.« ...V- 0-: ,- ■■•■ y'^.^':0y-l^^ , '-'. ■*-'. -jr- ■ . ^ TVie plc\ae of fhe. appearanaes ot W.F. Arm'5Tror^§- •■(, -.'•.' v4 m^H • ■."• '' ■ 'S^- . ■'■ >!:••■ -'I ^•-. * *.-• ■.;■ ^.''■^v '."■ '■■ *''' '""^^^IB^^^^I -.'■.■'•^ ','• ' .-. y "*" ■ - -':,JH| -v'*'^'" ^ .■t i". . '* •' ."^ ■ '\ • J ' \ ■» ■-,' .'* « .' ■■-•- ;W ;.->'-•.' *'>^*^^^^^H - . ■ :"' ■- '•> ,j ■ /' ' ^^ -. ! ■" '**■'■/' " .'i^' 'k'lt^'-^ V^^ PRINCETON, N. J. DiVyw/ow.r.D.Si^'H /~0 . • /\7- f^ '*A '<« V JUN IHl^U .♦. ^cmi %^ THE PLACE OF THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES OF JESUS William Park Armstrong Introduction: Faith, fact, and method; the witness of the New Testament; later tradition. I. The Galilean Theory. Strauss ; Weizsacker ; Wernle ; P. W. Schmiedel ; Harnack ; Rohrbach; W. Briickner; Volter; Wellhausen ; Kreyenbiihl. II. The Jerusalem Theory. Loofs ; Galilee on the Mount of Olives (Hofmann, Resch, etc.). III. The Double Tradition. Von Dobschtitz; T. S. Rordam; Lyder Brun; Riggenbach ; Zahn ; Voigt ; constructive results ; critical principles. Appendix: Extra-canonical tradition — Gospel according to the Hebrews; Gospel of Peter; a Coptic Document; the Syriac Didascalia; Ter- tullian's Apologeticum xxi ; Acta Pilati. Abbreviations. THE PLACE OF THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES OF JESUS The early Christian community in Jerusalem believed that Jesus of Nazareth, who had been crucified under Pontius Pil- ate, was the Messiah. This belief according to the earliest tradition had its origin in the consciousness of Jesus himself, for he both accepted the expression of it from others^ and gave explicit witness to it by his own words^ and actions.* It was shared by his disciples. Through his death an element quite incongruous with their expectations was introduced into it.^ Yet the belief persisted and became a world-historic force. In the earliest form of which we have knowledge, — that is, of the faith of the primitive Christian community — it included two distinctive features : — the death and the resurrection of Jesus. There are clear indications in the Gospels that both of these elements entered into Jesus' conception of his Mes- siahship;^ but even if these indications be regarded merely as reflections of early Christian faith they imply by contrast a *Mit. xvi. i6; Mk. viii. 29; Lk. ix. 20. 'Especially in the self-designation "Son of Man"; cf. Holtzmann, Das mess. Bewusstsein Jesu, 1907; Lehrbuch d. mutest. Theologie^ i, 191 1, pp. 295 ff. ; Pfleiderer Das Urchristentuw^ usw. i, 1902, pp. 660 ff. Tillmann, Der Menschensohn, BSt. xii. 1-2, 1907 ; Schlatter, Der Zweifel an der Mes- sianitdt Jesu, BFTh. xi. 4, 1907; E. Klostermann, Markus, HB. ii. 1907, pp. 67 f. ; B. B. Warfield, The Lord of Glory, 1907, pp. 23 ff., etc. *Mt. xxi. I ff; Mk. xi. i ff; Lk. xix. 29 ff. *Mk. viii. 32, ix. 10, 32, x. 35 ff., xiv. 27 ff., 51; Lk. xxiv. 21; cf . I Cor. i. 23 ; Gal. vi. I2ff ; on the idea of a suffering Messiah in Judaism cf. Bousset, Religion d. Judentums', 1906, p. 265 ; Schiirer, Gesch. d. jiid. Volkes* usw. ii, 1907, pp. 648 ff. ; J. Weiss, SNT.'' i, 1907, pp. 148 ff. ; Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede, 1906, pp. 368 f., 383 ff. ; Volz, Judische Eschatologie usw, 1903, p. 2^7; Bertholet, Biblische Theologie d. Alten Testaments, ii. 191 1, p. 450. " Mk. viii. 30 f, etc. 310 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES change in the content of faith which was not without a cause. And if this cause be not, or not alone, in the consciousness of Jesus and his teaching, it must be sought in the experience of the disciples subsequent to his death. How then did the faith in Jesus as the Messiah, which embraced his death and resur- rection, emerge in the consciousness of the disciples? There can be no doubt that it did emerge and that it did contain these elements. This is proven by the testimony of Paul.® Con- verted to this faith within a few years after Jesus' death, he not only shared it from the beginning of his missionary ac- tivity,''^ but in it knew himself to be in full accord with the early Christian community in Jerusalem.* There is no trace of any difference of opinion on this subject.^ The difficulties in Corinth about the resurrection concerned not Jesus but be- lievers.^** There is every reason to think that it had its origin * I Cor. XV. 2-8: vapibuKa yap vfiTv iv irpdyrois, 6 Kal irapAa/3ov, Sri 'Kpurrdi dir^Oavtv vwip Tuv afuipTiwv rjixQv /card rdj ypacpdi, Kal 8ti iTTs diroffrdXais vdaiv f- ftari &d7i KdpaL. 'It appears definitely in his earliest Epistle (i Thess. i. lo, iv. 14); and it is impossible to suppose that so fundamental an element in his thought could have been absent prior to this and the fact of its subse- quent introduction have left no trace in his Epistles. The character of his pre-Christian activity (Gal. i. 14, 24; I Cor. xv. 9), the manner of his conversion (Gal. i. 16, cf. i. 2; i Cor. ix. i, xv. 8; cf. Acts ix. 3 ff. ; xxii. 6 ff. ; xxvi. 12 ff.) and the close association of the resurrection and the exaltation of Jesus (Rom. i. 4; viii. 34) require the presence of this element in Paul's faith from its inception. * I Cor. XV. I ff. ; Gal. i. 18 f . *As there viras about other matters touching the relation of the Gentile Christians to the ceremonial law ; cf. the significant statement of Weiz- sacker {Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche^, 1892, pp. i6f) in regard to the fundamental agreement of Paul and the early Church in the christology which grew out of the common belief in the resur- rection; cf. also F. Dibelius, Das Abendmahl, 1911, pp. i ff. *• Paul's argument for the resurrection of believers in i Cor. xv. is based upon the resurrection of Jesus as a premise of fact about which all were agreed. Kirsopp Lake says {The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, 1911, pp. 215 f) ; " It is clear from i Cor. xv. that there was a party at Cor- inth which denied that there would ever be a resurrection of the dead. It is also plain that there was nevertheless no dispute as to the resurrection of THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 3" on the third day after Jesus' death, — on the first Easter Sun- day, when the sepulchre of Jesus was found empty ^^ and Jesus appeared to Peter and to others. In the earliest documentary evidence Jesus himself is rep- resented as the cause of this faith. His death was a well ac- credited fact. Belief in his resurrection is attributed to the self-manifestations of Jesus to his disciples and others by which he convinced them of his triumph over death; and this in turn gave to the empty tomb — a fact of their experi- ence^- — its true explanation. The New Testament accounts of the self -manifestations or appearances of Jesus constitute an important element in the ex- Christ, for the whole argument of St. Paul is based on the fact that there was a general consent on that subject. It has sometimes been thought that this implies that the Corinthians had no hope of any future life be- yond death. But this view is an unjustified conclusion from i Cor. xv. 17-19. St. Paul is here arguing that there must be a resurrection, because a future life is impossible without one, and that the hope of the Chris- tian to share in the life of Christ necessitates that he should rise from the dead just as Christ did. Moreover, the idea that there was no future life is as wholly foreign to the point of view of the "Mystery Religions" of the Corinthian world, as it was to that of Jewish theology. The ques- tion was not whether there would be a future life, but whether a future life must be attained by means of a resurrection, and St. Paul's argument is that in the first place the past resurrection of Christ is positive evidence for the future resurrection of Christians, and in the second place that the conception of a resurrection is central and essential in Christianity, which offers no hope of a future life for the dead apart from a resur- rection." Cf. also Lake's estimate of the significance to be attached to the elements of Christian faith held in common by Paul and his readers and therefore presupposed in his Epistles, ibid., pp. 115, 132 f., 233 n., 277, 424, 437, and Exp. 1909, i, p. 506. " This is witnessed by all the Gospels and is implied in i Cor. xv. 3 f. by the close association of the burial and the resurrection on the third day. It was thus part of the primitive apostolic tradition. On the recent discussion of the empty tomb cf. A. Meyer, Die Auferstehung Christi usw. 1905, pp. io6ff; K. Lake, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1907, pp. 240 ff. ; H. J. Holtzmann, ThR. 1906, pp. 79 ff., 119 ff., ThLs. 1908, pp. 262 f. ; P. W. Schmiedel, PrM. 1908, pp. I2ff; Korff, Die Auferstehung Christi usw. 1908, pp. I42ff; W. H. Ryder, HThR. 1909, pp. i ff. ; C. R. Bowen, The Resurrection in the New Testament, 191 1, pp. 204 ff. " Cf. Lk. xxiv. 23 ; Jno. xx. 3 ff. 312 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES planation which the early Christians gave of an essential fea- ture of their faith. If these accounts are trustworthy, there can be no reasonable doubt concerning the ground upon which the primitive faith in the resurrection rested. Undoubtedly they reflect the belief of the early Christians. But are they for this reason or because of their contents and mutual rela- tions witnesses only to faith and not to fact? Historical criticism, it is true, is concerned primarily with the narratives. — their exact content, mutual and genetic relations, and their value; but the final judgment which it must render concerning the truthfulness of the narratives, their correspondence with reality,' — involving as this does the idea of causation — cannot be made apart from a general world-view or ultimate philo- sophical theory. ^^ And since the end of the process may be first in thought, the process itself will sometimes disclose the influence of theoretical considerations. jIn considering the relation of early Christian belief to his- torical fact, critical investigation enters upon a historico- genetic analysis of the documentary evidence in which search is made in the details of the different narratives for traces of the stages through which the final result, — i. e. the belief whose origin the narratives professedly set forth — was attained. Among the details which may be expected to throw light on this process the indications of place or locality in the narra- tives of the appearances are not only important in themselves but have, since the time of Reimarus, Lessing, and Strauss, held a central place in modern discussion of the subject. The witness of the New Testament to the place of the ap- pearances is in general quite plain. In the list of appearances which Paul gives in i Cor. xv. 5-8 no mention is made of " On this aspect of historical criticism cf . PrThR. 1910, pp. 247 ff. ; Kiefl, Der geschichtliche Christus und die moderne Philosophie, 191 1; and the discussions of the " reHgious a priori " by Bousset, ThR. 1909, pp. 419 ff., 471 ff. (cf. ZThK. 1910, pp. 341 ff. ; 191 1, pp. 141 flF.) ; Dunkmann, Das religiose A priori und die Geschichte, BFTh. xiv. 3, 1910; Wobbermin, ZThK. 191 1, Ergdnzungsheft 2; Troeltsch, RGG. ii. pp. 1437 ff., 1447 ff. ; Die Bedeutung der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu fiir den Glauben, 191 1; Mackin- tosh, Exp. 1911, i. pp. 434 ff. ; Beth, ThR. 1912, pp. i ff. ; also C. H. Weisse, Evangclische Geschichte, ii. 1838, pp. 441 ff. THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 313 place, although the Apostle incidentally alludes elsewhere to the place of one of them in a manner which presupposes knowl- edge of it.^* In Mt. xxviii two appearances are narrated, — one to certain women in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday,^^ and one at a later time to the disciples in Galilee. ^^ Mark in its earliest transmitted form ends abruptly at xvi. 8 without men- tion of an appearance; but the message of the young man at the sepulchre gives promise of an appearance in Galilee.^''' Lk. xxiv records at least two appearances, — one to Cleopas and his companion at Emmaus,^^ and one to the disciples in Jeru- salem on the evening of Easter Sunday^® — allusion being made also to a third, the appearance to Peter on Easter Sunday and by necessary implication in or near Jerusalem.^" Jno. xx re- lates an appearance to Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre,^ ^ an appearance to the disciples — Thomas being absent — on Easter Sunday and in Jerusalem, ^^ and an appearance to the disciples again — Thomas being present' — a week later and most prob- ably in Jerusalem. ^^ Jno. xxi describes an appearance to "Gal. i. 15 f. and 17 {^al wdXiv im^ffTefa et's AafMv iva dir^\dwa-iv els ttj;' ToKiXalav, KaKeT /uc 6\poPTat. ^® xxviii. 16-20 : ol di ^vdeKa /xadtfTal iiropev0T)(rav els rrjv TaXikaiav, els rb 6pos ov ird^aro airrois 6 'Irjcrovs, Kal Iddvres avrbv TrpoffeKivrjffav, ot 5^ iSlffraffav. Kai irpocreXffwv 6 'Ii]v avrois, X^ovras &ri 6vT(i}S riyipdi] 6 Kvpios Kal &67j 'Zlp.wvi.. ^^ XX. 11-18: Mapla be eiffrriKei. npbs r(p p.vrifielcf) e^co KXaiov7] els ra orrlffw, Kal dewpei rbv 'Iriaovv iffrOra KrX. ^^ XX. 19-23 [24] : oljffTjS odv oyplas r^ rjpL^pq. iKeivrj rrj fuq. (ra^^drwp . . . ijX6ev 6 'Ifiaovs Kal etrrrj els rb (lAffov . . . Qw/xds 8i els iK rdv 5d)8eKa . . . ovk ^v fxer avrwv 6re fjXOev 'Ir^ffovs. *^ XX. 26-29 : Kal ii£B' T]p.ipas oKris irdXiv ^4 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES seven disciples by the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee.^* Acts states that the period during which Jesus appeared to his disciples extended over forty days,-'' and records words of Paul which point to Jerusalem as the scene of the appearances.^" The most natural interpretation of this evidence in its en- tirety favors the view that there were appearances first in or near Jerusalem, then in Galilee, and finally in or near Jerusa- lem, — neglecting for the purpose of this discussion the place of the appearance to Paul. Tradition later than the New Testament yields little or nothing of a trustworthy character. Of the endings which have been added to Mark, the longer-'^ is composite in form, dependent on Luke and John,^^ and mentions appearances in or near Jerusalem — to Mary Magdalene, to two walking in the country, and to the Eleven. This ending must have been added to the Gospel in the second century, — probably before the middle of the century and in Asia Minor. ^^ The short ending^^ is still later. It reports in a summary manner the delivery by the women of the message of the young man to " those about Peter ", and then records an appearance in ** xxi. I ff . : fiera ravra iipav^puxrev eavrov TrdXtj' 'IijtroOs rots ftadriTaTi iirl rip OaXdtrffifi TTJs Ti^epiddoi kt\. ** i. 3 : oh Kal ira.p4aTrj6ri ivi rj/jjpas irXelovs rois (Tvvava^S.oi.$ inrb rod 6eov, ijfuv, o'irives 6.'yonev koI ffvveirlofiev avT<^ pjera rb dvaffTTJvaL airrov iK vexpuv. *' xvi. 9—20 : dvacrds 8^ Trpwt tt/jwttj aaji^drov iavfpu)0rj iv eripif, iM)p(f>rj wopevopAvoii fU dypbv . . . ^arepov 8i dvaKeifjJvois airroTs toU ^vbeKa i(f)avep(tidr) kt\. ^xvi. 9 — Jno. XX. I, 14-17, Lk. viii. 2; xvi. 10 — Lk. xxiv. Ii; xvi. 12 — Lk. xxiv. 12-31; xvi. 14 — Lk. xxiv. 41 ff. ; xvi. 15 — Lk. xxiv. 47; Mt. xxviii. 19; cf. Zahn, Einleitung^, ii. 1907, pp. 234, 244 f . ; E. Klostermann, Markiis, HB. ii. pp. 147 f. ; Wohlenberg, Evang. d. Markus, ZK. ii. 1910, pp. 386 ff. " Cf. Zahn, Gesch. d, nt. Kanons, ii. pp. 910 ff. ; Einleitung, ii. pp. 232 ff. ; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, 1882, ii, Appen- dix, pp. 29 ff. ; Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1898, pp. xcvi. ff. '" Tldvra 8i rd vaprjyyeXniva rots Trepl rbv Uirpov avyrb/xwi i^-^yeiXav. Merd di ravra Kal airrbi 6 IrjcroOs dnb dvaroXTJs Kal S,XP^ St/ffewj i^ayriffTeiXtv 5t avrwv rb Upbv Kal li9apT0v Kripvyp-a riji atojviov aoniiplas. THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 315 which Jesus sends forth through them — i. e. those about Peter — " the holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal salva- tion ". No mention is made of the place or the time but it is natural to infer from the preceding context, which this end- ing was intended to supplement and complete, that the place was Jerusalem and the time Easter Sunday. A quotation from the Gospel according to the Hebrews^^ (2nd century) tell of an appearance to James, the brother of the Lord, and to others, — probably in Jerusalem^ — but its description of the attendant circumstances is plainly secondary. The Gospel of Peter^- (2nd century) is dependent on the canonical Gospels and distinctly secondary in its account of the resurrection. It does not record an appearance to the women or to the disciples, but seems on the point of narrating an incident not unlike the appearance to the seven by the Sea of Tiberias^^ when the frag- ment ends abruptly. Its most distinctive feature is the de- scription of the return of the disciples to Galilee at the end of the feast in sorrow, apparently without knowledge either of the experience of the v^^omen at the sepulchre as recorded in the canonical Gospels or of the resurrection. A Coptic document^* (4th or 5th century, but thought to embody a second century narrative^") contains in fragmentary form an account of an appearance to Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre and then to the disciples, — by plain implication, in Jerusalem. The Syriac Didascalia^^ (4th century) records an appearance to Mary Magdalene and Mary, the daughter of James, then an appearance in the house of Levi, and finally an appearance to us (i. e. the disciples), — certainly at first ^ Hieronymus, Liber de viris inlustribtis, in Gebhardt u. Harnack, TU. xiv. 1896, p. 8; cf. Appendix, p. 351, I. ^Cf. Appendix, p. 351, II. ^Jno. xxi. I ff. **C. Schmidt, SAB. 1895, pp. 705-711; Harnack, Theologische Studien B. Weiss dargebracht, 1897, pp. 1-8, cf. Appendix, p. 352, III. ^ Schmidt Ibid.; Harnack Ibid.; cf. Ehrhard, Die altchrist. Literatur uiid ihre Erforschung von 1884-1900, in Strassburger Theologische Stu- dien, 1900, p. 146. '"Achelis und Flemming, in Gebhardt u. Harnack, TU. NF. x. 1904, cap. xxi ; cf. Hennecke, Neutest. Apokryphen, 1904, pp. 292 ff. ; Preuschen, Antilegomena^, 1905, p. 81 ; and Appendix, pp. 352 f., IV. 3i6 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES near Jerusalem and subsequently in the place where this docu- ment located the house of Levi, probably in Jerusalem. Ter- tullian^'^ speaks of appearances in Galilee in Judea ; the Acts of Pilate^^ (4th century) of an appearance to Joseph of Arima- thea in Jerusalem and to the disciples on the Mount of Olives in Galilee. No theory of the place of the appearances can be based solely on the extra-canonical tradition. Appeal is generally made to this tradition in support of a particular interpretation of the primary evidence. Critical analysis of the primary evi- dence has yielded but three theories. The appearances — how- ever conceived^ — may be held to have occurred in Galilee, in or near Jerusalem, or in both places. The Galilean Theory The view that the first and only resurrection-appearances of Jesus took place in Galilee is not merely wide-spread but has attained the status of a " critical tradition ". It is closely as- sociated with the theory of a " flight of the disciples to Galilee " on the night of Jesus' arrest or not later than Easter morning and without knowledge of the empty tomb or news of the resurrection.^® The advocates of this view usually " Apol. xxi. ; cf. Appendix, p. 353, V. " Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha^, 1876, Acta Pilati; cf. Appendix, PP- 353 i; VI. Justin, Dial. li. 271 A, mentions the intention to appear again in Jerusalem (irdXtv TrapayevTiaecrOai iv 'lepovffaX-fin) as part of Jesus' pro- phecies of his passion; the scattering and flight of the disciples (Mk. xiv. 27; Mt. xxvi. 31; Mk. xiv. 50; Mt. xxvi. 56) is retained but without intimation of a "flight to Galilee " : Apol. i. 50, 86 A Mera o^v rd a-rav- pwBTjvai aiirbv Kai ol yvwpi/xoi airrov irdvres dir^ffTTjffav, dptnjffd/xevoi axrrbv tffrepov 54% iK veKpQv dvaffTdvTos Kal dipdivroi avroh ktK: Dial. 53, 273 C ix^ra. yap to ffrav- pu)0TJvai avrbv ol ffiiv avrf 6yres fiad-qral ainoxi BiecrKeddaOrjaav, p.4xP^^ 8tov dviaTt) iK veKpdv Kal iriireiKev airrov^ Uri ovtcjs Trpo€ire(f>:^€VTO irepl airrov iraOeiv avrbv kt\ : Dial. 106, 333 C pjirevbrt\ ff., 153 ff. ^ Die Entstehting des Glaubens an die Aiiferstehung Jesti, 1910; PrM. 191 1, pp. 61 ff. 326 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES cording to the Hebrews, and the Didascaha. Luke indeed locates this appearance near Jerusalem, but Cleopas is simply a transformation of Clopas^'' and his unnamed companion is no other than Peter*^" while Emmaus was a town in Galilee between Tiberias and Tarichaa.^" The Gospel according to the Hebrews has also transformed this appearance, substi- tuting, under the influence of its Jewish Christian tendency, James for Peter and Jerusalem for Galilee. The Didascalia witnesses to it by its account of an appearance in a house [of Levi] in Galilee. The second appearance was also in Galilee and to the Apostles. This is implied in Mark and witnessed to by Matthew, Luke, the Gospel according to the Hebrews in Ignatius,®^ the Didascalia, the Gospel of Peter, and Jno. xxi. Luke transferred this appearance also to Jeru- salem. The appearance to the Apostles in the Gospel accord- ing to the Hebrews is parallel with Lk. xxiv. ' 36ff but is drawn from Luke's source, in which the location was Galilee and the occasion at a meal. This is the situation implied also in the Didascalia where the appearance " to us " is followed by instructions regarding fasting. This is the appearance im- plied likewise in the Gospel of Peter, for the mention of others beside Peter shows that the appearance was not to Peter alone. Jno. xxi depends on the same source and describes this appearance with addition of distinctively Johannine ele- ments.^® The subjectivity of Volter's criticism by which Luke is transformed into a witness to the Galilean localization of the appearances reaches its climax when, in the attempt to fore- stall an impression of arbitrariness, it is said :^^ " H any one be disposed to call this criticism of the Lucan narrative of the Emmaus disciples arbitrary, we reply that it is abso- lutely necessary and that the Apostle Paul, — the author of i Cor. XV. 5^ — had he been able to read the narrative of Lk, would have subjected it to similar treatment. If arbitrariness is to be found at all, then it is certainly on the side of Luke." *' Identified with Peter in Die Entstehung usw. p. 39. "* PrM. 191 1, p. 64. "■' PrM. 191 1, p. 64. '^^ Ad. Smyrn. iii. i, 2; cf. Appendix, pp. 352 f., IV. ^* Die Entstehung usw. p. 52. ''" PrM. 191 1, p. 65. THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 327 Volter thought it strange that no account of the appearance to Peter should have been preserved in Gospel tradition, and upon investigation was persuaded that it lay hidden in the story of the walk to Emmaus. His hypothesis however was beset with local diffculties, for this appearance — on the Gali- lean theory — must have occurred in Galilee. It was not un- natural therefore that some incident with a distinctly Galilean setting should prove more enticing to independent and hardy discoverers. Mt. xxviii. 16 mentions a mountain as the scene of the Galilean appearance, and the Synoptic Gospels locate the transfiguration of Jesus on a mountain. Moreover the narratives of the transfiguration have been interpreted as merely symbolica^^ or as reflecting a faith already influenced by belief in the resurrection.'''- It was not surprising therefore, that Wellhausen'''^ should venture upon the supposition that the transfiguration story is actually a resurrection narrative and perhaps the oldest in the Gospels, — Peter being the first to recognize the transfigured Christ. But this view does not satisfy the statement of Paul,'^^ which implies an appearance to Peter alone ; and it leaves no place for the doubt of the disciples. ^^ The narrative clearly reflects some other incident in the experience of Peter. '^^ For these reasons Kreyenbiihr^ rejects Wellhausen's theory in part. "C. H. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, 1838, i, p. 541; ii. p. 400; Die Evangelienfrage, 1856, pp. 255 ff . ; Weizsacker, Apos. Zeitalter, p. 397; Loisy, Les £vangiles synoptiques, ii. 1909, p. 29. "Holtzmann, HC. i. Die Synoptiker^, 1901, p. 86; Bacon, AJTh. 1902, p. 259; Goodspeed, AJTh, 1905, p. 448; Case, AJTh. 1909, p. 184; cf. Loisy, Evang. syn. ii. p. 40; Bowen, Resurrection in NT. pp. 4i9f; H. Meltzer, PrM. 1902, pp. 154 ff. (locating the first appearance to Peter on Tabor, the traditional mount of the transfiguration, where Peter and John and Levi had stopped over night on their flight from Jerusalem to Galilee). ''^ Das Evangelium Marci, 1903, p. y7; cf. van den Bergh van Eysinga, Indische Einfliisse auf die evangelische Erz'dhlungen, 1904, pp. 62 f. ; Loisy, £vang. syn. ii. p. 39; identified by W. Erbt, Das Marcusevangelium usw. 1911, p. 35, with the ascension; cf. also the criticism of this view by Spitta, ZwTh. 191 1, p. 165. '* I Cor. XV. 5 ; cf . Lk. xxiv. 34. " Mt. xxviii. 17. '* Identified by Kreyenbiihl with Acts ii. i ff. '''' ZNW. 1908, pp. 257-296; van den Bergh van Eysinga, Indische Ein- 328 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES The transfiguration story was originally a resurrection nar- rative, but it does not recount the first appearance to Peter. The oldest narrative of this incident is rather to be found in the description of Jesus' walking on the water^^ and its variants.'^" The story in its original form is thought to have come from Peter and to have formed part of the primi- tive Gospel of the Jerusalem Church.®^ It describes in the language of fantasy the experience through which Peter passed from popular ghost-fear to belief in the resurrection, i. e. to the eschatologico-apocalyptic belief that Jesus was the exalted Messiah. This belief transformed both Peter and Jesus. Through Peter's influence others were led to a similar faith, first the Twelve, then more than five hundred. This is the meaning of the two narratives of Jesus' walking on the water and the transfiguration on the mount. Both are resurrection narratives and recount the genesis and growth of the resurrection-faith first in Peter and the other disciples in Galilee and then in the five hundred or more in Jerusalem, — the mount in the transfiguration narrative being merely the figurative mount of revelation. ^^ fli'isse, p. 47; O. Schmiedel, Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-For- schung^, 1906, pp. 81 f. ; cf. Bowen, Resurrection in NT. p. 417 n. i. " Mt. xiv. 22-23. " Mk. iv. 35-41 ; vi. 42-52 ; Mt. viii. 23-2y. ** The relation of the variants to the original is conceived as follows: Peter first told the story in Aramaic ; this was translated into Greek by- John Mark and formed the concluding part of the primitive Gospel of the Jerusalem Church before 70 AD; it was then transformed by a Gen- tile Christian of the West into a magical stilling of a sea storm ; the redactor of Mark's Gospel took the story of the storm from oral tradition (Mk. iv. 35-41) and himself produced another variant of the original (Mk. vi. 42-52) ; finally the redactor of Matthew both preserved the orig- inal, which he inserted in Mark's order (Mt. xiv. 22-23), and added in dependence on Mark his variant of the storm (viii. 23-27). " On the Galilean theory cf. C. H. Weisse, Evang. Gesch. ii. 349 ff.. 358 f., 386, 416; Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nasara, iii. 1872, pp. 533ff; W. Brandt, Evangelische Geschichte, 1893, pp. Z37 ff- ; Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, i. pp. 2 ff., 395 ; P. W. Schmidt, Die Geschichte Jesu, ii. 1904, pp. 401 fT. ; O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, 1901, pp. 390 flf. ; N. Schmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth, 1905, pp. 392 ff. ; A. Meyer, Auferstehung, usw. pp. 127 flf. ; Bousset, THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 329 The Jerusalem Theory In opposition to the theory which locates the first appear- ances in GaHlee, Loofs,®^ in dependence on the Luke-John tradition, seeks to estabhsh the theory of locahzation in and about Jerusalem. He argues that the theory which locates the appearances in Galilee, in the form which denies as in that which accepts the historicity of the empty grave on the third day, is untenable. For the flight of the disciples^^ was not a " flight to Galilee." On the contrary Mk. xvi. 7^"^ implies their presence in Jerusalem on Easter morning. This theory moreover finds no support in Justin. ^^ It rests chiefly on Mark. But Mark was not written by an eye-witness, and the lost ending is an unknown quantity. The Papian tradition regarding the Petrine source of Mark may have had no other basis than i Pet. v. 13, and there is no sufficient reason for sup- posing that the contents of the lost ending are preserved in Jno. xxi. I Cor. xv. 5 favors Jerusalem as the place of the ap- pearance to Peter. It is more probable therefore that the Mat- thew-Mark tradition is, like the Synoptic account of Jesus' public ministry, one-sidedly Galilean. And finally Mark is the only source of this tradition ; for there is no proof that Mat- thew had any other basis for the Galilean localization. The Gospel of Peter depends on xVIark. Lk. xxiv. 34 cannot be SNT. ii. p. 148; Loisy, Svaiig. syii. ii. pp. 74iff; Bacon, The Founding of the Church, 1909, pp. 25 ff.. The Beginnings of Gospel Story, 1909, pp. xvii f., xl, 190 ff. ; Edmunds, OC. 1910, pp. 130 ff. ; Bowen, Resurrection in NT. pp. 150 ff., 430, 432 f., 440 n. I ; Conybeare, Myth, Magic and Morals, 1909, pp. 291 f., 301 ff. ^ Die Auferstehungsberichte und ihr Wert, 1908; cf. the account of the origin of the GaHlean tradition by Holsten, Zuni Evangeliuin des Paulus und des Petriis, 1868, pp. 119, 156 ff. — under the influence of an anti-Paul- ine polemic; by Hilgenfeld, ZzvTh. 1868, pp. 73f, Nov. Test. ex. Can. iv. Evang. sec. Heb. 1866, pp. 29 ff. — under the influence of a redaction favor- able to the Gentile Christian Church ; by Korff, Auferstehung Christi usw. pp. 47 ff., 92, 104 f. — under the influence of a Marcan apologetic against the derivation of the appearances from the empty tomb. ^ Mk. xiv. so. •" Also Mt. xxviii. 10. ^ Dial. 53 p. 180 C; 106 p. 378 C; Apol. i. 50 p. 136 A; cf. above note 38. 330 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES separated from its context and assigned to another (Galilean) source ; and Jno. xxi, although it describes the first appearance, is proven to be inaccurate by i Corinthians and may well be de- pendent on the Synoptic tradition. On the other hand the tradition of Luke-John is commended as trustworthy by its agreement with Paul, although Luke adds the appearance to the disciples at Emmaus and John the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Luke moreover shows by his narrative of the last journey to Jerusalem that he had access to a special source, and John embodies Johannine tradition. Mt. xxviii. i6ff may correspond with i Cor. xv. 6, but Lk. xxiv. 49 ex- cludes the Galilean localization. The Galilean appearance in Jno. xxi is discredited on the same ground and also by internal inconsistency. The rehabilitation of Peter^^ manifestly be- longs to the first appearance. Its Galilean setting is due to its false connection with xxi. 1-14, — a connection which is shown to be unhistorical by Paul's silence and may have had its origin in Lk. v. 1-4. The two principal pillars upon which this theory rests — the reference of Lk. xxiv. 49 to the whole period between Easter and Pentecost, and the silence of Paul — are weak in themselves and quite insufficient to support the structure that is built upon them. The Marcan tradition, with its indication of Galilee, cannot be discredited by a vague suspicion regarding its ulti- mate Petrine source or by the argument from silence since the Gospel in its earliest transmitted form is incomplete. There is no evidence for rejecting the Galilean location of the appear- ance recorded in Mt. xxviii. 16 ff, for Paul is equally silent about Jerusalem. And if the Mark-Matthew tradition gives evidence of an appearance in Galilee no reason remains for the proposed transformation, analysis and derivation of Jno. xxi.®^ '•"xxi, 15-19 (23). "J. A. Cramer's advocacy of the Jerusalem tradition (ThT. 1910, pp. 189-222) is scarcely less negative in its treatment of the Galilean tradition. The two traditions are thought to be mutually exclusive. All the documen- tary evidence, it is held, witnesses to the presence of the disciples in Jeru- salem on the day of the resurrection, and the theory both of the flight to Galilee and of the first and special appearance to Peter in Galilee is THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 331 In the interest of the Jerusalem locahzation of the ap- pearances appeal has been made to a geographical tradition in which mention is made of a Galilee near Jerusalem. Accord- ing to this tradition the peak to the north of the Mount of Olives or the entire region including the Mount of Olives bore the name Galilee in the time of Jesus. The words of Jesus and of the angel ^^ have reference to this Galilee and were so understood by the disciples. The appearances therefore, with the exception of the one described in Jno, xxi, occurred in or near Jerusalem. Evidence for this view is sought in the Old Testament, especially in Joshua^^ and Ezekiel f^ but even if the word was used of different parts of Palestine in the sense of boundry and in particular of the boundary of the terri- tory of Benjamin near Jerusalem, this usage would require other evidence to prove its influence in the time of Jesus. For this, appeal is made to the Acts of Pilate^^ and to Tertullian.^^ According to the one the Mount of Olives was in Galilee ; ac- cording to the other Galilee was in Judea. If Tertullian knew the Acts of Pilate, they must belong in some form at least to the second century. His language^^ however finds a natural explanation in the usage of the time.^^ No other trace of this tradition appears until the Pilgrim literature of the middle opposed by intrinsic and traditional probability. The Jerusalem tradition is well accredited and explains the character of early Christian faith and the origin of the Church in Jerusalem. Two possibilities are proposed for the origin of the Galilean tradition : either (a) from appearances there such as the appearance to more than five hundred of which very little is known — Mt. xxviii. i6fif reflecting a vague Galilean tradition but freely supplying details of place and persons ; or (b) from an erroneous com- bination of the call (Mk. i. 16-20) and restoration (Jno. xxi. 11-19) of Peter with a wonderful catch of fish (Lk. v. i-ii; Jno. xxi. 2-11). If the second of these possibilities be true, the whole Galilean tradition must, as Cramer says (p. 218), be consigned to the realm of legend. This argu- ment, however, in its negative aspect, like the argument of Loofs, suffers from its insistence on the exclusive character of the Jerusalem tradition. '^ Mt. xxvi. 37; Mk. xiv. 28; Mt. xxviii. 7, 10; Mk. xvi. 7. *'xviii. 11-20, XV. 1-15. ^xlvii. 8. " Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha; cf. Appendix, pp. 353 f., VI. °" Apol. xxi. ; cf. Appendix, p. 353, V. "^ Apud Galilaeam ludseae regionem. " Schiirer, ThLs. 1897, PP- 187 f. 332 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES ages. Use of it to interpret the tradition of the Gospels in regard to the place of the appearances had a beginning in the eighteenth century. In 1832 Thilo*^^ reviewed the evidence and literature. Impressed by Thilo's note, R. Hofmann'**' in- creased the references to the mediaeval Pilgrim literature and A. Resch"^ has sought to bridge the chasm between the Acts of Pilate and the New Testament times by investigating the Old Testament usage. The theory has found advocates in Lepsius,"^ Thomsen,^^ and Kresser;^^" but there has been no increase in the evidence, — which is ultimately reducible to the Acts of Pilate. Until these are shown to contain a trustworthy tradition of the geography of Palestine in the time of Jesus the theory must inevitably yield before the plain implications of a uniform New Testament usage.^"^ The Double Tradition The Gospels witness plainly to appearances of Jesus in or near Jerusalem and in Galilee. This is true both of the Synop- tic and of the Johannine tradition. Even among the separate Gospels, Luke alone records appearances only in one general locality. It is therefore highly probable that the appearances were not restricted to a single place and that consequently the two traditions should not be set over the one against the °° Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, i. 1832, pp. 617 ff. '^ Das Leben Jesii nach den Apokryphen, 1851, pp. 393 ff. ; Ueber deii Berg Galilda, 1856 ; Auf dem Oelberg. 1896. *' Gebhardt und Harnack, TU. 1894, x. 2, pp. 381 ff. ; Das Galilda bet Jeru- salem, 1910; Der Auferstatidene in Galilda bei Jerusalem, 191 1. "^ Reden und Abhandlungen, iv. Die Auferstehungsberichte, 1902. '" BG. 1906, pp. 352 ff. ^'^TIiQ. 1911, pp. 505 ff. ; cf. Zimermann, ThStKr: 1901, p. 447. "^ Cf . Romberg, NkZ. 1901, pp. 289 ff. ; Zahn, Gesch. d. nt. Kanons, ii. PP- 937 f-; NkZ. 1903, pp. 770 ff. ; Edgar, Exp. 1897, ii. pp. 119 ff. ; Cony- beare, StBE. iv. 1896, pp. 59 ff. ; Voigt, Die aeltesten Berichte Uber die Auferstehung Jesu Chrisfi, 1906, p. 81; A. Meyer, Auferstehung usw. pp. 95 ff. ; Harnack, Chronologie, i. pp. 603 ff. ; Schubert, Pseudopetrin. Evang. pp. 176 ff., 185; Stijlcken, in Hennecke, Handbuch z. d. nt. Apokryphen, 1904, pp. 143 ff. ; Riggenbach, ThLBl. 1910, pp. 537 f. ; Bowen, Resur- rection in NT. pp. 350 ff., 440 n. i ; Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 191 1, pp. 254 f . ; cf. below note 134. THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 333 Other as mutually exclusive. It has indeed been affirmed that the opposition of the Galilean and the Jerusalem tradition con- stitutes the primary condition of an intelligent criticism of the narratives of the resurrection/*^- and undoubtedly this opinion seems to have become so axiomatic an historical premise that its acceptance is no longer felt to constitute a peculiar virtue. Certain even of those who admit a fac- tual basis underlying the two-fold tradition of the Gospels do not hesitate to speak disparagingly of the *' usual harmonistic method of addition ".^^^ The denial of the critical basis of the Galilean theory is of course destructive of that theory, and the method of addition — however good in itself — can serve no useful purpose for those who are persuaded that the problem demands a different process for its solution. Just as the tradition of the empty sepulchre is retained by certain representatives of the Galilean theory to explain the form of the disciples' faith/*'^ so appearances in Jerusalem are admitted to explain the origin of the Lk.-Jno. tradition by a writer who still adheres to the priority of the Galilean ap- pearances. Von Dobschiitz^*^^ holds that the first appearance was made to Peter in Galilee. The disciples had returned in deep despondency and were about to take up again their old trade. They had dreamed a dream,' — a beautiful dream with its vision of thrones and judgment; but it was only a dream, and back they must go to their fish-nets, when suddenly — at the psychological moment — the Lord intervenes (Jno. xxi) and, by quickening again their faith in his Messiahship, makes them fishers of men. Their mission leads them to Jerusalem where they are met by some who had seen Jesus. ^*^^ Subse- quently Jesus appears to the five hundred at Pentecost. ^'^' "^'Bousset, ThL:;. 1897, P- 73- "^ von Dobschiitz, Probleme des apostoUschen Zeitalters, 1904, p. 10. ^Volter, Die Entstehung usw. ; cf. Loofs, Auferstehiingsherichte usw. pp. 18. ^"^ Probleme usw.; cf. Clemen, Paultis usw. i. 1904, pp. 204 ff. ; Lake, Hist. Evidence, etc., p. 212. ^""Lk. xxiv. 13 f . ; cf. also Reville, Jesus de Nazareth, ii. 1906, pp. 426 ff. ; Stapfer, La mart et la resurrection de Jesus Christ, 1898, pp. 231 ff. "'Jno. XX. 21-23; Acts ii. i ff. ; cf. Ostern und Pfingsten, 1903; Weisse, Evang. Gesch. ii. p. 417; Steck, Der Galaterhrief , 1888, p. 186; Pfleiderer, 334 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES A less dramatic but more penetrating discussion of the double tradition is given by T. S. Rordam.^^^ Two principal difficulties confront the theory of a twofold location, — the apparent exclusion of appearances in Galilee by Luke, and the apparent exclusion of an appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem by Matthew-Mark. Rordam seeks to meet these difficulties by literary analysis. Luke is thought to have fol- lowed a source of Jerusalem origin in which two Jerusalem appearances — one on Easter Sunday and one at the time of the ascension some forty days later — had been combined. The combination was not made by Luke but had already taken place in the oral tradition, so that verse 47 appears as the natural continuation of verse 46 ; whereas the proper place for the Galilean appearance implied in Mark is immediately after verse 46. As the result of this the command to tarry in Jeru- salem^"^ seemed to exclude the Galilean appearances, and the reference to Galilee^^^ assumed its vaguer form. The occasion of the Jerusalem appearances was the unbelief of the disciples. But are such appearances really excluded by the contents of the lost ending of Mark? If Matthew and Luke used Mark, and Luke follows another source in chapter xxiv, the contents of the Marcan ending must be sought in Matthew.^ ^^ Urchristentum, i. pp. 10 f . ; Harnack, Chronologie, i. pp. 707 f . ; Bowen, however {Resurrection in NT. pp. 430 n. i, 433) more logically — but with- out evidence — locates the origin of the Church in Galilee. "*///. 1905, pp. 769-790; of. also Peine, Eine vorkanon. Vberlieferung d. Lukas, 1891, pp. y2 fF., 160 ff. ; Zimmermiann, ThStKr. 1901, pp. 438 ff. ; Allen, St. Matthew, ICC. 1907, pp. 302 ff. ; B. Weiss, Die Quellen d. Lukas- evangeliums, 1907, pp. 230 fiF. ""xxiv. 49. ""xxiv. 6; cf. Mk. xvi. 7- "^ Cf. Weisse, Evang. Gesch. ii. p. 359 f. ; Volkmar, Die Evangelien usw. 1870, pp. 241, 608 ff. ; Wright, Some New Testament Problems, 1898, pp. 122 f. ; Goodspeed ^/T/i. 1905, pp. 484 ff. says (p. 488) : "The narrative of Mark, when it breaks off with 16:8, evidently demands just two things for its completion ; the reassurance of the women, and the reappearance of Jesus in Galilee. These two things Matthew records, and the conclusion seems inevitable that he derived them from his chief narrative source, the gos- pel of Mark." Cf. also Plummer, Commentary on St. Matthezv. 1910, pp. 412 f. ; 421 f. ; and on the other hand Bowen, Resurrection in NT. pp. 164 ff., 166 n. 2 and, for reconstruction of the contents of the lost ending, pp. 161 f. THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 335 Mark cannot have intended his Gospel to end with the words e^o/SowTo 7ajO, and neither can he have intended to say that the women never told of their experience. But as it is un- likely that the women were afraid of the angel, we may com- plete the unfinished sentence : " for they were afraid that it might not be true ". Consequently an appearance of Jesus to confirm the message of the angel is not only probable in it- self but is recorded by Mt. xxviii. 9-12. ^^^ Mk. xvi. 7 im- plies an appearance to Peter and in Galilee. But as the dis- ciples, according to Mark, were still in Jerusalem, their unbelief may have caused an appearance there. Matthew indeed repre- sents the appearance to the Eleven in Galilee as the fulfilment of the promise in xxviii. 7 (Mk. xvi. 7) ; but the definite moun- tain in xxviii. 16 implies an appearance to the Eleven in Jeru- salem, and the doubt of some in xxviii. 17 suits this better than a later occasion. This allusion to an appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem Matthew derived from Mark,^^^ the ^ Spitta, Ztir Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristentunis, iii. 2, 1907, pp. 112 ff., argues that inasmuch as Mk. xiv. 28, xvi. 7 imply an appear- ance in Galilee, the author must have intended to conclude his Gospel with a narrative similar to Mt. xxviii. 16-20. But Mk. xvi. 7 contains also a message to be delivered by the women to the disciples. Luke and John report its delivery but Mark closes with the statement of a hindrance, which can, however, have been only the introduction to an account of its removal, and most naturally by an appearance of Jesus. General recog- ition of this has been hindered by the hypothesis that the oldest tradi- tion — represented in Mark — reported appearances only in Galilee. As the Marcan text demands even more plainly than Matthew an appearance to the women in Jerusalem, Matthew must have known the original ending of Mark and furnishes — rather than Jno. xxi — information concerning its contents. Cf. also Streitfragen der Geschichte Jesu, 1907, pp. 78 f. where the literary parallels are given, especially the Marcan e(pvyov, rpd/juos, Kal eKo-Taa-is with Mt. aweXdoiJcrai raxv, fxera (pb^ov Kal x^pcis fj.eyd\r]s ; the Marcan i(popouvTO ydp with Mt. fJ-yiearance to Peter corresponds also with the special ref- erence to him in the message of the angel and with the place assigned to it by Paul. The parallel with Luke is close ; and it is not improbable that the appearance to James in the Gospel according to the Hebrews is simply a transformation of the appearance to Peter. The reference to Galilee in Mark and Matthew is to be explained by the prominence assigned to Galilee in their account of the ministry of Jesus, ^-■* by the prophecy in Mk. xiv. 28, and by the significance of the Galilean appearances for the vocation^ ^^ of the Apostles. In Luke the intervening step between the first and the last appearances in Jerusalem — the appearances in Galilee — fell away because the later activity of the Apostles, in which Luke was particu- larly interested, was connected with Jerusalem. Even a minimum of inference from Mk. xvi. 7-8 regarding the contents of the original ending of the Gospel is rejected by those who maintain that the Gospel ended originally — whether in intention or in fact — with xvi. 8.^-*^ The statement of ^ Spitta, Streitfragen, p. 81, formulates the problem concerning the place of the appearances as follows : The question is not, Did the earliest tra- dition know of appearances in Judea? — all the sources agree in this — but, Did Galilee originally come into consideration in this part of the history of Jesus? He concludes from his investigation of the geographical dispo- sition of the life of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels that the underlying document (Grundschrift) did not contain the Galilean appearances, — which were first added in their recension of this document by Mark-Matthew. ^ Berufsbewusstsein. "* B. Weiss, Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas," 1901, MK. i. 2, p. 245. Zahn, Gesch. d. mutest. Kanons, ii. p. 930; Einleitung, ii., pp. 238 ff. ; Riggenbach, Aus Schrift und Geschichte, p. 126; so also Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Marci, 1903, p. 146 — though from a different point of view and for a different reason; cf. H. J. Holtzmann, HC. i.^ 1901, p. 183; O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, 1901, p. 390; R. A. Hoffmann, Das Marciisevan- gelium, 1904, p. 641 ; Wendling, Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliunis, 1908, p. 201 — the earliest form of the narrative ends with i^iirvevcrfv Mk. xv. Z7 ; cf. the text in his Ur-Marcus. 1905, p. 59; Zimlmermann, ThStKr. 1901, p. 148, ends his AQ source with Mk. xvi. 8 and thinks that the refer- ence to the silence of the women not only indicates the absence of their story from earlier tradition but explains its first appearance in this source (cf. Bowen, Resurrection in NT. pp. 157 f., 180 ff.). J. Weiss, Das iil teste Evan- gelium, 1903, pp. 340 ff., explains the silence of the women about the empty tomb from the apologetic reference of the story to the Jews (p. 340) and THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 339 Riggenbach^-^ that there is no tradition which relates exclu- sively Galilean appearances seems to be true of the later as of the earlier tradition. ^-^ The Galilean theory rests entirely, in the last analysis, on an inference, for the sake of which prac- tically all the documentai*y evidence is traversed. There is indeed some difference of opinion among the advo- cates of the double tradition about the duration of the first ap- pearances in Jerusalem. Zahn^-^ locates the appearance de- scribed in Jno. XX. 26-29 in Galilee because it is not explicitly said to have occurred in Jerusalem, and the stay of the dis- ciples in Jerusalem for a week after Easter Sunday is thought improbable. ^^"^ Appeal is made also to the patristic association of the doubt of Thomas with Mt. xxviii. 16 f.^^^ The impli- cations of the context, however, strongly favor Jerusalem as the scene of Jno. xx. 26-29. Moreover the time of the departure to Galilee is not fixed by the Synoptic tradition. It may not be possible fully to explain this stay in Jerusalem. There was need to gather the scattered disciples, inform them of the command to go to Galilee and of the appointed meet- ing-place. Their hopes for the restoration of the kingdom holds that the Gospel may have ended with xvi. 8 (p. 345) ; SNT. i. p. 227. This theory of an anti-Jewish apologetic motive dominating the Gospel of Mark, applied by Wrede (Das Messiasgeheiinnis, 1901) to a particular feature of the Marcan narrative, is generalized by Baldensper- ger in relation to the resurrection-narratives in Urchristliche Apologie, die dlteste Auferstehungskontroverse, 1909. Cf. also Louis Coulange, RHLR. 1911, pp. 145 ff., 297 ff. ; Bowen Resurrection in NT. p. 159 n. 4. ^ Aus Schrift usw. p. 142. '^ The Gospel of Peter may constitute an exception, if not in fact, at least in the natural inference from its fragmentary conclusion ; yet even this Gospel makes of Jesus' enemies witnesses of his resurrection in Jeru- salem (cf. Schubert Pseudopetrin. Evang. p. 96 ; W. Bauer, L^fc^M /^jm usw. pp. 256 f). ^^ Evang. des J oh. ZK. iv. 1908, p. 672. ^^ Cf. Mt. xxvi. 32, xxviii. 7, 16; Mk. xiv. 28, xvi. 7. ^^^ NkZ. 1903, p. 806 n. I, citing a scholion attributed to Origen in Cramer, Cat. in Ev. Matt, et Marci, p. 243, and Jerome. The addition however of etre ^[Xiirwos (cf. also Petrus von Laodicea, ed. Heinrici, 1908, PP- 343 O and the differentiation of the two incidents in Chrysostom weaken the force of this appeal. 340 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES to Israel*^- would readily center in Jerusalem, and the com- mand to go to Galilee — repeated as it was — may suggest that this was not the natural thing for them to do. Doubt had to be overcome, — in particular the doubt of Thomas. The Jerusalem appearances moreover may well have been intended to serve particularly in confirming the disciples' faith in the resurrection, the Galilean to give fuller instruction regarding their subsequent mission. The doubt of some in Mt. xxviii. 17 scarcely suggests the scene of Jno. xx. 26ff. It may have had its occasion in the form of the appearance, or it may indicate the presence of others beside the Eleven. ^^^ Voigt transfers the ascension from the Mount of Olives to the mount in Galilee, north-west of Capernaum,. — the scene of the beatitudes and of the calling of the Twelve. ^^'^ Luke is supposed to have identified the mountain of his Jerusalem source with the Mount of Olives and to have interpreted the separation there of Jesus from his disciples as final, in con- sequence of which the command to remain in the city was in- troduced. ^^^ The appearance to Peter, implied in Mark and "*Acts i. 6; cf. Lk. xxiv. 21. ^Cf. Riggenbach, Aus Schrift usw. p. 150; Voigt, Die aeltesten Berichte uber die Auferstehung Jesu ChrisH, 1906, pp. 63 f. ; on the sum- mary character of the description cf. C. H. Weisse, Evang. Gescli. ii. pp. 415 ff. ; Steinmeyer, Apologetische Beitr'dge, iii. 1871, p. 153, and J. Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 1908, pp. 155 fT. ; Korff, Auferstehung usw. pp. 29 fif. ; Plummer, St. Matthew, p. 426. ^^ Berichte usw. pp. 79 ff — although rejecting the reference of ov ird^aro aiiToh 6'l7)(Tovs (Mt. xxviii. 16) to the mount of the beatitudes; cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien usw. 1870, p. 609; Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, i860 (1887), p. 330; B. Weiss, Das Matthdus-Evangelium^ 1898, MK. i. I. p. 506; Bowen, Resurrection in NT. pp. 275 f. The iden- tification with Thabor is combined with rejection of " Galilee on the Mount of Olives " by Ludolphus de Saxonia, Vita Christi, ed. Rigollot, iv. 1878, p. 237, par. ii. cap. Ixxx, i : " Et sciendum, quod prope montem Oliveti ex parte boreali ad unum milliare est mons, qui appellatur Gali- Isea: et dicunt quidam quod ille est mons praedictus ad quem discipuli undecim abierunt, non quia mons sit in Galilaea, cum sit in Judaea, sed quia mons iste appellatur Galilaea ; alii, quod magis videtur, dicunt hoc fuisse in monte Thabor, in quo Dominus transfiguratus fuit, qui vere in Galilaea consistit." ^""Ibid. pp. 102 ff. THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 341 described in the appendix added to the Fourth Gospel by a disciple of John, occurred on the western slope of the Mount of Olives. ^^*^ Emmaus is identified with Ensemes between Bethany and Jericho. Eight days after the appearances on Easter Sunday — to Mary Magdalene, to the women, to Peter, to Cleopas and his companion, and to the disciples in Jerusalem, Thomas being absent — Jesus appeared again to the disciples now about to depart to Galilee, Thomas being present ; he then led them out to the Mount of Olives where he was separated from them, going before them, though now unseen, in the way to Galilee. On this journey he appeared to the five hun- dred ; then in Galilee to the seven by the Sea, and finally on the mount where he gave commission to the disciples and was re- ceived up into heaven. ^^''' The plain statements of the Third Gospel and of Acts op- pose this construction, and the transposition of the restoration, of Peter from the place assigned to it in Jno. xxi depends wholly on an individual sense of fitness. The view of Rig- genbach^^^ is simpler and in closer accord with the evidence. The Jerusalem appearances, including an appearance to Peter and the appearance to the disciples after eight days, — Thomas being present — were followed by Galilean appearances, the ap- pearance to the seven by the Sea including the restoration of Peter, and the appearance on the mountain — identified prob- ably with the appearance to the five hundred — and finally in Jerusalem again, the appearance to James, and the farewell appearance terminated by the ascension from the Mount of Olives toward Bethany. ^^^ ^ Ibid. pp. 74 ff. "' Cf. ibid. pp. Ill ff. ^^' Aus Schrift und Geschichte, pp. 151 ff. "'On the double tradition cf. Romberg, NkZ. 1901, pp. 315 ff. ; B. Weiss, Lehen Jesu* ii. 1902, pp. 507 ff. ; Beyschlag, ThStKr. 1899, pp. 507 ff. ; Leben Jesu* i. 1902, pp. 433 ff. ; Horn, NkZ. 1902, pp. 349 ff. ; Abfassungzeit, Geschichtlichkeit und Zweck von Evang. J oh. Kap. 21, 1904, pp. 94 ff. ; Rei- ser, Geschichte d. Leidens u. Sterbens, d. Auferstehung u. Himmelfahrt d. Herrn, 1903, pp. 454 ff. ; Wabnitz, Hist, de la Vie de Jesus, 1904, pp. 408 ff. ; Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, 1905, pp. 170 ff. ; D. Smith, The Days of His Flesh, 1905, pp. 508 ff. ; an article in ChQuRev. Oct. 1905- Jan. 1906, pp. 323-355, especially pp. 347 ff. ; Swete, The Appearances of our Lord, etc., 1907; Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1908, ii. pp. 342 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES It may be difficult to solve in detail all the problems which arise on this general view of the relation of the narratives; but this should not affect our confidence in its validity. There will of necessity enter into every reconstruction of the course of events a subjective element which will preclude the attain- ment of more than a certain degree of probability. Paul's account is favorable to the tradition which locates the first ap- pearances — including the appearance to Peter — in Jerusalem and on Easter Sunday; but the identification of the appear- ances which he mentions with particular appearances described in the Gospels is less certain. Judging from the order in which the appearance to James occurs in his list/^*^ the place assigned to it in the Gospel according to the Hebrews cannot be his- torical.^"*^ The fact however underlies and explains the po- sition of James and the other brethren of the Lord in the early Church. ^^^ It is perhaps more natural therefore, as the Jeru- salem setting seems to be excluded, to locate this appearance in Galilee. As Paul is silent about the appearances to the women, knowledge of them must be derived from the Gospels. The presence of women at the sepulchre on Easter morning is witnessed by all the Gospels, ^^^ and appearances of Jesus to them by two,' — an appearance to Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre by John,^"*^ and an appearance to certain women on their way from the sepulchre by Matthew. ^^^ As John's nar- rative is the more graphic and the Fourth Gospel elsewhere presupposes knowledge of the Synoptic tradition, the appear- ance to Mary Magdalene is probably to be separated from the appearance to the women, Mary having left the others when she went to bring Peter and John word of the empty tomb. 333 f ; J- Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, 1909, pp. 149 ff; E. Mangenot, La Resurrection de Jesus, 1910, pp. 240 ff. ; W. J. Sparrow Simpson, DCG. ii. p. 508; The Resurrection and Modern Thought, 1911, pp. 70 ff. ^^^ K7;0^, Totj SwSeKtt, iir&vu vevraKoaioL^ d.5e\((>oh, laKd)p(fi. "* Cf. Appendix, p. 351, I. '"Gal. i. 19, ii. 9, 12; i Cor. ix. 5; Acts i. 14, xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18; cf. Jno. vii. 3, 5. "*Mt. xxviii. I ff; Mk. xvi. i ff; Lk. xxiii. 55 f, xxiv. i ff, 10 f, 22; Jno. XX. I ff. ***Jno. XX. I ff. ^"Mt. xxviii. 9-10. THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 343 Upon her return and after the departure of Peter and John, Jesus appeared to her. The appearance to the other women^*® followed as they went to tell to the disciples the message of the angel. The silence of the women as they left the sepul- chre^^" cannot have continued indefinitely; for Mark shows knowledge of their experience and Matthew and Luke alike imply the breaking of what must have been a temporary state induced by fear.^"*^ The mingling of fear and joy^'*^ in their experience is not incongruous, nor does the appearance of Jesus to the women render an appearance to Peter superfluous. This may well have served the purpose of reestablishing Peter's faith and of fitting him to become a center of influence in gathering the scattered disciples and, eventually, their leader on the journey back to Galilee : for the Gospels imply the presence of the disciples in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday^^** and their scattering at Gethsemane^^^ cannot have been a " flight to Galilee ". There is no intimation in Luke that Cleopas and his com- panion were on their way to Galilee; and the isolated allu- sion to Emmaus is plainly indicative of authentic reminis- cence. ^^^ *"Mk. xvi. I Mary Magdalene, Mary [the mother] of James, and Salome ; Lk. xxiv. 10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary [the mother] of James, and the others with them. '" Mk. xvi. 8. "* Mt. xxviii. 8 ff ; Lk. xxiv. 9, 22 f. "' Mt. xxviii. 8 ; cf. the description of the mental state of the disciples in Lk. xxiv. 27 ^nd 41 ■ TTOTj^^rres 5^ Kal eficpo^oi yevd/xevoi . . . en 5^ dTTurTovyruv avTwv dirb ttjs xa/'Ss Kal davyxi'^bvTuiv ktK. ^"*' After the scattering at Gethsemane the presence of the disciples in or near Jerusalem is implied in Mt. xxviii. 7 f ., 10 f . ; Mk. xvi. 7 ; Lk. xxiii. 49 (01 yvwarol ovrv); xxiv. 9 f., 24, 22> ff- '■> Jno. XX. 18, 19 ff. ; the presence of Peter in Mt. xxvi. 57 ff. ; Mk. xiv. 53 ff. ; Lk. xxii. 54 ff. ; xxiv. [12], 34; Jno. xviii. 15 ff., 25 ff., xx. 3 ff. ; of John in Jno. xviii. 15 f., xix. 26 f, XX. 3 ff. "'The scattering of the disciples is witnessed by Mt. xxvi. 56; Mk. xiv. 50, and was predicted in Mt. xxvi. 31; Mk. xiv. 27; Jno. xvi. 32; cf. Justin, Apol. i. 50; Dial. 53; 106; see above note 38. '" On the location cf . Schiirer, Gesch. d. jild. Volkes usw. i. pp. 640 ff. ; on the similarity of the narrative with Acts viii. 26-40 and possible deriva- tion from the family of Philip cf. M. Dibelius, ZNW. 191 1, p. 329. 344 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES An appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem^'' ^ seems to be implied in Matthew. ^^^ Luke describes an appearance to the disciples and others as occurring late on the evening of Easter Sunday, after the return of Cleopas and his companion. This is probably identical with the appearance to the Twelve, which follows the appearance to Peter in Paul's list, and with the ap- pearance to the disciples when Thomas was absent, which is recorded by John.^^^ The hesitation or doubt of some when they heard the story of the women^^*^ and witnessed or learned of an appearance^^'^ shows a desire for tangible, sensible evidence which was not unnatural under the circumstances and is not an indication of a late stage in the development of Gospel tradition. Its exag- geration in later narratives^^^ may have had an apologetic or an antidocetic motive, but there is no reason to question its ex- istence. Its duration in individuals can be fixed if definitely indicated,^^® but its presence is not in itself proof of an initial experience. Those who doubted on the mountain in Galilee may have been among the disciples to whom Jesus had already appeared; but it is quite possible that Matthew in following a source^^^ has mentioned the Eleven specifically as present for the purpose of reporting the carrying out of Jesus' direction and the fulfilment of his promise, without noting the presence of others. Certainly the whole incident cannot be assigned to an earlier period on the ground of Matthew's unwillingness to record the doubts of the disciples. ^^^ '»* Lk. xxiv. 36 ff. "* Mt. xxviii. 16 (oD ird^aro aiiroti) . "' I Cor. XV. 5 ; Jno. xx. 19 ff. ***Lk. xxiv. II. ""Mt. xxviii. 17; Lk. xxiv. 37; Jno. xx. 24 ff. "' [Mk.] xvi. II, 14 ff, the addition in the Freer Ms. — cf. Gregory, Das Freer Logion, 1908 — and the Coptic Document; cf. Appendix, p. 352, III. ""Jno. XX. 26 ff. "* In xxviii. 17 oi 5i is introduced abruptly and the o5 ird^aro airroh is not adequately grounded in the preceding context. Likewise in verse 9 the antecedent of aiJrots is Mapia/*^ Ma75oXT;i'rj»coi^ AXXtj Map/a( verse i), although it seems probable that Mary Magdalene was not actually present on this occasion. "^ Cf. above p. 336. THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 345 Jesus' promise before his death, repeated in the message of the angel and of Jesus to the women, that he would " go be- fore his disciples into Galilee " seems to imply personal leader- ship rather than temporal precedence or prior arrival. ^^^ The changed form of the message in Luke,^®^ even if it be based on Mark, is intended to introduce another feature, to doubt the authenticity of which there is no other ground than the suspicion that Luke begins at this point an unhistorical elimi- nation of the Galilean appearances. But this elimination is unhistorical in Luke, as the elimination of the Jerusalem ap- pearance to the disciples is unhistorical in Matthew, only when the narratives are held to be exclusive of facts which they do not record. Luke's narrative is plainly determined by interest in the Jerusalem appearances. It is greatly condensed. Whether or not it be possible to show that Luke's source con- tained an account of Galilean appearances, some break in the temporal order^^* is demanded in the interest of a rational in- terpretation of the closing scene. Luke cannot have meant^^^ or intended his readers to think of Jesus' final separation from the disciples as occurring late at night. And if such a break be admitted, the words of Jesus bidding the disciples " tarry "* Mt. xxvi. 32 ; Mk. xiv. 28 : irpod^oj vnds els Tr]v TaXiXaiav; cf. Mt. xxviii. 7; Mk. xvi. 7 (irpodyei). This interpretation is commended both by the context of the original promise and by the usage in Mk. x. 32 : ^cav de iv t^ oSf? dvapalvovres els 'lepoffdXv/xa, Kal Tiv irpodywv airroiis 6 'Itjctouj ktX _ Cf. also Mt. ii. 9, xxi. 9; Mk. xi. 9; Lk. xviii. 39; Acts xii. 6, xvi. 30; but on the other hand, Mt. xiv. 22; Mk. vi. 45; Mt. xxi. 31. "^ xxiv. 6 : fiv-qffdrjre wj iXdXricrev v/uv en wv iv ry ToKiXalq. Xdywv rbv vl6v toO dvOpQwov 6ti Set Trapadodijvai ktX. *" Either after verse 43, 45, or 48 ; cf. Plummer, St. Luke, ICC. pp. 561, 564. "' This follows not only from a careful examination of Lk. xxiv but from the definite statement in Acts i. 3 that the appearances continued during forty days. To those who admit the Lukan authorship of the Third Gospel and Acts this should be conclusive, even if the consequences do not contribute to the stability of the Galilean theory of the appearances. Harnack however having characteristized the " forty days " as a myth (Apostelgeschichte, 1908, p. 129) is disposed to admit its early origin [uralt] only as a messianic-apocalyptic theologoumenon (Neue Unter- suchungen sur Apostelgeschichte, 191 1, pp. 113 f). For a different view of the " forty days " — by which the appearance to Peter is dated — cf. B. W. Bacon, AJTh. 191 1, p. 402. 346 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES in the city " ^""^ will not exclude the appearances in Galilee which are implied in Mark and recorded in Matthew and John. Following the appearance on the eighth day after Easter/^'^ the disciples went to Galilee. The appearance to the seven by the Sea probably preceded the appearance on the mountain. ^^^ The fishing scene may imply in the Gospel of Peter the taking up again of an old occupation in the desix)ndency and despair which followed the dissipation of cherished hopes ;^"'^ but such an interpretation of it is excluded in John. The disciples are in Galilee at Jesus' command — as John and his readers would know from Matthew^'*' — and they could not have been in de- spair of Jesus' cause in the thought either of the author or of the reader of Jno. xx. The commission of Peter which is con- nected with this incident, like the commission of the disci- ples,^"^ is not necessarily connected either logically or tem- porally with the first experience of an appearance of Jesus. The author of Jno. xxi not only felt no incongruity in the order but specifically calls this the third time that Jesus ap- peared to his disciples. To insist that it must have been the first because the author calls it the third is arbitrary ;^'^- and there is no adequate literary justification for the separation of the two incidents of this scene. The identification of the appearance to the five hundred with the appearance to the Eleven on the mountain in Galilee and of that to all the disciples — in Paul's list — with the final appearance in Jerusalem at the time of the ascension from the Mount of Olives toward Bethany is both natural and highly probable. Of the three views concerning the place of the appearances the Jerusalem theory has least to commend it and the evidence ^"xxiv. 49; cf. Acts i. 4. *" Jno. XX. 26 ff. Cf. Jno. xxi. 14: rovTO i^drj Tplrov icpavepdidr) 'iriffoui toTs fiadriTah iyepdels iK v€Kp(ov. ""• Cf. above p. ^2,2,- "* On the relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptic Gospels cf. Zahn, Einleitung. ii. pp. 507 ff.. "*Mt. xxviii. 18 ff. "'Cf. Lyder Brun, ThStKr. 1911, p. 167. THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 347 against it is clear and convincing. For this and other reasons the GaHlean theory is generally considered the critical alter- native to the double tradition. It is however closely associated with the " flight to Galilee " theory ; and this is contrary to the historical evidence. Even the Gospel of Peter represents the disciples as present in Jerusalem until the end of the feast, and certainly therefore until the third day, if not longer. This being true, it is impossible to hold against all the evidence ex- cept the Gospel of Peter that the journey to Galilee was made in ignorance of the empty tomb and the message of the angel. The transfer to Galilee of the appearance to Peter — recorded by Luke in a Jerusalem setting — is arbitrary and made in the interest of the general theory. This theory moreover is not adequately supported by inference from Mark, by the hypothet- ical contents of the lost ending of Mark, by the Gospel of Peter, and by a critical transformation of Jno. xxi. Its treat- ment of the Gospels as literary embodiments of a twofold, but mutually exclusive tradition, is supported indeed by the affirmation of axiomatic validity for its own historical premise, but this only discloses the intrusion of an unsound skepticism between the interpreter and his sources, ^'''^ the deepest roots of which are not historical but philosophical. The close associa- tion of this theory with the interpretation of the appearances as visionary experiences — whether objectively or subjectively occasioned — is of course not accidental. ^'^* Its bearing on the resurrection itself and the transformation of Christianity, which the elimination of this element from its historic faith involves, are not concealed. The theory that maintains the validity of the double tradi- tion offers an explanation of the documentary evidence by at- "* Cf . J. Weiss, Jesus von Nazareth, Mythus oder Geschichte, 1910, pp. 84 f. This attitude toward the sources is not confined to the radical type of criticism ; and Weiss' statement is made in a form broadly applicable to contemporary historical method ; cf. also p. 93. "* Kreyenbiihl's repudiation and criticism of the vision hypothesis is interesting but not significant, for his own theory of the psychological genesis of the resurrection faith in the triumph of the messianic-apocalyp- tic idea over popular ghost-fear is equally naturalistic and opposed to the plain implications of the historical sources {ZNW. 1908, pp. 273 ff) ; cf. J. A. Cramer, ThT. 1910, p. 213. 348 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES tempting an interpretation of it in accordance with the prem ises of the documents. Both Paul and the primitive Christian community beHeved that Jesus rose from the dead and that he appeared to certain persons. The records of fact underlying this belief are consistent in regard to its essential features, though no one of them attempts to set forth the different ele- ments in their various relations. Concrete events have in- fluenced the narratives, but here as elsewhere the Gospels are not dominated by the modern interest in exact sequence in time or minute local description. They record enough to make their witness quite plain in its broad aspects and not intract- able to a constructive treatment which shares their premises. But when these premises are rejected, the effort to discover a different factual basis for the belief which the documents re- flect necessarily results in a treatment of the sources, the vio- lence of which is less apparent but not justified because it forms part of a particular theory of the character and develop- ment of early Christianity. ^''^^ The method which treats the Gospel narratives as supple- mentary^'''^ — the so-called " method of addition "■ — yields a re- sult that fairly interprets and is supported by the objective evidence of the documents. With the increasing recognition of the evidence for the early date of the Synoptic Gospels, their sources, — of whatever kind and constitution — being still earlier, — carry back the witness of the documents to the time of the eye-witnesses. And among these there was no difference of opinion concerning the factual basis which underlies the tradition recorded by the Gospels in concrete and varying forms. To admit with Harnack that the Gospel of Luke was written before 70 A.D. and early in the sixties, ^'^'^ is to accept a fact which has an important bearing on the origin of the sources of the Synoptic Gospels, — a fact which makes it diffi- cult, as Harnack himself foresaw, ^'^^ to regard as legendary their accounts of supernatural events. For if the Gospels em- '"Cf. B. B. Warfield, AJTh. 191 1, pp. 337 ff., 546 ff., and J. A. Cramer, ThT. 1910, pp. 217 flF. "*Barth, Hatiptprobleme d. Lebens Jesu' 1903, p. 218. "'' Neue Untersuchungen sur Apostelgeschichte, pp. 81 ff. "'Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 221, n. 2, THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 349 body the view of Jesus which was current in the primitive Christian community about 60 A.D. — as Heitmiiller admits^ ^^ — or earHer — as Harnack's dating of Luke requires — the re- jection of their witness cannot be based upon their differences or upon purely historical considerations. Recourse must be had to a principle springing ultimately out of philosophical conceptions by which their unanimous witness to essential fea- tures in their portraiture of Jesus may be set aside.^^® It is not strange therefore that this type of Gospel criticism finds itself confronted by a still more radical type^^^ against which it can with difficulty defend the historical minimum permitted by its premises.^*- And this only raises more acutely the issue con- cerning the validity of the premises upon which an attitude ^™ Cf. the following note. ^™ Cf. the principle formulated and applied to the Gospels by Schmiedel in EB. ii. col. 1839-1896, and more recently by Heitmiiller in DGG. iii. 1911, pp. 359-362. After pointing out that the earliest sources of the Synop- tic Gospels do not go back of but reflect merely the view of Jesus which was current in the Palestinian community from 50-70 and formulating as the canon of historical trustworthiness the generally accepted [allgemein anerkannten] principle of contradiction — that those elements of Gospel tradition may be accepted as surely trustworthy which are not in accord with the faith of the community to which the general representation be- longs — Heitmiiller says (p. 361) : Our scrupulousness [Skrupulositat, or Bedenken (p. 377), or Vorsicht (p. 396)] "must be especially active against all the things that were especially dear to the early Christians ; to which belong the faith in Jesus' Messiahship, his near return, the whole subject of so-called eschatology (kingdom of God), the passion and resur- rection, and the miraculous power of Jesus ; where the heart and the theol- ogy or the apologetic of the early Christians were especially interested, an influence on historical tradition or construction must be feared " ; cf . also an exposition of the " aetiological " principle or the " method of pragmatic values " by B. W. Bacon, HThR. 1908, pp. 48 ff. — privately en- dorsed by Harnack, cf. AJTh. 191 1, p. 374, n. 4 — and JBL. 1910, i. pp. 41 ff; and the theory of the " messianisation " of the earthly life of Jesus in Bowen, Resurrection in NT. pp. 402 ff., 421 flF., 439. On the other hand cf. the acute criticism of the literary and historical methods which char- acterize this point of view by Franz Dibelius, Das Abendmected that the totality of the Gospel witness in its concrete details will come into its rights, which are the rights — as its witness is true — of Jesus, the Christ, who by his resurrection and appearances became the author of Christian faith at the inception of the Church's life, and who is still the ever living source of faith, the Lord of life and glory. 199 ff. ; A. Drews, Die Christusmythe, ii. 191 1 — Ein Antwort an die Schrift- gelehrten usw. ; Holtzmann, PrM. 1900, pp. 463 fif. ; 1907, pp. 313 ff, ; ChrW. 1910, pp. 151 ff. ; Case, AJTh. 1911, PP- 20 ff., 205 ff., 265 ff. ; The Histori- city of Jesus, 1912. THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES 351 APPENDIX. I. Gospel according to the Hebrews : Hieronymus, Liber de viris INLUSTRIBUS, Gebhardt u. Harnack, TU. xiv. 1896, p. 8. ' Dominus autem cum dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis, ivit ad lacobum et apparuit ei ', (iuraverat enim Jacobus se non comesurum panem ab ilia hora qlia biberat calicem Domini, donee videret euni resurgentem a dormientibus) rursusque post paululum, ' Adferte, ait Dominus, mensam et panem', statimque additur: ' Tulit panem et benedixit et f regit et dedit lacobo lusto et dixit ei : ' Prater mi, comede panem tuum, • quia resur- rexit Filius hominis a dormientibus '. Cf. I Cor. XV. 7. The secondary character of this narrative is plain even if " dominus " be read with the Greek translation ( 6 K^pios) for " domini " in the clause " qua biberat calicem " ; cf. Lightf oot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, 1892, p. 274; Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Lit. bis Euseb. i. i, p. 8; ii. i, p. 650 n. i ; Resch, Agrapha^ Gebhardt u. Harnack, TU. NF. XV. 3-4, 1906, pp. 248 ff; Handmann, Das Hebrder-Evangeliimi, 1888, pp. 77 ff. ; Schmidtke, Neue Fragmente u. Untersuchungen z. d. judenchr. Evangelien, Harnack u. Schmidt, TU. 3. Reihe, vii. i, 1911, p. 27 ; on the other hand cf. Zahn, Gesch. d. nt. Kanons, ii. pp. 700 ff. ; For- schungen, vi. 1900, p. 277; W. Bauer, Leben Jesu usw. p. 164; Bowen, Resurrection in NT. p. 424 n. 2. II. Gospel of Peter; Klostermann, Apocrypha,^ Lietzmann, KIT. 3, 1908, pp. 7 f. xii 50 'Opdpov 5e rijs KvpiaKrjs Mapiap, 17 Ma75aX77j'T^, /xadi^Tpia toO Kvpiov ([^] tpo^ovp-ivT] 8ia Toiis 'lovbalovs, iireidr) iipXiyovTO virb rrjs dpyijs, ovk iTToirjaev ^irl T(p /jLVTifjuiTi Tov Kvpiov & eludeffav iroieiv at yvvaiKes ^irl tois aTrodvrjffKovai rots Kal ayairiapAv- oiJ avTois) ^' XajSovaa p^d' eaur^s rdj 0/Xas r)\6ev iirl t6 p.vr}fieiov Sirov Tjv redels. ^'^ koX i(f>o^ovvTO p.7] idutriv airrai ol lovdaioi Kal eXeyov " et Kal /jlt] iv iKeivj] ry i]p.ipq, rf iffTavpdjdri i8vvridr)fiev KXavcrai Kal Kbxpaadai^ kSlv vOv iirl rod p.vrip.aTOs avTov Troiri7-ars' ^ " tI ifXdare ; rlva ^TjTeiTe ; p.7} rbv (TTavpudivTa iKitvov ; dvi(TT-q Kol dirriXdev el bk p.r] iruTTeiere^ 7rapaKi!npaTe Kal tdere rbv T&Kov evda eKeiTO, on ovk eaTiv dviart) yap Kal aTTTJXdev iKfi 6dev aTreffrdXt].'''' ^' T&re al yvvalKes (Po^rjdeia-ai ecpvyov. xiv 58 'Uv oi TeXevrala rjp^pa tQjv d^vp.oji', Kal TroXXoi Tives i^ripxovTo VTro6s pov Xaj36>Tes rjpQv ra Xlva dirrjXdaptev eh rrjv ddXaffcraf Kal Jjv avv ijpiv Aeveh 6 roii AX(paiov, 61/ Kvpios. 352 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES III. Coptic Document: translated from Schmidt, SAB. 1895, pp. 707 f- " Mary, Martha and Mary Magdelene go to the grave to anoint the body. Finding the grave empty, they are sorrowful and weep. The Lord ap- pears to them and says : ' Why do ye weep, cease weeping, I am [he] whom ye seek. But let one of you go to your brethren and say : ' Come, the Master is risen from the dead.' Martha went and told it to us. We spake to her: 'What hast thou to do with us, O woman? He who died is buried and it is not possible that he lives.' We did not believe her, that the Redeemer was risen from the dead. Then went she to the Lord and spake to him : ' None among them believe me, that thou livest.' He spake : ' Let another of you go to them and tell it to them again.' Mary went and told it to us again, and we did not believe her. She returned to the Lord, and she likewise told it to him. Then said the Lord to Mary and her other sisters : ' Let us go to them.' And he went and found us within and called us outside. But we thought that it was a spirit {(pavraffla ) and believed not, that it was the Lord. Then spake he to us: 'Come and . . . Thou, O Peter, who hast denied his [Preuschen, ] thrice, and dost thou deny even now?' We drew near to him, doubting in our hearts that perhaps it might not be he. Then spake he to us : ' Why do you still doubt and are unbelieving? I am he who spake to you about my flesh and my death and my resurrection, that ye might know that I am he. Peter, lay thy finger in the nail-prints in my hands, and thou Thomas lay thy finger in the spear-thrust in my side, but do thou Andrew touch my feet, thus thou seest that she ... to those of earth. For it is written in the prophet, ' fantacies of dreams ... on earth.' We answered him : ' We have recognized in truth, that ... in the flesh.' And we cast ourselves on our face[s] and confessed our sins that we had been unbelieving." Schmidt (SAB. 1908, p. 1055) thinks that the author of the Greek original knew the passage in Ignatius ad Smyrn. iii: ^7" 7ap "■«' fJ^To, r^v dvdffTaffiv iv aapKi avrbv olda Kai iriffTefju ovra. Kal Sre irpbi tovs irepl H^rpov TfKdev, etpT) airroh- Xd^ere, \f/T)\a(piq- Kord ttjj' effir^pav ttjs vapaaKeviji, Hre Ijue iv v\aK-^ KaTTi(T(pa\iv fie T'^s x^'P^^i dKoKovdoiivruv Kal tQv dyyiXwv, ijyayev eU ' Kpt-pjadlav iv rip otKip pjov, Kal \iyet pai- Kddov ivravOa ?ws ripiipas reffffapd- Kovra. iyo) ydp VTrdyu ei'j toi)j pMdrjrds fwv, iva ir\rjpo(popT^ yap iropeiopuai irpbs robs dde\ovs pjov eis rijv Ta\ikalav\. Cf. A xv. 6 (pp. 272 ff.) ; Gesta. xv. S (pp. 381 f.) ; Narratio losephi, iv. 2 (pp. 467 ff.). B. xiv. I (p. 318) : pued' r)pApas bi 6\iyas ^\dov dirb Trjs Ta\i\alas els rd 'Iepoa-6\vp.a AvOpwiroi rpeis- 6 eU i^ airrwi' fjv lepevs dvopMTi ^iveis, 6 frepos XevirTjs bvbfjuiTi ' Ayyaios, Kal 6 Irepos a-Tpariwr-qs [A. xiv. I (p. 259) biddaKaXos] bvbpMTi ' A.5ds. ovtoi fiXdov irpbs Tovs dpxi-fpets Kal elirov airrois Kal rip Xav iXaiiov [A. xiv. I 354 THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES (p. 259) t6 KaXoifjjivov Ma/i/Xx- v. 1. Ma/*/3i)x» MaXiJ/c, Mo0i)k, Mo/i0^, Manhre sive Malcch, Manbre sive Amalech, Mambre, Mabrech], SiHcKovra wpls av- Toiis Kol X^ovra- iroptidriTe eh travTo. rbv Kdfffwv Kal K-qpii^are rb eiyy^Xiov, /cat 6.-- ,.-•;, .: . ■, _« ■'V -■ r '••-■ Date Due ^•^^■'^/:. ' / T>^ f f:/^A <^' / ■ c / '^'mS^mSSitm B PitBCfif^^ -"JJI**" 1 i ■ (|) BS2428 .A73 The place of the resurrection ' I n I,'."'"'" ".I^'°l??'^^' Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00082 5200 vV , - - V >!' ^ '» A,. '•^ \V,/.'' <^ V *■ > fc.-^ 7 ."; :"- ^ ' 1