forced upon their faith by indubitable evi
dence of the actual occurrence of the marvel. There
is no reason to suppose that the idea of the resur
rection of the body was a form subsequently imposed
on a belief in the Lord's continued life 1 originally
gained in some other way. The Resurrection of
Jesus never meant anything else in the primitive
community than His Resurrection in the body.
Of greater importance is the question raised by
Gunkel in his discussion as to whence the Jews
derived their idea of the resurrection. It is to be
granted that Gunkel has a much profounder view
of what he calls " the immeasurable significance "
of this doctrine of the resurrection for the New
Testament 2 than most other writers who deal
with the topic. He claims that " this doctrine of
the resurrection from the dead is one of the greatest
things found anywhere in the history of religion," 3
and devotes space to drawing out its weighty
implications. Just, however, on account of " this
incomparable significance " of the doctrine, he
holds that it cannot be derived from within Judaism
itself, but must take its origin from a ruling belief
in the Orient of the later time.4 The existence of
such a belief is a " postulate " from its presence
stood by the disciples. The critics mostly deny that they
were given.
1 Thus Harnack and others.
2 Ut supra, p. 31. 3 P. 32. * P. 33.

256 NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES
in Judaism, and is thought to be supported by
Oriental, especially by Egyptian and Persian,
parallels.1 He discounts the evidence of the belief
in the Old Testament furnished by passages in the
Psalms, the prophets, and in Job. The doctrine,
in short, " is not, as was formerly commonly main
tained, and sometimes still is maintained, a genuine
product of Judaism, but has come into Judaism
from without." 2 If this be so, it may be argued
that it is really a pagan intrusion into Christianity,
and ought not to be retained.
The " immeasurable significance " of the belief
in resurrection among the Jews may be admitted,
but Gunkel's inferences to the foreign origin of
the belief can only be contested. For —
i. The link fails to connect this belief with any
foreign religions. Gunkel seems hardly aware of
the paradox of his theory of a world filled with
belief in the resurrection, while yet the Jews, till
a late period, are supposed to have had no know
ledge of it. But the theory itself is without founda
tion. There is no evidence of any such general
belief in a resurrection of the dead in ancient re
ligions. No evidence of such general belief can
be adduced from ancient Babylonia. Merodach
may be hailed in a stray verse as " the merciful
one, who raises the dead to life," and Ishtar may
rescue Tammuz from Hades. But this falls far
1 P. 33- a P- 31-

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 257
short of the proof required. Belief in the re
animation of the body may underlie the Egyptian
practice of embalming, though this is disputed,
but the developed Osiris-myth is comparatively
late, and without provable influence on Judaism.1
The alleged Persian or Zoroastrian influence is
equally problematical. It is very questionable
how far this doctrine is found in the old Persian
religion at all.2 The references to it are certainly
few and ambiguous,3 and totally inadequate to
explain the remarkable prominence which the
doctrine assumed among the Jews.
2. The adequate grounds for the development
of this doctrine are found in the Old Testament
itself. It may be held, and has been argued for
by the present writer,4 that, so far as a hope of
immortality (beyond the shadowy and cheerless
lot of Sheol) appears in the Old Testament, it is
1 On Merodach, Osiris and Resurrection, cf. Sayce,
Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, pp. 24, 153 ff.,
165, 168, 288, 329, etc.
2 Schultz remarks : " This point [of influence] will be
the more difficult to decide, the more uncertain it becomes
how far this doctrine, the principal witness to which is the
Bundehesh [a late work], was really Old Persian " (O.T.
Theol. ii. p. 392).
3 This can be tested by consulting the translation to
the Zend-Avesta in The Sacred Books of the East. The
indexes to the three volumes give only one reference to
the subject, and that to an undated " Miscellaneous Frag
ment " at the end.
4 In The Christian View of God and the World : Appendix
to Lect. V., " The Old Testament Doctrine of Immortality."
R.J. 17

258 NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES
always in the form of deliverance from Sheol, and
renewed life in the body. The state of death is
neither a natural nor normal state for man, whose
original destiny was immortality in the complete
ness of his personal life in a body ; and the same
faith which enabled the believer to trust in God
for deliverance from all ills of life, enabled him
also, in its higher exercises, to trust Him for de
liverance from death itself. This seems the true
key to those passages in the Psalms and in Job
which by nearly all but the new school of inter
preters have been regarded as breathing the hope
of immortality with God.1 In the prophets, from
Hosea down, the idea of a resurrection of the
nation, including, may we not say, at least in such
passages as Hosea vi. 2 ; xiii. 14, and Isaiah xxv.
6-8 ; xxvi. 19, the individuals in it, is a familiar
one. A text like Daniel xii. 2 only draws out the
individual implication of this doctrine with more
distinctness. In later books, as 2 Maccabees, the
Book of Enoch, Ezra iv., the doctrine is treated as
established (sometimes resurrection of the godly,
sometimes of righteous and wicked).
1 E.g., Pss. xvi. 8-1 1 ; xvii. 15 ; xlix. 14, 15 ; lxxiii.
24 ; Job xiv. 13-15 (RV.) ; xix. 25-27. In his Origin
of the Psalter Dr. Cheyne accepts the resurrection reference
of several of these passages, seeing in them a proof of
Zoroastrian influence (pp. 382, 406, 407, 431, etc.). This,
however, as he himself acknowledges, is where leading
scholars fail to support him (pp. 425, 451). Cf. Pusey,
Daniel, pp. 512-17.

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 259
Little has been said in these discussions of the
New Testament Apocryphal books,1 the state
ments of which it has become customary to draw
into comparison with the accepted Gospels. Only
a few remarks need be made on them now. They
have been kept apart because, in origin, character,
and authority, they stand on a completely different
footing from the canonical Gospels, and because
there is not the least reason to believe that they
preserve a single authentic tradition beyond those
which the four .Gospels contain. This has long
been acknowledged with regard to the stories of
the Infancy, the puerilities of which put them
outside the range of serious consideration by any
intelligent mind. No more reason exists for paying
heed to the fabulous embellishments of the narra
tives of the Resurrection. A romance like The
Gospel of Nicodemus (fifth cent.), whether based on
a second century Acts of Pilate or not, receives
attention from no one. It is simply a travesty
and tricking out with extravagances of the material
furnished by St. Matthew and the other Evange
lists. More respect is paid to the recently-dis
covered fragment of The Gospel of Peter,2 which
begins in the middle of Christ's trial, and breaks
1 A collection of some of the chief of these, edited and
annotated by the present writer, may be seen in The New
Testament Apocryphal Writings, in the " Temple Bible "
series (Dent).
2 A Gnostic Gospel of the 2nd century.

260 NEO-BABYLONIAN THEORIES
off in the middle of a sentence, with Peter and
Andrew returning to their fishermen's toils, after
the feast of unleavened bread is ended. Here,
it is thought, is a distinct tradition, preserving
the memory of that flight into Galilee which the
canonical Gospels ignore. Yet at every point
this Gospel shows itself dependent on St. Matthew
and the rest, while freely manipulating and embel
lishing the tradition which they contain. A single
specimen is enough to show the degree of credit
to be attached to it. From St. Matthew is bor
rowed the story of the watch at the tomb, with
adornments, the centurion, e.g., being named
Petronius. The day of the Resurrection is called
" the Lord's Day." Then, we read, as that day
dawned, " While the soldiers kept watch two and
two at their post, a mighty voice sounded in the
heaven ; and they saw the heavens opened, and
two men descending from thence in great glory,
and approaching the sepulchre. But that stone
which had been placed at the door of the sepulchre
rolled back of itself, and moved aside, and the
tomb opened, and both the young men went in.
When, therefore, those soldiers behold this, they
awakened the centurion and the elders — for they
also were there to watch — and while they were
telling what they had seen, they behold coming
forth from the tomb three men, and the two sup
porting the one, and a cross following them. And

JEWISH AND APOCRYPHAL IDEAS 261
the heads of the two reached indeed unto heaven,
but the head of the one who was led by them reached
far above the heavens. And they heard a voice
from heaven that said : Hast thou preached unto
those that sleep ? And the answer was heard
from the Cross : Yes. . . . And while they were
yet pondering the matter, the heavens open again,
and a man descends and goes into the sepulchre." 1
This may be placed alongside of the narrative in
the Gospel without comment.
1 If it is argued that this is a simple expansion of St.
Matthew's story of the watch, as the latter is an addition
to St. Mark's, it may be observed that St. Matthew's story
is an expansion or embellishment of nothing, but a dis
tinct, independent narrative ; while the story in The
Gospel of Peter has evidently no basis but St. Matthew's
account, which it decorates from pure fancy.

DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF THE
RESURRECTION

X
DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF THE RESUR
RECTION
It will probably be evident from the preceding
discussion that a movement is at present in process
which aims at nothing less than the dissolution of
Christianity, as that has hitherto been understood.
It is not simply the details of the recorded life of
Jesus that are questioned, but the whole con
ception of Christ's supernatural Person and work,
as set forth in the Gospels and Epistles, which is
challenged. If the Virgin Birth is rejected at one
end of the history, and the bodily Resurrection at
the other, not less are the miracles and supernatural
claims that he between. With this goes naturally
on the part of many a hesitancy in admitting even
Christ's moral perfection.1 A sinless Personality
would be a miracle in time, and miracles are ex
cluded by the first principles of the new philosophy.
1 This tendency is seen in various recent pronounce
ments. E.g., Mr. G. L. Dickinson, in the Hibbert Journal
for April, 1908, asks : " How many men are really aware
of any such personal relation to Jesus as the Christian
religion presupposes ? How many, if they told the honest
truth, really hold Him to be even the ideal man ? " (p. 522).
266

266 DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF
Bolder spirits, taking, as they conceive, a wider
outlook on the field of religion, and on the evolu
tionary advance of the race, would cut loose the
progress of humanity from Christianity altogether. 1
It is an illusion to imagine that a tendency of this
kind can be effectively met by any half-way, com
promising attitude to the great supernatural facts
on which Christianity rests. It is only to be met
by the firm reassertion of the whole truth regarding
the Christ of the New Testament Gospel — a Christ
supernatural in origin, nature, works, claims,
mission, and destiny ; the divine Son, incarnate for
the salvation of the world, pure from sin, crucified
and risen, ever-living to carry on to its consumma
tion the work of the Kingdom He founded while
on earth. None need really fear that the ground is
about to be swept from beneath his feet with
respect to this divine foundation by any skill of
sceptics or revolutionary discoveries in knowledge.
One notices in how strange ways the wheel of criti
cism itself comes round often to the affirmation of
things it once denied. To take only one point :
how often has the contrast between the Jesus of the
Synoptics and the Pauline and Johannine Christ
been emphasized ? The contrast is, of course, still
maintained, yet with the growing admission that
the difference is at most one of degree, that the Jesus
1 The same writer rejects Christianity, and advocates a
return to " mythology " (p. 509).

THE RESURRECTION 267
of the Synoptics is as truly a supernatural being as
the Jesus of St. John. Bousset, e.g., states this
frankly : " Already," he says, " the oldest Gospel
is written from the standpoint of faith ; already for
Mark is Jesus not only the Messiah of the Jewish
people, but the miraculous eternal Son of God, whose
glory shone in this world. And it has been rightly
emphasized, that in this respect, our first three
Gospels are distinguished from the fourth only in
degree. . . . For the faith of the community,
which the oldest Evangelist already shares, Jesus is
the miraculous Son of God, in whom men believe,
whom men put wholly on the side of God." 1
In the history of such a Christ as the Gospels
depict the Resurrection from the dead has its natural
and necessary place. To the first preachers of
Christianity an indissoluble connexion subsisted
between the Resurrection of Jesus and the Gospel
they proclaimed. Remove that foundation, and
in St. Paul's judgment, their message was gone.
" If Christ hath not been raised," he says, " then is
1 Was wissen wir von Jesus ? pp. 54, 57. To explain
these traits some scholars feel it necessary to postulate
a revision of St. Mark's Gospel from a Johannine stand
point. Thus J. Weiss, in the Diet, of Christ and the Gospels,
ii. p. 324 : " For our own part we have been able to collect
a mass of evidence in support of the theory that the text
of Mark has been very thoroughly revised from the Johan
nine standpoint, that a host of Johannine characteristics
were inserted into it at some period subsequent to its use
by Matthew and Mark." There is no real proof of such
revision.

268 DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF
our preaching vain, your faith also is vain. ... If
Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain ; ye
are yet in your sins." *¦ To " modern " thought,
on the other hand, the Resurrection of Jesus, in
any other sense, at least, than that of spiritual sur
vival, has no essential importance for Christianity.
The belief in a bodily Resurrection is rather an
excrescence on Christianity, that can be dropped
without affecting it in any vital way. Is this really
so ? It may aid faith if it can be shown that, so
far from being a non-essential of Christianity, the
Resurrection of Jesus is, as the Apostles believed,
in the strictest sense, a constitutive part of the
Christian Gospel.
i. In the older mode of treatment of the Resur
rection, peculiar stress was laid upon its evidential
value. It was the culminating proof of Christ's
claim to be " a Teacher come from God," 2 or, from
a higher point of view, the crowning demonstration
of His divine Sonship and Messiahship. It was also
the supreme attestation of the fact of immortality.
The angle of vision is now considerably changed, and
it has rightly become more customary to view the
Resurrection in the light of Christ's claims and mani
fested glory as the Son of God, than to regard the
latter as deriving credibihty from the former. But
care must be taken that the element of truth in the
older view is likewise conserved.
1 I Cor. xv. 14. 2 John iii. 2.

THE RESURRECTION 269
(1) With respect to the divine Sonship. It is
doubtless the case that faith in the Resurrection is
connected with, and in part depends on, the degree
of faith in Jesus Himself. It is the belief that Jesus
is such an One as the Gospels represent Him to be —
"holy, guileless, undefiled, separatedfrom sinners,"1
divinely great in the prerogatives He claims as Son
of God and Saviour of the world, yet in His submis
sion to rejection and death at the hands of sinful
men the perfect example of suffering obedience —
which above all sustains the conviction that He, the
Prince and Lord of life, cannot have succumbed
to the power of death, and prepares the mind to
receive the evidence that He actually did rise, as
the Gospels declare.
This connexion of faith in the Resurrection with
faith in Jesus, however, it must now be remarked, in
no way deprives the Resurrection of Jesus of the
apologetic or evidential value which justly belongs
to it as a fact of the first moment, amply attested
on its own account, in its bearings on the Lord's
Person and claims. The attempt to set faith and
historical evidence in opposition to each other.
witnessed specially in the Ritschlian school, must
to the general Christian intelligence, always fail.
Since, as is above remarked, it is implied in Christ's
whole claim that He, the Holy One, should not be
holden of death,2 not merely that He has a spiritual
1 Heb. vii. 26.
2 Acts ii. 24. This is further illustrated below.

270 DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF
life with God — faith would be involved in insolu
ble contradictions if it could be shown that Christ
has not risen, or, what comes to the same thing,
that there is no historical evidence that He has risen.
It may be, and is, involved in faith that He should
rise from the dead, but this faith would not of itself be
a sufficient ground for asserting that He had risen,
if all historical evidence for the statement were
wanting. Faith cherishes the just expectation that,
if Christ has risen, there will be historical evidence
for the fact ; and were such evidence not forthcom
ing, it would be driven back upon itself in question
ing whether its confidence was not self-delusion.
In harmony with this view is the place which
the Resurrection of Jesus holds in Scripture, and
the stress there laid upon its historical attestation.
" Declared," the Apostle says, " to be the Son of
God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness,
by the Resurrection of the dead." x It is undeniable
that, if historically real, the Resurrection of Jesus
is a confirmation of His entire claim. No mind can
believe in that transcendent fact, and in the exalta
tion that followed it, and continue to apply to Christ
a mere humanitarian standard. The older Socinians
attempted this, but the logic of the case proved too
strong for them. Both assertions hold good :
Christ's Personality and claims demand a Resur
rection, and, conversely, the Resurrection is a retro-
1 Rom. i. 4.

THE RESURRECTION 271
spective attestation that Jesus was indeed the
exalted and divinely-sent Person He claimed to be.
(2) Not very dissimilar is the position to be taken
as to the evidential value of the Resurrection with
regard to immortality. The relation here is, indeed,
more vital than at first appears. The Christian
hope, it will immediately be seen, is not merely
that of an " immortality of the soul," nor is " eternal
life " simply the indefinite prolongation of existence
in a future state of being. Keeping, however, at
present to the general question of the possibility
and reality of a life beyond the grave, it is to be asked
what bearing the Resurrection of Jesus has as evi
dence on this. None whatever, a writer like Pro
fessor Lake will reply, for the physical Resurrection is
an incredibility, and can prove nothing. Apparitional
manifestations are possible, but even these can only
be admitted if, first of all, proof is given of the sur
vival of the soul by the help of such phenomena as
the Society of Psychical Research furnishes.1 Others
base on the natural grounds for belief in a future life
supplied by the constitution of the human soul, eked
out, in the case of recent able writers, by appeal to the
same class of psychical phenomena.2 On a more
1 Res. of Jesus Christ, pp. 245, 272-3.
2 Cf. the interesting paper on Immortality by Sir Oliver
Lodge in the Hibbert Journal for April, 1908. The per
sistence of the soul (which damage or destruction of the
brain is held not to disprove) is argued from the " priority
in essence of the spiritual to the material " and from such

272 DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF
spiritual plane, Herrmann and Harnack would argue
that immortality is given as a " thought of faith ''
in the direct contemplation of Christ's life in God-
A soul of such purity, elevation, and devotion to the
Father as was Christ's cannot be thought of as
extinguished in death.1
It seems evident that, if man is really a being
destined for life hereafter, indications of this vast
destiny cannot be absent from the make and con
stitution of his nature. Capacities will reveal them
selves in him proportionate to the immortality that
awaits him. It is not denied, therefore — at least
here — that there are grounds in man's nature abun
dantly warranting a reasonable faith in a life beyond
death, and awakening the craving for more light
regarding that future state of being. History and
literature, however, are witnesses how little these
" natural intimations of immortality " can of them
selves do to sustain an assured confidence in a future
conscious existence, or to give comfort and hope at
the thought of entrance into it. Browning may be
styled a poet of immortality, but a long distance is
traversed between the early optimism of a Pauline,2
and the soul-racking doubts of a La Saisiaz, when
facts as telepathy (pp. 570 ff.), prater-normal psychology
(pp. 572 ff.), automatism (pp. 574 ff.), subliminal faculty
(pp. 547 ff.), genius (pp. 580 ff.), mental pathology (pp.
582 ff.).
1 Cf. Herrmann, Communion with God (E. T.), pp. 221-2.
2 Cf. Browning, Works, i. pp. 27, 29.

THE RESURRECTION 273
the question has to be faced and answered in the
light of reason, " Does the soul survive the body ?
Is there God's self, no or yes ? " 1
The spiritual faith that roots itself in Christ's
unbroken communion with the Father has, indeed,
an irrefragable basis. But is it adequate, if it
does not advance to its own natural completion in
belief in the Resurrection ? For Christ's earthly
history does not end as an optimistic faith would
expect. Rather, it closes in seeming defeat and
disaster. The forces of evil — the powers of disso
lution that devour on every side — seem to have pre
vailed over Him also. Is this the last word ? If
so, how shall faith support itself ? " We hoped that
it was He which should redeem Israel." 2 Is not
the darkness deeper than before when even He seems
to go down in the struggle ?
Will it be doubted that, as for the first disciples,
so for myriads since, the Resurrection has dispelled
these doubts, and given them an assurance which
nothing can overthrow that death is conquered,3 and
that, because Jesus lives, they shall live also ? 4
Jesus, who came from God and went to God, has
shed a flood of light into that unseen world which
has vanquished its terrors, and made it the bright
home of every spiritual and eternal hope. It is
open to any one to reject this consolation, grounded
1 Works, xiv. p. 168. 2 Luke xxiv. 21.
3 1 Cor. xv. 54-7. 4 John xiv. 19.
b.J- 18

274 DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF
in sure historical fact, or to prefer to it the star
light — if even such it can be named — of dubious
psychical phenomena. But will it be denied that
for those who, on what they judge the best of grounds,
believe the Resurrection, there is opened up a " sure
and certain hope " of immortality which nothing
else in time can give ?
2. The Resurrection is an evidential fact, and
its importance in this relation is not to be minimized.
But this, as a little consideration may show, after
all, only touches the exterior of the subject. The
core of the matter is not reached till it is perceived
that the Resurrection of Jesus is not simply an
external seal or evidential appendage to the Chris
tian Gospel, but enters as a constitutive element into
the very essence of that Gospel. Its denial or
removal would be the mutilation of the Christian
doctrine of Redemption, of which it is an integral
part. An opposite view is that of Herrmann, who
lays the whole stress on the impression produced
by Christ's earthly hfe. Such a view has no means
of incorporating the Resurrection into itself as a
constitutive part of its Christianity. The Resurrec
tion remains at most a deduction of faith without
inner relation to salvation ? It is apt to be felt,
therefore, to be a superfluous appendage. In a full
Scriptural presentation it is not so. It might almost
be said to be a test of the adequacy of the view of
Christ and His work taken by any school, whether

THE RESURRECTION 275
it is able to take in the Resurrection of Christ as
a constitutive part of it.
In New Testament Scripture, it will not be
disputed that these two things are always taken
together — the Death and the Resurrection of Christ
— the one as essentially connected with, and com
pleted in, the other. " It is Christ Jesus that died,"
says St. Paul, " yea, rather, that was raised from
the dead." 1 " Who was delivered up for our
trespasses, and was raised for our justification." 2
" Who through Him," says St. Peter, " are believers
in God, which raised Him from the dead, and gave
Him glory ; so that your faith and hope might be
in God." 3 " The God of peace, who brought
again from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep,
with the blood of the everlasting covenant," 4
we read in Hebrews. " I am the Living One ; and
I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore," 5
says the Lord in the Apocalypse.
What is the nature of this connexion ? The
answer to this question turns on the manner in
which the death of Christ itself is conceived, and
on this point the teaching of the New Testament is
again sufficiently explicit. The Cross is the decisive
meeting-place between man's sin and God's grace.
It is the point of reconciliation between man and
1 Rom. viii. 34. 2 Rom. iv. 25.
3 1 Pet. i. 21 ; cf. hi. 18-22. 4 Heb. xiii. 20.
6 Rev. i. 18,

276 DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF
God. There was accomplished — at least consum
mated — the great work of Atonement for human
sin ! Christ, as the Epistle to the Hebrews declares,
" put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." x
It seems superfluous to quote passages in illus
tration of a truth of which the Apostolic writings
are literally full. Jesus Himself laid stress on His
death as a means of salvation to the world,2 and,
theories apart, every principal writer in the New
Testament reiterates the idea in every form of ex
pression which the vocabulary of Redemption can
yield. But, if this is the true light in which the
death of Jesus through and for the sin of man is to
be conceived, how does the Resurrection of Jesus
stand related to it ? Is it an accident ? Or is there
not connexion of the most vital kind ? Manifestly
there is, and that in various respects.3
(i) The connexion at the outset is an essential one
with Christ's own work as Redeemer. One need only
follow here the familiar lines of Apostolic teaching,
in which the Resurrection is represented under such
aspects as the following : —
i. As the natural and necessary completion of
the work of Redemption itself. Accepting the

1 Heb. ix. 26.
2 Matt. xx. 28 ; xxvi. 26-28 ; John iii. 14-16, etc.
3 For an interesting treatment of this whole subject,
cf. Milligan, The Resurrection of Our Lord, Lects. IV., V,
and VI.

THE RESURRECTION 277
above interpretation of Christ's death, it seems evi
dent that, if Christ died for men — in Atonement for
their sins — it could not be that He should remain
permanently in the state of death. That, had it
been possible, would have been the frustration of
the very end of His dying, for if He remained Him
self a prey to death, how could He redeem others ?
Jesus Himself seldom spoke of His death without
coupling it with the prediction of His Resurrection.1
St. Peter in Acts assumes it as self-evident that it
was not possible that death should hold Him.2 St.
Paul constantly speaks of the Resurrection as the
necessary sequel of the Crucifixion, and directly
connects it with justification.3. The further point
— that a complete Redemption of man includes the
redemption of the body — is dwelt upon below.
ii. As the Father's seal on Christ's completed
work, and public declaration of its acceptance.
Had Christ remained a prey to death, where would
have been the knowledge, the certainty, the assur
ance that full Atonement had indeed been made,
that the Father had accepted that holy work on
behalf of our sinful race, that the foundation of
perfect reconciliation between God and man had
indeed been laid ? With the Resurrection a public
demonstration was given, not only, as before, of
Christ's divine Sonship and Messiahship, but of the
1 Matt. xvi. 21 ; xvii. 23 ; xx. 19 ; John x. 17, 18, etc.
2 Acts ii. 24. 3 Rom. iv. 25.

278 DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF
Father's perfect satisfaction with, and full accept
ance of the whole work of Christ as man's Saviour,
but peculiarly His work as Atoner for sin, expressed
in such words as " Christ died for the ungodly," x
" Who His own self bare our sins in His body upon
the tree." 2 It is this which leads St. Paul to con
nect the assurance of justification — of forgiveness,
of freedom from all condemnation — with faith in
the Resurrection.3 The ground of acceptance was
the obedience unto death upon the Cross, but it was
the Resurrection which gave the joyful confidence
that the work had accomplished its result.
iii. As the entrance of Christ on a new life as the
risen and exalted Head of His Church and universal
Lord. The Resurrection of Jesus is everywhere
viewed as the commencement of His Exaltation.
Resurrection, Ascension, Exaltation to the throne
of universal dominion go together as parts of the
same transaction.4 St. Paul, in Acts, connects the
Resurrection with the words of the second Psalm,
" Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." 6
But the Resurrection, as the New Testament writers

1 Rom. v. 6. 2 i Pet. ii. 24.
3 Rom. iv. 24, 25 ; viii. 35 ; x. 9.
4 Cf. e.g. Rom. viii. 34 ; Eph. i. 20-22 ; hi. 9, 10 ; Heb.
iv. 14 ; x. 12 ; 1 Pet. iii. 21-2. On this ground Harnack
argues against the separation of the Ascension from the
Resurrection in the Creed (Das. A post. Glaubensbekenntniss
p. 25). But cf. Swete, The Apostles' Creed, pp. 64 ff.).
6 Acts xiii. 33.

THE RESURRECTION 279
likewise testify, was a change of state — from the
temporal to the eternal, from humiliation to glory,
above all, from a condition which had to do with
sin, and the taking away of sin, to one which is
" apart from sin " (x«/ot? dpiapTtds)1 and is marked
by the plenitude of spiritual power. This is a pre
vailing view in St. Paul and in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. " The death that He died," says the
former, " He died unto sin once : but the life that
He liveth, He liveth unto God." 2 " The last Adam
became a life-giving Spirit." 3 " When He had
made purification of sins," says the latter, He " sat
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." 4
" Having been made perfect, He became unto all
them that obey Him the author of eternal salva
tion." 6 " He, when He had offered one sacrifice
for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of
God, from henceforth expecting till His enemies
be made the footstool of His feet." 6 A priest
" after the power of an endless fife." ' With
His exaltation is connected the gift of the Spirit.
" Being therefore," said St. Peter, " by the
right hand of God exalted, and having received
of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He
hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear." 8
1 Heb. ix. 28.
2 Rom. vi. 10. 3 1 Cor. xv. 45. 4 Heb. i. 3.
6 Heb. v. 9. 6 Heb. x. 12, 13. ' Heb. vii. 16.
8 Acts ii. 33. Cf. Christ's own promises, John xiv. 16,
26 ; xv. 26 ; xvi. 7.

280 DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF
On this view of Jesus as having died to sin, and risen
in power to a new life with God, and having become
the principle of spiritual quickening to His people,
is based what is sometimes spoken of as St. Paul's
" mystical " doctrine of the union of believers with
Christ. Through faith, and symbolically in bap
tism, the Christian dies with Christ to sin — is thence
forth done with it as something put away and
belonging to the past — and rises with Him in spiri
tual power to newness of life.1 Christ lives in him
by His Spirit.2 He is risen with Christ, and shares
a life the spring of which is hid with Christ in God.3
Is it possible to review such testimonies without
realizing how tremendous is the significance attached
in Apostofic Christianity to this fact of the Resur
rection ?
(2) A further aspect of the doctrinal significance
of the resurrection is opened when it is observed
that the Resurrection is not simply the comple
tion of Christ's redemptive work, but, in one im
portant particular, itself sheds light on the nature
of that redemption. It does so inasmuch as it
gives its due place to the body of man in the con
stitution of his total personality. Man is a com
pound being. The body as well as the soul enters
into the complete conception of his nature. The
redemption of the whole man, therefore, includes,
1 Rom. vi. 3-1 1.
2 Rom. viii. 9-1 1 ; Gal. i. 20. 3 Col. hi. 1-3.

THE RESURRECTION 281
as St. Paul phrases it, " the adoption, to wit, the
redemption of the body." 1 From this point of
view it may be said that the Resurrection was
essential in that the redemption of man meant the
redemption of his whole personality, body and soul
together. A mere spiritual survival of Christ —
an " immortality of the soul " only — would not
have been sufficient. This is a consideration which
has its roots deep in the Scripture doctrine of man,
and has important bearings on the subject of
resurrection. It was remarked earlier that the Christian doc
trine of immortality is not simply that of a survival
of death, and future state of existence of the soul.
The spiritual part of man is indeed that in which
his God-like qualities reveal themselves — in which
he bears the stamp of the divine image. It is the
seat of his rational, moral, self-conscious, personal
life. It is that which proves him to be more than
a being of nature — a transient bubble on the heav
ing sea of physical change, and proclaims his affinity
with the Eternal. Ideahsm emphasizes this side
of man's nature, and almost forgets that there is
another equally real. For, if man is a spiritual
existence, he appears not less as the crown of
nature's development, and as bound by a thousand
ties through a finely-adjusted bodily organisation
to the physical and animal world from which he has
1 Rom. viii. 23.

282 DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF
emerged. Naturalism, in turn, lays stress on the
latter side of his being, and is tempted to ignore
the former. It explains man as a product of phy
sical forces, and treats immortality as a chimera.
A true view of man's nature will embrace both sides.
It will acknowledge the spiritual dignity of man,
but will recognize that he is not, and was never
intended to be, pure spirit ; that he is likewise a
denizen of the natural world endowed with corpor
eity, residing in, and acting through a body which
is as truly a part of himself as fife or soul itself is.
He is, in short, the preordained link between two
worlds — the natural and the spiritual; and has
relation in his personality to both. He is not spirit
simply, but incorporated spirit.
If this is a true view to take of man's nature — and
it is held here to be the Biblical view, 1 it directly
affects the ideas to be formed of death and immor
tality. Death, in the case of such a being, however
it may be with the animal, can never be a merely
natural event. Body and soul — integral elements
in man's personality — cannot be sundered without
mutilation and loss to the spiritual part. The
dream that death is an emancipation of the spiritual
essence from a body that imprisons and clogs it,
and is in itself the entrance on a freer, larger life,
belongs to the schools, not to Christianity. The
1 The subject is more fully treated by the present writer
in his Christian View of God and the World, Lect. V., with
Appendix, and God's Image in Man, Lect. VI.

THE RESURRECTION 283
disembodied state is never presented in Scripture
— Old Testament or New — as other than one of
incomplete being — of enfeebled life, diminished
powers, restricted capacities of action. " Sheol,"
" Hades," is not the abode of true immortality.
It follows that salvation from a state of sin which
has brought man under the law of death must
include deliverance from this incomplete con
dition. It must include deliverance from Sheol — ¦
" the redemption of the body." The Redeemer
must be One who holds " the keys of death and of
Hades." *¦ It must embrace resurrection.
In a previous chapter it was hinted that this is
probably the proper direction in which to look
for the origin of the Biblical idea of resurrection,
and of the form which the hope of immortality
assumed in the Old Testament. The believing
relation to God is felt to carry in it the pledge of
deliverance even from Sheol, and of a restored and
perfected life in God's presence. It is significant
that Jesus quotes the declaration, " I am the God
of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob " 2 in proof, not simply of the continued
subsistence of the patriarchs in some state of being,
but of the resurrection of the dead. The late
Dr. A. B. Davidson unexceptionably states the
point in the following words of his Commentary on
Job. " The human spirit," he says, " is conscious
1 Rev. i. 18. 2 Matt. xxii. 23.

284 DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF
of fellowship with God, and this fellowship, from
the nature of God, is a thing imperishable, and,
in spite of obscurations, it must yet be fully mani
fested by God. This principle, grasped with con
vulsive earnestness in the prospect of death, became
the Hebrew doctrine of immortality. This doctrine
was but the necessary corollary of religion. In this
life the true relations of men to God were felt to
be realized ; and the Hebrew faith of immortality —
never a belief in the mere existence of the soul after
death, for the lowest superstition assumed this — was
a faith that the dark and mysterious event of death
would not interrupt the life of the person with
God, enjoyed in this world. . . . The doctrine of
immortality in the book [of Job] is the same as
that of other parts of the Old Testament. Immor
tality is the corollary of religion. If there be
religion — that is, if God be — there is immortality,
not of the soul, but of the whole personal being of
man (Ps. xvi. 9). This teaching of the whole Old
Testament is expressed by our Lord with a surpris
ing incisiveness in two sentences, ' I am the God
of Abraham, God is not the God of the dead but the
God of the living.' " x
How essential the Resurrection of Jesus is as
an integral part of a doctrine of Redemption will
appear from such considerations without further
comment. 1 Com. on Job, Appendix, pp. 293-5.

THE RESURRECTION 285
(3) A last aspect, intimately connected with the
foregoing, in which the doctrinal significance of
the Resurrection is perceived, is in its relation to
the believer's own hope of resurrection. This is
the point of view from which the Resurrection is
treated in that great paean of resurrection hope —
the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians. Christ's
Resurrection is the ground and pledge of the resur
rection of believers. If Christ has not risen, neither
can they rise. The Christian dead have perished.1
So completely does St. Paul bind up survival after
death with the hope of resurrection that, in the
denial of the latter, he apparently feels the ground
to be taken from the former as well. Immortality,
with him, for the Christian, is " incorruption " 2 —
victory over death in body as in soul. In Christ's
Resurrection, the assurance of that victory is given.
" But now hath Christ been raised, the first fruits
of them that are asleep . . . Christ the firstfruits :
then they that are Christ's, at His coming." 3
This sheds again a broad, clear light on the nature
of the Christian's hope of immortality. It is no
mere futurity of existence — no mere ghostly per
sistence after death. It is an immortality of posi
tive life, of holiness, of blessedness, of glory — of
perfected likeness to Christ in body, soul and
spirit.4 It is here that the thought of resurrection
1 1 Cor. xv. 18. 2 1 Cor. xv. 42, 52-4 ; 2 Tim. i. 10.
8 Cor. xv. 20, 23. 4 Phil. hi. 20-21 ; cf. 1 John hi. 2.

286 DOCTRINAL BEARINGS OF
helps, for once more the Redemption of Christ is
seen to be a redemption of the whole man — body and
soul together.
The difficulties which present themselves on the
subject of the resurrection of the body are, of course,
manifold, and cannot be ignored. The difficulty
is greater even than in the case of Jesus, for there
Resurrection took place within three days, in a
body which had not seen corruption. But the
bodies of the generations of the Christian dead have
utterly perished. How is resurrection possible
for them ? The Apostle does indeed speak
of the bodies of those who are alive at the Parousia
being " changed." 1 But this obviously leaves
untouched the case of the vast majority who have
died " in faith " in the interval.
The subject is full of mystery. The error lies
in conceiving of the resurrection of the body of the
Christian as necessarily the raising again of the very
material form that was deposited in the grave-
This, though the notion has been defended, loads
the doctrine of the resurrection with a needless
weight and is not required by anything contained
in Scripture. St. Paul, indeed, using the analogy
of the seed-corn, says expressly : " Thou sowest
not the body that shall be. . . . But God giveth
it a body as it pleased Him." 2 There is here iden-
1 i Cor. xv. 51-2 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15-18.
2 1 Cor. xv. 37-8.

THE RESURRECTION 287
tity between the old self and the new even as re
gards the body. But it is not identity of the same
material substance. In truth, as has often been
pointed out, the identity of our bodies, even on
earth, does not consist in sameness of material
particles. The matter in our bodies is continually
changing : in the course of a few years has entirely
changed. The bond of identity is in something
deeper, in the abiding organizing principle which
serves as the thread of connexion amidst all changes.
That endures, is not allowed to be destroyed at
death ; and stamps its individuality and all it in
herits from the old body upon the new.
Questions innumerable doubtless may be asked
which it is not possible to answer. How, for ex
ample, can a body so transformed as to be called
" spiritual " yet retain the true character of a
" body " ? What place is there for " body " in
a spiritual realm at all ? No place, assuredly, for
the body of " flesh " (o-dp^) ; but for a body (o-5>p.a)
of another kind, there not only may be, but, if Jesus
has passed into the heavens, there is, place. " There
are also," the Apostle says, " celestial bodies, and
bodies terrestrial." x Such a body, adapted to
celestial conditions, will be the resurrection body of
the believer. Even already a hidden tie connects
1 1 Cor. xv. 40. The remarks on this subject in Stewart
and Tait's book, The Unseen Universe, are worth consult
ing as coming from men of scientific eminence. Cf. pp.
26-7, but specially pp. 157-163.

288 THE RESURRECTION
this future resurrection-body with the Resurrection
life of the Redeemer. For the production of this
body the possession of the Spirit of the Risen Lord
is necessary. On the other hand, where that Spirit
is present, the forces for the production of the re
surrection-body are at work — conceivably the basis
of it is being already laid within the body that now
is. Hardly less seems to be the meaning of the
Apostle's words : " If Christ be in you, the body is
dead because of sin ; but the Spirit is fife because
of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him that
raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He
that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall
quicken also your mortal bodies through His Spirit
that dwelleth in you." x
In conclusion, the Resurrection of Jesus stands
fast as a fact, unaffected by the boastful waves of
scepticism that ceaselessly through the ages beat
themselves against it ; retains its significance as a
corner-stone in the edifice of human redemption ;
and holds within it the vastest hope for time and
for eternity that humanity can ever know.
" Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who, according to His great mercy, begat
us again unto a living hope, by the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance in
corruptible, undented, and that fadeth not away." 2
1 Rom. viii. 10, n. * i Pet. i. 3, 4.

INDEX

Abbott, E. A., 64, 66
Alford, Dean, 59, 65 ff., 123,
152, 160, 166, 179, 185
Allen, W. C, 18, 20, 61,
124, 190, 191
Apocryphal beliefs, 170, 259
ff.
Apparitional theory, 27, 226
ff. (See Resurrection.)
Arnold, T., 10.
Ascension of Christ, 152,
156, 192 ff.
Balfour, A. J., 17
Baur, F., 38, 68
Beyschlag, W., 225, 231
Boissier, G., 237
Bousset, W., 16, 44, 267
Bruce, A. B., 51, 220-1
Burkitt, F. C, 34, 59, 61 ff.,
67 ff., 72, 73, 95
Bush lell, H., 52
Butler, Bishop, 51-2
Campl ell, Dr. Colin, 69
Campbell, R. J., 91, 201
Cels is, 10, 20
Cheyne, T. K., 21-3, 116,
236, 238-9, 248-50, 254,
258 289

Discrepancies in narratives,
59, 74 ff., 86 ff., 94 ff.,
101 ff., 119 ff., 153 ff.
Doctrinal Bearings of Resur
rection, 265 ff.
Drummond, Dr. J., 73
Ebrard, 166
Farnell, L. H., 21, 236
Frazer, J. G., 21
Forrest, D. W., 54, 160
Foster, G. B., 16, 49
Gardner, P., 34
Godet, F., 94, 98, 106, 152,
164-5-6, 181, 184, 193,
195. 225-6.
Goethe, 83
Gospels, Criticism of, 18 ff
56, 61 ff., (See Matthew,
Mark, etc.)
Gunkel, H, 21, 22, 236 ff.
239, 248-9, 250, 252,
254 ff.
Harnack, A., 24 ff., 36, 53,
60, 111, 114, 187, 207, 222,
255
Hawkins, Sir John, 60, 67
IQ

290

INDEX

Henson, Canon, 34, 40, 182
Herrmann, W., 24, 272, 274
Holtzmann, H. J., 94, 113
ff., 118, 129
Holtzmann, O., 16, 94, 98,
100, 113 ff., 118, 129, 215,
219
Hume, D., 45, 47
Hutton, R. H., 73, 88, 106-7
Huxley, T., 50, 88 ff.
Immortality, 28 ff., 237-8,
271 ff., 281 ff.
James, St., 26, 148, 152, 154,
156, 169 ff., 191, 243
Jensen, P., 21, 23, 238, 241
ff., 249, 250 ff.
Jeremias, A., 21, 22, 237,
240-1, 247
Jesus Christ, Connexion of
Person with Resurrec
tion, 13 ff., 44, 267 ff. ;
burial of, 11, 42 ff., 83
ff., 92 ff., 212 ff. ; appear
ances of, 26, 58, 143 ff.,
173 ff. ; risen body of, 54,
177 ff., 182, 188, 195 ff. ;
Babylonian theories re
garding, 22 ff., 238 ff.
(See Resurrection).
Jewish Stories, 10, 159-60.
John, St., Gospel of, 72 ff.,
85, 93 ff., 108, 119, 148,
151, 160 ff., 178 ff., 183 ft.,
185 ff.
Justin Martyr, 10, 159
Kaftan, J., 146

Keim, Th., 27, 113, 127, 149
ff., 152, 188, 215-16-17-
18-19, 225-6-7 ff.
Konig, E., 247
Lake, K., 19, 20, 23, 28, 40,
46, 51, 62, 74 ff., 94 ff.,
103-4, II2 ff-, 118, 129 ff.,
159-60, 169, 177, 191, 212,
227 ff., 229, 245, 252, 254,
271
Latham, H., 98, 103, 125,
137, 149, 162-3, 176< i8ii
189 ff., 193, 195
Lecky, W. E. H., 17
Lightfoot, J- B., 170, 185
Lodge, Sir Ohver, 201, 271
Loisy, Abbe, 84, 144 ff., 182,
187, 202, 209, 213, 222,
252
Loots, F., 106, 177, 182, 216
Luke, St., Gospel of, 20, 61
ff., 70, 74 ff., 85, 164 ff.,
178 ff.
Luthardt, C. E., 102, 185, 193
Mark, St., Gospel of, 20, 61
ff., 74 ff., 85, 139, 149, 261,
267
Matthew, St. Gospel, of 18,
20, 61 ff., 74 ff., 85, 99,
159, 261
McClellan, J. B., 124
Menzies, A., 134
Meyer, A., 84 ff., 98, 102, 113
ff., 118, 128, 132 ff., 176,
182, 212, 219-20, 245
Meyer, H. A. W., 85, ioo,
124, 152, 165, 177, 185
Mill, J. S., 50-1

INDEX

291

Milligan, W., 166, 276
Miracle, modern denial of,
14 ff., 44 ff. ; reasonable
ness of, 48 ff.
Myers, F. W. H., 28 ff.,
201, 228
Mysteries, pagan, 21, 236-7
Neo-Babylonian theories, 21,
116 ff., 235 ff.
Otto, R., 91
Ormond, T., 52
Paul, St., his witness, n, 26,
34, 39 ff-. 58, 85, 92, 117
ff., 148, 151 ff., 243 ;
conversion of, 207 ff., 220
Peter, St., 26, 41, 85, 148,
161 ff., 168 ff., 179 ff.,
186 ff., 192, 206 ff., 220,
243
Peter, Gospel of, 77, 259
Pfleiderer, O., 16, 38, 112 ff.,
215
Plummer, A., 60, 71, 193
Psychical Research, Society
of, 28 ff., 47, 201, 227
Rashdall, H„ 46, 51, 227
Renan, E., 48, 87-8, 96,
100-1, 113, 118, 122, 129,
146 ff., 176, 188, 213, 219,
220 ff., 224
Resurrection of Jesus,
changed attitude to, 9 ff.,
connexion with Person, 13
ff., 44, 269 ff. ; a miracle,
35, 42 ff. ; 53-4, 106, ff ;
Apostohc belief in, 33, 91,

115, 143 ff., 205 ff. ; a
bodily Resurrection, 35
ff., 153 ; survival-theory
of, 23, 35, 83 ; visit of
women, 118 ff. ; the empty
tomb, 25, 36, 59, 12 ff. ;
212 ff. ; appearances of
Jesus, 26, 58, 143 ff. ;
173 ff. ; the risen body,
54, 177 ff., 182, 188, 195,
ff. ; swoon-theory of, 11,
42 ff ., 92 ; vision-theory of,
27, 214, 219 ff. ; appari
tional- theory of, 27,
226 ff. ; Neo-Babylonian
theories of, 21, 116 ff.,
235 ff. ; evidential value
of, 268 ff. ; doctrinal
value of, 274 ff.
— , of believers, 285 ff.
— , in heathenism, 20—1, 236
ff., 250 ff., 256 ff.
— , in Judaism, 254 ff.
Reville, A., 94, 113, 128
Ritschl, A., 24
Sabatier, A., 16
Sabatier, P., 45, 49
Sanday, W., 17, 18, 45, 51,
59
Schleiermacher, 11, 42
Schmidt, N., 16
Schmiedel, P. W., 16
Strauss, D., n, 15, 26, 35,
59, 68, 96, 101, 104-5-6,
113 ff., 127, 147 ff., 152,
187, 215-16, 219
Sunday, origin of, 185, 251
Swete, H. B., 166
Swoon- theory, 11, 42 ff., 92

292 INDEX
Vision-theories, 27, 214, 219

Weiss, J., 24, 27, 228
Wellhausen, J., 18, 19, 20,
33, 202
Westcott, Bishop, 170
Weizsacker, K., 38, 112 ff.,

127, 145, i47, 152, 182,
192, 209, 215-16, 219-20
Whetham, W. C. D., 50
Winckler, H., 21, 238, 247
Wright, A., 66 ff., 71-2, 75
Zahn, Th., 69, 85
Zoroastrianism, 257-8

teogi